The Importance of Shifting Sepsis Quality Measures From Processes to Outcomes.

This Viewpoint discusses the failure of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' SEP-1 sepsis outcome improvement initiative to improve patients' sepsis outcomes and suggests changing the focus of sepsis quality metrics from processes to outcomes.

Tracheostomy in critically ill patients with SARS 2 COVID-19 infection: a prospective observational multi-center study of short- and long-term outcomes.

Background: We report the characteristics, timing, and factors related to the decision to perform a tracheostomy in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection admitted to eight Italian intensive care units (ICUs). Materials and methods: Prospective observational cohort study of patients with COVID-19 disease on mechanical ventilation. Long-term functional impairment (up to 180 days' post-hospital discharge) was assessed using the Karnofsky scale. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed differences in survival and freedom from tracheostomy in relation to ICU stay. Cox regression model was used to assess which variables impacted on tracheostomy as a categorical outcome. Results: A total of 248 patients were recruited in the eight participating ICUs. Patients undergoing tracheostomy (n = 128) had longer ICU (25 (18-36) vs. 10 (7-16), P = 0.001) and hospital (37 (26.5-50) vs. 19 (8.5-34.5) P = 0.02) stays. ICU and hospital mortality of patients tracheostomized was 34% and 37%, respectively. Cumulative survival Kaplan-Meier analysis documented improved survival rates in patients undergoing tracheostomy (Log-Rank, Mantel-Cox = 4.8, P = 0.028). Median Karnofsky scale values improved over time but were similar between survivors receiving or not receiving tracheostomy. No healthcare worker involved in the tracheostomy procedure developed COVID-19 infection during the study period. Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 infection who underwent tracheostomy had a better cumulative survival but similar long-term functional outcomes at 30, 60, and 180 days after hospital discharge.

Redefining critical illness.

Research and practice in critical care medicine have long been defined by syndromes, which, despite being clinically recognizable entities, are, in fact, loose amalgams of heterogeneous states that may respond differently to therapy. Mounting translational evidence-supported by research on respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-suggests that the current syndrome-based framework of critical illness should be reconsidered. Here we discuss recent findings from basic science and clinical research in critical care and explore how these might inform a new conceptual model of critical illness. De-emphasizing syndromes, we focus on the underlying biological changes that underpin critical illness states and that may be amenable to treatment. We hypothesize that such an approach will accelerate critical care research, leading to a richer understanding of the pathobiology of critical illness and of the key determinants of patient outcomes. This, in turn, will support the design of more effective clinical trials and inform a more precise and more effective practice at the bedside.

Beneficial ex vivo immunomodulatory and clinical effects of clarithromycin in COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Macrolide antibiotics have immunomodulatory properties which may be beneficial in viral infections. However, the precise effects of macrolides on T cell responses to COVID, differences between different macrolides, and synergistic effects with other antibiotics have not been explored. METHODS: We investigated the effect of antibiotics (amoxicillin, azithromycin, clarithromycin, and combined amoxicillin with clarithromycin) on lymphocyte intracellular cytokine levels and monocyte phagocytosis in healthy volunteer PBMCs stimulated ex vivo with SARS-CoV-2 S1+2 spike protein. A retrospective cohort study was performed on intensive care COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Co-incubation of clarithromycin with spike protein-stimulated healthy volunteer PBMCs ex vivo resulted in an increase in CD8+ (p = 0.004) and CD4+ (p = 0.007) IL-2, with a decrease in CD8+ (p = 0.032) and CD4+ (p = 0.007) IL-10. The addition of amoxicillin to clarithromycin resulted in an increase in CD8+ IL-6 (p = 0.010), decrease in CD8+ (p = 0.014) and CD4+ (p = 0.022) TNF-alpha, and decrease in CD8+ IFN-alpha (p = 0.038). Amoxicillin alone had no effect on CD4+ or CD8+ cytokines. Co-incubation of azithromycin resulted in increased CD8+ (p = 0.007) and CD4+ (p = 0.011) IL-2. There were no effects on monocyte phagocytosis. 102 COVID-19 ICU patients received antibiotics on hospital admission; 62 (61%) received clarithromycin. Clarithromycin use was associated with reduction in mortality on univariate analysis (p = 0.023), but not following adjustment for confounders (HR = 0.540; p = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Clarithromycin has immunomodulatory properties over and above azithromycin. Amoxicillin in addition to clarithromycin is associated with synergistic ex vivo immunomodulatory properties. The potential benefit of clarithromycin in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitis merits further exploration.

Executable network of SARS-CoV-2-host interaction predicts drug combination treatments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed healthcare systems globally to a breaking point. The urgent need for effective and affordable COVID-19 treatments calls for repurposing combinations of approved drugs. The challenge is to identify which combinations are likely to be most effective and at what stages of the disease. Here, we present the first disease-stage executable signalling network model of SARS-CoV-2-host interactions used to predict effective repurposed drug combinations for treating early- and late stage severe disease. Using our executable model, we performed in silico screening of 9870 pairs of 140 potential targets and have identified nine new drug combinations. Camostat and Apilimod were predicted to be the most promising combination in effectively supressing viral replication in the early stages of severe disease and were validated experimentally in human Caco-2 cells. Our study further demonstrates the power of executable mechanistic modelling to enable rapid pre-clinical evaluation of combination therapies tailored to disease progression. It also presents a novel resource and expandable model system that can respond to further needs in the pandemic.

Effect of dexamethasone in patients with ARDS and COVID-19 - prospective, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (REMED trial): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that administration of dexamethasone 20 mg is superior to a 6 mg dose in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. The secondary objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone 20 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg. The exploratory objective of this study is to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. TRIAL DESIGN: REMED is a prospective, phase II, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg vs 6 mg. The trial aims to be pragmatic, i.e. designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in conditions that are close to real-life routine clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: The study is multi-centre and will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Subjects will be eligible for the trial if they meet all of the following criteria: 1. Adult (≥18 years of age) at time of enrolment; 2. Present COVID-19 (infection confirmed by RT-PCR or antigen testing); 3. Intubation/mechanical ventilation or ongoing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy; 4. Moderate or severe ARDS according to Berlin criteria: • Moderate - PaO2/FiO2 100-200 mmHg; • Severe - PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg; 5. Admission to ICU in the last 24 hours. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Subjects will not be eligible for the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Known allergy/hypersensitivity to dexamethasone or excipients of the investigational medicinal product (e.g. parabens, benzyl alcohol); 2. Fulfilled criteria for ARDS for ≥14 days at enrolment; 3. Pregnancy or breastfeeding; 4. Unwillingness to comply with contraception measurements from enrolment until at least 1 week after the last dose of dexamethasone (sexual abstinence is considered an adequate contraception method); 5. End-of-life decision or patient is expected to die within next 24 hours; 6. Decision not to intubate or ceilings of care in place; 7. Immunosuppression and/or immunosuppressive drugs in medical history: a) Systemic immunosuppressive drugs or chemotherapy in the past 30 days; b) Systemic corticosteroid use before hospitalization; c) Any dose of dexamethasone during the present hospital stay for COVID-19 for ≥5 days before enrolment; d) Systemic corticosteroids during present hospital stay for conditions other than COVID-19 (e.g. septic shock); 8. Current haematological or generalized solid malignancy; 9. Any contraindication for corticosteroid administration, e.g. • intractable hyperglycaemia; • active gastrointestinal bleeding; • adrenal gland disorders; • presence of superinfection diagnosed with locally established clinical and laboratory criteria without adequate antimicrobial treatment; 10. Cardiac arrest before ICU admission; 11. Participation in another interventional trial in the last 30 days. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Dexamethasone solution for injection/infusion is the investigational medicinal product as well as the comparator. The trial will assess two doses, 20 mg (investigational) vs 6 mg (comparator). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously once daily on day 1-5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously once daily on day 6-10. Patients in the control group will receive dexamethasone 6 mg day 1-10. All authorized medicinal products containing dexamethasone in the form of solution for i.v. injection/infusion can be used. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary endpoint: Number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. SECONDARY ENDPOINTS: a) Mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; b) Dynamics of inflammatory marker (C-Reactive Protein, CRP) change from Day 1 to Day 14; c) WHO Clinical Progression Scale at Day 14; d) Adverse events related to corticosteroids (new infections, new thrombotic complications) until Day 28 or hospital discharge; e) Independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days through telephone structured interviews using the Barthel Index. RANDOMISATION: Randomisation will be carried out within the electronic case report form (eCRF) by the stratified permuted block randomisation method. Allocation sequences will be prepared by a statistician independent of the study team. Allocation to the treatment arm of an individual patient will not be available to the investigators before completion of the whole randomisation process. The following stratification factors will be applied: • Age <65 and ≥ 65; • Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) <3 and ≥3; • CRP <150 mg/L and ≥150 mg/L • Trial centre. Patients will be randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. Randomisation through the eCRF will be available 24 hours every day. BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open-label trial in which the participants and the study staff will be aware of the allocated intervention. Blinded pre-planned statistical analysis will be performed. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The sample size is calculated to detect the difference of 3 VFDs at 28 days (primary efficacy endpoint) between the two treatment arms with a two-sided type I error of 0.05 and power of 80%. Based on data from a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in COVID-19 ARDS patients in Brazil and a multi-centre observational study from French and Belgian ICUs regarding moderate to severe ARDS related to COVID-19, investigators assumed a standard deviation of VFD at 28 days as 9. Using these assumptions, a total of 142 patients per treatment arm would be needed. After adjustment for a drop-out rate, 150 per treatment arm (300 patients per study) will be enrolled. TRIAL STATUS: This is protocol version 1.1, 15.01.2021. The trial is due to start on 2 February 2021 and recruitment is expected to be completed by December 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on EudraCT No.:2020-005887-70, and on December 11, 2020 on ClinicalTrials.gov (Title: Effect of Two Different Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients With ARDS and COVID-19 (REMED)) Identifier: NCT04663555 with a last update posted on February 1, 2021. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 1.1) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the standard formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Comparison of renal replacement therapy and renal recovery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single center observational study.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to the describe indications, management, complications and outcomes of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in COVID-19 critically ill patients. To contextualize these findings, comparisons were made against 36 non-COVID-19 consecutive patients requiring RRT on ICU. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single center observational cohort study of patients requiring acute RRT between 1st March and 30th June 2020. Comparison was made against those receiving RRT in the pre-COVID-19 period from January 2019 to February 2020. RESULTS: Of 154 COVID-19 patients, 47 (30.5%) received continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVHF), all of whom required mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support. The requirement for RRT was related to fluid balance rather than azotemia. Compared to 36 non-COVID-19 patients, those with COVID-19 were younger (P=0.016) with a lower serum creatinine on hospital admission (P=0.049), and lesser degrees of metabolic acidosis (P<0.001) and lactatemia (P<0.001) before initiation of RRT. In addition, the duration of RRT requirement was longer (P<0.001). Despite lower CVVHF exchange rates with higher serum creatinine levels following RRT initiation in the COVID-19 patients, metabolic abnormalities were corrected. Hospital mortality was 60% among COVID-19 patients requiring RRT, compared to 67% in non-COVID-19 patients (P=0.508), and renal recovery among survivors without pre-existing CKD was similar (P=0.231). CONCLUSIONS: The requirement for RRT in COVID-19 patients was primarily related to fluid balance. Using lower CVVHF exchange rates was effective to correct metabolic abnormalities. Renal recovery occurred in all but one patient by 60 days in the 40% of patients who survived.

Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of acute COVID-19 pneumonia: considerations for clinical practice and priorities for research.

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) has increasingly been used in the management of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, but questions remain about the utility, safety, and outcome benefit of NIRS strategies. We identified two randomised controlled trials and 83 observational studies, compromising 13 931 patients, that examined the effects of NIRS modalities-high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure-on patients with COVID-19. Of 5120 patients who were candidates for full treatment escalation, 1880 (37%) progressed to invasive mechanical ventilation and 3658 of 4669 (78%) survived to study end. Survival was 30% among the 1050 patients for whom NIRS was the stated ceiling of treatment. The two randomised controlled trials indicate superiority of non-invasive ventilation over high-flow nasal oxygen in reducing the need for intubation. Reported complication rates were low. Overall, the studies indicate that NIRS in patients with COVID-19 is safe, improves resource utilisation, and might be associated with better outcomes. To guide clinical decision making, prospective, randomised studies are needed to address timing of intervention, optimal use of NIRS modalities-alone or in combination-and validation of tools such as oxygenation indices, response to a trial of NIRS, and inflammatory markers as predictors of treatment success.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Corticosteroids in adult respiratory distress syndrome - an inconvenient truth?

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have demonstrated mortality benefits from corticosteroid use in COVID-19 patients requiring respiratory support. However, clinical practice may warrant the use of corticosteroids outside the context of a clinical trial. Such data are rarely, if ever, reported. We explored the use of corticosteroids for adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) indications in patients with non-COVID ARDS. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) between January 2018 and March 2020. KEY FINDINGS: Of the 91 patients with ARDS identified, 80% were treated with a corticosteroid during their ICU admission. Of these, 73 (82%) had corticosteroids administered for reasons other than ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid use for non-ARDS indications is commonplace in ARDS patients in our ICU. The use of corticosteroids outside a randomisation process in randomised clinical trials may be more common than appreciated and needs to be routinely reported.