ABSTRACT
Sepsis still remains the leading cause of in-hospital death in the world [...].
Subject(s)
Precision Medicine , Sepsis , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Sepsis/diagnosis , Sepsis/drug therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Interleukin-6 signal blockade showed preliminary beneficial effects in treating inflammatory response against SARS-CoV-2 leading to severe respiratory distress. Herein we describe the outcomes of off-label intravenous use of Sarilumab in severe SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia. METHODS: 53 patients with SARS-CoV-2 severe pneumonia received intravenous Sarilumab; pulmonary function improvement or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rate in medical wards, live discharge rate in ICU treated patients and safety profile were recorded. Sarilumab 400 mg was administered intravenously on day 1, with eventual additional infusion based on clinical judgement, and patients were followed for at least 14 days, unless previously discharged or dead. FINDINGS: Of the 53 SARS-CoV-2pos patients receiving Sarilumab, 39(73·6%) were treated in medical wards [66·7% with a single infusion; median PaO2/FiO2:146(IQR:120-212)] while 14(26·4%) in ICU [92·6% with a second infusion; median PaO2/FiO2: 112(IQR:100-141.5)].Within the medical wards, 7(17·9%) required ICU admission, 4 of whom were re-admitted to the ward within 5-8 days. At 19 days median follow-up, 89·7% of medical inpatients significantly improved (46·1% after 24 h, 61·5% after 3 days), 70·6% were discharged from the hospital and 85·7% no longer needed oxygen therapy. Within patients receiving Sarilumab in ICU, 64·2% were discharged from ICU to the ward and 35·8% were still alive at the last follow-up. Overall mortality rate was 5·7%. INTERPRETATION: IL-6R inhibition appears to be a potential treatment strategy for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and intravenous Sarilumab seems a promising treatment approach showing, in the short term, an important clinical outcome and good safety.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a source of stress and potential burnout for many physicians. This single-site survey aimed at assessing perceived stress and risk to develop burnout syndrome among physicians operating in COVID wards. METHODS: This longitudinal survey evaluated stress and burnout in 51 physicians operating in the COVID team of Gemelli Hospital, Italy. Participants were asked to complete the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Perceived Stress Questionnaire on a short run (PSQs) (referring to the past 7 days) at baseline (T0) and then for four weeks (T1-T4). Perceived Stress Questionnaire on a long run (PSQl) (referring to the past 2 years) was completed only at T0. RESULTS: Compared with physicians board-certified in internal medicine, those board-certified in other disciplines showed higher scores for the Emotional Exhaustion (EE) score of the MBI scale (P < .001). Depersonalisation (DP) score showed a reduction over time (P = .002). Attending physicians scored lower than the resident physicians on the DP scale (P = .048) and higher than resident physicians on the Personal Accomplishment (PA) scale (P = .04). PSQl predicted higher scores on the EE scale (P = .003), DP scale (P = .003) and lower scores on the PA scale (P < .001). PSQs showed a reduction over time (P = .03). Attending physicians had a lower PSQs score compared with the resident physicians (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialty and clinical position could represent risk factors for the development of burnout in a COVID team. In these preliminary results, physicians board-certified in internal medicine showed lower risk of developing EE during the entire course of the study.