Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 50
Filter
1.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother ; 66(3): e0204521, 2022 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759274

ABSTRACT

Recombinant human severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibody JS016 showed neutralizing and therapeutic effects in preclinical studies. The clinical efficacy and safety of the therapy needed to be evaluated. In this phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial, hospitalized patients with moderate or severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care or standard care plus a single intravenous infusion of JS016. The primary outcome was a six-level ordinal scale of clinical status on day 28 since randomization. Secondary outcomes include adverse events, 28-day mortality, ventilator-free days within 28 days, length of hospital stay, and negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on day 14. A total of 199 patients were randomized, and 197 (99 in the JS016 group and 98 in the control group) were analyzed. Most patients, 95 (96%) in the JS016 group and 97 (99%) in the control group were in the best category on day 28 since randomization. The odds ratio of being in a better clinical status was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.19; P = 0.33). Few adverse events occurred in both groups (3% in the JS016 group and 1% in the control group, respectively; P = 0.34). SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody JS016 did not show clinical efficacy among hospitalized Chinese patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of the neutralizing antibody to prevent disease deterioration and its benefits among groups of patients specified by disease course and severity. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04931238.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , China , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
2.
Sensors (Basel) ; 22(6)2022 Mar 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753670

ABSTRACT

To satisfy the need to develop highly sensitive methods for detecting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and further enhance detection efficiency and capability, a new method was created for detecting SARS-CoV-2 of the open reading frames 1ab (ORF1ab) target gene by a electrochemiluminescence (ECL) biosensor based on dual-probe hybridization through the use of a detection model of "magnetic capture probes-targeted nucleic acids-Ru(bpy)32+ labeled signal probes". The detection model used magnetic particles coupled with a biotin-labeled complementary nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab target gene as the magnetic capture probes and Ru(bpy)32+ labeled amino modified another complementary nucleic acid sequence as the signal probes, which combined the advantages of the highly specific dual-probe hybridization and highly sensitive ECL biosensor technology. In the range of 0.1 fM~10 µM, the method made possible rapid and sensitive detection of the ORF1ab gene of the SARS-CoV-2 within 30 min, and the limit of detection (LOD) was 0.1 fM. The method can also meet the analytical requirements for simulated samples such as saliva and urine with the definite advantages of a simple operation without nucleic acid amplification, high sensitivity, reasonable reproducibility, and anti-interference solid abilities, expounding a new way for efficient and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Biosensing Techniques , COVID-19 , Biosensing Techniques/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Open Reading Frames/genetics , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
3.
Front Immunol ; 12: 738532, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686470

ABSTRACT

Background: The benefits of intravenous immunoglobulin administration are controversial for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: We analyzed retrospectively the effects of immunoglobulin administration for critically ill COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with propensity score was used to account for baseline confounders. Cluster analysis was used to perform phenotype analysis. Results: Between January 1 and February 29, 2020, 754 patients with complete data from 19 hospitals were enrolled. Death at 28 days occurred for 408 (54.1%) patients. There were 392 (52.0%) patients who received intravenous immunoglobulin, at 11 (interquartile range (IQR) 8, 16) days after illness onset; 30% of these patients received intravenous immunoglobulin prior to intensive care unit (ICU) admission. By unadjusted analysis, no difference was observed for 28-day mortality between the immunoglobulin and non-immunoglobulin groups. Similar results were found by propensity score matching (n = 506) and by IPTW analysis (n = 731). Also, IPTW analysis did not reveal any significant difference between hyperinflammation and hypoinflammation phenotypes. Conclusion: No significant association was observed for use of intravenous immunoglobulin and decreased mortality of severe COVID-19 patients. Phenotype analysis did not show any survival benefit for patients who received immunoglobulin therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Aged , China , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Treatment Outcome
5.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(3): e74-e87, 2022 03.
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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Consensus , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Delphi Technique , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment/standards
6.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 659793, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497084

ABSTRACT

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) might benefit critically ill COVID-19 patients. But the considerations besides indications guiding ECMO initiation under extreme pressure during the COVID-19 epidemic was not clear. We aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics and in-hospital mortality of severe critically ill COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO and without ECMO, exploring potential parameters for guiding the initiation during the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: Observational cohort study of all the critically ill patients indicated for ECMO support from January 1 to May 1, 2020, in all 62 authorized hospitals in Wuhan, China. Results: Among the 168 patients enrolled, 74 patients actually received ECMO support and 94 not were analyzed. The in-hospital mortality of the ECMO supported patients was significantly lower than non-ECMO ones (71.6 vs. 85.1%, P = 0.033), but the role of ECMO was affected by patients' age (Logistic regression OR 0.62, P = 0.24). As for the ECMO patients, the median age was 58 (47-66) years old and 62.2% (46/74) were male. The 28-day, 60-day, and 90-day mortality of these ECMO supported patients were 32.4, 68.9, and 74.3% respectively. Patients survived to discharge were younger (49 vs. 62 years, P = 0.042), demonstrated higher lymphocyte count (886 vs. 638 cells/uL, P = 0.022), and better CO2 removal (PaCO2 immediately after ECMO initiation 39.7 vs. 46.9 mmHg, P = 0.041). Age was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality of the ECMO supported patients, and a cutoff age of 51 years enabled prediction of in-hospital mortality with a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 55%. The surviving ECMO supported patients had longer ICU and hospital stays (26 vs. 18 days, P = 0.018; 49 vs. 29 days, P = 0.001 respectively), and ECMO procedure was widely carried out after the supplement of medical resources after February 15 (67.6%, 50/74). Conclusions: ECMO might be a benefit for severe critically ill COVID-19 patients at the early stage of epidemic, although the in-hospital mortality was still high. To initiate ECMO therapy under tremendous pressure, patients' age, lymphocyte count, and adequacy of medical resources should be fully considered.

7.
Crit Care Med ; 49(11): 1974-1982, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475880
8.
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.

10.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 716086, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1450817

ABSTRACT

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rapidly evolving therapy for acute lung and/or heart failure. However, the information on the application of ECMO in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited, such as the initiation time. Especially in the period and regions of ECMO instrument shortage, not all the listed patients could be treated with ECMO in time. This study aimed to investigate and clarify the timing of ECMO initiation related to the outcomes of severe patients with COVID-19. The results show that ECMO should be initiated within 24 h after the criteria are met. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we enrolled all ECMO patients with confirmed COVID-19 at the three hospitals between December 29, 2019 and April 5, 2020. Data on the demographics, clinical presentation, laboratory profile, clinical course, treatments, complications, and outcomes were collected. The primary outcomes were successful ECMO weaning rate and 60-day mortality after ECMO. Successful weaning from ECMO means that the condition of patients improved with adequate oxygenation and gas exchange, as shown by the vital signs, blood gases, and chest X-ray, and the patient was weaned from ECMO for at least 48 h. Results: A total of 31 patients were included in the analysis. The 60-day mortality rate after ECMO was 71%, and the ECMO weaning rate was 26%. Patients were divided into a delayed ECMO group [3 (interquartile range (IQR), 2-5) days] and an early ECMO group [0.5 (IQR, 0-1) days] based on the time between meeting the ECMO criteria and ECMO initiation. In this study, 14 and 17 patients were included in the early and delayed treatment groups, respectively. Early initiation of ECMO was associated with decreased 60-day mortality after ECMO (50 vs. 88%, P = 0.044) and an increased ECMO weaning rate (50 vs. 6%, P = 0.011). Conclusions: In ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19, delayed initiation of ECMO is a risk factor associated with a poorer outcome. Trial Registration: Clinical trial submission: March 19, 2020. Registry name: A medical records-based study for the clinical application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the treatment of severe respiratory failure patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=51267,identifier:~ChiCTR2000030947.

11.
N Engl J Med ; 382(18): 1708-1720, 2020 04 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1428982

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, when coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China, data have been needed on the clinical characteristics of the affected patients. METHODS: We extracted data regarding 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 from 552 hospitals in 30 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in mainland China through January 29, 2020. The primary composite end point was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 47 years; 41.9% of the patients were female. The primary composite end point occurred in 67 patients (6.1%), including 5.0% who were admitted to the ICU, 2.3% who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation, and 1.4% who died. Only 1.9% of the patients had a history of direct contact with wildlife. Among nonresidents of Wuhan, 72.3% had contact with residents of Wuhan, including 31.3% who had visited the city. The most common symptoms were fever (43.8% on admission and 88.7% during hospitalization) and cough (67.8%). Diarrhea was uncommon (3.8%). The median incubation period was 4 days (interquartile range, 2 to 7). On admission, ground-glass opacity was the most common radiologic finding on chest computed tomography (CT) (56.4%). No radiographic or CT abnormality was found in 157 of 877 patients (17.9%) with nonsevere disease and in 5 of 173 patients (2.9%) with severe disease. Lymphocytopenia was present in 83.2% of the patients on admission. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 2 months of the current outbreak, Covid-19 spread rapidly throughout China and caused varying degrees of illness. Patients often presented without fever, and many did not have abnormal radiologic findings. (Funded by the National Health Commission of China and others.).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Disease Outbreaks , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Child , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Fever/etiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
12.
Stem Cell Res ; 55: 102468, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1415777

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Furin , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Respir Care ; 66(5): 814-821, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1395146

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective analysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65-79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P < .001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P < .001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16-1.49], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02731898.).


Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Respiration, Artificial , Aged , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Simplified Acute Physiology Score
14.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue ; 33(7): 774-778, 2021 Jul.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367940

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Xuebijing injection on the improvement of pneumonia severity index (PSI) and prognosis in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study was designed. Adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of 28 designated COVID-19 hospitals in 15 provinces and cities of China from January to March 2020 were enrolled. All patients were treated according to the standard treatment plan of COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. They were divided into Xuebijing group and standard treatment group according to whether they received Xuebijing injection or not. In the standard treatment group, routine medical care measures such as antiviral, respiratory support, circulatory support and symptomatic treatment were taken. In the Xuebijing group, on the basis of standard treatment, Xuebijing was used within 12 hours of admission to the ICU, 100 mL each time, twice daily. The minimum duration of Xuebijing administration was 1 day. The improvement rate of PSI risk rating on the 8th day and clinical outcome on the 28th day were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 276 COVID-19 patients were screened continuously, and the data of 144 severe patients who met PSI risk rating III-V were analyzed. Seventy-two cases were involved each in standard treatment group and Xuebijing group. The average age of the standard treatment group and Xuebijing group were (65.7±7.9) years old and (63.5±10.9) years old, and male accounted for 75.0% (54/72) and 70.8% (51/72), respectively. There were no significant differences in general conditions, comorbidities, PSI risk rating and score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory support mode and other baseline indicators between the two groups. Compared with the standard treatment group, the improvement rate of PSI risk rating in Xuebijing group on the 8th day after admission was significantly improved [56.9% (41/72) vs. 20.8% (15/72), between-group difference and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 36.1% (21.3% to 50.9%), P < 0.01], PSI score, SOFA score and PaO2/FiO2 were significantly improved [PSI score: 83.7±34.8 vs. 108.2±25.6, between-group difference (95%CI) was -24.5 (-34.9 to -14.1); SOFA score: 2.0 (1.0, 4.0) vs. 7.0 (4.0, 10.0), between-group difference (95%CI) was -3.5 (-5.0 to -2.0); PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 289.4±111.6 vs. 188.5±98.1, between-group difference (95%CI) was 100.9 (65.3 to 136.5); all P < 0.01]. The 28-day discharge rate of Xuebijing group was 44.5% higher than that of standard treatment group [66.7% (48/72) vs. 22.2% (16/72), P < 0.01], and the 28-day survival rate was 9.8% [91.7% (66/72) vs. 81.9% (59/72), P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in the combination of antiviral drugs, antibiotics, anticoagulants and vasopressor drugs between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the Xuebijing group and standard treatment group [41.7% (30/72) vs. 43.1% (31/72), P > 0.05], and no serious adverse events and adverse reactions of Xuebijing were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Standard treatment combined with Xuebijing injection can significantly improve the PSI risk score and clinical prognosis of patients with severe COVID-19 without increasing drug safety risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drugs, Chinese Herbal , Adult , Aged , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Ann Palliat Med ; 10(8): 8536-8546, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1353024

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The characteristics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with hypotension are still limited. We aim to describe the clinical features and outcomes of the patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 from ICUs in 19 hospitals in China. All patients were followed up to day 28 or death, which came first. Clinical and outcome data were collected and analyzed. Patients were classified as early-onset or late-onset hypotension, and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 649 patients were included in the final analysis, and 240 (37.0%) were hypotension patients. The median age of hypotension patients was 67 years (IQR, 60-73 years), and 159 (66.2%) were male. 172 (71.7%) of the hypotension patients had at least one comorbidity. The 28-day mortality of the patients with hypotension was 85.4%, which was significantly higher than that of patients without hypotension. Compared with late-onset hypotension patients, the 28-day mortality of patients with early-onset hypotension was significantly higher (90.1% vs. 78.6%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third critically ill COVID-19 patients progressed to hypotension. The mortality was significantly higher in hypotension patients than that in patients without hypotension. Compared with patients with late-onset hypotension, the mortality of patients with early-onset hypotension was significantly higher.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypotension , Aged , Critical Illness , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 637747, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1346406

ABSTRACT

Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their effects on respiratory mechanics, gas exchanges, and hemodynamics. Methods: This is a prospective, physiologic, multicenter study conducted in China. We recruited 20 intubated subjects with ARDS and confirmed COVID-19. We first set PEEP by the ARDSnet low PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) table. After a recruitment maneuver, PEEP was set at 15, 10, and 5 cm H2O for 10 min, respectively. Among these three PEEP levels, best-compliance PEEP was the one providing the highest respiratory system compliance; best-oxygenation PEEP was the one providing the highest PaO2 (partial pressure of arterial oxygen)/FIO2. Results: At each PEEP level, we assessed respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gas, and hemodynamics. Among three PEEP levels, plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, and blood pressure improved with lower PEEP. The ARDSnet low PEEP-FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies provided higher PEEP than the best-compliance strategy (11 ± 6 cm H2O vs. 11 ± 3 cm H2O vs. 6 ± 2 cm H2O, p = 0.001), leading to higher plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. The three PEEP strategies were not significantly different in gas exchange. The subgroup analysis showed that three PEEP strategies generated different effects in subjects with moderate or severe ARDS (n = 12) but not in subjects with mild ARDS (n = 8). Conclusions: In our cohort with COVID-19-induced ARDS, the ARDSnet low PEEP/FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies led to higher PEEP and potentially higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury than the best-compliance strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04359251.

17.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(9): 1017-1020, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1279404
18.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(5): 521-537, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193132

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Corticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS. METHODS: The protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality. RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course. CONCLUSION: The use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(3): e166-e174, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1149618

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive respiratory strategies (NIRS) including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) have become widely used in patients with COVID-19 who develop acute respiratory failure. However, use of these therapies, if ineffective, might delay initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in some patients. We aimed to determine early predictors of NIRS failure and develop a simple nomogram and online calculator that can identify patients at risk of NIRS failure. METHODS: We did a retrospective, multicentre observational study in 23 hospitals designated for patients with COVID-19 in China. Adult patients (≥18 years) with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and acute respiratory failure receiving NIRS were enrolled. A training cohort of 652 patients (21 hospitals) was used to identify early predictors of NIRS failure, defined as subsequent need for IMV or death within 28 days after intensive care unit admission. A nomogram was developed by multivariable logistic regression and concordance statistics (C-statistics) computed. C-statistics were validated internally by cross-validation in the training cohort, and externally in a validation cohort of 107 patients (two hospitals). FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Jan 1 and Feb 29, 2020. NIV failed in 211 (74%) of 286 patients and HFNC in 204 (56%) of 366 patients in the training cohort. NIV failed in 48 (81%) of 59 patients and HFNC in 26 (54%) of 48 patients in the external validation cohort. Age, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ratio of pulse oximetry oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate), Glasgow coma scale score, and use of vasopressors on the first day of NIRS in the training cohort were independent risk factors for NIRS failure. Based on the training dataset, the nomogram had a C-statistic of 0·80 (95% CI 0·74-0·85) for predicting NIV failure, and a C-statistic of 0·85 (0·82-0·89) for predicting HFNC failure. C-statistic values were stable in both internal validation (NIV group mean 0·79 [SD 0·10], HFNC group mean 0·85 [0·07]) and external validation (NIV group value 0·88 [95% CI 0·72-0·96], HFNC group value 0·86 [0·72-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: We have developed a nomogram and online calculator that can be used to identify patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of NIRS failure. These patients might benefit from early triage and more intensive monitoring. FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China, Key Research and Development Plan of Jiangsu Province, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Nomograms , Noninvasive Ventilation , Treatment Failure , Adult , Aged , China , Comorbidity , Female , Forecasting , Humans , Male , Medical Records , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL