Biomarker-Concordant Steroid Administration in Severe Coronavirus Disease-2019.

BACKGROUND: Although corticosteroids have become the standard of care for patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on supplemental oxygen, there is growing evidence of differential treatment response. This study aimed to evaluate if there was an association between biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment and COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: This registry-based cohort study included adult COVID-19 hospitalized patients between January 2020 and December 2021 from 109 institutions. Patients with available C-reactive protein (CRP) levels within 48 h of admission were evaluated. Those on steroids before admission, stayed in the hospital for <48 h, or were not on oxygen support were excluded. Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant if given with high baseline CRP ≥150 mg/L or withheld with low CRP (<150 mg/L) and vice-versa was considered discordant (low CRP with steroids, high CRP without steroids). Hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using varying CRP level thresholds. The model interaction was tested to determine steroid effectiveness with increasing CRP levels. RESULTS: Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant in 1778 (49%) patients and discordant in 1835 (51%). The concordant group consisted of higher-risk patients than the discordant group. After adjusting for covariates, the odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in the concordant group than the discordant (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (C.I.)] = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]). Similarly, adjusted mortality difference was significant at the CRP thresholds of 100 and 200 mg/L (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.70 [0.52, 0.95] and 0.57 [0.38, 0.85], respectively), and concordant steroid use was associated with lower need for invasive ventilation for 200 mg/L threshold (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.52 [0.30, 0.91]). In contrast, no outcome benefit was observed at CRP threshold of 50. When the model interaction was tested, steroids were more effective at reducing mortality as CRP levels increased. CONCLUSION: Biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality in severe COVID-19.

Development and Validation of an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Prediction Model in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Updated Lung Injury Prediction Score.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an updated lung injury prediction score for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (c-LIPS) tailored for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a registry-based cohort study using the Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study. Hospitalized adult patients between January 2020 and January 2022 were screened. Patients who qualified for ARDS within the first day of admission were excluded. Development cohort consisted of patients enrolled from participating Mayo Clinic sites. The validation analyses were performed on remaining patients enrolled from more than 120 hospitals in 15 countries. The original lung injury prediction score (LIPS) was calculated and enhanced using reported COVID-19-specific laboratory risk factors, constituting c-LIPS. The main outcome was ARDS development and secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and progression in WHO ordinal scale. RESULTS: The derivation cohort consisted of 3710 patients, of whom 1041 (28.1%) developed ARDS. The c-LIPS discriminated COVID-19 patients who developed ARDS with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 compared with original LIPS (AUC, 0.74; P<.001) with good calibration accuracy (Hosmer-Lemeshow P=.50). Despite different characteristics of the two cohorts, the c-LIPS's performance was comparable in the validation cohort of 5426 patients (15.9% ARDS), with an AUC of 0.74; and its discriminatory performance was significantly higher than the LIPS (AUC, 0.68; P<.001). The c-LIPS's performance in predicting the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation in derivation and validation cohorts had an AUC of 0.74 and 0.72, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this large patient sample c-LIPS was successfully tailored to predict ARDS in COVID-19 patients.

Practice Changes Among Patients Without COVID-19 Receiving Mechanical Ventilation During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in care delivery for critically ill patients, due to factors including increased numbers of ICU patients, shifting staff roles, and changed care locations. As these changes may have impacted the care of patients without COVID-19, we assessed changes in common ICU practices for mechanically ventilated patients with non-COVID acute respiratory failure at the onset of and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis, adjusted for seasonality and autocorrelation where present, evaluating trends in common ICU practices prior to the pandemic (March 2016 to February 2020), at the onset of the pandemic (April 2020) and intra-pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020). SETTING: Premier Healthcare Database, containing data from 25% of U.S. discharges from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. PATIENTS: Patients without COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed monthly rates of chest radiograph (CXR), chest CT scans, lower extremity noninvasive vascular testing (LENI), bronchoscopy, arterial catheters, and central venous catheters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 742,096 mechanically ventilated patients without COVID-19 at 545 hospitals. At the onset of the pandemic, CXR (-0.5% [-0.9% to -0.2%; p = 0.001]), LENI (LENI: -2.1% [-3.3% to -0.9%; p = 0.001]), and bronchoscopy rates (-1.0% [-1.5% to -0.6%; p < 0.001]) decreased; use of chest CT increased (1.5% [0.5-2.5%; p = 0.006]). Use of arterial lines and central venous catheters did not change significantly. Intra-pandemic, LENI (0.5% [0.3-0.7%; p < 0.001]/mo) and bronchoscopy (0.1% [0.05-0.2%; p < 0.001]/mo) trends increased relative to pre-pandemic trends, while the remainder of practices did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: We observed several statistically significant changes to practice patterns among patients without COVID-19 early during the pandemic. However, most of the changes were small or temporary, suggesting that routine practices in the care of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU was not drastically affected by the pandemic.

Circulating neutrophil extracellular trap (NET)-forming 'rogue' neutrophil subset, immunotype [DEspR + CD11b +], mediate multi-organ failure in COVID-19-an observational study.

Background: Cumulative research show association of neutrophils and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) with poor outcomes in severe COVID-19. However, to date, there is no curative intent therapy able to block neutrophil/NETs-mediated progression of multi-organ dysfunction. Because of emerging neutrophil heterogeneity, the study of subsets of circulating NET-forming neutrophils [NET + Ns] as mediators of multi-organ failure progression among patients with COVID-19 is critical to identification of therapeutic targets. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of circulating levels of CD11b + [NET + N] immunotyped for dual endothelin-1/signal peptide receptor (DEspR ±) expression by quantitative immunofluorescence-cytology and causal mediation analysis. In 36 consented adults hospitalized with mod-severe COVID-19, May to September 2020, we measured acute multi-organ failure via SOFA-scores and respiratory failure via SaO2/FiO2 (SF)-ratio at time points t1 (average 5.5 days from ICU/hospital admission) and t2 (the day before ICU-discharge or death), and ICU-free days at day28 (ICUFD). Circulating absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) and [NET + N] subset-specific counts were measured at t1. Spearman correlation and causal mediation analyses were conducted. Results: Spearman correlation analyses showed correlations of t1-SOFA with t2-SOFA (rho r S = 0.80) and ICUFD (r S = -0.76); circulating DEspR + [NET + Ns] with t1-SOFA (r S = 0.71), t2-SOFA (r S = 0.62), and ICUFD (r S = -0.63), and ANC with t1-SOFA (r S = 0.71), and t2-SOFA (r S = 0.61).Causal mediation analysis identified DEspR + [NET + Ns] as mediator of 44.1% [95% CI:16.5,110.6] of the causal path between t1-SOFA (exposure) and t2-SOFA (outcome), with 46.9% [15.8,124.6] eliminated when DEspR + [NET + Ns] were theoretically reduced to zero. Concordantly, DEspR + [NET + Ns] mediated 47.1% [22.0,72.3%] of the t1-SOFA to ICUFD causal path, with 51.1% [22.8,80.4%] eliminated if DEspR + [NET + Ns] were reduced to zero. In patients with t1-SOFA > 1, the indirect effect of a hypothetical treatment eliminating DEspR + [NET + Ns] projected a reduction of t2-SOFA by 0.98 [0.29,2.06] points and ICUFD by 3.0 [0.85,7.09] days. In contrast, there was no significant mediation of SF-ratio through DEspR + [NET + Ns], and no significant mediation of SOFA-score through ANC. Conclusions: Despite equivalent correlations, DEspR + [NET + Ns], but not ANC, mediated progression of multi-organ failure in acute COVID-19, and its hypothetical reduction is projected to improve ICUFD. These translational findings warrant further studies of DEspR + [NET + Ns] as potential patient-stratifier and actionable therapeutic target for multi-organ failure in COVID-19. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41231-023-00143-x.

A multisite exploration of the association between critical care implementation factors and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Little is known about strategies to implement new critical care practices in response to COVID-19. Moreover, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates. Methods: We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed to rate the influence of CFIR constructs on the implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low- versus high-mortality rates. Results: We found associations between various implementation factors and clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Three CFIR constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that collaborative and engaged leadership styles that promote the integration of new yet evidence-based critical care practices best support COVID-19 patients and contribute to lower mortality.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. RESULTS: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. CONCLUSIONS: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Hospital Variation in Management and Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of "guideline-based care" for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of "guideline-based care" for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in "guideline-based care." A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.4) for receipt of "guideline-based care" compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47-62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use "guideline-based care" quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received "guideline-based care" for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

The Association of Latitude and Altitude with COVID-19 Symptoms: A VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry Analysis.

Background: Better delineation of COVID-19 presentations in different climatological conditions might assist with prompt diagnosis and isolation of patients. Objectives: To study the association of latitude and altitude with COVID-19 symptomatology. Methods: This observational cohort study included 12267 adult COVID-19 patients hospitalized between 03/2020 and 01/2021 at 181 hospitals in 24 countries within the SCCM Discovery VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry. The outcome was symptoms at admission, categorized as respiratory, gastrointestinal, neurological, mucocutaneous, cardiovascular, and constitutional. Other symptoms were grouped as atypical. Multivariable regression modeling was performed, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Models were fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for the clustering. Results: The median age was 62 years, with 57% males. The median age and percentage of patients with comorbidities increased with higher latitude. Conversely, patients with comorbidities decreased with elevated altitudes. The most common symptoms were respiratory (80%), followed by constitutional (75%). Presentation with respiratory symptoms was not associated with the location. After adjustment, at lower latitudes (<30º), patients presented less commonly with gastrointestinal symptoms (p<.001, odds ratios for 15º, 25º, and 30º: 0.32, 0.81, and 0.98, respectively). Atypical symptoms were present in 21% of the patients and showed an association with altitude (p=.026, odds ratios for 75, 125, 400, and 600 meters above sea level: 0.44, 0.60, 0.84, and 0.77, respectively). Conclusions: We observed geographic variability in symptoms of COVID-19 patients. Respiratory symptoms were most common but were not associated with the location. Gastrointestinal symptoms were less frequent in lower latitudes. Atypical symptoms were associated with higher altitude.

Association of Early Steroid Administration With Outcomes of Children Hospitalized for COVID-19 Without Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

Importance: There is limited evidence for therapeutic options for pediatric COVID-19 outside of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Objective: To determine whether the use of steroids within 2 days of admission for non-MIS-C COVID-19 in children is associated with hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary objective was to determine their association with intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, inflammation, and fever defervescence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed data retrospectively for children (<18 years) who required hospitalization for non-MIS-C COVID-19. Data from March 2020 through September 2021 were provided by 58 hospitals in 7 countries who participate in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 registry. Exposure: Administration of steroids within 2 days of admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Length of stay in the hospital and ICU. Adjustment for confounders was done by mixed linear regression and propensity score matching. Results: A total of 1163 patients met inclusion criteria and had a median (IQR) age of 7 years (0.9-14.3). Almost half of all patients (601/1163, 51.7%) were male, 33.8% (392/1163) were non-Hispanic White, and 27.9% (324/1163) were Hispanic. Of the study population, 184 patients (15.8%) received steroids within 2 days of admission, and 979 (84.2%) did not receive steroids within the first 2 days. Among 1163 patients, 658 (56.5%) required respiratory support during hospitalization. Overall, patients in the steroids group were older and had greater severity of illness, and a larger proportion required respiratory and vasoactive support. On multivariable linear regression, after controlling for treatment with remdesivir within 2 days, country, race and ethnicity, obesity and comorbidity, number of abnormal inflammatory mediators, age, bacterial or viral coinfection, and disease severity according to ICU admission within first 2 days or World Health Organization ordinal scale of 4 or higher on admission, with a random intercept for the site, early steroid treatment was not significantly associated with hospital LOS (exponentiated coefficient, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.09; P = .42). Separate analyses for patients with an LOS of 2 days or longer (n = 729), those receiving respiratory support at admission (n = 286), and propensity score-matched patients also showed no significant association between steroids and LOS. Early steroid treatment was not associated with ICU LOS, fever defervescence by day 3, or normalization of inflammatory mediators. Conclusions and Relevance: Steroid treatment within 2 days of hospital admission in a heterogeneous cohort of pediatric patients hospitalized for COVID-19 without MIS-C did not have a statistically significant association with hospital LOS.

Inhaled Nitric Oxide vs Epoprostenol During Acute Respiratory Failure: An Observational Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: The inhaled vasodilators nitric oxide and epoprostenol may be initiated to improve oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory failure (ARF); however, practice patterns and head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness are unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the practice patterns and comparative effectiveness for inhaled nitric oxide and epoprostenol in severe ARF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a large US database (Premier Healthcare Database), we identified adult patients with ARF or ARDS who were mechanically ventilated and started on inhaled nitric oxide, epoprostenol, or both. Leveraging large hospital variation in the choice of initial inhaled vasodilator, we compared the effectiveness of inhaled nitric oxide with that of epoprostenol by limiting analysis to patients admitted to hospitals that exclusively used either inhaled nitric oxide or epoprostenol. The primary outcome of successful extubation was modeled using multivariate Fine-Grey competing risk (death or hospice discharge) time-to-event models. RESULTS: Among 11,200 patients (303 hospitals), 6,366 patients (56.8%) received inhaled nitric oxide first, 4,720 patients (42.1%) received inhaled epoprostenol first, and 114 patients (1.0%) received both therapies on the same day. One hundred four hospitals (34.3%; 1,666 patients) exclusively used nitric oxide and 118 hospitals (38.9%; 1,812 patients) exclusively used epoprostenol. No differences were found in the likelihood of successful extubation between patients admitted to nitric oxide-only hospitals vs those admitted to epoprostenol-only hospitals (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18). Also no differences were found in total hospital costs or death. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Large variation exists in the use of initial inhaled vasodilator for respiratory failure across US hospitals. Comparative effectiveness analyses identified no differences in outcomes based on inhaled vasodilator type.

Association of Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry. SUBJECTS: Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19-1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03-1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81-0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20-1.56]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Early combination therapy with immunoglobulin and steroids is associated with shorter ICU length of stay in Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort analysis from 28 U.S. Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Suggested therapeutic options for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) include intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) and steroids. Prior studies have shown the benefit of combination therapy with both agents on fever control or the resolution of organ dysfunction. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the impact of IVIG and steroids on hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS) in patients with MIS-C associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study on 356 hospitalized patients with MIS-C from March 2020 to September 2021 (28 sites in the United States) in the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 Registry. The effect of IVIG and steroids initiated in the first 2 days of admission, alone or in combination, on LOS was analyzed. Adjustment for confounders was made by multivariable mixed regression with a random intercept for the site. RESULTS: The median age of the study population was 8.8 (Interquartile range (IQR) 4.0, 13) years. 247/356 (69%) patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission during hospitalization. Overall hospital mortality was 2% (7/356). Of the total patients, 153 (43%) received IVIG and steroids, 33 (9%) received IVIG only, 43 (12%) received steroids only, and 127 (36%) received neither within 2 days of admission. After adjustment of confounders, only combination therapy showed a significant decrease of ICU LOS by 1.6 days compared to no therapy (exponentiated coefficient 0.71 [95% confidence interval 0.51, 0.97, p = 0.03]). No significant difference was observed in hospital LOS or the secondary outcome variable of the normalization of inflammatory mediators by Day 3. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with IVIG and steroids initiated in the first 2 days of admission favorably impacts ICU but not the overall hospital LOS in children with MIS-C.

Variation in Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation Among Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4-4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).

Association of latitude and altitude with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19: The VIRUS registry.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) course may be affected by environmental factors. Ecological studies previously suggested a link between climatological factors and COVID-19 fatality rates. However, individual-level impact of these factors has not been thoroughly evaluated yet. AIM: To study the association of climatological factors related to patient location with unfavorable outcomes in patients. METHODS: In this observational analysis of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: COVID-19 Registry cohort, the latitudes and altitudes of hospitals were examined as a covariate for mortality within 28 d of admission and the length of hospital stay. Adjusting for baseline parameters and admission date, multivariable regression modeling was utilized. Generalized estimating equations were used to fit the models. RESULTS: Twenty-two thousand one hundred eight patients from over 20 countries were evaluated. The median age was 62 (interquartile range: 49-74) years, and 54% of the included patients were males. The median age increased with increasing latitude as well as the frequency of comorbidities. Contrarily, the percentage of comorbidities was lower in elevated altitudes. Mortality within 28 d of hospital admission was found to be 25%. The median hospital-free days among all included patients was 20 d. Despite the significant linear relationship between mortality and hospital-free days (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.39 (1.04, 1.86), P = 0.025 for mortality within 28 d of admission; aOR = -1.47 (-2.60, -0.33), P = 0.011 for hospital-free days), suggesting that adverse patient outcomes were more common in locations further away from the Equator; the results were no longer significant when adjusted for baseline differences (aOR = 1.32 (1.00, 1.74), P = 0.051 for 28-day mortality; aOR = -1.07 (-2.13, -0.01), P = 0.050 for hospital-free days). When we looked at the altitude's effect, we discovered that it demonstrated a non-linear association with mortality within 28 d of hospital admission (aOR = 0.96 (0.62, 1.47), 1.04 (0.92, 1.19), 0.49 (0.22, 0.90), and 0.51 (0.27, 0.98), for the altitude points of 75 MASL, 125 MASL, 400 MASL, and 600 MASL, in comparison to the reference altitude of 148 m.a.s.l, respectively. P = 0.001). We detected an association between latitude and 28-day mortality as well as hospital-free days in this worldwide study. When the baseline features were taken into account, however, this did not stay significant. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that differences observed in previous epidemiological studies may be due to ecological fallacy rather than implying a causal relationship at the patient level.