Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Chest ; 2022 Jun 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914240

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for <14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n=487) or placebo (n=473). The primary outcome was clinical status (illness severity) 14 days after study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) <1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified by the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR: 1.04; 1/7 support interval (SI): 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR: 1.15; 1/7 SI: 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR: 0.96; 1/7 SI: 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89/482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80/465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR: 1.04, 1/7 SI: 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION: Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes.

2.
J Clin Transl Sci ; 6(1): e74, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1867967

ABSTRACT

Introduction: COVID-19 is a major health threat around the world causing hundreds of millions of infections and millions of deaths. There is a pressing global need for effective therapies. We hypothesized that leukotriene inhibitors (LTIs), that have been shown to lower IL6 and IL8 levels, may have a protective effect in patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this retrospective controlled cohort study, we compared death rates in COVID-19 patients who were taking a LTI with those who were not taking an LTI. We used the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) to create a cohort of COVID-19-positive patients and tracked their use of LTIs between November 1, 2019 and November 11, 2021. Results: Of the 1,677,595 cohort of patients tested for COVID-19, 189,195 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Forty thousand seven hundred one were admitted. 38,184 had an oxygen requirement and 1214 were taking an LTI. The use of dexamethasone plus a LTI in hospital showed a survival advantage of 13.5% (CI: 0.23%-26.7%; p < 0.01) in patients presenting with a minimal O2Sat of 50% or less. For patients with an O2Sat of <60 and <50% if they were on LTIs as outpatients, continuing the LTI led to a 14.4% and 22.25 survival advantage if they were continued on the medication as inpatients. Conclusions: When combined dexamethasone and LTIs provided a mortality benefit in COVID-19 patients presenting with an O2 saturations <50%. The LTI cohort had lower markers of inflammation and cytokine storm.

3.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(6): 689-702, 2022 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1851566

ABSTRACT

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Several observational studies have described hemostatic derangements and thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current evidence on pathologic findings, pathophysiology, coagulation and hemostatic abnormalities, D-dimer's role in prognostication epidemiology and risk factors of thrombotic complications, and the role of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. While existing evidence is limited in quality, COVID-19 appears to increase micro-and macro-vascular thrombosis rates in hospitalized and critically ill patients, which may contribute to the burden of disease. D-dimer can be used for risk stratification of hospitalized patients, but its role to guide anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. Evidence of higher quality is needed to address the role of therapeutic anticoagulation or high-intensity venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. TAKE-HOME POINTS.

4.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(5): 521-537, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193132

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Corticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS. METHODS: The protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality. RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course. CONCLUSION: The use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Trials ; 22(1): 221, 2021 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143248

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is being used widely as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is unclear. METHODS: The Passive Immunity Trial for Our Nation (PassITON) is a multicenter, placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized clinical trial being conducted in the USA to provide high-quality evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma as a treatment for adults hospitalized with symptomatic disease. Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms for less than 14 days are eligible. Enrolled patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1 unit (200-399 mL) of COVID-19 convalescent plasma that has demonstrated neutralizing function using a SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus neutralization assay. Study treatments are administered in a blinded fashion and patients are followed for 28 days. The primary outcome is clinical status 14 days after study treatment as measured on a 7-category ordinal scale assessing mortality, respiratory support, and return to normal activities of daily living. Key secondary outcomes include mortality and oxygen-free days. The trial is projected to enroll 1000 patients and is designed to detect an odds ratio ≤ 0.73 for the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the most robust data available to date on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the treatment of adults hospitalized with acute moderate to severe COVID-19. These data will be useful to guide the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the current pandemic and for informing decisions about whether developing a standardized infrastructure for collecting and disseminating convalescent plasma to prepare for future viral pandemics is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362176 . Registered on 24 April 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States
6.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): e219-e234, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Disease Management , Intensive Care Units , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants , Evidence-Based Medicine , Hemodynamics , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Immunization, Passive , Patient Positioning , Ventilation
7.
Crit Care Med ; 48(6): e440-e469, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-685042

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/therapy
8.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med ; 35(12): 2387-2394, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-628874

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Studies on COVID-19 infection in pregnancy thus far have largely focused on characterizing maternal and neonatal clinical characteristics. However, another evolving focus is assessing and mitigating the risk of vertical transmission amongst COVID-19-positive mothers. The objective of this review was to summarize the current evidence on the vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in the third trimester and its effects on the neonate. METHODS: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) were searched from January 2020 to May 2020, with continuous surveillance. RESULTS: 18 studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 157 mothers and 160 neonates. The mean age of the pregnant patients was 30.8 years and the mean gestational period was 37 weeks and 1 d. Currently, there is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. Amongst 81 (69%) neonates who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 5 (6%) had a positive result. However, amongst these 5 neonates, the earliest test was performed at 16 h after birth, and only 1 neonate was positive when they were later re-tested. However, this neonate initially tested negative at birth, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely hospital-acquired rather than vertically transmitted. 13 (8%) neonates had complications or symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this rapid descriptive review based on early clinical evidence suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mother to neonate/newborn did not occur. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal management of neonates born to COVID-19-positive mothers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Adult , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical/prevention & control , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Trimester, Third , SARS-CoV-2
9.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 123: 120-126, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-209356

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior epidemics of high-mortality human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-1) in 2003, have driven the characterization of compounds that could be possibly active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Presently, no approved treatment or prophylaxis is available for COVID-19. We comment on the existing COVID-19 research methodologies in general and the published reporting. Given the media attention and claims of effectiveness, we chose chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin, as an area of COVID-19 research to examine. METHODS/STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2019 to present (April 3rd, 2020) using a mix of keywords such as COVID-19 and chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. We also searched the largest clinical medicine preprint repository, medRxiv.org. RESULTS: We found 6 studies, 3 randomized control trials and 3 observational studies, focusing on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with azithromycin). We critically appraised the evidence. CONCLUSION: We found that the COVID-19 research methodology is very poor in the area of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine research. In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/methods , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Research Design/standards , COVID-19 , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Observational Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
10.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(5): 854-887, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-17690

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Sepsis/therapy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Sepsis/diagnosis , Sepsis/etiology , Survivors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL