Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
1.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 94, 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775327

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare old patients hospitalized in ICU for respiratory distress due to COVID-19 with old patients hospitalized in ICU for a non-COVID-19-related reason in terms of autonomy and quality of life. DESIGN: Comparison of two prospective multi-centric studies. SETTING: This study was based on two prospective multi-centric studies, the Senior-COVID-Rea cohort (COVID-19-diagnosed ICU-admitted patients aged over 60) and the FRAGIREA cohort (ICU-admitted patients aged over 70). PATIENTS: We included herein the patients from both cohorts who had been evaluated at day 180 after admission (ADL score and quality of life). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 93 COVID-19 patients and 185 control-ICU patients were included. Both groups were not balanced on age, body mass index, mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and ADL and SAPS II scores. We modeled with ordered logistic regression the influence of COVID-19 on the quality of life and the ADL score. After adjustment on these factors, we observed COVID-19 patients were less likely to have a loss of usual activities (aOR [95% CI] 0.47 [0.23; 0.94]), a loss of mobility (aOR [95% CI] 0.30 [0.14; 0.63]), and a loss of ADL score (aOR [95% CI] 0.30 [0.14; 0.63]). On day 180, 52 (56%) COVID-19 patients presented signs of dyspnea, 37 (40%) still used analgesics, 17 (18%) used anxiolytics, and 14 (13%) used antidepressant. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related ICU stay was not associated with a lower quality of life or lower autonomy compared to non-COVID-19-related ICU stay.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Aftercare , Aged , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Discharge , Prospective Studies
3.
JAMA ; 327(11): 1042-1050, 2022 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1763144

ABSTRACT

Importance: Persistent physical and mental disorders are frequent in survivors of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, data on these disorders among family members are scarce. Objective: To determine the association between patient hospitalization for COVID-19 ARDS vs ARDS from other causes and the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in family members. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study in 23 intensive care units (ICUs) in France (January 2020 to June 2020 with final follow-up ending in October 2020). ARDS survivors and family members (1 family member per patient) were enrolled. Exposures: Family members of patients hospitalized for ARDS due to COVID-19 vs ARDS due to other causes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was family member symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge, measured by the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (score range, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]; presence of PTSD symptoms defined by score >22). Secondary outcomes were family member symptoms of anxiety and depression at 90 days assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (score range, 0 [best] to 42 [worst]; presence of anxiety or depression symptoms defined by subscale scores ≥7). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between COVID-19 status and outcomes. Results: Among 602 family members and 307 patients prospectively enrolled, 517 (86%) family members (median [IQR] age, 51 [40-63] years; 72% women; 48% spouses; 26% bereaved because of the study patient's death; 303 [50%] family members of COVID-19 patients) and 273 (89%) patients (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-69] years; 34% women; 181 [59%] with COVID-19) completed the day-90 assessment. Compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS, family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS had a significantly higher prevalence of symptoms of PTSD (35% [103/293] vs 19% [40/211]; difference, 16% [95% CI, 8%-24%]; P < .001), symptoms of anxiety (41% [121/294] vs 34% [70/207]; difference, 8% [95% CI, 0%-16%]; P= .05), and symptoms of depression (31% [91/291] vs 18% [37/209]; difference, 13% [95% CI, 6%-21%]; P< .001). In multivariable models adjusting for age, sex, and level of social support, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk of PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.30 to 3.23]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among family members of patients hospitalized in the ICU with ARDS, COVID-19 disease, as compared with other causes of ARDS, was significantly associated with increased risk of symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04341519.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Family Health , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Adult , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology
4.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(2): 158-166, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1751525

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580. FINDINGS: Between April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089). INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials. FUNDING: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/adverse effects , Iron-Dextran Complex , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
5.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327725

ABSTRACT

Objectives: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-beta-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. Methods We conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity ( NCT04315948 , EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. Results The intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147;lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a, n=147;hydroxychloroquine, n=150;control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36);lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08);hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. Conclusion In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-309803

ABSTRACT

Objectives: In severe COVID-19 pneumonia, the appropriate timing and dosing of corticosteroids(CS) is not known. Patient subgroups for which CS could be more beneficial also need appraisal. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of early CS in COVID-19 pneumonia patients admitted to the ICU on the occurrence of 60-day mortality, ICU-acquired-bloodstream infections(ICU-BSI), and hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia(HAP-VAP). Methods: We included patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to 11 ICUs belonging to the French OutcomeRea TM network from January to May 2020. We used survival models with ponderation with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Inflammation was defined as Ferritin >1000 µg/l or D-Dimers >1000 µg/l or C-Reactive Protein >100 mg/dL. Results: The study population comprised 302 patients having a median age of 61.6(53-70) years of whom 78.8% were male and 58.6% had at least one comorbidity. The median SAPS II was 33(25-44). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 34.8% of the patients. Sixty-six (21.8%) patients were in the Early-CS-subgroup. Most of them (n=55, 83.3%) received high doses of steroids. Overall, 60-day mortality was 29.4%. The risks of 60-day mortality ( IPTW HR =0.88;95% CI 0.55 to 1.39, p=0.58), ICU-BSI and HAP-VAP were similar in the two groups. Importantly, early CS treatment was associated with a lower mortality rate in patients aged 60 years or more ( IPTW HR, 0.51;95% CI, 0.29 – 0.91;p=0.02). But, CS was associated with an increased risk of death for the patients younger than 60 years without inflammation on admission ( IPTW HR =8.17;95% CI, 1.76, 37.85;p=0.01). Conclusion: For patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, early CS treatment was not associated with patient survival. Interestingly, inflammation and age can significantly influence the effect of CS.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-304820

ABSTRACT

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418;remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB;Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study;grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study;personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from G lead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work;and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France);it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.

8.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 11, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1607559

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent multicenter studies identified COVID-19 as a risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). However, no large multicenter study has compared the incidence of IPA between COVID-19 and influenza patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of putative IPA in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared with influenza patients. METHODS: This study was a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter retrospective European cohort. Consecutive adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for > 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia or influenza pneumonia were included. The 28-day cumulative incidence of putative IPA, based on Blot definition, was the primary outcome. IPA incidence was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, considering extubation (dead or alive) within 28 days as competing event. RESULTS: A total of 1047 patients were included (566 in the SARS-CoV-2 group and 481 in the influenza group). The incidence of putative IPA was lower in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia group (14, 2.5%) than in influenza pneumonia group (29, 6%), adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio (cHR) 3.29 (95% CI 1.53-7.02, p = 0.0006). When putative IPA and Aspergillus respiratory tract colonization were combined, the incidence was also significantly lower in the SARS-CoV-2 group, as compared to influenza group (4.1% vs. 10.2%), adjusted cHR 3.21 (95% CI 1.88-5.46, p < 0.0001). In the whole study population, putative IPA was associated with significant increase in 28-day mortality rate, and length of ICU stay, compared with colonized patients, or those with no IPA or Aspergillus colonization. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the incidence of putative IPA was low. Its incidence was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than in those with influenza pneumonia. Clinical trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Intubation , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/therapy , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(2): 158-166, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510505

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580. FINDINGS: Between April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089). INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials. FUNDING: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/adverse effects , Iron-Dextran Complex , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
11.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2021 May 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416749

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with COVID-19, based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48h were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture, within 48h after intubation, in endotracheal aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 1,050 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2 and 482 in influenza groups). The prevalence of bacterial identification was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs 33.6%, unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.30), adjusted OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.33), p<0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of co-infection in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia, respectively. Bacterial identification was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (1.57 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.44), p=0.043). However, no significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of co-infection on mortality was not different between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial identification within 48h after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

12.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(2): 188-198, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384370

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection have several risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI), the reported incidence of hospital-acquired infections is low. We aimed to determine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, and the incidence of VA-LRTI. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation > 48 h were eligible if they had: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection at ICU admission. VA-LRTI, including ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), were diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. All VA-LRTI were prospectively identified, and chest-X rays were analyzed by at least two physicians. Cumulative incidence of first episodes of VA-LRTI was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, and compared using Fine-and Gray models. RESULTS: 1576 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2, 482 in influenza, and 526 in no viral infection groups). VA-LRTI incidence was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 patients (287, 50.5%), as compared to influenza patients (146, 30.3%, adjusted sub hazard ratio (sHR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.04)) or patients with no viral infection (133, 25.3%, adjusted sHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.39)). Gram-negative bacilli were responsible for a large proportion (82% to 89.7%) of VA-LRTI, mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of VA-LRTI is significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection after statistical adjustment, but residual confounding may still play a role in the effect estimates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Respiratory Tract Infections , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe , Female , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Ventilators, Mechanical
13.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e048187, 2021 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376500

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: At the time of the worrying emergence and spread of bacterial resistance, reducing the selection pressure by reducing the exposure to antibiotics in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a public health issue. In this context, the combined use of molecular tests and biomarkers for guiding antibiotics discontinuation is attractive. Therefore, we have designed a trial comparing an integrated approach of diagnosis and treatment of severe CAP to usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe-CAP (MULTI-CAP) trial is a multicentre (n=20), parallel-group, superiority, open-label, randomised trial. Patients are included if adult admitted to intensive care unit for a CAP. Diagnosis of pneumonia is based on clinical criteria and a newly appeared parenchymal infiltrate. Immunocompromised patients are excluded. Subjects are randomised (1:1 ratio) to either the intervention arm (experimental strategy) or the control arm (usual strategy). In the intervention arm, the microbiological diagnosis combines a respiratory multiplex PCR (mPCR) and conventional microbiological investigations. An algorithm of early antibiotic de-escalation or discontinuation is recommended, based on mPCR results and the procalcitonin value. In the control arm, only conventional microbiological investigations are performed and antibiotics de-escalation remains at the clinician's discretion. The primary endpoint is the number of days alive without any antibiotic from the randomisation to day 28. Based on our hypothesis of 2 days gain in the intervention arm, we aim to enrol a total of 450 patients over a 30-month period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The MULTI-CAP trial is conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, is registered in Clinical Trials and has been approved by the Committee for Protection of Persons and the National French Drug Safety Agency. Written informed consents are obtained from all the patients (or representatives). The results will be disseminated through educational institutions, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at medical congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03452826; Pre-results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Procalcitonin
15.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 177, 2021 05 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352667

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). No study has evaluated the relationship between VAP and mortality in this population, or compared this relationship between SARS-CoV-2 patients and other populations. The main objective of our study was to determine the relationship between VAP and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort. VAP was diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. Univariable and multivariable marginal Cox's regression models, with cause-specific hazard for duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Extubation, and ICU discharge alive were considered as events of interest, and mortality as competing event. FINDINGS: Of 1576 included patients, 568 were SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 482 influenza pneumonia, and 526 no evidence of viral infection at ICU admission. VAP was associated with significantly higher risk for 28-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16-2.47), p = 0.006), and influenza groups (1.75 (1.03-3.02), p = 0.045), but not in the no viral infection group (1.07 (0.64-1.78), p = 0.79). VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation in the SARS-CoV-2 group, but not in the influenza or no viral infection groups. VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of ICU stay in the 3 study groups. No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to VAP between the 3 groups, suggesting that the impact of VAP on mortality was not different between study groups. INTERPRETATION: VAP was associated with significantly increased 28-day mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients. However, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, did not significantly modify the relationship between VAP and 28-day mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Aged , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies
17.
PLoS One ; 16(8): e0255644, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1341507

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In severe COVID-19 pneumonia, the appropriate timing and dosing of corticosteroids (CS) is not known. Patient subgroups for which CS could be more beneficial also need appraisal. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of early CS in COVID-19 pneumonia patients admitted to the ICU on the occurrence of 60-day mortality, ICU-acquired-bloodstream infections(ICU-BSI), and hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia(HAP-VAP). METHODS: We included patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to 11 ICUs belonging to the French OutcomeReaTM network from January to May 2020. We used survival models with ponderation with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: The study population comprised 303 patients having a median age of 61.6 (53-70) years of whom 78.8% were male and 58.6% had at least one comorbidity. The median SAPS II was 33 (25-44). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 34.8% of the patients. Sixty-six (21.8%) patients were in the Early-C subgroup. Overall, 60-day mortality was 29.4%. The risks of 60-day mortality (IPTWHR = 0.86;95% CI 0.54 to 1.35, p = 0.51), ICU-BSI and HAP-VAP were similar in the two groups. Importantly, early CS treatment was associated with a lower mortality rate in patients aged 60 years or more (IPTWHR, 0.53;95% CI, 0.3-0.93; p = 0.03). In contrast, CS was associated with an increased risk of death in patients younger than 60 years without inflammation on admission (IPTWHR = 5.01;95% CI, 1.05, 23.88; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: For patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, early CS treatment was not associated with patient survival. Interestingly, inflammation and age can significantly influence the effect of CS.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Community Networks , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Drug Administration Schedule , Early Medical Intervention/methods , Female , France/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
18.
Chest ; 160(3): 944-955, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275208

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Working in the ICU during the first COVID-19 wave was associated with high levels of mental health disorders. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the mental health symptoms in health care providers (HCPs) facing the second wave? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study (October 30-December 1, 2020) was conducted in 16 ICUs during the second wave in France. HCPs completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (for post-traumatic stress disorder), and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Of 1,203 HCPs, 845 responded (70%) (66% nursing staff, 32% medical staff, 2% other professionals); 487 (57.6%) had treated more than 10 new patients with COVID-19 in the previous week. Insomnia affected 320 (37.9%), and 7.7% were taking a psychotropic drug daily. Symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and burnout were reported in 60.0% (95% CI, 56.6%-63.3%), 36.1% (95% CI, 32.9%-39.5%), 28.4% (95% CI, 25.4%-31.6%), and 45.1% (95% CI, 41.7%-48.5%) of respondents, respectively. Independent predictors of such symptoms included respondent characteristics (sex, profession, experience, personality traits), work organization (ability to rest and to care for family), and self-perceptions (fear of becoming infected or of infecting family and friends, feeling pressure related to the surge, intention to leave the ICU, lassitude, working conditions, feeling they had a high-risk profession, and "missing the clapping"). The number of patients with COVID-19 treated in the first wave or over the last week was not associated with symptoms of mental health disorders. INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of symptoms of mental health disorders is high in ICU HCPs managing the second COVID-19 surge. The highest tiers of hospital management urgently need to provide psychological support, peer-support groups, and a communication structure that ensure the well-being of HCPs.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Critical Care , Depression/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health , Physicians/psychology , Adult , Anxiety/etiology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/etiology , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prevalence
19.
BMJ Open ; 11(5): e045041, 2021 05 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259009

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diet, Protein-Restricted , Adult , Critical Illness , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(12): 1826-1837, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL