Uncoupling of platelet granule release and integrin activation suggests GPIIb/IIIa as therapeutic target in COVID-19.

Thromboembolic events are frequent and life-threating complications of COVID 19, but are also observed in patients with sepsis. Disseminated thrombosis can occur despite anticoagulation, suggesting that platelets play a direct, but yet incompletely understood role. Several studies demonstrated altered platelet function in COVID 19 with in part controversial findings, while underlying disease-specific mechanisms remain ill-defined. We performed a comprehensive cohort study with 111 patients, comprising 37 with COVID-19, 46 with sepsis, and 28 with infection, compared to controls. Platelet phenotype and function were assessed under static and flow conditions, revealing unexpected disease-specific differences. From hospital admission on, platelets in COVID-19 failed to activate integrin GPIIb/IIIa in response to multiple agonists. Dense granule release was markedly impaired due to virtually missing granules, also demonstrated by whole mount electron microscopy. In contrast, alpha-granule marker CD62P exposure was only mildly affected, revealing a subpopulation of PAC-1-/CD62P+ platelets, independently confirmed by automated clustering. This uncoupling of alpha-granule release was not observed in sepsis patients, despite a similar disease severity. We found overall unaltered thrombus formation in COVID 19 and sepsis samples under venous shear rates, which was dependent on the presence of tissue factor. Unexpectedly, under arterial shear rates thrombus formation was virtually abrogated in sepsis, while we detected overall normal-sized and stable thrombi in blood from COVID-19 patients. These thrombi were susceptible to subthreshold levels of GPIIb/IIIa blockers eptifibatide or tirofiban that had only a minor effect in control blood. We provide evidence that low dose GPIIb/IIIa blockade could be a therapeutic approach in COVID-19.

Transfer of Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients With COVID-19 Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Interhospital transport of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients bears transport-associated risks. It is unknown how interhospital extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) transfer of COVID-19 patients by mobile ECMO units affects ARDS mortality. We compared the outcome of 94 COVID-19 patients cannulated in primary care hospitals and retrieved by mobile ECMO-teams to that of 84 patients cannulated at five German ECMO centers. Patients were recruited from March 2020 to November 2021. Twenty-six transports were airborne, 68 were land-based. Age, sex, body-mass-index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, days invasively ventilated, and P/F-Ratio before ECMO initiation were similar in both groups. Counting only regional transports (≤250 km), mean transport distance was 139.5 km ± 17.7 km for helicopter (duration 52.5 ± 10.6 minutes) and 69.8 km ± 44.1 km for ambulance or mobile intensive care unit (duration 57.6 ± 29.4 minutes). Overall time of vvECMO support (20.4 ± 15.2 ECMO days for transported patients vs. 21.0 ± 20.5 for control, p = 0.83) and days invasively ventilated (27.9 ± 18.1 days vs. 32.6 ± 25.1 days, p = 0.16) were similar. Overall mortality did not differ between transported patients and controls (57/94 [61%] vs. 51/83 [61%], p = 0.43). COVID-19 patients cannulated and retrieved by mobile ECMO-teams have no excess risk compared with patients receiving vvECMO at experienced ECMO centers. Patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, limited comorbidities, and no contraindication for ECMO should be referred early to local ECMO centers.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID‐19

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other proven intervention for treating COVID‐19 and for preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Prospective single-center study of health-related quality of life after COVID-19 in ICU and non-ICU patients.

Long-term sequelae in hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients may result in limited quality of life. The current study aimed to determine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after COVID-19 hospitalization in non-intensive care unit (ICU) and ICU patients. This is a single-center study at the University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Germany. Patients eligible were hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and December 2020. Patients were interviewed 3 and 12 months after hospital discharge. Questionnaires included the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L), patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the generalized anxiety disorder 7 scale (GAD-7), FACIT fatigue scale, perceived stress scale (PSS-10) and posttraumatic symptom scale 10 (PTSS-10). 85 patients were included in the study. The EQ5D-5L-Index significantly differed between non-ICU (0.78 ± 0.33 and 0.84 ± 0.23) and ICU (0.71 ± 0.27; 0.74 ± 0.2) patients after 3- and 12-months. Of non-ICU 87% and 80% of ICU survivors lived at home without support after 12 months. One-third of ICU and half of the non-ICU patients returned to work. A higher percentage of ICU patients was limited in their activities of daily living compared to non-ICU patients. Depression and fatigue were present in one fifth of the ICU patients. Stress levels remained high with only 24% of non-ICU and 3% of ICU patients (p = 0.0186) having low perceived stress. Posttraumatic symptoms were present in 5% of non-ICU and 10% of ICU patients. HRQoL is limited in COVID-19 ICU patients 3- and 12-months post COVID-19 hospitalization, with significantly less improvement at 12-months compared to non-ICU patients. Mental disorders were common highlighting the complexity of post-COVID-19 symptoms as well as the necessity to educate patients and primary care providers about monitoring mental well-being post COVID-19.

Multidisciplinary paper on patient blood management in cardiothoracic surgery in the UK: perspectives on practice during COVID-19.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted all surgical specialties significantly and exerted additional pressures on the overburdened United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service. Healthcare professionals in the UK have had to adapt their practice. In particular, surgeons have faced organisational and technical challenges treating patients who carried higher risks, were more urgent and could not wait for prehabilitation or optimisation before their intervention. Furthermore, there were implications for blood transfusion with uncertain patterns of demand, reductions in donations and loss of crucial staff because of sickness and public health restrictions. Previous guidelines have attempted to address the control of bleeding and its consequences after cardiothoracic surgery, but there have been no targeted recommendations in light of the recent COVID-19 challenges. In this context, and with a focus on the perioperative period, an expert multidisciplinary Task Force reviewed the impact of bleeding in cardiothoracic surgery, explored different aspects of patient blood management with a focus on the use of haemostats as adjuncts to conventional surgical techniques and proposed best practice recommendations in the UK.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

Statistical biases due to anonymization evaluated in an open clinical dataset from COVID-19 patients.

Anonymization has the potential to foster the sharing of medical data. State-of-the-art methods use mathematical models to modify data to reduce privacy risks. However, the degree of protection must be balanced against the impact on statistical properties. We studied an extreme case of this trade-off: the statistical validity of an open medical dataset based on the German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON), which was prepared for publication using a strong anonymization procedure. Descriptive statistics and results of regression analyses were compared before and after anonymization of multiple variants of the original dataset. Despite significant differences in value distributions, the statistical bias was found to be small in all cases. In the regression analyses, the median absolute deviations of the estimated adjusted odds ratios for different sample sizes ranged from 0.01 [minimum = 0, maximum = 0.58] to 0.52 [minimum = 0.25, maximum = 0.91]. Disproportionate impact on the statistical properties of data is a common argument against the use of anonymization. Our analysis demonstrates that anonymization can actually preserve validity of statistical results in relatively low-dimensional data.

Cross-talk between red blood cells and plasma influences blood flow and omics phenotypes in severe COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and can affect multiple organs, among which is the circulatory system. Inflammation and mortality risk markers were previously detected in COVID-19 plasma and red blood cells (RBCs) metabolic and proteomic profiles. Additionally, biophysical properties, such as deformability, were found to be changed during the infection. Based on such data, we aim to better characterize RBC functions in COVID-19. We evaluate the flow properties of RBCs in severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit by using microfluidic techniques and automated methods, including artificial neural networks, for an unbiased RBC analysis. We find strong flow and RBC shape impairment in COVID-19 samples and demonstrate that such changes are reversible upon suspension of COVID-19 RBCs in healthy plasma. Vice versa, healthy RBCs resemble COVID-19 RBCs when suspended in COVID-19 plasma. Proteomics and metabolomics analyses allow us to detect the effect of plasma exchanges on both plasma and RBCs and demonstrate a new role of RBCs in maintaining plasma equilibria at the expense of their flow properties. Our findings provide a framework for further investigations of clinical relevance for therapies against COVID-19 and possibly other infectious diseases.

[Management of Clinical Capacity Overload Due to Mass Patient Influx]. / Management einer klinischen Kapazitätenüberlastung durch Massenanfall von Patienten.

Hospitals play a crucial role in the management of large-scale emergencies or disasters. This has been clearly demonstrated by the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and currently by the Ukraine war. In order to cope with extraordinary situations and large-scale emergencies, such as mass casualty incidents, hospitals need to be prepared in detail - by preparing and implementing a hospital contingency plan. The article presented here describes in hospital preparation for a mass casualty incident.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: For this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized non-intubated COVID-19 patients - the randomized, EU-wide, placebo-controlled, phase II study design of IXION.

BACKGROUND: More than 2.7 million hospitalizations of COVID-19-infected patients have occurred in Europe alone since the outbreak of the coronavirus in 2020. Interventions against SARS-CoV-2 are still in high need to prevent admissions to ICUs worldwide. FX06, a naturally occurring peptide in humans and other mammals, has the potential to reduce capillary leak by improving endothelial dysfunction and thus preventing the deterioration of patients. With IXION, we want to investigate the potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized, non-intubated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: IXION is an EU-wide, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, parallel, randomized (2:1) phase II clinical study. Patient recruitment will start in September 2022 (to Q2/2023) in Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Romania, Portugal, and France. A total of 306 hospitalized patients (≥ 18 years and < 75 years) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and a COVID-19 severity of 4-6 according to the WHO scale will be enrolled. After randomization to FX06 or placebo, patients will be assessed until day 28 (and followed up until day 60). FX06 (2 × 200 mg per day) or placebo will be administered intravenously for 5 consecutive days. The primary endpoint is to demonstrate a difference in the proportion of patients with progressed/worsened disease state in patients receiving FX06 compared to patients receiving placebo. Secondary endpoints are lung function, oxygen saturation and breathing rate, systemic inflammation, survival, capillary refill time, duration of hospital stay, and drug accountability. DISCUSSION: With IXION, the multidisciplinary consortium aims to deliver a new therapy in addition to standard care against SARS-CoV-2 for the clinical management of COVID-19 during mild and moderate stages. Potential limitations might refer to a lack of recruiting and drop-out due to various possible protocol violations. While we controlled for drop-outs in the same size estimation, recruitment problems may be subject to external problems difficult to control for. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2021-005059-35 . Registered on 12 December 2021. Study Code TMP-2204-2021-47.

Potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized non-intubated COVID-19 patients — the randomized, EU-wide, placebo-controlled, phase II study design of IXION

Background More than 2.7 million hospitalizations of COVID-19-infected patients have occurred in Europe alone since the outbreak of the coronavirus in 2020. Interventions against SARS-CoV-2 are still in high need to prevent admissions to ICUs worldwide. FX06, a naturally occurring peptide in humans and other mammals, has the potential to reduce capillary leak by improving endothelial dysfunction and thus preventing the deterioration of patients. With IXION, we want to investigate the potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized, non-intubated COVID-19 patients. Methods IXION is an EU-wide, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, parallel, randomized (2:1) phase II clinical study. Patient recruitment will start in September 2022 (to Q2/2023) in Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Romania, Portugal, and France. A total of 306 hospitalized patients (≥ 18 years and < 75 years) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and a COVID-19 severity of 4–6 according to the WHO scale will be enrolled. After randomization to FX06 or placebo, patients will be assessed until day 28 (and followed up until day 60). FX06 (2 × 200 mg per day) or placebo will be administered intravenously for 5 consecutive days. The primary endpoint is to demonstrate a difference in the proportion of patients with progressed/worsened disease state in patients receiving FX06 compared to patients receiving placebo. Secondary endpoints are lung function, oxygen saturation and breathing rate, systemic inflammation, survival, capillary refill time, duration of hospital stay, and drug accountability. Discussion With IXION, the multidisciplinary consortium aims to deliver a new therapy in addition to standard care against SARS-CoV-2 for the clinical management of COVID-19 during mild and moderate stages. Potential limitations might refer to a lack of recruiting and drop-out due to various possible protocol violations. While we controlled for drop-outs in the same size estimation, recruitment problems may be subject to external problems difficult to control for. Trial registration EudraCT 2021-005059-35. Registered on 12 December 2021. Study Code TMP-2204-2021-47. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06609-x.

Intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins in critical COVID-19: a multicentre propensity-weighted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A profound inflammation-mediated lung injury with long-term acute respiratory distress and high mortality is one of the major complications of critical COVID-19. Immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enriched immunoglobulins seem especially capable of mitigating the inflicted inflammatory harm. However, the efficacy of intravenous IgM-enriched preparations in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is largely unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, 316 patients with laboratory-confirmed critical COVID-19 were treated in ten German and Austrian ICUs between May 2020 and April 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Analysis was performed by Cox regression models. Covariate adjustment was performed by propensity score weighting using machine learning-based SuperLearner to overcome the selection bias due to missing randomization. In addition, a subgroup analysis focusing on different treatment regimens and patient characteristics was performed. RESULTS: Of the 316 ICU patients, 146 received IgM-enriched immunoglobulins and 170 cases did not, which served as controls. There was no survival difference between the two groups in terms of mortality at 30 days in the overall cohort (HRadj: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.25; p = 0.374). An improved 30-day survival in patients without mechanical ventilation at the time of the immunoglobulin treatment did not reach statistical significance (HRadj: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.08; p = 0.063). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in the subgroup when a daily dose of ≥ 15 g and a duration of ≥ 3 days of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins were applied (HRadj: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.03; p = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Although we cannot prove a statistically reliable effect of intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins, the confidence intervals may suggest a clinically relevant effect in certain subgroups. Here, an early administration (i.e. in critically ill but not yet mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients) and a dose of ≥ 15 g for at least 3 days may confer beneficial effects without concerning safety issues. However, these findings need to be validated in upcoming randomized clinical trials. Trial registration DRKS00025794 , German Clinical Trials Register, https://www.drks.de . Registered 6 July 2021.

Key characteristics impacting survival of COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent German health insurance data revealed low ICU survival rates. Patient characteristics and experience of the ECMO center may determine intensive care unit (ICU) survival. The current study aimed to identify factors affecting ICU survival of COVID-19 ECMO patients. METHODS: 673 COVID-19 ARDS ECMO patients treated in 26 centers between January 1st 2020 and March 22nd 2021 were included. Data on clinical characteristics, adjunct therapies, complications, and outcome were documented. Block wise logistic regression analysis was applied to identify variables associated with ICU-survival. RESULTS: Most patients were between 50 and 70 years of age. PaO2/FiO2 ratio prior to ECMO was 72 mmHg (IQR: 58-99). ICU survival was 31.4%. Survival was significantly lower during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of 284 (42%) patients fulfilling modified EOLIA criteria had a higher survival (38%) (p = 0.0014, OR 0.64 (CI 0.41-0.99)). Survival differed between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers with 20%, 30%, and 38%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Treatment in high volume centers resulted in an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.28-1.02) compared to low volume centers. Additional factors associated with survival were younger age, shorter time between intubation and ECMO initiation, BMI > 35 (compared to < 25), absence of renal replacement therapy or major bleeding/thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Structural and patient-related factors, including age, comorbidities and ECMO case volume, determined the survival of COVID-19 ECMO. These factors combined with a more liberal ECMO indication during the 2nd wave may explain the reasonably overall low survival rate. Careful selection of patients and treatment in high volume ECMO centers was associated with higher odds of ICU survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (study ID: DRKS00022964, retrospectively registered, September 7th 2020, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022964 .

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System for the most evidence-based approach to managing perioperative anticoagulation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explored the feasibility of a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) to guide evidence-based perioperative anticoagulation. DESIGN: Prospective randomised clinical management simulation multicentre study. SETTING: Five University and 11 general hospitals in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled physicians (anaesthesiologist (n = 73), trauma surgeons (n = 2), unknown (n = 1)) with different professional experience. INTERVENTIONS: A CDSS based on a multiple-choice test was developed and validated at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (phase-I). The CDSS comprised European guidelines for the management of anticoagulation in cardiology, cardio-thoracic, non-cardio-thoracic surgery and anaesthesiology. Phase-II compared the efficiency of physicians in identifying evidence-based approach of managing perioperative anticoagulation. In total 168 physicians were randomised to CDSS (PERI-KOAG) or CONTROL. MEASUREMENTS: Overall mean score and association of processing time and professional experience were analysed. The multiple-choice test consists of 11 cases and two correct answers per question were required to gain 100% success rate (=22 points). MAIN RESULTS: In total 76 physicians completed the questionnaire (n = 42 PERI-KOAG; n = 34 CONTROL; attrition rate 54%). Overall mean score (max. 100% = 22 points) was significantly higher in PERI-KOAG compared to CONTROL (82 ± 15% vs. 70 ± 10%; 18 ± 3 vs. 15 ± 2 points; P = 0.0003). A longer processing time is associated with significantly increased overall mean scores in PERI-KOAG (≥33 min. 89 ± 10% (20 ± 2 points) vs. <33 min. 73 ± 15% (16 ± 3 points), P = 0.0005) but not in CONTROL (≥33 min. 74 ± 13% (16 ± 3 points) vs. <33 min. 69 ± 9% (15 ± 2 points), P = 0.11). Within PERI-KOAG, there is a tendency towards higher results within the more experienced group (>5 years), but no significant difference to less (≤5 years) experienced colleagues (87 ± 10% (19 ± 2 points) vs. 78 ± 17% (17 ± 4 points), P = 0.08). However, an association between professional experience and success rate in CONTROL has not been shown (71 ± 8% vs. 70 ± 13%, 16 ± 2 vs. 15 ± 3 points; P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: CDSS significantly improved the identification of evidence-based treatment approaches. A precise usage of CDSS is mandatory to maximise efficiency.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention (1) for prevention of an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (post‐exposure prophylaxis), and (2) for people with COVID‐19 receiving treatment as outpatients or inpatients.

Safety and preliminary efficacy of sequential multiple ascending doses of solnatide to treat pulmonary permeability edema in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial: preliminary evaluation of safety and feasibility in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In May 2018, the first patient was enrolled in the phase-IIb clinical trial "Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Sequential Multiple Ascending Doses of Solnatide to Treat Pulmonary Permeability Edema in Patients with Moderate to Severe ARDS." With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the continuation and successful execution of this clinical study was in danger. Therefore, before the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) allowed proceeding with the study and enrollment of further COVID-19 ARDS patients into it, additional assessment on possible study bias was considered mandatory. METHODS: We conducted an ad hoc interim analysis of 16 patients (5 COVID-19- ARDS patients and 11 with ARDS from different causes) from the phase-IIB clinical trial. We assessed possible differences in clinical characteristics of the ARDS patients and the impact of the pandemic on study execution. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients seemed to be less sick at baseline, which also showed in higher survival rates over the 28-day observation period. Trial specific outcomes regarding pulmonary edema and ventilation parameters did not differ between the groups, nor did more general indicators of (pulmonary) sepsis like oxygenation ratio and required noradrenaline doses. CONCLUSION: The DSMB and the investigators did not find any evidence that patients suffering from ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 may be at higher (or generally altered) risk when included in the trial, nor were there indications that those patients might influence the integrity of the study data altogether. For this reason, a continuation of the phase IIB clinical study activities can be justified. Researchers continuing clinical trials during the pandemic should always be aware that the exceptional circumstances may alter study results and therefore adaptations of the study design might be necessary.