Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad ; 34(3): 397-402, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2207191

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease is caused by the enveloped, single stranded RNA virus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) becoming the deadliest disease of the century. Its global outbreak has led researchers to develop drugs or vaccines to prevent the spread of the disease. Favipiravir is an approved orally administered antiviral drug that selectively inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, used off-label to treat COVID-19. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug for severe COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective study, carried out at the ICU of King Saud Medical City (KSMC) from June 2020 to August 2020. Including a total of one thousand six hundred and ninety-nine patients (n=1699). Categorized into a treatment group (193 patients) who received Favipiravir along with standard care, and non-treatment group (1506 patients) who received standard care only. RESULTS: ICU all-cause mortality was similar in both groups i.e., (Treated group 38.3% Vs Untreated group 39.4%, 95% CI of difference: -6.6% to +8.4%; p = 0.8). The subgroup analysis of survivors as compared to deceased in the treatment group showed that survivors had significantly lower age, international normalising ratio (INR), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine. The mean ICU length of stay (LOS) was shorter for survivors compared to deceased (11.2± 8.03 Vs 16.7±9.8 days respectively), while hospital LOS was almost similar between the two groups. Advanced age (OR 1.03 [95% CI: 1.01-1.06]; p=0.004), higher INR and BUN were significantly associated with increased odds of mortality. Comparison of lab investigations at day 1 and day 10 in the treatment group (regardless of outcome) showed that there was a significant increase in Alanine transaminase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALK), and Bilirubin, while an insignificant trend of increase in Aspartate transaminase (AST) and creatinine was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Favipiravir showed better therapeutic responses in patients with severe COVID-19 infection, in terms of average duration of stay in the intensive care unit and was well tolerated in the younger age, but showed no mortality benefit. However, elevated levels of inflammatory markers, including increased ALT, AST, BUN, bilirubin, and creatinine, needs to be carefully examined.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Creatinine , Treatment Outcome , Bilirubin
2.
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
3.
Saudi J Med Med Sci ; 10(3): 192-197, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2066905

ABSTRACT

Background: Practices of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders show discrepancies worldwide, but there are only few such studies from Saudi Arabia. Objective: To describe the practice of DNR orders in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care ICU. Methods: This retrospective study included all patients who died with a DNR order at the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between January 1 to December 31, 2021. The percentage of early DNR (i.e., ≤48 hours of ICU admission) and late DNR (>48 hours) orders were determined and the variables between the two groups were compared. The determinants of late DNR were also investigated. Results: A total of 723 cases met the inclusion criteria, representing 14.9% of all ICU discharges and 63% of all ICU deaths during the study period. The late DNR group comprised the majority of the cases (78.3%), and included significantly more patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), community acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute kidney injury, and COVID-19, and significantly fewer cases of readmissions and malignancies. Septic shock lowered the odds of a late DNR (OR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.9;P= 0.02), while ARDS (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 2-5.4;P < 0.001), ischemic stroke (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1-5.4;P= 0.02), and CAP (OR = 2, 95% CI: 1.3-3.1;P= 0.003) increased the odds of a late DNR. Conclusion: There was a higher frequency of late DNR orders in our study compared to those reported in several studies worldwide. Cases with potential for a favorable outcome were more likely to have a late DNR order, while those with expected poorer outcomes were more likely to have an early DNR order. The discrepancies highlight the need for clearer guidelines to achieve consistency.

4.
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
5.
Res Social Adm Pharm ; 18(12): 4048-4055, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1937139

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many thrombotic complications are linked to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Antithrombotic treatments are important for prophylaxis against these thrombotic events. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare enoxaparin and rivaroxaban as prophylactic anticoagulants in moderate cases of COVID-19 in terms of efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study involved 124 patients with moderate COVID-19 (pneumonia without hypoxia) divided into two groups. The first group (G1) comprised 66 patients who received enoxaparin subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg every 12 h until discharge from the hospital. The second group (G2) comprised 58 patients who received oral rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg once daily until discharge from the hospital. The outcomes evaluated in this study were as follows: intermediate care unit (IMCU) duration, the number of patients transferred from the IMCU to the intensive care unit (ICU), ICU duration, the total length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and thrombotic and bleeding complications. RESULTS: No significant differences in IMCU duration (p = 0.39), ICU duration (p = 0.96), and total length of hospital stay (p = 0.73) were observed between the two groups. The percentage of patients requiring ICU admission after hospitalization was 21.2% in G1 and 22.4% in G2 (p = 0.87). The mortality rate was 12.1% in G1 and 10.3% in G2 (p = 0.76). The proportion of patients who had thrombotic complications was 9.1% in G1 and 12.1% in G2 (p = 0.59). The incidence of mild bleeding was 3% in G1 and 1.7% in G2 (p = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Either enoxaparin or rivaroxaban may be used as thromboprophylaxis agents in managing patients with moderate COVID-19. Either medication has no clear advantage over the other.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Rivaroxaban/therapeutic use , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
6.
Heart Lung ; 56: 118-124, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914450

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity, with more severe cases presenting with a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6; hence, the interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was used for the management of severe cases. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free day composite outcomes among critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This retrospective propensity score-matching study compared mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. The matched groups were similar. The ventilator-free days composite outcome was higher in the intervention group (sub-distribution hazard ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-6.3; p = 0.02), the mortality rate in the intensive care unit was not different (37.9% vs 62%, p = 0.1), and actual ventilator-free days were significantly longer in the tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio for death in the tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25-0.97; p = 0.04). Positive cultures were not significantly different among the groups (55.2% vs 34.5% in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively; p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free days, insignificantly lower mortality, and higher superinfection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Interleukin-6 , Receptors, Interleukin-6 , Risk Assessment , Treatment Outcome , Respiration, Artificial
7.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(7): 826-834, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895224

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is currently a major cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions globally. The role of machine learning in the ICU is evolving but currently limited to diagnostic and prognostic values. A decision tree (DT) algorithm is a simple and intuitive machine learning method that provides sequential nonlinear analysis of variables. It is simple and might be a valuable tool for bedside physicians during COVID-19 to predict ICU outcomes and help in critical decision-making like end-of-life decisions and bed allocation in the event of limited ICU bed capacities. Herein, we utilized a machine learning DT algorithm to describe the association of a predefined set of variables and 28-day ICU outcome in adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. We highlight the value of utilizing a machine learning DT algorithm in the ICU at the time of a COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a prospective and multicenter cohort study involving 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020. The predictors of 28-day ICU mortality were identified using two predictive models: conventional logistic regression and DT analyses. RESULTS: There were 1468 critically ill COVID-19 patients included in the study. The 28-day ICU mortality was 540 (36.8 %), and the 90-day mortality was 600 (40.9 %). The DT algorithm identified five variables that were integrated into the algorithm to predict 28-day ICU outcomes: need for intubation, need for vasopressors, age, gender, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio. CONCLUSION: DT is a simple tool that might be utilized in the ICU to identify critically ill COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of 28-day ICU mortality. However, further studies and external validation are still required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Algorithms , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Decision Trees , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Machine Learning , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Saudi J Med Med Sci ; 10(1): 19-24, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1677732

ABSTRACT

Background: ISARIC mortality score is a risk stratification tool that helps predict the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients. However, this tool was developed and validated in a British population, and thus, the external validation of this tool in local populations is important. Objectives: External validation of the ISARIC mortality score in COVID-19 patients from a large Saudi Arabian intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This is a retrospective study that included all adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from March 2020 to June 2021. Patients who were pregnant or had pulmonary tuberculosis/human immunodeficiency virus were excluded along with patients with missing variables. Data were collected to calculate the ISARIC mortality score and then fitting receiver operator characteristic curve against patients' outcome. Results: A total of 1493 critically ill COVID-19 patients were included. The mortality was 38%, the area under the curve of the score was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.83, P < 0.001) and the cutoff value correctly classified 72.7% of the cohort. The cutoff value of >9 had sensitivity of 70.5% (95% CI: 66.6-74.3); specificity, 73.97% (95% CI: 71-76.8); positive predictive value, 62.4% (95% CI: 59.5-65.2) and negative predictive value, 80.2% (95% CI: 78.2-82.4). Conclusion: The ISARIC score was found to have excellent predictive ability for mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients in our Saudi Arabian cohort. A cutoff score of >9 was the optimal criterion.

9.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 71: 102951, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466028

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccines against COVID-19 show high efficacy, yet, infection is still being detected among immunized patients, although with blunted severity. The purpose of this study was to assess the severity of COVID-19 infection among immunized versus non-immunized COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study, including all COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit between January 1st, 2021 and June 30th, 2021 were eligible for inclusion. A comparison of severity upon hospitalization of immunized versus non-immunized patients on a 7-level ordinal scale was conducted, using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: 592 patients were enrolled, 524 (88.5%) non-immunized, 63 (10.6%) partially immunized, and 5 (0.9%) fully immunized, partially and fully immunized patients were grouped together. Majority of immunized patients (86.7%) were symptomatic before 21 days of immunization. Non-immunized group had fewer patients in the lower severity categories, while more patients in the higher severity categories compared to immunized group. At least one dose of immunization was associated with reduction of odds of moving up severity scale (OR = 0.2 [95% CI: 0.15-0.4]; p < 0.001) in a well fitted ordinal logistic regression model. At least one dose of immunization was associated with lower adjusted odds of 30 day all-cause mortality (OR = 0.45 [95% CI: 0.23-0.89]; p = 0.02). Non-immunized group had higher mortality rate (43.9% versus 29.4% [95% CI: 1.5 to 25.8]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Most COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU were non-immunized, most of the partially immunized patients got infected before immunity could develop, and fully immunized patients were likely non-responders. At least one dose of immunization significantly decreases severity of the disease across all ordinal severity categories, and is significantly associated with lower 30 day all-cause mortality. Accordingly, immunization status may have to be considered when deciding on disposition of COVID-19 patients at the point of triage.

10.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e052169, 2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376510

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) delivered by helmet has been used for respiratory support of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to compare helmet NIV with usual care versus usual care alone to reduce mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel randomised controlled trial that compares helmet NIV with usual care to usual care alone in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 320 patients will be enrolled in this study. The primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. The primary outcome will be compared between the two study groups in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. An interim analysis will be conducted for both safety and effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals are obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04477668.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Head Protective Devices , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 60: 417-424, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-928750

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 associated critical illness characterized by rapidly evolving acute respiratory failure (ARF) can develop, especially on the grounds of hyperinflammation. AIM AND METHODS: A case-series of 61 patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) between August 12 and September 12, 2020 with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and rapidly evolving ARF requiring oxygen support therapy and/or mechanical ventilation was retrospectively analyzed. We examined whether intravenous administration of tocilizumab, a monoclonal interleukin-6 receptor antibody, was associated with improved outcome. All patients received empiric antivirals, dexamethasone 6 mg/day for 7 days, antibiotics, and prophylactic anticoagulation. Tocilizumab was administered at a dosage of 8 mg/kg [two consecutive intravenous infusions 12 h apart]. Outcome measures such as mortality on day-14, ICU length of stay, and rate of nosocomial acquired bacterial infections were also analyzed. Results: Patients were males (88.2%) aged 51 [interquartile range (IQR): 42.5-58.75)], with admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) 4 score of 53 (IQR: 37.75-72.5), and had more than one comorbidity (62.3%). On admission, twenty nine patients (47.5%) were mechanically ventilated, and thirty two patients (52.5%) were receiving oxygen therapy. No serious adverse effects due to tocilizumab therapy were recorded. However, twelve patients (19.6%) developed nosocomial acquired infections. ICU length of stay was 13 (IQR: 9-17) days, and mortality on day-14 was 24.6%. Six patients were shifted to other hospitals but were followed-up. The overall mortality on day-30 was 31.1%. Non-mechanically ventilated patients had higher survival rates compared to mechanically ventilated patients although results were not significant [hazards ratio = 2.6 (95% confidence intervals: 0.9-7.7), p = 0.08]. Tocilizumab did not affect the mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab could be an adjunct safe therapy in rapidly evolving COVID-19 pneumonia and associated critical illness.

12.
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
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL