Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
2.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e055430, 2022 03 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1769913

ABSTRACT

AIM: To describe and evaluate the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and measures to reduce the risk of transmission on patients with early-onset neuromuscular and neurological disorders (NMDs) and their families. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study in which data were collected between 17 September 2020 and 31 December 2020 using a semi-structured telephone questionnaire developed specifically to meet research aims, and were analysed using quantitative methods and qualitative inductive thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Forty questionnaires were completed by patients with NMDs (eg, muscular dystrophies, spinal muscular atrophy) or their parent. 70% (n=28) of patients were male, aged 2-48 years. 90% (n=36) were wheelchair users; 72.5% (n=29) required long-term non-invasive or tracheostomy ventilation. RESULTS: Strict adherence to risk mitigation strategies, for example, shielding, were reported at the start of the pandemic. Over half continued some or all measures after official limitations were relaxed. 67.5% (n=27) reported changes to personal care assistance arrangements including temporary cessation of outside carers. Three themes were identified: (1) Concern regarding the health impact of COVID-19; (2) Perceptions of strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission; (3) Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The level and pervasiveness of frequently reported negative psychological effects, for example, anxiety and fear fluctuated, and were related to the perceived risk of COVID-19, concern about attending hospital, and perceived lack of access to intensive care management if severe COVID-19 infection occurred. Support, particularly from family and healthcare services, were considered to have positive psychosocial effects. CONCLUSIONS: Measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19 have greatly affected patients with NMDs and their families. For most, negative psychosocial impacts have and will continue to improve, but this may depend on the incidence of further pandemic waves. Consistent, up-to-date and accessible information on clinical outcomes and risk mitigation must be provided to support patients' physical and mental well-being.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nervous System Diseases , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nervous System Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics , Parents/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
3.
JAMA ; 327(6): 546-558, 2022 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1711978

ABSTRACT

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Cannula , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology
5.
Thorax ; 77(3): 259-267, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. RESULTS: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aerosols , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Humans , RNA, Viral
7.
Eur Respir J ; 57(4)2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1190024

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. METHODS: A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Systematic Reviews as Topic
8.
Eur Respir J ; 57(3)2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-937059

ABSTRACT

Clinical activities regarding sleep disordered breathing (SDB) have been sharply interrupted during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic throughout Europe. In the past months, activities have gradually restarted, according to epidemiological phase of COVID-19 and national recommendations. The recent increase in cases throughout Europe demands a reconsideration of management strategies of SDB accordingly. Diagnosis of SDB and initiation of treatment pose some specific problems to be addressed to preserve the safety of patients and health personnel. This perspective document by a group of European sleep experts aims to summarise some different approaches followed in Europe and United States, which reflect national recommendations according to the epidemiological phase of the COVID-19 infection. Respiratory sleep medicine is likely to change in the near future, and use of telemedicine will grow to avoid unnecessary risks and continue to provide optimal care to patients. In addition, the document covers paediatric sleep studies and indications for titration of noninvasive ventilation, as well as precautions to be followed by patients who are already on positive airway pressure treatment. A single consensus document developed by the European Respiratory Society and national societies would be desirable to harmonise SDB management throughout Europe.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Laboratories/organization & administration , Pulmonary Medicine/organization & administration , Sleep Apnea Syndromes/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , Humans
10.
Trials ; 21(1): 687, 2020 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684574

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The trial objective is to determine if Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is clinically effective compared to standard oxygen therapy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. TRIAL DESIGN: Adaptive (group-sequential), parallel group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness trial. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is being conducted across approximately 60 hospitals across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Inpatients at participating hospitals are eligible to participate if they have respiratory failure with suspected or proven COVID-19, and meet all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Adults ≥ 18 years; 2) Admitted to hospital with suspected or proven COVID-19; 3) Receiving oxygen with fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≥0.4 and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤94%; and 4) Plan for escalation to tracheal intubation if needed. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Planned tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation imminent within 1 hour; 2) Known or clinically apparent pregnancy; 3) Any absolute contraindication to CPAP or HFNO; 4) Decision not to intubate due to ceiling of treatment or withdrawal of treatment anticipated; and 5) Equipment for both CPAP and HFNO not available. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention one: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention two: High-flow nasal oxygen delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Comparator group: Standard care- oxygen delivered by face mask or nasal cannula (excluding the use of continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen). Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention delivery continues up to the point of death, tracheal intubation, or clinical determination that there is no ongoing need (palliation or improvement). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite outcome comprising tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days following randomisation. Secondary outcomes include tracheal intubation rate, time to tracheal intubation, duration of invasive ventilation, mortality rate, time to mortality, length of hospital stay, and length of critical care stay. RANDOMISATION: Participants are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either continuous positive airway pressure, high-flow nasal oxygen or standard care. Due to the challenging environment of study delivery, a specific intervention may not always be available at the hospital site. The study uses two integrated randomisation systems to allow, where required, the site to randomise between all three interventions, between CPAP and standard care, and between HFNO and standard care. System integration ensures maintenance of balance between interventions. Randomisation is performed using a telephone-based interactive voice response system to maintain allocation concealment. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated using the minimisation method. Participant randomisation is stratified by site, gender (M/F), and age (<50, >=50 years). BLINDING (MASKING): The nature of the trial interventions precludes blinding of the researcher, patient and clinical team. Primary and secondary outcomes are all objective outcomes, thereby minimising the risk of detection bias. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): 4002 participants (1334 to be randomized to each of the three study arms) TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 4.0, 29th May 2020. Recruitment began on April 6, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 5, 2021. The trial has been awarded Urgent Public Health status by the National Institute of Health Research on 13th April 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN16912075. Registered 6th April 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16912075 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0, 29th May 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Eur Respir J ; 56(3)2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-649439

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many people are dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but consensus guidance on palliative care in COVID-19 is lacking. This new life-threatening disease has put healthcare systems under pressure, with the increased need of palliative care provided to many patients by clinicians who have limited prior experience in this field. Therefore, we aimed to make consensus recommendations for palliative care for patients with COVID-19 using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. METHODS: We invited 90 international experts to complete an online survey including stating their agreement, or not, with 14 potential recommendations. At least 70% agreement on directionality was needed to provide consensus recommendations. If consensus was not achieved on the first round, a second round was conducted. RESULTS: 68 (75.6%) experts responded in the first round. Most participants were experts in palliative care, respiratory medicine or critical care medicine. In the first round, consensus was achieved on 13 recommendations based upon indirect evidence and clinical experience. In the second round, 58 (85.3%) out of 68 of the first-round experts responded, resulting in consensus for the 14th recommendation. CONCLUSION: This multi-national task force provides consensus recommendations for palliative care for patients with COVID-19 concerning: advance care planning; (pharmacological) palliative treatment of breathlessness; clinician-patient communication; remote clinician-family communication; palliative care involvement in patients with serious COVID-19; spiritual care; psychosocial care; and bereavement care. Future studies are needed to generate empirical evidence for these recommendations.


Subject(s)
Advance Care Planning/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections , Palliative Care , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Psychosocial Support Systems , Respiratory Therapy/methods , Advisory Committees , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Europe , Humans , Palliative Care/methods , Palliative Care/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL