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.

High-Dose Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The COVIDICUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated. Objectives: To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021. Interventions: Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.

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.

Combined use of a broad-panel respiratory multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (MULTI-CAP): a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, individual randomised trial conducted in French intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: At the time of the worrying emergence and spread of bacterial resistance, reducing the selection pressure by reducing the exposure to antibiotics in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a public health issue. In this context, the combined use of molecular tests and biomarkers for guiding antibiotics discontinuation is attractive. Therefore, we have designed a trial comparing an integrated approach of diagnosis and treatment of severe CAP to usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe-CAP (MULTI-CAP) trial is a multicentre (n=20), parallel-group, superiority, open-label, randomised trial. Patients are included if adult admitted to intensive care unit for a CAP. Diagnosis of pneumonia is based on clinical criteria and a newly appeared parenchymal infiltrate. Immunocompromised patients are excluded. Subjects are randomised (1:1 ratio) to either the intervention arm (experimental strategy) or the control arm (usual strategy). In the intervention arm, the microbiological diagnosis combines a respiratory multiplex PCR (mPCR) and conventional microbiological investigations. An algorithm of early antibiotic de-escalation or discontinuation is recommended, based on mPCR results and the procalcitonin value. In the control arm, only conventional microbiological investigations are performed and antibiotics de-escalation remains at the clinician's discretion. The primary endpoint is the number of days alive without any antibiotic from the randomisation to day 28. Based on our hypothesis of 2 days gain in the intervention arm, we aim to enrol a total of 450 patients over a 30-month period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The MULTI-CAP trial is conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, is registered in Clinical Trials and has been approved by the Committee for Protection of Persons and the National French Drug Safety Agency. Written informed consents are obtained from all the patients (or representatives). The results will be disseminated through educational institutions, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at medical congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03452826; Pre-results.

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.

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.

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.