Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
J Clin Med ; 11(1)2021 Dec 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1580654

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. RESULTS: Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.15-2.74). CONCLUSIONS: Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.

2.
Anaesthesist ; 2021 Nov 23.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540203

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the current pandemic regarding the infection with the SARS-CoV-2-virus and COVID-19 as the disease, concerns about pregnant women, effects on childbirth and the health of the newborn remain high. Initially, due to the early manifestation of the disease in younger patients, high numbers of COVID-19 patients in women needing peripartum care were expected. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to provide a general overview over the beginning of the pandemic as well as the second wave of infections in Germany and Switzerland, regarding SARS-CoV­2 positive pregnant women hospitalized for childbirth. We therefore launched a registry to gain timely information over the dynamic situation during the SARS-CoV­2 pandemic in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As part of the COVID-19-related Obstetric Anesthesia Longitudinal Assessment (COALA) registry, centers reported weekly birth rates, numbers of suspected SARS-CoV­2 cases, as well as the numbers of confirmed cases between 16 March and 3 May 2020. Data acquisition was continued from 18 October 2020 till 28 February 2021. The data were analyzed regarding distribution of SARS-CoV­2 positive pregnant women hospitalized for childbirth between centers, calendar weeks and birth rates as well as maternal characteristics, course of disease and outcomes of SARS-CoV­2 positive pregnant women. RESULTS: A total of 9 German centers reported 2270 deliveries over 7 weeks during the first wave of infections including 3 SARS-CoV­2 positive cases and 9 suspected cases. During the second survey period, 6 centers from Germany and Switzerland reported 41 positive cases out of 4897 deliveries. One woman presented with a severe and ultimately fatal course of the disease, while another one needed prolonged ECMO treatment. Of the women 28 presented with asymptomatic infections and 6 neonates were admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit for further treatment. There was one case of neonatal SARS-CoV­2 infection. CONCLUSION: The number of pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV­2 was at a very low level at the time of delivery, with only sporadic suspected or confirmed cases. Due to the lack of comprehensive testing in the first survey period, however, a certain number of asymptomatic cases are to be assumed. Of the cases 68% presented as asymptomatic or as mild courses of disease but the data showed that even in young healthy patients without the presence of typical risk factors, serious progression can occur. These outcomes should raise awareness for anesthesiologists, obstetricians, pediatricians and intensive care physicians to identify severe cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women during childbirth and to take the necessary precautions to ensure the best treatment of mother and neonate. The prospective acquisition of data allowed a timely assessment of the highly dynamic situation and gain knowledge regarding this vulnerable group of patients.

3.
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther ; 56(11-12): 782-790, 2021 Dec.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1532178

ABSTRACT

On March 14, 2020, the first Bavaria-wide exit restriction was imposed and university teaching in its familiar form was drastically restricted. For intensive care physicians and anesthetists, there was a special area of tension in many places due to the extraordinary demand for the treatment of critically ill patients and the restructuring and maintenance of teaching. We report on the realignment of the anesthesia seminar in an online flipped classroom and the development towards a hybrid model. As such, an adequate transfer of knowledge could take place under difficult conditions and at the same time the teaching concept could be further developed.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia , Anesthesiology , COVID-19 , Physicians , Anesthesiology/education , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Teaching
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD015025, 2021 10 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482091

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Cause of Death , Humans , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Trials ; 22(1): 643, 2021 Sep 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435265

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a complex clinical diagnosis with various possible etiologies. One common feature, however, is pulmonary permeability edema, which leads to an increased alveolar diffusion pathway and, subsequently, impaired oxygenation and decarboxylation. A novel inhaled peptide agent (AP301, solnatide) was shown to markedly reduce pulmonary edema in animal models of ARDS and to be safe to administer to healthy humans in a Phase I clinical trial. Here, we present the protocol for a Phase IIB clinical trial investigating the safety and possible future efficacy endpoints in ARDS patients. METHODS: This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind intervention study. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS in need of mechanical ventilation will be randomized to parallel groups receiving escalating doses of solnatide or placebo, respectively. Before advancing to a higher dose, a data safety monitoring board will investigate the data from previous patients for any indication of patient safety violations. The intervention (application of the investigational drug) takes places twice daily over the course of 7 days, ensued by a follow-up period of another 21 days. DISCUSSION: The patients to be included in this trial will be severely sick and in need of mechanical ventilation. The amount of data to be collected upon screening and during the course of the intervention phase is substantial and the potential timeframe for inclusion of any given patient is short. However, when prepared properly, adherence to this protocol will make for the acquisition of reliable data. Particular diligence needs to be exercised with respect to informed consent, because eligible patients will most likely be comatose and/or deeply sedated at the time of inclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the EU Clinical trials register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu). EudraCT Number: 2017-003855-47 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Edema , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Double-Blind Method , Edema , Humans , Peptides, Cyclic , Permeability , Pulmonary Edema/diagnosis , Pulmonary Edema/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
7.
Anaesthesist ; 2021 Sep 21.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1427225

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. OBJECTIVE: Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. METHODS: Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e­mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e­mail through DIVI. RESULTS: Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e­mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. CONCLUSION: Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E­mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.

9.
J Clin Med ; 10(15)2021 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335124

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and-in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed-better communication to care providers. METHODS: This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020. RESULTS: We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs (n = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table. CONCLUSIONS: We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care.

10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD015017, 2021 07 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1328590

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.  Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.


Subject(s)
Antiparasitic Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Ivermectin/therapeutic use , Antiparasitic Agents/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Cause of Death , Humans , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Placebos/therapeutic use , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
11.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(7)2021 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1308464

ABSTRACT

Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.

12.
Cureus ; 13(6): e15755, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1290571

ABSTRACT

Introduction Adequate staffing in the intensive care units (ICUs) is the most important factor to provide optimal care and ensure favorable outcomes in critically ill patients. Recently, the need for ICU beds has reached unprecedented levels and the management and treatment of critically ill patients has been in focus. The aim of the study was to assess the targeted and actual nurse-to-patient (NPR) and physician-to-patient ratios (PPR) regarding patients with and without COVID-19. Methods We conducted a nationwide online survey assessing the standard of care in German ICUs treating patients with COVID-19. We asked questions regarding targeted PPR and NPR and their implementation in daily clinical practice to heads of German ICU departments. Results We received 244 responses of which 171 were eligible for final analysis. Targeted median PPR ratio was 8 [interquartile range (IQR) = 4] and targeted NPR was 2 (IQR = 1). For COVID-19 patients, the median targeted PPR was 6 (IQR = 2) and the median targeted NPR was 2 (IQR = 0). Targeted PPRs were rarely met by 15.2% and never met by 3.5% of responding institutions. Targeted NPRs were rarely met in 32.2% and never in 5.3% of responding institutions. Conclusion In contrast to PPR, targeted NPRs were largely unattainable in German ICUs. Our results raise concern in view of studies linking worse outcomes in critically ill patients to suboptimal NPRs. This warrants further health policy efforts regarding optimal staffing in the ICU.

13.
GMS Hyg Infect Control ; 16: Doc21, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1290316

ABSTRACT

Aim: Recommendations on hygiene measures, personal protective equipment (PPE), isolation, and antibiotic prophylaxis were developed during the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic and have been revised several times to date. Some of the underlying literature indicates a large evidence gap. We suspect that this leads to a large variance of measures on German intensive care units (ICU). Methods: A mixed methods online survey among intensive-care specialists in Germany caring for COVID-19 patients was conducted in December 2020. Results: We received responses from 205 German ICUs that had treated COVID-19 patients to date. There was wide variation in the use of PPE. Polymerase Chain reaction (PCR) testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was used by 94.8% of the units, with an average waiting time of 12 hours for the result. 18.7% of the respondents prescribed antibiotic prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: We found a high variance in essential care strategies for COVID-19 patients on German intensive care units. This included differences in infection prophylaxis, personal protective equipment, and the indication of prophylactic antibiotic therapy. Based on our results, we recommend further studies to quantify and improve guideline adherence.

14.
Nutrients ; 13(6)2021 Jun 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1273493

ABSTRACT

The interplay between inflammation and oxidative stress is a vicious circle, potentially resulting in organ damage. Essential micronutrients such as selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn) support anti-oxidative defense systems and are commonly depleted in severe disease. This single-center retrospective study investigated micronutrient levels under Se and Zn supplementation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and explored potential relationships with immunological and clinical parameters. According to intensive care unit (ICU) standard operating procedures, patients received 1.0 mg of intravenous Se daily on top of artificial nutrition, which contained various amounts of Se and Zn. Micronutrients, inflammatory cytokines, lymphocyte subsets and clinical data were extracted from the patient data management system on admission and after 10 to 14 days of treatment. Forty-six patients were screened for eligibility and 22 patients were included in the study. Twenty-one patients (95%) suffered from severe ARDS and 14 patients (64%) survived to ICU discharge. On admission, the majority of patients had low Se status biomarkers and Zn levels, along with elevated inflammatory parameters. Se supplementation significantly elevated Se (p = 0.027) and selenoprotein P levels (SELENOP; p = 0.016) to normal range. Accordingly, glutathione peroxidase 3 (GPx3) activity increased over time (p = 0.021). Se biomarkers, most notably SELENOP, were inversely correlated with CRP (rs = -0.495), PCT (rs = -0.413), IL-6 (rs = -0.429), IL-1ß (rs = -0.440) and IL-10 (rs = -0.461). Positive associations were found for CD8+ T cells (rs = 0.636), NK cells (rs = 0.772), total IgG (rs = 0.493) and PaO2/FiO2 ratios (rs = 0.504). In addition, survivors tended to have higher Se levels after 10 to 14 days compared to non-survivors (p = 0.075). Sufficient Se and Zn levels may potentially be of clinical significance for an adequate immune response in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Deficiency Diseases/drug therapy , Dietary Supplements , Micronutrients/therapeutic use , Selenium/therapeutic use , Zinc/therapeutic use , Aged , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Deficiency Diseases/complications , Humans , Immune System/drug effects , Inflammation/blood , Inflammation/drug therapy , Intensive Care Units , Interleukins/blood , Male , Micronutrients/blood , Micronutrients/deficiency , Middle Aged , Oxygen/metabolism , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Selenium/blood , Selenium/deficiency , Selenoprotein P/blood , Severity of Illness Index , Zinc/blood , Zinc/deficiency
15.
Thromb J ; 19(1): 39, 2021 Jun 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1255939

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated coagulopathy (CAC) leads to thromboembolic events in a high number of critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, specific diagnostic or therapeutic algorithms for CAC have not been established. In the current study, we analyzed coagulation abnormalities with point-of-care testing (POCT) and their relation to hemostatic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19 induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Our hypothesis was that specific diagnostic patterns can be identified in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS at risk of thromboembolic complications utilizing POCT. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective observational study. Longitudinal data from 247 rotational thromboelastometries (Rotem®) and 165 impedance aggregometries (Multiplate®) were analysed in 18 patients consecutively admitted to the ICU with a COVID-19 induced ARDS between March 12th to June 30th, 2020. RESULTS: Median age was 61 years (IQR: 51-69). Median PaO2/FiO2 on admission was 122 mmHg (IQR: 87-189), indicating moderate to severe ARDS. Any form of hemostatic complication occurred in 78 % of the patients with deep vein/arm thrombosis in 39 %, pulmonary embolism in 22 %, and major bleeding in 17 %. In Rotem® elevated A10 and maximum clot firmness (MCF) indicated higher clot strength. The delta between EXTEM A10 minus FIBTEM A10 (ΔA10) > 30 mm, depicting the sole platelet-part of clot firmness, was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events (OD: 3.7; 95 %CI 1.3-10.3; p = 0.02). Multiplate® aggregometry showed hypoactive platelet function. There was no correlation between single Rotem® and Multiplate® parameters at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and thromboembolic or bleeding complications. CONCLUSIONS: Rotem® and Multiplate® results indicate hypercoagulability and hypoactive platelet dysfunction in COVID-19 induced ARDS but were all in all poorly related to hemostatic complications..

16.
Clin Nutr ; 2021 Mar 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118364

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vitamin D's pleiotropic effects include immune modulation, and its supplementation has been shown to prevent respiratory tract infections. The effectivity of vitamin D as a therapeutic intervention in critical illness remains less defined. The current study analyzed clinical and immunologic effects of vitamin D levels in patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study in patients receiving intensive care with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 ARDS. 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D serum levels, pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and immune cell subsets were measured on admission as well as after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters were extracted from the patient data management system. Standard operating procedures included the daily administration of vitamin D3 via enteral feeding. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients with COVID-19 ARDS were eligible, of which 26 were included in this study as data on vitamin D status was available. 96% suffered from severe COVID-19 ARDS. All patients without prior vitamin D supplementation (n = 22) had deficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Vitamin D supplementation resulted in higher serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D but not did not increase 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters did not differ between patients with sufficient or deficient levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Only circulating plasmablasts were higher in patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥30 ng/ml (p = 0.029). Patients with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels below 20 pg/ml required longer mechanical ventilation (p = 0.045) and had a worse acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of COVID-19 ARDS patients had vitamin D deficiency. 25-hydroxyvitamin D status was not related to changes in clinical course, whereas low levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and a worse APACHE II score.

17.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 599533, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1005805

ABSTRACT

Background: Proportions of patients dying from the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vary between different countries. We report the characteristics; clinical course and outcome of patients requiring intensive care due to COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: This is a retrospective, observational multicentre study in five German secondary or tertiary care hospitals. All patients consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in any of the participating hospitals between March 12 and May 4, 2020 with a COVID-19 induced ARDS were included. Results: A total of 106 ICU patients were treated for COVID-19 induced ARDS, whereas severe ARDS was present in the majority of cases. Survival of ICU treatment was 65.0%. Median duration of ICU treatment was 11 days; median duration of mechanical ventilation was 9 days. The majority of ICU treated patients (75.5%) did not receive any antiviral or anti-inflammatory therapies. Venovenous (vv) ECMO was utilized in 16.3%. ICU triage with population-level decision making was not necessary at any time. Univariate analysis associated older age, diabetes mellitus or a higher SOFA score on admission with non-survival during ICU stay. Conclusions: A high level of care adhering to standard ARDS treatments lead to a good outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

20.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0242917, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-969203

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The viral load and tissue distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remain important questions. The current study investigated SARS-CoV-2 viral load, biodistribution and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody formation in patients suffering from severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study in 23 patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS. Data were collected within routine intensive care. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was assessed via reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Overall, 478 virology samples were taken. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody detection of blood samples was performed with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Most patients (91%) suffered from severe ARDS during ICU treatment with a 30-day mortality of 30%. None of the patients received antiviral treatment. Tracheal aspirates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 100% of the cases, oropharyngeal swabs only in 77%. Blood samples were positive in 26% of the patients. No difference of viral load was found in tracheal or blood samples with regard to 30-day survival or disease severity. SARS-CoV-2 was never found in dialysate. Serologic testing revealed significantly lower concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing IgM and IgA antibodies in survivors compared to non-survivors (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 induced ARDS is accompanied by a high viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in tracheal aspirates, which remained detectable in the majority throughout intensive care treatment. Remarkably, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was never detected in dialysate even in patients with RNAemia. Viral load or the buildup of neutralizing antibodies was not associated with 30-day survival or disease severity.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin A/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Protein Domains/immunology , RNA, Viral/genetics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Viral Load/genetics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...