Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(4):e0266770, 2022.
Article in English | PubMed | ID: covidwho-1817484

ABSTRACT

Only a small proportion of COVID-19 patients in Canada have been recruited into clinical research studies. One reason is that few community intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada participate in research. The objective of this study was to examine the motivating factors, barriers and facilitators to research participation amongst Canadian community ICU stakeholders. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed between May and November 2020. The survey focused on 6 domains: participant demographics, ICU characteristics, ICU research infrastructure, motivating factors, perceived barriers, and perceived facilitators. Responses were received from 73 community ICU stakeholders, representing 18 ICUs. 7/18 ICUs had a clinical research program. Participants rated their interest in pandemic research at a mean of 5.2 (Standard Deviation [SD] = 1.9) on a 7-point Likert scale from 'not interested' to 'very interested'. The strongest motivating factor for research participation was the belief that research improves clinical care and outcomes. The most significant facilitators of research involvement were the availability of an experienced research coordinator and dedicated external funding to cover start-up costs, while the most significant barriers to research involvement were a lack of start-up funding for a research coordinator and a lack of ICU research experience. Canadian Community ICU stakeholders are interested in participating in pandemic research but lack basic infrastructure, research personnel, research experience and start-up funding. Evolution of a research support model at community hospitals, where most patients receive acute care, may increase research participation and improve the generalizability of funded research in Canada.

2.
Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy ; 74(2):178, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1589839

ABSTRACT

Background: Therapies for managing COVID-19 disease may interact with other drugs, particularly in hospitalized patients with comorbidities. Objectives: Characterize the prevalence of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between investigational/approved medications for managing COVID-19 (COVID-meds) and co-medications (co-meds) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Multicentre retrospective observational study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients screened for the CATCO trial between 1-Apr-20 and 15-Sep-20. Patients' co-meds were assessed for potential DDIs with the following COVID-meds: hydroxychloroquine (HQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV), remdesivir (REM), dexamethasone (DEX), azithromycin (AZ), interferon beta-1B (IFN) and tocilizumab (TOC). The Liverpool-COVID DDI website and Lexicomp were used to identify and characterize DDI severity (red: do not co-administer, amber: potential interaction) and potential clinical impact. QT prolongation risk was assessed with the Tisdale risk score. The primary outcome was the prevalence of subjects with =1 potential clinically significant (red/amber) DDI between each COVID-med and co-med. Secondary outcomes included DDI severity and potential clinical impact. Descriptive statistics are presented as medians (range) or proportions. Results: Data from 51 patients are available: 61% male, age 74 (44-95) years, 6 (1-15) comorbidities, Tisdale risk score 6 (31.4% moderate risk, 11.8% high risk) and 10 (0-19) co-meds. LPV had the highest rate of potential DDIs (92.2%, 45% red, 3 DDIs per patient) with risk of increased co-med toxicity (most commonly psychotropics, anticoagulants/antiplatelets), while REM and IFN had the least (2% and 9.6%, respectively). Most patients (75%) had =1 DEX DDI (mostly amber, 1per patient) with risk of increased co-med toxicity. The most common DDIs with HQ and AZ involved increased risk of QTc prolongation. Over one-third (35%) of patients were deemed ineligible for CATCO at screening due to DDIs with LPV. Conclusions: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are at high risk of DDIs with many investigational/approved COVID medications. Routine DDI screening is recommended, ideally using both general and COVID-specific DDI resources.

3.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-294726

ABSTRACT

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Design Pragmatic randomized clinical trial of prone positioning of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. Settings Patients were eligible is they had a laboratory-confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of COVID-19, required supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2]), and were able to independently prone with verbal instruction. ( NCT04383613 ). Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as requiring at least 60% FiO2 for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to FiO2 (S/F ratio). Results A total of 248 patients were included. The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomization was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 45,65), 36% were female, and 90% of patients were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomization. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 hours total (IQR 1.5,12.8) for the prone arm compared to 0 hours (0,2) in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 [14.3%] events) and the standard care group (17 [13.9%] events), odds ratio 0.92 (95% CI 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the S/F ratio after 72 hours was similar for patients randomized to prone compared to standard of care. Conclusion Among hypoxic but not critically patients with COVID-19 in hospital, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. What is already known on this topic Prone positioning is considered standard of care for mechanically ventilated patients who have severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recent data suggest prone positioning is beneficial for patients with COVID-19 who are requiring high flow oxygen. It is unknown of prone positioning is beneficial for patients not on high flow oxygen. What this study adds Prone positioning is generally not well tolerated and innovative approaches are needed to improve adherence. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were not improved with prone positioning among hypoxic but not critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

4.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine ; 203(9), 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1277401

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Patients with COVID-19 may require supplemental oxygen and non-invasive respiratory support devices during pre-hospital aeromedical transport as well as in-hospital intensive care units. It is unclear whether these therapies increase the dispersion of potentially infectious bioaerosols and placing health workers at increased risk. METHODS: The studies were conducted in two environments: (1) fixed-wing air ambulance cruising at 25,000 ft;(2) a simulated critical care unit in hospital. A breathing patient simulator consisting of a medical mannequin exhaling nebulized particles from the lower respiratory tract was connected to a ventilator to simulate a patient with mild-moderate respiratory distress. Aerosolized saline and DNA bacteriophage φX174 were used to model aerosol dispersion in the aeromedical and simulated intensive care unit, respectively. Dispersion of 1.0 μm particles were measured in key locations, due to the three respiratory support modalities including;non-invasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation (BiPAP);high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO);and nasal prongs. In the simulated intensive care unit study, viability of aerosolized bacteriophage φX174 was quantified using plaque assays (Fig. 1) RESULTS: In both environments, particle concentrations were highest close to the simulator's mouth and declined with distance from the mouth. In the aeromedical environment, nasal prongs (with a surgical mask) were associated with the highest particle concentrations and BiPAP the lowest. In that environment, at a location near the mouth, particle concentrations associated with HFNO with a surgical mask (5.5 × 104 particles/L of sampled air) and BiPAP (7.5 × 103 particles/L) were significantly lower when compared to nasal prongs with a surgical mask (1.2 × 105 particles/L) (each P < 0.05). In the simulated intensive care unit, HFNO was associated with the highest particle concentrations and BiPAP the lowest. In this environment, at a location near the mouth, particle concentrations as well as bacteriophage viability associated with nasal prongs (7.4 × 104 particles/L and 1.6 × 104 PFU/L) and BiPAP (1.1 × 104 particles/L and 1.9 × 102 PFU/L) were significantly lower when compared to HFNO (5.3 × 105 particles/L and 2.6 × 104 PFU/L) (each P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the comparable risk of dispersing particles among respiratory support devices and the importance of appropriate infection prevention and control practices and personal protective equipment for healthcare workers when caring for patients with transmissible respiratory viral infections such as COVID-19. These findings also suggest a comparable risk associated with use of nasal prongs and HFNO in both environments.

5.
Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy ; 74(2):178-178, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1210449
6.
American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine ; 203(9):1112-1118, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1209868

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) require supplemental oxygen and ventilatory support. It is unclear whether some respiratory support devices may increase the dispersion of infectious bioaerosols and thereby place healthcare workers at increased risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Objectives: To quantitatively compare viral dispersion from invasive and noninvasive respiratory support modalities.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL