Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 58
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Critical care clinics ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1615015

ABSTRACT

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) via face-mask or helmet have been increasingly used in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19 with the premise of reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and possibly mortality. However, their use carries the risk of delaying intubation and nosocomial infection transmission. To this date, most studies on the effectiveness of these modalities are observational and suggest that HFNO and NIV have a role in the management of AHRF due to COVID-19. A randomized controlled trial among patients with COVID-19 showed that helmet NIV versus HFNO led to a lower intubation rate but no difference in survival or the duration of respiratory support. The RECOVERY respiratory support trial demonstrated that CPAP, but not HFNO reduced a composite outcome of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Additional trials are ongoing and are evaluating different aspects of noninvasive respiratory support in patients with AHRF due to COVID-19.

2.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 424, 2021 12 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1577182

ABSTRACT

The preferential use of the oral/enteral route in critically ill patients over gut rest is uniformly recommended and applied. This article provides practical guidance on enteral nutrition in compliance with recent American and European guidelines. Low-dose enteral nutrition can be safely started within 48 h after admission, even during treatment with small or moderate doses of vasopressor agents. A percutaneous access should be used when enteral nutrition is anticipated for ≥ 4 weeks. Energy delivery should not be calculated to match energy expenditure before day 4-7, and the use of energy-dense formulas can be restricted to cases of inability to tolerate full-volume isocaloric enteral nutrition or to patients who require fluid restriction. Low-dose protein (max 0.8 g/kg/day) can be provided during the early phase of critical illness, while a protein target of > 1.2 g/kg/day could be considered during the rehabilitation phase. The occurrence of refeeding syndrome should be assessed by daily measurement of plasma phosphate, and a phosphate drop of 30% should be managed by reduction of enteral feeding rate and high-dose thiamine. Vomiting and increased gastric residual volume may indicate gastric intolerance, while sudden abdominal pain, distension, gastrointestinal paralysis, or rising abdominal pressure may indicate lower gastrointestinal intolerance.

3.
Clin Immunol ; 234: 108911, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1588089

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Natural killer (NK) cells play an essential role against viruses. NK cells express killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) which regulate their activity and function. The polymorphisms in KIR haplotypes confer differential viral susceptibility and disease severity caused by infections. We investigated the association between KIR genes and COVID-19 disease severity. METHODS: 424 COVID-19 positive patients were divided according to their disease severity into mild, moderate and severe. KIR genes were genotyped using next generation sequencing (NGS). Association between KIR genes and COVID-19 disease severity was conducted and significant correlations were reported. RESULTS: In the COVID-19 patients, KIR Bx genotype was more common than AA genotype. The Bx genotype was found more frequently in patients with mild disease, while in severe disease the AA genotype was more common than the Bx genotype. The KIR2DS4 gene carried the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection (OR 8.48, pc= 0.0084) followed by KIR3DL1 (OR 7.61, pc= 0.0192). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that KIR2DS4 and KIR3DL1 genes carry risk for severe COVID-19 disease.

4.
Trials ; 22(1): 828, 2021 Nov 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528691

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether screening for sepsis using an electronic alert in hospitalized ward patients improves outcomes. The objective of the Stepped-wedge Cluster Randomized Trial of Electronic Early Notification of Sepsis in Hospitalized Ward Patients (SCREEN) trial is to evaluate whether an electronic screening for sepsis compared to no screening among hospitalized ward patients reduces all-cause 90-day in-hospital mortality. METHODS AND DESIGN: This study is designed as a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in which the unit of randomization or cluster is the hospital ward. An electronic alert for sepsis was developed in the electronic medical record (EMR), with the feature of being active (visible to treating team) or masked (inactive in EMR frontend for the treating team but active in the backend of the EMR). Forty-five clusters in 5 hospitals are randomized into 9 sequences of 5 clusters each to receive the intervention (active alert) over 10 periods, 2 months each, the first being the baseline period. Data are extracted from EMR and are compared between the intervention (active alert) and control group (masked alert). During the study period, some of the hospital wards were allocated to manage patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome of all-cause hospital mortality by day 90 will be compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and a log-link function to estimate the relative risk as a measure of effect. We will include two levels of random effects to account for nested clustering within wards and periods and two levels of fixed effects: hospitals and COVID-19 ward status in addition to the intervention. Results will be expressed as relative risk with a 95% confidence interval. CONCLUSION: The SCREEN trial provides an opportunity for a novel trial design and analysis of routinely collected and entered data to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention (alert) for a common medical problem (sepsis in ward patients). In this statistical analysis plan, we outline details of the planned analyses in advance of trial completion. Prior specification of the statistical methods and outcome analysis will facilitate unbiased analyses of these important clinical data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04078594 . Registered on September 6, 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sepsis , Electronics , Hospitals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Sepsis/diagnosis , Sepsis/therapy
5.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1690-1702, 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525402

ABSTRACT

Importance: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. Interventions: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , ABO Blood-Group System , Adult , Aged , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Failure , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
6.
J Infect Public Health ; 2021 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

7.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 2021 Nov 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510480

ABSTRACT

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.

8.
Saudi Med J ; 42(11): 1217-1222, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502889

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient tracheostomy outcomes. METHODS: All COVID-19 patients at the National Guard Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were retrospectively recruited. Those who had tracheostomies between April and December 2020 were included. RESULTS: The population was 45 patients, of which 30 (66.7%) were males, 15 (33.3%) were females and the mean age was 66.76±12.74 years. The tracheostomy indications were anticipated prolonged weaning in 40 (88.9%) and failed extubation in 5 (11.1%) of the patients. The mean intubation to tracheostomy duration was 20.62±7.21 days. Mortalities were high, with most attributed to COVID-19. Mortality and a pre-tracheostomy C-reactive protein (CRP) uptrend were significantly related (p=0.039). Mortality and intubation to tracheostomy duration were not significantly related. The mean post-tracheostomy time to death was 10.64±6.9 days. Among the survivors, 20 (44.4%) males and 11 (24.4%) females were weaned off mechanical ventilation; 9 (20%) remained on ventilation during the study. The mean ventilation weaning time was 27.92±20 days. CONCLUSION: The high mortality rate was attributed to COVID-19. Mortality and a pre-tracheostomy CRP uptrend were significantly related; uptrend patients experienced far more mortalities than downtrend patients. Unlike previous findings, mortality and intubation to tracheostomy duration were not significantly related.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Tracheostomy , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
9.
Front Public Health ; 9: 700769, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463522

ABSTRACT

Objective: To describe the utility and patterns of COVID-19 simulation scenarios across different international healthcare centers. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, international survey for multiple simulation centers team members, including team-leaders and healthcare workers (HCWs), based on each center's debriefing reports from 30 countries in all WHO regions. The main outcome measures were the COVID-19 simulations characteristics, facilitators, obstacles, and challenges encountered during the simulation sessions. Results: Invitation was sent to 343 simulation team leaders and multidisciplinary HCWs who responded; 121 completed the survey. The frequency of simulation sessions was monthly (27.1%), weekly (24.8%), twice weekly (19.8%), or daily (21.5%). Regarding the themes of the simulation sessions, they were COVID-19 patient arrival to ER (69.4%), COVID-19 patient intubation due to respiratory failure (66.1%), COVID-19 patient requiring CPR (53.7%), COVID-19 transport inside the hospital (53.7%), COVID-19 elective intubation in OR (37.2%), or Delivery of COVID-19 mother and neonatal care (19%). Among participants, 55.6% reported the team's full engagement in the simulation sessions. The average session length was 30-60 min. The debriefing process was conducted by the ICU facilitator in (51%) of the sessions followed by simulation staff in 41% of the sessions. A total of 80% reported significant improvement in clinical preparedness after simulation sessions, and 70% were satisfied with the COVID-19 sessions. Most perceived issues reported were related to infection control measures, followed by team dynamics, logistics, and patient transport issues. Conclusion: Simulation centers team leaders and HCWs reported positive feedback on COVID-19 simulation sessions with multidisciplinary personnel involvement. These drills are a valuable tool for rehearsing safe dynamics on the frontline of COVID-19. More research on COVID-19 simulation outcomes is warranted; to explore variable factors for each country and healthcare system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Patient Care Team , SARS-CoV-2
10.
J Intensive Care ; 9(1): 60, 2021 Oct 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Asia has more critically ill people than any other part of our planet. The aim of this article is to review the development of critical care as a specialty, critical care societies and education and research, the epidemiology of critical illness as well as epidemics and pandemics, accessibility and cost and quality of critical care, culture and end-of-life care, and future directions for critical care in Asia. MAIN BODY: Although the first Asian intensive care units (ICUs) surfaced in the 1960s and the 1970s and specialisation started in the 1990s, multiple challenges still exist, including the lack of intensivists, critical care nurses, and respiratory therapists in many countries. This is aggravated by the brain drain of skilled ICU staff to high-income countries. Critical care societies have been integral to the development of the discipline and have increasingly contributed to critical care education, although critical care research is only just starting to take off through collaboration across groups. Sepsis, increasingly aggravated by multidrug resistance, contributes to a significant burden of critical illness, while epidemics and pandemics continue to haunt the continent intermittently. In particular, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has highlighted the central role of critical care in pandemic response. Accessibility to critical care is affected by lack of ICU beds and high costs, and quality of critical care is affected by limited capability for investigations and treatment in low- and middle-income countries. Meanwhile, there are clear cultural differences across countries, with considerable variations in end-of-life care. Demand for critical care will rise across the continent due to ageing populations and rising comorbidity burdens. Even as countries respond by increasing critical care capacity, the critical care community must continue to focus on training for ICU healthcare workers, processes anchored on evidence-based medicine, technology guided by feasibility and impact, research applicable to Asian and local settings, and rallying of governments for support for the specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care in Asia has progressed through the years, but multiple challenges remain. These challenges should be addressed through a collaborative approach across disciplines, ICUs, hospitals, societies, governments, and countries.

12.
J Infect Public Health ; 14(11): 1635-1641, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1446868

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained ICUs worldwide. To learn from our experience, we described the critical care response to the outbreak. METHODS: This is a case study of the response of the Intensive Care Department (75-bed capacity) at a tertiary-care hospital to COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a high number of critically ill patients. RESULTS: Between March 1 and July 31, 2020, 822 patients were admitted to the adult non-cardiac ICUs with suspected (72%)/confirmed (38%) COVID-19. At the peak of the surge, 125 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were managed on single day. To accommodate these numbers, the bed capacity of 4 ICUs was increased internally from 58 to 71 beds (+40%) by cohorting 2 patients/room in selected rooms; forty additional ICUs beds were created in 2 general wards; one cardiac ICU was converted to managed non-COVID-19 general ICU patients and one ward was used as a stepdown for COVID-19 patients. To manage respiratory failure, 53 new ICU ventilators, 90 helmets for non-invasive ventilation and 47 high-flow nasal cannula machines were added to the existing capacity. Dedicated medical teams cared for the COVID-19 patients to prevent cross-contamination. The nurse-to-patient and RT-to-patient ratio remained mostly 1:1 and 1:6, respectively. One-hundred-ten ward nurses were up-skilled to care for COVID-19 and other ICU patients using tiered staffing model. Daily executive rounds were conducted to identify patients for transfer and at least 10 beds were made available for new COVID-19 admissions/day. The consumption of PPE increased multiple fold compared with the period preceding the pandemic. Regular family visits were not allowed and families were updated daily by videoconferencing and phone calls. CONCLUSIONS: Our ICU response to the COVID-19 pandemic required almost doubling ICU bed capacity and changing multiple aspects of ICU workflow to be able to care for high numbers of affected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2 , Tertiary Care Centers
13.
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents ; 58:N.PAG-N.PAG, 2021.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1440058
14.
Encyclopedia of Respiratory Medicine (Second Edition) ; : 362-372, 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1415145

ABSTRACT

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) is a viral respiratory infection, which ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe pneumonia and multiorgan failure, caused by a novel coronavirus named Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Majority of cases have been reported from Saudi Arabia. MERS cases occur as sporadic cases or as clusters or hospital outbreaks. Dromedary camels are thought to be a host for MERS-CoV. Direct contact with dromedary camels within 14days prior to infection was identified as an independent risk factor for MERS. Diagnosis of MERS is based on a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), obtained from a respiratory specimen. The mainstay of management of MERS-CoV infection is supportive care. There is no specific antiviral therapy for MERS-CoV infection at present, although several modalities of treatment options have been examined or are under investigation.

15.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(9): 1024-1027, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1391836
16.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e052169, 2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376510

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) delivered by helmet has been used for respiratory support of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to compare helmet NIV with usual care versus usual care alone to reduce mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel randomised controlled trial that compares helmet NIV with usual care to usual care alone in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 320 patients will be enrolled in this study. The primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. The primary outcome will be compared between the two study groups in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. An interim analysis will be conducted for both safety and effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals are obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04477668.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Head Protective Devices , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
17.
J Infect Public Health ; 14(9): 1268-1273, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1370602

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia are a unique population who have had exposures to the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). It follows that HCWs from this country could have pre-existingMERS-CoV antibodies that may either protect from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or cause false SARS-CoV-2 seropositive results. In this article, we report the seroprevalence of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 among high-risk healthcare workers in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study enrolling 420 high-risk HCWs who are physically in contact with COVID-19 patients in three tertiary hospitals in Riyadh city. The participants were recruited between the 1st of July to the end of December 2020. A 3 ml of the venous blood samples were collected and tested for the presence of IgG antibodies against the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: The overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in high-risk HCWs was 14.8% based on SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing while only 7.4% were positive by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for viral RNA. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 seropositive HCWs had symptoms and the most frequent symptoms were body aches, fever, cough, loss of smell and taste, and headache. The seroprevalence of MERS-CoV IgG was 1% (4 participants) and only one participant had dual seropositivity against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Three MERS-CoV positive samples (75%) turned to be negative after using in-house ELISA and none of the MERS-CoV seropositive samples had detectable neutralization activity. CONCLUSION: Our SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence results were higher than reported regional seroprevalence studies. This finding was expected and similar to other international findings that targeted high-risk HCWs. Our results provide evidence that the SARS-CoV-2- seropositivity in Saudi Arabia similar to other countries was due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 rather than MERS-CoV antibody.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Antibodies, Viral , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies
18.
J Clin Invest ; 131(14)2021 07 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365266

ABSTRACT

A recent report found that rare predicted loss-of-function (pLOF) variants across 13 candidate genes in TLR3- and IRF7-dependent type I IFN pathways explain up to 3.5% of severe COVID-19 cases. We performed whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing of 1,864 COVID-19 cases (713 with severe and 1,151 with mild disease) and 15,033 ancestry-matched population controls across 4 independent COVID-19 biobanks. We tested whether rare pLOF variants in these 13 genes were associated with severe COVID-19. We identified only 1 rare pLOF mutation across these genes among 713 cases with severe COVID-19 and observed no enrichment of pLOFs in severe cases compared to population controls or mild COVID-19 cases. We found no evidence of association of rare LOF variants in the 13 candidate genes with severe COVID-19 outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/genetics , Interferon Type I/immunology , Loss of Function Mutation , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Female , Genetic Association Studies , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Interferon Regulatory Factor-7/genetics , Male , Middle Aged , Severity of Illness Index , Toll-Like Receptor 3/genetics , Whole Exome Sequencing , Whole Genome Sequencing , Young Adult
19.
Chest ; 2021 Aug 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363121

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...