Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
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
3.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Am J Emerg Med ; 49: 142-147, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240141

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify trends in pediatric emergency department (ED) utilization following the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study from 37 geographically diverse US children's hospitals. We included ED encounters between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020, transformed into time-series data. We constructed ensemble forecasting models of the most common presenting diagnoses and the most common diagnoses leading to admission, using data from 2010 through 2019. We then compared the most common presenting diagnoses and the most common diagnoses leading to admission in 2020 to the forecasts. RESULTS: 29,787,815 encounters were included, of which 1,913,085 (6.4%) occurred during 2020. ED encounters during 2020 were lower compared to prior years, with a 65.1% decrease in April relative to 2010-2019. In forecasting models, encounters for depression and diabetic ketoacidosis remained within the 95% confidence interval [CI]; fever, bronchiolitis, hyperbilirubinemia, skin/subcutaneous infections and seizures occurred within the 80-95% CI during the portions of 2020, and all other diagnoses (abdominal pain, otitis media, asthma, pneumonia, trauma, upper respiratory tract infections, and urinary tract infections) occurred below the predicted 95% CI. CONCLUSION: Pediatric ED utilization has remained low following the COVID-19 pandemic, and below forecasted utilization for most diagnoses. Nearly all conditions demonstrated substantial declines below forecasted rates from the prior decade and which persisted through the end of the year. Some declines in non-communicable diseases may represent unmet healthcare needs among children. Further study is warranted to understand the impact of policies aimed at curbing pandemic disease on children.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Facilities and Services Utilization/statistics & numerical data , Pediatrics , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Forecasting , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infant , Male , Models, Organizational , United States
5.
N Engl J Med ; 384(16): 1491-1502, 2021 04 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101727

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial
6.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(2): e2037227, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083348

ABSTRACT

Importance: In early 2020, the United States declared a public health emergency in response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and implemented a variety of social distancing measures. The association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the number of pediatric admissions is unclear. Objective: To determine the changes in patterns of pediatric admissions in 2020 compared with the prior decade. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included 49 US hospitals contributing to the Pediatric Health Information Systems database. Inpatient admissions were transformed into time-series data, and ensemble forecasting models were generated to analyze admissions across a range of diagnoses in 2020 compared with previous years. The setting was inpatient admissions. All patients discharged between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2020, from an inpatient hospital encounter were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of hospital admissions by primary diagnosis for each encounter. Results: Of 5 424 688 inpatient encounters among 3 372 839 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 5.1 [0.7-13.3] years; 2 823 748 [52.1%] boys; 3 171 224 [58.5%] White individuals) at 49 hospitals, 213 571 (3.9%) were between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020. There was a decrease in the number of admissions beginning in March 2020 compared with the period from 2010 to 2019. At the nadir, admissions in April 2020 were reduced 45.4% compared with prior years (23 798 in April 2020 compared with a median [interquartile range] of 43 550 [42 110-43 946] in April 2010-2019). Inflation-adjusted hospital charges decreased 27.7% in the second quarter of 2020 compared with prior years ($4 327 580 511 in 2020 compared with a median [interquartile range] of $5 983 142 102 [$5 762 690 022-$6 324 978 456] in 2010-2019). Seasonal patterns were evident between 2010 and 2019 for a variety of common pediatric conditions, including asthma, atrial septal defects, bronchiolitis, diabetic ketoacidosis, Kawasaki syndrome, mental health admissions, and trauma. Ensemble models were able to discern seasonal patterns in admission diagnoses and accurately predicted admission rates from July 2019 until December 2019 but not from January 2020 to June 2020. All diagnoses except for birth decreased below the model 95% CIs between January 2020 and June 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, pediatric admissions to US hospitals decreased in 2020 across an array of pediatric conditions. Although some conditions may have decreased in incidence, others may represent unmet needs in pediatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Hospitals, Pediatric , Pandemics , Seasons , Adolescent , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetic Ketoacidosis/epidemiology , Female , Heart Septal Defects, Atrial/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mucocutaneous Lymph Node Syndrome/epidemiology , Patient Admission , Respiratory Tract Diseases/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , United States/epidemiology , Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology
7.
J Neurotrauma ; 38(1): 1-43, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066221

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus attacks multiple organs of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, including the brain. There are worldwide descriptions of neurological deficits in COVID-19 patients. Central nervous system (CNS) symptoms can be present early in the course of the disease. As many as 55% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been reported to have neurological disturbances three months after infection by SARS-CoV-2. The mutability of the SARS-COV-2 virus and its potential to directly affect the CNS highlight the urgency of developing technology to diagnose, manage, and treat brain injury in COVID-19 patients. The pathobiology of CNS infection by SARS-CoV-2 and the associated neurological sequelae of this infection remain poorly understood. In this review, we outline the rationale for the use of blood biomarkers (BBs) for diagnosis of brain injury in COVID-19 patients, the research needed to incorporate their use into clinical practice, and the improvements in patient management and outcomes that can result. BBs of brain injury could potentially provide tools for detection of brain injury in COVID-19 patients. Elevations of BBs have been reported in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood of COVID-19 patients. BB proteins have been analyzed in CSF to detect CNS involvement in patients with infectious diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus and tuberculous meningitis. BBs are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for diagnosis of mild versus moderate traumatic brain injury and have identified brain injury after stroke, cardiac arrest, hypoxia, and epilepsy. BBs, integrated with other diagnostic tools, could enhance understanding of viral mechanisms of brain injury, predict severity of neurological deficits, guide triage of patients and assignment to appropriate medical pathways, and assess efficacy of therapeutic interventions in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries/blood , Brain Injuries/diagnosis , Brain/metabolism , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Biomarkers/blood , Brain/pathology , Brain Injuries/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Nervous System Diseases/blood , Nervous System Diseases/diagnosis , Nervous System Diseases/etiology , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies
8.
JAMA ; 324(13): 1317-1329, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-739603

ABSTRACT

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydrocortisone/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Humans , Hydrocortisone/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/drug therapy , Shock/etiology , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...