Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 42
Filter
1.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews ; 2021(4), 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1801610

ABSTRACT

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention (1) for prevention of an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (post‐exposure prophylaxis), and (2) for people with COVID‐19 receiving treatment as outpatients or inpatients.

2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-332546

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and can affect multiple organs, among which is the circulatory system. Inflammation and mortality risk markers were previously detected in COVID-19 plasma and red blood cells (RBCs) metabolic and proteomic profiles. Additionally, biophysical properties, such as deformability, were found to be changed during the infection. Based on such data, we aim to better characterize RBC functions in COVID-19. We evaluate the flow properties of RBCs in severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit by using in vitro microfluidic techniques and automated methods, including artificial neural networks, for an unbiased RBC analysis. We find strong flow and RBC shape impairment in COVID-19 samples and demonstrate that such changes are reversible upon suspension of COVID-19 RBCs in healthy plasma. Vice versa, healthy RBCs immediately resemble COVID-19 RBCs when suspended in COVID-19 plasma. Proteomics and metabolomics analyses allow us to detect the effect of plasma exchanges on both plasma and RBCs and demonstrate a new role of RBCs in maintaining plasma equilibria at the expense of their flow properties. Our findings provide a framework for further investigations of clinical relevance for therapies against COVID-19 and possibly other infectious diseases.

3.
Trials ; 23(1): 252, 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775329

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In May 2018, the first patient was enrolled in the phase-IIb clinical trial "Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Sequential Multiple Ascending Doses of Solnatide to Treat Pulmonary Permeability Edema in Patients with Moderate to Severe ARDS." With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the continuation and successful execution of this clinical study was in danger. Therefore, before the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) allowed proceeding with the study and enrollment of further COVID-19 ARDS patients into it, additional assessment on possible study bias was considered mandatory. METHODS: We conducted an ad hoc interim analysis of 16 patients (5 COVID-19- ARDS patients and 11 with ARDS from different causes) from the phase-IIB clinical trial. We assessed possible differences in clinical characteristics of the ARDS patients and the impact of the pandemic on study execution. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients seemed to be less sick at baseline, which also showed in higher survival rates over the 28-day observation period. Trial specific outcomes regarding pulmonary edema and ventilation parameters did not differ between the groups, nor did more general indicators of (pulmonary) sepsis like oxygenation ratio and required noradrenaline doses. CONCLUSION: The DSMB and the investigators did not find any evidence that patients suffering from ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 may be at higher (or generally altered) risk when included in the trial, nor were there indications that those patients might influence the integrity of the study data altogether. For this reason, a continuation of the phase IIB clinical study activities can be justified. Researchers continuing clinical trials during the pandemic should always be aware that the exceptional circumstances may alter study results and therefore adaptations of the study design might be necessary.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Edema , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/complications , Double-Blind Method , Edema , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Peptides, Cyclic , Permeability , Pulmonary Edema/diagnosis , Pulmonary Edema/drug therapy , Pulmonary Edema/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 83, 2022 03 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1765459

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In severe cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), often treated by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). During ECMO therapy, anticoagulation is crucial to prevent device-associated thrombosis and device failure, however, it is associated with bleeding complications. In COVID-19, additional pathologies, such as endotheliitis, may further increase the risk of bleeding complications. To assess the frequency of bleeding events, we analyzed data from the German COVID-19 autopsy registry (DeRegCOVID). METHODS: The electronic registry uses a web-based electronic case report form. In November 2021, the registry included N = 1129 confirmed COVID-19 autopsy cases, with data on 63 ECMO autopsy cases and 1066 non-ECMO autopsy cases, contributed from 29 German sites. FINDINGS: The registry data showed that ECMO was used in younger male patients and bleeding events occurred much more frequently in ECMO cases compared to non-ECMO cases (56% and 9%, respectively). Similarly, intracranial bleeding (ICB) was documented in 21% of ECMO cases and 3% of non-ECMO cases and was classified as the immediate or underlying cause of death in 78% of ECMO cases and 37% of non-ECMO cases. In ECMO cases, the three most common immediate causes of death were multi-organ failure, ARDS and ICB, and in non-ECMO cases ARDS, multi-organ failure and pulmonary bacterial ± fungal superinfection, ordered by descending frequency. INTERPRETATION: Our study suggests the potential value of autopsies and a joint interdisciplinary multicenter (national) approach in addressing fatal complications in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Humans , Intracranial Hemorrhages/complications , Intracranial Hemorrhages/epidemiology , Male , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
6.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-330311

ABSTRACT

Background: In May 2018 the first patient was enrolled in the phase-IIb clinical trial “Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Sequential Multiple Ascending Doses of Solnatide to Treat Pulmonary Permeability Edema in Patients with Moderate to Severe ARDS” With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the continuation and successful execution of this clinical study was in danger. Therefore, before the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) allowed proceeding with the study and enrollment of further COVID-19 ARDS patients into it, additional assessment on possible study bias was considered mandatory. Methods: : We conducted an ad hoc interim analysis of 16 patients (5 COVID-19- ARDS patients and 11 with ARDS from different causes) from the phase-IIB clinical trial. We assessed possible differences in clinical characteristics of the ARDS patients and the impact of the pandemic on study execution. Results: : COVID-19 patients seemed to be less sick at baseline, which also showed in higher survival rates over the 28-day observation period. Trial specific outcomes regarding pulmonary edema and ventilation parameters did not differ between the groups, nor did more general indicators of (pulmonary) sepsis like oxygenation ratio and required noradrenaline doses. Conclusion: The DSMB and the investigators did not find any evidence that patients suffering from ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 may be at higher (or generally altered) risk when included in the trial, nor were there indications that those patients might influence the integrity of the study data altogether. For this reason, a continuation of the phase IIB clinical study activities can be justified. Researchers continuing clinical trials during the pandemic should always be aware that the exceptional circumstances may alter study results and therefore adaptations of the study design might be necessary.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-312328

ABSTRACT

Introduction: There is evidence that SARS-CoV2 has a particular affinity for kidney tissue and is often associated with kidney failure. Methods: We assessed whether proteinuria can be predictive of kidney failure, the development of chronic kidney disease, and mortality in 37 critically ill COVID-19 patients. We used machine learning (ML) methods as decision trees and cut-off points created by the OneR package to add new aspects, even in smaller cohorts. Results: Among a total of 37 patients, 24 suffered higher-grade renal failure, 20 of whom required kidney replacement therapy. More than 40% of patients remained on hemodialysis after intensive care unit discharge or died (27%). Due to frequent anuria proteinuria measured in two-thirds of the patients, it was not predictive for the investigated endpoints;albuminuria was higher in patients with AKI 3, but the difference was not significant. ML found cut-off points of > 31.4 kg/m 2 for BMI and > 69 years for age, constructed decision trees with great accuracy, and identified highly predictive variables for outcome and remaining chronic kidney disease. Conclusions: Different ML methods and their clinical application, especially decision trees, can provide valuable support for clinical decisions. Presence of proteinuria was not predictive of CKD or AKI and should be confirmed in a larger cohort.

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-306585

ABSTRACT

Physical and mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic is typically assessed via surveys, which might make it difficult to conduct longitudinal studies and might lead to data suffering from recall bias. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) driven smartphone apps can help alleviate such issues, allowing for in situ recordings. Implementing such an app is not trivial, necessitates strict regulatory and legal requirements, and requires short development cycles to appropriately react to abrupt changes in the pandemic. Based on an existing app framework, we developed Corona Health, an app that serves as a platform for deploying questionnaire-based studies in combination with recordings of mobile sensors. In this paper, we present the technical details of Corona Health and provide first insights into the collected data. Through collaborative efforts from experts from public health, medicine, psychology, and computer science, we released Corona Health publicly on Google Play and the Apple App Store (in July, 2020) in 8 languages and attracted 7,290 installations so far. Currently, five studies related to physical and mental well-being are deployed and 17,241 questionnaires have been filled out. Corona Health proves to be a viable tool for conducting research related to the COVID-19 pandemic and can serve as a blueprint for future EMA-based studies. The data we collected will substantially improve our knowledge on mental and physical health states, traits and trajectories as well as its risk and protective factors over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and its diverse prevention measures.

9.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316141

ABSTRACT

Background: Intensive Care Resources are heavily utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, risk stratification and prediction of SARS-CoV-2 patient clinical outcomes upon ICU admission remain inadequate. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model, based on retrospective & prospective clinical data, to stratify patient risk and predict ICU survival and outcomes. Methods: . A Germany-wide electronic registry was established to pseudonymously collect admission, therapeutic and discharge information of SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients retrospectively and prospectively. Machine learning approaches were evaluated for the accuracy and interpretability of predictions. The Explainable Boosting Machine approach was selected as the most suitable method. Individual, non-linear shape functions for predictive parameters and parameter interactions are reported. Results: . 1,039 patients were included in the Explainable Boosting Machine model, 596 patients retrospectively collected, and 443 patients prospectively collected. The model for prediction of general ICU outcome was shown to be more reliable to predict “survival”. Age, inflammatory and thrombotic activity, and severity of ARDS at ICU admission were shown to be predictive of ICU survival. Patients’ age, pulmonary dysfunction and transfer from an external institution were predictors for ECMO therapy. The interaction of patient age with D-dimer levels on admission and creatinine levels with SOFA score without GCS were predictors for renal replacement therapy. Conclusions: . Using Explainable Boosting Machine analysis, we confirmed and weighed previously reported and identified novel predictors for outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Using this strategy, predictive modeling of COVID-19 ICU patient outcomes can be performed overcoming the limitations of linear regression models. Trial registration. “ClinicalTrials” (clinicaltrials.gov) under NCT04455451

10.
J Clin Med ; 11(3)2022 Jan 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1667213

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: Data on coronavirus 2 infection during pregnancy vary. We aimed to describe maternal characteristics and clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 positive women requiring intensive care treatment for COVID-19 during pregnancy and postpartum period based on data of a comprehensive German surveillance system in obstetric patients. (2) Methods: Data from COVID-19 Related Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome Study (CRONOS), a prospective multicenter registry for SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women, was analyzed with respect to ICU treatment. All women requiring intensive care treatment for COVID-19 were included and compared regarding maternal characteristics, course of disease, as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes. (3) Results: Of 2650 cases in CRONOS, 101 women (4%) had a documented ICU stay. Median maternal age was 33 (IQR, 30-36) years. COVID-19 was diagnosed at a median gestational age of 33 (IQR, 28-35) weeks. As the most invasive form of COVID-19 treatment interventions, patients received either continuous monitoring of vital signs without further treatment requirement (n = 6), insufflation of oxygen (n = 30), non-invasive ventilation (n = 22), invasive ventilation (n = 28), or escalation to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 15). No significant clinical differences were identified between patients receiving different forms of ventilatory support for COVID-19. Prevalence of preterm delivery was significantly higher in women receiving invasive respiratory treatments. Four women died of COVID-19 and six fetuses were stillborn. (4) Conclusions: Our cohort shows that progression of COVID-19 is rare in pregnant and postpartum women treated in the ICU. Preterm birth rate is high and COVID-19 requiring respiratory support increases the risk of poor maternal and neonatal outcome.

11.
J Clin Med ; 11(2)2022 Jan 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1633180

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Anemia remains one of the most common comorbidities in intensive care patients worldwide. The cause of anemia is often multifactorial and triggered by underlying disease, comorbidities, and iatrogenic factors, such as diagnostic phlebotomies. As anemia is associated with a worse outcome, especially in intensive care patients, unnecessary iatrogenic blood loss must be avoided. Therefore, this scoping review addresses the amount of blood loss during routine phlebotomies in adult (>17 years) intensive care patients and whether there are factors that need to be improved in terms of patient blood management (PBM). METHODS: A systematic search of the Medline Database via PubMed was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The reported daily blood volume for diagnostics and other relevant information from eligible studies were charted. RESULTS: A total of 2167 studies were identified in our search, of which 38 studies met the inclusion criteria (9 interventional studies and 29 observational studies). The majority of the studies were conducted in the US (37%) and Canada (13%). An increasing interest to reduce iatrogenic blood loss has been observed since 2015. Phlebotomized blood volume per patient per day was up to 377 mL. All interventional trials showed that the use of pediatric-sized blood collection tubes can significantly reduce the daily amount of blood drawn. CONCLUSION: Iatrogenic blood loss for diagnostic purposes contributes significantly to the development and exacerbation of hospital-acquired anemia. Therefore, a comprehensive PBM in intensive care is urgently needed to reduce avoidable blood loss, including blood-sparing techniques, regular advanced training, and small-volume blood collection tubes.

12.
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.

13.
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.

14.
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
15.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 27(6): 709-716, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1511081

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients admitted to ICUs are a heterogeneous group, displaying multiple anaemia risk factors and comorbidities. Clinicians should therefore take all possible measures to identify modifiable risks. Patient Blood Management (PBM) is an approach promoting the timely application of evidence-based interventions designed to maintain patients own blood mass. RECENT FINDINGS: Within ICU-patients, anaemia is highly prevalent. Generally, anaemia is associated with impaired outcome and need of blood transfusion. Currently, with ICUs working at full capacity and the global blood reserves exhausted, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic reinforces the need for PBM implementation. For instance, implementation of a comprehensive coagulation management and measures to avoid iatrogenic blood loss may prevent bleeding-associated complications and adherence to blood transfusion guidelines may reduce adverse events associated with transfusion. SUMMARY: Critically ill patients display various morbidities often requiring individualized treatment. PBM offers patient-centred measures to improve outcome any time during hospital stay.


Subject(s)
Anemia , COVID-19 , Anemia/therapy , Blood Transfusion , Critical Care , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
17.
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
19.
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
20.
Ger Med Sci ; 19: Doc11, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1409172

ABSTRACT

Background: The study aimed to assess the mental well-being of healthcare professionals at a German department of anesthesiology and critical care with a specialized ICU for treatment of COVID-19 patients during the first two peaks of the 2020 pandemic, and identifying risk and protective factors. Methods: A single-center longitudinal, online-based survey was conducted in healthcare workers from a department of anesthesiology and critical care in Bavaria, the most affected federal state in Germany at the time of assessment. Validated scores for depression, anxiety, somatic disorders, burnout, resilience, and self-management were used and complemented by questions about perceived COVID-19-related stressors. In parallel, patient characteristics in the ICU were collected. Results: 24 and 23 critically ill COVID-19 patients were treated during both observation periods in April/May and November/December 2020, respectively. 87.5% and 78.2% of patients had moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. From March 6, 2020 onwards, the hospital had switched to a command and control-based hospital incident command system (HICS) and increased work forces. Point prevalence of depression-like symptoms (13.6% and 12.8%) and burnout (21.6% and 17.4%) in the department's healthcare professionals was high. Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 did not increase psychological burden. Consequences of the lockdown were rated as highly distressing by a majority of all ICU personnel. High self-reported trait resilience was protective against signs of depression, generalized anxiety, and burnout. Conclusions: During the pandemic, healthcare professionals have been suffering from increased psychological distress compared to reference data for both the general population and ICU personnel. General effects of the lockdown appear more relevant than actual COVID-19 patient contact. High trait resilience has a protective effect, yet vulnerable individuals may require specific support. Prevention against potential after effects of the lockdown, and in particular measures allowing to avoid another lockdown, appear warranted.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia Department, Hospital , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL