Post-Intensive Care Syndrome Prevalence Six Months after Critical Covid-19: Comparison between First and Second Waves.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of improved intensive care for COVID-19 patients on the prevalence of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). DESIGN: Ambispective cohort study. PATIENTS: Post-intensive care unit COVID-19 patients from the first and second waves of COVID-19. METHODS: Patients were evaluated at 6 months after infection. PICS was defined as the presence of a 1-min sit-to-stand test (1STS) score < 2.5th percentile or a Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) below the 2 standard deviation cut-off, or a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score ≥ 11. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (34 from wave 1 and 26 from wave 2). Intensive care unit management improved between waves, with shorter duration of orotracheal intubation (7 vs 23.5 days, p = 0.015) and intensive care unit stay (6 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.006) in wave 2. PICS was present in 51.5% of patients after wave 1 and 52% after wave 2 (p = 0.971). Female sex and diabetes were significantly associated with PICS by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of post-intensive care unit COVID-19 patients have 1 or more impairments consistent with PICS at 6 months, with an impact on quality of life and participation. Improved intensive care unit management was not associated with a decrease in the prevalence of PICS. Identification of patients at risk, particularly women and diabetic patients, is essential. Further studies of underlying mechanisms and the need for rehabilitation are essential to reduce the risk of PICS.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in COVID-19 Patients Admitted in Intensive Care Units: Relapse, Therapeutic Failure and Attributable Mortality-A Multicentric Observational Study from the OutcomeRea Network.

Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence is high among critically ill COVID-19 patients. Its attributable mortality remains underestimated, especially for unresolved episodes. Indeed, the impact of therapeutic failures and the determinants that potentially affect mortality are poorly evaluated. We assessed the prognosis of VAP in severe COVID-19 cases and the impact of relapse, superinfection, and treatment failure on 60-day mortality. Methods: We evaluated the incidence of VAP in a multicenter prospective cohort that included adult patients with severe COVID-19, who required mechanical ventilation for ≥48 h between March 2020 and June 2021. We investigated the risk factors for 30-day and 60-day mortality, and the factors associated with relapse, superinfection, and treatment failure. Results: Among 1424 patients admitted to eleven centers, 540 were invasively ventilated for 48 h or more, and 231 had VAP episodes, which were caused by Enterobacterales (49.8%), P. aeruginosa (24.8%), and S. aureus (22%). The VAP incidence rate was 45.6/1000 ventilator days, and the cumulative incidence at Day 30 was 60%. VAP increased the duration of mechanical ventilation without modifying the crude 60-day death rate (47.6% vs. 44.7% without VAP) and resulted in a 36% increase in death hazard. Late-onset pneumonia represented 179 episodes (78.2%) and was responsible for a 56% increase in death hazard. The cumulative incidence rates of relapse and superinfection were 45% and 39.5%, respectively, but did not impact death hazard. Superinfection was more frequently related to ECMO and first episode of VAP caused by non-fermenting bacteria. The risk factors for treatment failure were an absence of highly susceptible microorganisms and vasopressor need at VAP onset. Conclusions: The incidence of VAP, mainly late-onset episodes, is high in COVID-19 patients and associated with an increased risk of death, similar to that observed in other mechanically ventilated patients. The high rate of VAP due to difficult-to-treat microorganisms, pharmacokinetic alterations induced by renal replacement therapy, shock, and ECMO likely explains the high cumulative risk of relapse, superinfection, and treatment failure.

Bacterial Pulmonary Co-Infections on ICU Admission: Comparison in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza Acute Respiratory Failure: A Multicentre Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on the impact of bacterial pulmonary co-infection (RespCoBact) during COVID-19 (CovRespCoBact). The aim of this study was to compare the prognosis of patients admitted to an ICU for influenza pneumonia and for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with and without RespCoBact. METHODS: This was a multicentre (n = 11) observational study using the Outcomerea© database. Since 2008, all patients admitted with influenza pneumonia or SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and discharged before 30 June 2021 were included. Risk factors for day-60 death and for ventilator-associated-pneumonia (VAP) in patients with influenza pneumonia or SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with or without RespCoBact were determined. RESULTS: Of the 1349 patients included, 157 were admitted for influenza and 1192 for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with the influenza patients, those with SARS-CoV-2 had lower severity scores, were more often under high-flow nasal cannula, were less often under invasive mechanical ventilation, and had less RespCoBact (8.2% for SARS-CoV-2 versus 24.8% for influenza). Day-60 death was significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with no increased risk of mortality with RespCoBact. Patients with influenza pneumonia and those with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia had no increased risk of VAP with RespCoBact. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was associated with an increased risk of mortality compared with Influenza pneumonia. Bacterial pulmonary co-infections on admission were not associated with patient survival rates nor with an increased risk of VAP.

Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420. FINDINGS: From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections. FUNDING: InflaRx and the German Federal Government.

Cluster analysis unveils a severe persistent respiratory impairment phenotype 3-months after severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The mid-term respiratory sequelae in survivors of severe COVID-19 appear highly heterogeneous. In addition, factors associated with respiratory sequelae are not known. In this monocentric prospective study, we performed a multidisciplinary assessment for respiratory and muscular impairment and psychological distress 3 months after severe COVID-19. We analysed factors associated with severe persistent respiratory impairment, amongst demographic, COVID-19 severity, and 3-month assessment. METHODS: Patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia requiring ≥ 4L/min were included for a systematic 3-month visit, including respiratory assessment (symptoms, lung function, CT scan), muscular evaluation (body composition, physical function and activity, disability), psychopathological evaluation (anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder-PTSD) and quality of life. A cluster analysis was performed to identify subgroups of patients based on objective functional measurements: DLCO, total lung capacity and 6-min walking distance (6MWD). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were analysed, 39% had dyspnea on exercise (mMRC ≥ 2), 72% had DLCO < 80%, 90% had CT-scan abnormalities; 40% had sarcopenia/pre-sarcopenia and 31% had symptoms of PTSD. Cluster analysis identified a group of patients (n = 18, 30.5%) with a severe persistent (SP) respiratory impairment (DLCO 48 ± 12%, 6MWD 299 ± 141 m). This SP cluster was characterized by older age, severe respiratory symptoms, but also sarcopenia/pre-sarcopenia, symptoms of PTSD and markedly impaired quality of life. It was not associated with initial COVID-19 severity or management. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATION: We identified a phenotype of patients with severe persistent respiratory and muscular impairment and psychological distress 3 months after severe COVID-19. Our results highlight the need for multidisciplinary assessment and management after severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Trial registration The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (May 6, 2020): NCT04376840.

Association of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Family Members After ICU Discharge.

IMPORTANCE: Persistent physical and mental disorders are frequent in survivors of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, data on these disorders among family members are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between patient hospitalization for COVID-19 ARDS vs ARDS from other causes and the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in family members. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study in 23 intensive care units (ICUs) in France (January 2020 to June 2020 with final follow-up ending in October 2020). ARDS survivors and family members (1 family member per patient) were enrolled. EXPOSURES: Family members of patients hospitalized for ARDS due to COVID-19 vs ARDS due to other causes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was family member symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge, measured by the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (score range, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]; presence of PTSD symptoms defined by score >22). Secondary outcomes were family member symptoms of anxiety and depression at 90 days assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (score range, 0 [best] to 42 [worst]; presence of anxiety or depression symptoms defined by subscale scores ≥7). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between COVID-19 status and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 602 family members and 307 patients prospectively enrolled, 517 (86%) family members (median [IQR] age, 51 [40-63] years; 72% women; 48% spouses; 26% bereaved because of the study patient's death; 303 [50%] family members of COVID-19 patients) and 273 (89%) patients (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-69] years; 34% women; 181 [59%] with COVID-19) completed the day-90 assessment. Compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS, family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS had a significantly higher prevalence of symptoms of PTSD (35% [103/293] vs 19% [40/211]; difference, 16% [95% CI, 8%-24%]; P < .001), symptoms of anxiety (41% [121/294] vs 34% [70/207]; difference, 8% [95% CI, 0%-16%]; P= .05), and symptoms of depression (31% [91/291] vs 18% [37/209]; difference, 13% [95% CI, 6%-21%]; P< .001). In multivariable models adjusting for age, sex, and level of social support, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk of PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.30 to 3.23]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among family members of patients hospitalized in the ICU with ARDS, COVID-19 disease, as compared with other causes of ARDS, was significantly associated with increased risk of symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04341519.

Intravenous immunoglobulins in patients with COVID-19-associated moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ICAR): multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580. FINDINGS: Between April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089). INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials. FUNDING: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.

Surfaces and Air Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Using High-Flow Nasal Oxygenation or Assisted Mechanical Ventilation in Intensive Care Unit Rooms of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patterns of environmental contamination by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential for infection prevention policies. METHODS: We screened surfaces and air samples from single-bed intensive-care unit rooms of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and viable viruses. RESULTS: We evidenced viral RNA environmental contamination in 76% of 100 surfaces samples and in 30% of 40 air samples without any viable virus detection by cell culture assays. No significant differences of viral RNA levels on surfaces and in ambient air were observed between rooms of patients with assisted mechanical ventilation and those of patients with a high-flow nasal cannula system. Using an original experimental SARS-CoV-2 infection model of surfaces, we determined that infectious viruses may have been present on benches within 15 hours before the time of sampling in patient rooms. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination around patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in single-bed ICU rooms was extensive and that a high-flow nasal cannula system did not generate more viral aerosolization than a mechanical ventilation system in patients with COVID-19. Despite an absence of SARS-CoV-2 viable particles in study samples, our experimental model confirmed the need to apply strict environmental disinfection procedures and classic standard and droplet precautions in ICU wards.

Dismal Survival in COVID-19 Patients Requiring ECMO as Rescue Therapy after Corticosteroid Failure.

(1) Background: COVID-19 may lead to refractory hypoxemia requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Survival rate if ECMO is implemented as rescue therapy after corticosteroid failure is unknown. We aimed to investigate if ECMO implemented after failure of the full-recommended 10-day corticosteroid course can improve outcome. (2) Methods: We conducted a three-center cohort study including consecutive dexamethasone-treated COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO between 03/2020 and 05/2021. We compared survival at hospital discharge between patients implemented after (ECMO-after group) and before the end of the 10-day dexamethasone course (ECMO-before group). (3) Results: Forty patients (28M/12F; age, 57 years (51-62) (median (25th-75th percentiles)) were included, 28 (70%) in the ECMO-before and 12 (30%) in the ECMO-after group. In the ECMO-before group, 9/28 patients (32%) received the 6 mg/day dexamethasone regimen versus 12/12 (100%) in the ECMO-after group (p < 0.0001). The rest of the patients received an alternative dexamethasone regimen consisting of 20 mg/day during 5 days followed by 10 mg/day during 5 days. Patients in the ECMO-before group tended to be younger (57 years (51-59) versus 62 years (57-67), p = 0.053). In the ECMO-after group, no patient (0%) survived while 12 patients (43%) survived in the ECMO-before group (p = 0.007). (4) Conclusions: Survival is poor in COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO implemented after the full-recommended 10-day dexamethasone course. Since these patients may have developed a particularly severe presentation, new therapeutic strategies are urgently required.

Impact of early corticosteroids on 60-day mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study of the OUTCOMEREA network.

OBJECTIVES: In severe COVID-19 pneumonia, the appropriate timing and dosing of corticosteroids (CS) is not known. Patient subgroups for which CS could be more beneficial also need appraisal. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of early CS in COVID-19 pneumonia patients admitted to the ICU on the occurrence of 60-day mortality, ICU-acquired-bloodstream infections(ICU-BSI), and hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia(HAP-VAP). METHODS: We included patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to 11 ICUs belonging to the French OutcomeReaTM network from January to May 2020. We used survival models with ponderation with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: The study population comprised 303 patients having a median age of 61.6 (53-70) years of whom 78.8% were male and 58.6% had at least one comorbidity. The median SAPS II was 33 (25-44). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 34.8% of the patients. Sixty-six (21.8%) patients were in the Early-C subgroup. Overall, 60-day mortality was 29.4%. The risks of 60-day mortality (IPTWHR = 0.86;95% CI 0.54 to 1.35, p = 0.51), ICU-BSI and HAP-VAP were similar in the two groups. Importantly, early CS treatment was associated with a lower mortality rate in patients aged 60 years or more (IPTWHR, 0.53;95% CI, 0.3-0.93; p = 0.03). In contrast, CS was associated with an increased risk of death in patients younger than 60 years without inflammation on admission (IPTWHR = 5.01;95% CI, 1.05, 23.88; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: For patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, early CS treatment was not associated with patient survival. Interestingly, inflammation and age can significantly influence the effect of CS.

An open-label randomized controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Excess Soluble fms-like Tyrosine Kinase 1 Correlates With Endothelial Dysfunction and Organ Failure in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

Excess soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1), a soluble inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor pathway, has been demonstrated to promote endothelial dysfunction. Here, we demonstrate that sFlt-1 plasma levels correlate with respiratory symptom severity, expression of endothelial dysfunction biomarker, and incidence of organ failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04394195.

Neglecting Plasma Protein Binding in COVID-19 Patients Leads to a Wrong Interpretation of Lopinavir Overexposure.

Boffito et al. recalled the critical importance to correctly interpret protein binding. Changes of lopinavir pharmacokinetics in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are a perfect illustration. Indeed, several studies described that total lopinavir plasma concentrations were considerably higher in patients with severe COVID-19 than those reported in patients with HIV. These findings have led to a reduction of the dose of lopinavir in some patients, hypothesizing an inhibitory effect of inflammation on lopinavir metabolism. Unfortunately, changes in plasma protein binding were never investigated. We performed a retrospective cohort study. Data were collected from the medical records of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with lopinavir/ritonavir in intensive care units or infectious disease departments of Toulouse University Hospital (France). Total and unbound concentrations of lopinavir, C reactive protein, albumin, and alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AAG) levels were measured during routine care on the same samples. In patients with COVID-19, increased total lopinavir concentration is the result of an increased AAG-bound lopinavir concentration, whereas the unbound concentration remains constant, and insufficient to reduce the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load. Although international guidelines have recently recommended against using lopinavir/ritonavir to treat severe COVID-19, the description of lopinavir pharmacokinetics changes in COVID-19 is a textbook case of the high risk of misinterpretation of a total drug exposure when changes in protein binding are not taken into consideration.

Multistate Modeling of COVID-19 Patients Using a Large Multicentric Prospective Cohort of Critically Ill Patients.

The mortality of COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is influenced by their state at admission. We aimed to model COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome state transitions from ICU admission to day 60 outcome and to evaluate possible prognostic factors. We analyzed a prospective French database that includes critically ill COVID-19 patients. A six-state multistate model was built and 17 transitions were analyzed either using a non-parametric approach or a Cox proportional hazard model. Corticosteroids and IL-antagonists (tocilizumab and anakinra) effects were evaluated using G-computation. We included 382 patients in the analysis: 243 patients were admitted to the ICU with non-invasive ventilation, 116 with invasive mechanical ventilation, and 23 with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The predicted 60-day mortality was 25.9% (95% CI: 21.8%-30.0%), 44.7% (95% CI: 48.8%-50.6%), and 59.2% (95% CI: 49.4%-69.0%) for a patient admitted in these three states, respectively. Corticosteroids decreased the risk of being invasively ventilated (hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% CI: 0.39-0.90) and IL-antagonists increased the probability of being successfully extubated (HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.02-3.17). Antiviral drugs did not impact any transition. In conclusion, we observed that the day-60 outcome in COVID-19 patients is highly dependent on the first ventilation state upon ICU admission. Moreover, we illustrated that corticosteroid and IL-antagonists may influence the intubation duration.

Association Between Early Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Day-60 Mortality in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Related to Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: About 5% of patients with coronavirus disease-2019 are admitted to the ICU for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Opinions differ on whether invasive mechanical ventilation should be used as first-line therapy over noninvasive oxygen support. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of early invasive mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease-2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure on day-60 mortality. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective French observational study. SETTING: Eleven ICUs of the French OutcomeRea network. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease-2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), without shock or neurologic failure on ICU admission, and not referred from another ICU or intermediate care unit were included. INTERVENTION: We compared day-60 mortality in patients who were on invasive mechanical ventilation within the first 2 calendar days of the ICU stay (early invasive mechanical ventilation group) and those who were not (nonearly invasive mechanical ventilation group). We used a Cox proportional-hazard model weighted by inverse probability of early invasive mechanical ventilation to determine the risk of death at day 60. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: The 245 patients included had a median (interquartile range) age of 61 years (52-69 yr), a Simplified Acute Physiology Score II score of 34 mm Hg (26-44 mm Hg), and a Pao2/Fio2 of 121 mm Hg (90-174 mm Hg). The rates of ICU-acquired pneumonia, bacteremia, and the ICU length of stay were significantly higher in the early (n = 117 [48%]) than in the nonearly invasive mechanical ventilation group (n = 128 [52%]), p < 0.01. Day-60 mortality was 42.7% and 21.9% in the early and nonearly invasive mechanical ventilation groups, respectively. The weighted model showed that early invasive mechanical ventilation increased the risk for day-60 mortality (weighted hazard ratio =1.74; 95% CI, 1.07-2.83, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients admitted with coronavirus disease-2019-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, early invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with an increased risk of day-60 mortality. This result needs to be confirmed.