Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Trials ; 23(1): 105, 2022 Feb 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2098423

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk  and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Head Protective Devices , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
2.
JAMA ; 328(11): 1063-1072, 2022 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2047353

ABSTRACT

Importance: Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited. Objective: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency , Acute Disease , Barotrauma/etiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/mortality , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
3.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 22548, 2021 11 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1628380

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to examine the IgG antibody response in critically ill patients with the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and to examine the association of early antibody response with mortality and viral clearance. We collected blood samples from 40 consecutive real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) confirmed critically ill MERS patients on ICU days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28. MERS-CoV antibodies were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), using wells coated with MERS-CoV S1 antigen. Patients were admitted to ICU after a median (Q1, Q3) of 9 (4, 13) days from onset of symptoms with an admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 11 (6.5, 12). Among the study cohort, 38 patients (95%) received invasive ventilation, 35 (88%) vasopressors, 21 (53%) renal replacement therapy and 17 (43%) corticosteroids. Median (Q1,Q3) ELISA optical density (OD) ratio significantly increased with time (p < 0.001) from 0.11 (0.07, 1.43) on day 1; to 0.69 (0.11, 2.08) on day 3, 2.72 (1.84, 3.54) on day 7, 2.51 (0.35, 3.35) on day 14 and 3.77 (3.70, 3.84) on day 28. Early antibody response (day 1-3) was observed in 13/39 patients (33%) and was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio: 0.31, 95% CI 0.10, 0.96, p = 0.04) but was not associated with faster clearance of MERS-CoV RNA. In conclusion, among critically ill patients with MERS, early antibody response was associated with lower mortality but not with faster clearance of MERS-CoV RNA. These findings have important implications for understanding pathogenesis and potential immunotherapy.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Critical Illness/mortality , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/immunology , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibody Formation , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Intensive Care Units , Kinetics , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Renal Replacement Therapy , Survival Analysis
4.
Crit Care Med ; 49(2): 228-239, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-922427

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we evaluated the inflammatory response in patients with severe acute respiratory infection due to the Middle East respiratory syndrome and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome and assessed the presence of distinct inflammatory subphenotypes using latent class analysis. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary care ICU in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS: Consecutive critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured cytokines on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 of ICU stay. We included 116 patients (40 with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and 76 with non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection). On ICU day 1, both patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection had higher levels of interleukin-3, interleukin-4, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, interleukin-17A, eotaxin, and epidermal growth factor compared with healthy controls. There were no differences in cytokines over time between patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection. Using day 1 cytokine levels, latent class analysis categorized patients into two subphenotypes: subphenotype 1 (n = 74 [64%]) and subphenotype 2 (n = 42 [36%]); the latter had significantly higher levels of interleukin-1ß, interleukin-1ra, interleukin-2, interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, interleukin-10, interleukin-12p70, interleukin-15, interleukin-17A, inducible protein-10, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, macrophage inflammatory protein-1α, macrophage inflammatory protein-1ß, tumor necrosis factor-α, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, interferon-α, and interferon-γ. Although baseline characteristics were not different between the two subphenotypes, patients in the subphenotype 2 had higher ICU mortality compared with the subphenotype 1 (18/42 [43%] vs 17/74 [23%]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: One third of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection demonstrated a subphenotype characterized by increased proinflammatory cytokines, consistent with cytokine storm. Further research is needed to examine whether immunomodulators have differential effects based on inflammatory subphenotypes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/immunology , Critical Illness , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Cytokines/immunology , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Cytokine Release Syndrome/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Saudi Arabia
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 70(9): 1837-1844, 2020 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-822200

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ribavirin and recombinant interferon (RBV/rIFN) therapy on the outcomes of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), accounting for time-varying confounders. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS from 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia diagnosed between September 2012 and January 2018. We evaluated the association of RBV/rIFN with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA clearance using marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders. RESULTS: Of 349 MERS patients, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-ß1a; none received rIFN-ß1b). RBV/rIFN was initiated at a median of 2 days (Q1, Q3: 1, 3 days) from intensive care unit admission. Crude 90-day mortality was higher in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126/205 [61.5%]; P = .02]. After adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders using a marginal structural model, RBV/rIFN was not associated with changes in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .73-1.44]; P = .87) or with more rapid MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, .30-1.44]; P = .29). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-ß1a) therapy was commonly used in critically ill MERS patients but was not associated with reduction in 90-day mortality or in faster MERS-CoV RNA clearance.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Interferon alpha-2/therapeutic use , Ribavirin/therapeutic use , Aged , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , RNA, Viral/blood , Retrospective Studies , Saudi Arabia , Treatment Outcome
6.
N Engl J Med ; 383(17): 1645-1656, 2020 10 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-834967

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whether combined treatment with recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduces mortality among patients hospitalized with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients at nine sites in Saudi Arabia. Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed MERS were randomly assigned to receive recombinant interferon beta-1b plus lopinavir-ritonavir (intervention) or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.025. Prespecified subgroup analyses and safety analyses were conducted. Because of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, the data and safety monitoring board requested an unplanned interim analysis and subsequently recommended the termination of enrollment and the reporting of the results. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients were enrolled; 43 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the placebo group. A total of 12 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 23 (44%) in the placebo group died by day 90. The analysis of the primary outcome, with accounting for the adaptive design, yielded a risk difference of -19 percentage points (upper boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -3; one-sided P = 0.024). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment within 7 days after symptom onset led to lower 90-day mortality than use of placebo (relative risk, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.75), whereas later treatment did not. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (9%) in the intervention group and in 10 (19%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir led to lower mortality than placebo among patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The effect was greatest when treatment was started within 7 days after symptom onset. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; MIRACLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843.).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Interferon beta-1b/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Administration, Oral , Adult , Aged , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Injections, Subcutaneous , Interferon beta-1b/adverse effects , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Ritonavir/adverse effects , Statistics, Nonparametric , Time-to-Treatment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL