Efficacy of oral amantadine among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study

Background Amantadine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 because it shows anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro. However, to date, no controlled study has assessed the safety and efficacy of amantadine in COVID-19. Research question Whether amantadine is effective and safe among patients with different COVID-19 severity classifications. Study design and Methods: This was multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled study.Patients with oxygen saturation ≤94% and no need for high-flow oxygen or ventilatory support were randomly allocated to receive oral amantadine or placebo (1:1) for 10 days in addition to standard care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery assessed over 28 days since randomisation, defined as discharge from hospital or no need for supplemental oxygen. Results The study was terminated early due to a lack of efficacy after an interim analysis. Final data from 95 patients who received amantadine (mean age, 60.2 years;65% male;66% with comorbidities) and 91 patients who received placebo (mean age, 55.8 years;60% male;68% with comorbidities) were obtained. The median (95% CI) time to recovery was 10 days both in the amantadine (9–11) and placebo arms (8–11;subhazard ratio = 0.94 [95%CI 0.7–1.3]). The percentage of deaths and percentage of patients who required intensive care at 14 and 28 days did not significantly differ between the amantadine and placebo groups. Interpretation Adding amantadine to standard care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 did not increase the likelihood of recovery. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov;No.: NCT04952519;www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy of oral amantadine among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Amantadine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 because it shows anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro. However, to date, no controlled study has assessed the safety and efficacy of amantadine in COVID-19. RESEARCH QUESTION: Whether amantadine is effective and safe among patients with different COVID-19 severity classifications. STUDY DESIGN: and Methods: This was multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled study.Patients with oxygen saturation ≤94% and no need for high-flow oxygen or ventilatory support were randomly allocated to receive oral amantadine or placebo (1:1) for 10 days in addition to standard care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery assessed over 28 days since randomisation, defined as discharge from hospital or no need for supplemental oxygen. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to a lack of efficacy after an interim analysis. Final data from 95 patients who received amantadine (mean age, 60.2 years; 65% male; 66% with comorbidities) and 91 patients who received placebo (mean age, 55.8 years; 60% male; 68% with comorbidities) were obtained. The median (95% CI) time to recovery was 10 days both in the amantadine (9-11) and placebo arms (8-11; subhazard ratio = 0.94 [95%CI 0.7-1.3]). The percentage of deaths and percentage of patients who required intensive care at 14 and 28 days did not significantly differ between the amantadine and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: Adding amantadine to standard care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 did not increase the likelihood of recovery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04952519; www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Actual status and future directions of cardiac telerehabilitation.

Telerehabilitation (TR) was developed to achieve the same results as would be achieved by the standard rehabilitation process and to overcome potential geographical barriers and staff deficiencies. This is especially relevant in periodic crisis situations, including the current COVID-19 pandemic. Proper execution of TR strategy requires both well-educated staff and dedicated equipment. Various studies have shown that TR may have similar effects to traditional rehabilitation in terms of clinical outcomes and may also reduce total healthcare costs per participant, including rehospitalization costs. However, as with any method, TR has its advantages and disadvantages, including a lack of direct contact or prerequisite, rudimentary ability of the patients to handle mobile devices, among other competencies. Herein, is a discussion of the current status of TR, focusing primarily on cardiac TR, describing some technical/organizational and legal aspects, highlighting the indications, examining cost-effectiveness, as well as outlining possible future directions.

Mallampati Score Is an Independent Predictor of Active Oxygen Therapy in Patients with COVID-19.

Mallampati score has been identified and accepted worldwide as an independent predictor of difficult intubation and obstructive sleep apnea. We aimed to determine whether Mallampati score assessed on the first patient medical assessment allowed us to stratify the risk of worsening of conditions in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. A total of 493 consecutive patients admitted between 13 November 2021 and 2 January 2022 to the temporary hospital in Pyrzowice were included in the analysis. The clinical data, chest CT scan, and major, clinically relevant laboratory parameters were assessed by patient-treating physicians, whereas the Mallampati score was assessed on admission by investigators blinded to further treatment. The primary endpoints were necessity of active oxygen therapy (AOT) during hospitalization and 60-day all-cause mortality. Of 493 patients included in the analysis, 69 (14.0%) were in Mallampati I, 57 (11.6%) were in Mallampati II, 78 (15.8%) were in Mallampati III, and 288 (58.9%) were in Mallampati IV. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups, except the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.046). Patients with Mallampati IV were at the highest risk of AOT during the hospitalization (33.0%) and the highest risk of death due to any cause at 60 days (35.0%), which significantly differed from other scores (p = 0.005 and p = 0.03, respectively). Mallampati IV was identified as an independent predictor of need for AOT (OR 3.089, 95% confidence interval 1.65-5.77, p < 0.001) but not of all-cause mortality at 60 days. In conclusion, Mallampati IV was identified as an independent predictor of AOT during hospitalization. Mallampati score can serve as a prehospital tool allowing to identify patients at higher need for AOT.

Mallampati Score Is an Independent Predictor of Active Oxygen Therapy in Patients with COVID-19

Mallampati score has been identified and accepted worldwide as an independent predictor of difficult intubation and obstructive sleep apnea. We aimed to determine whether Mallampati score assessed on the first patient medical assessment allowed us to stratify the risk of worsening of conditions in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. A total of 493 consecutive patients admitted between 13 November 2021 and 2 January 2022 to the temporary hospital in Pyrzowice were included in the analysis. The clinical data, chest CT scan, and major, clinically relevant laboratory parameters were assessed by patient-treating physicians, whereas the Mallampati score was assessed on admission by investigators blinded to further treatment. The primary endpoints were necessity of active oxygen therapy (AOT) during hospitalization and 60-day all-cause mortality. Of 493 patients included in the analysis, 69 (14.0%) were in Mallampati I, 57 (11.6%) were in Mallampati II, 78 (15.8%) were in Mallampati III, and 288 (58.9%) were in Mallampati IV. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups, except the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.046). Patients with Mallampati IV were at the highest risk of AOT during the hospitalization (33.0%) and the highest risk of death due to any cause at 60 days (35.0%), which significantly differed from other scores (p = 0.005 and p = 0.03, respectively). Mallampati IV was identified as an independent predictor of need for AOT (OR 3.089, 95% confidence interval 1.65–5.77, p < 0.001) but not of all-cause mortality at 60 days. In conclusion, Mallampati IV was identified as an independent predictor of AOT during hospitalization. Mallampati score can serve as a prehospital tool allowing to identify patients at higher need for AOT.

Lung Ultrasound Examination in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has, by necessity, contributed to rapid advancements in medicine. Owing to the necessity of following strict anti-epidemic sanitary measures when taking care of infected patients, the accessibility of standard diagnostic methods may be limited. Consequently, the significance and potential of bedside diagnostic modalities increase, including lung ultrasound (LUS). METHOD: Multicenter registry study involving adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, for whom LUS was performed. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients (61% males) qualified for the study. The average age was 60 years (±14), 40% were older than 65 years of age. In 130 from 173 hospitalized patients, HRCT (high-resolution computed tomography) was performed. In 80% of patients, LUS findings indicated interstitial pneumonia. In hospitalized patients multifocally located single B-lines, symmetrical B-lines, and areas of white lung were significantly more frequent as compared to ambulatory patients. LUS findings, both those indicating interstitial syndrome and consolidations, were positively correlated with HRCT images. As compared to HRCT, the sensitivity and specificity of LUS in detecting interstitial pneumonia were 97% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to HRCT, LUS is characterized by a very high sensitivity and specificity in detecting interstitial pneumonia in COVID-19 patients. Potentially, LUS can be a particularly useful diagnostic modality for COVID-19 patients pneumonia.

Treatment of acute respiratory failure in the course of COVID-19. Practical hints from the expert panel of the Assembly of Intensive Care and Rehabilitation of the Polish Respiratory Society.

In 2019, a pandemic began due to infection with a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. In many cases, this coronavirus leads to the development of the COVID-19 disease. Lung damage in the course of this disease often leads to acute hypoxic respiratory failure and may eventually lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Respiratory failure as a result of COVID-19 can develop very quickly and a small percent of those infected will die because of it. There is currently no treatment for COVID-19, therefore the key therapeutic intervention centers around the symptomatic treatment of respiratory failure. The main therapeutic goal is to main-tain gas exchange, mainly oxygenation, at an appropriate level and prevent the intensification of changes in the lung parenchyma. Depending on the severity of hypoxemia different techniques can be used to improve oxygenation. Medical staff dealing with COVID-19 patients should be familiar with both, methods used to treat respiratory failure and the epidemiological risks arising from their use. In some patients, conventional (passive) oxygen therapy alone is sufficient. In patients with worsening respiratory failure high flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) may be effective. The continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) methods can be used to a limited extent. With further disease progression, invasive ventilation must be used and in special situations, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can also be administered. The authors of this article set themselves the goal of presenting the most current knowledge about the epidemiology and patho-physiology of respiratory failure in COVID-19, as well as the methods of its treatment. Given the dynamics of the developing pandemic, this is not an easy task as new scientific data is presented almost every day. However, we believe the knowledge contained in this study will help doctors care for patients with COVID-19. The main target audience of this study is not so much pneumonologists or intensivists who have extensive experience in the application of the techniques discussed here, but rather doctors of other specializations who must master new skills in order to help patients during the time of a pandemic.