Impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain structures: data from French national survey.

Aims: The authors evaluated the impact of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave on French chronic pain structures (CPS). Methods: An online survey assessed CPS resource allocation, workflow and perceived impact on patient care. Results: All CPS workflow was severely impacted by the reallocation of 42% of specialists. In-person appointments were cancelled by 72% of participants. Follow-up was maintained in 91% of participants (telemedicine). Skills in end-of-life decision-making/counseling were rarely solicited. The perceived impact of the crisis on the experience of patients was high (eight out of ten), with a significant increase in access-to-care delay. Conclusion: CPS maintained patient follow-up. Special features of CPS specialists were rarely solicited by COVID-19 teams experiencing a high workload. Recommendations on optimal CPS resource reallocations have to be standardized in crisis conditions.

A retrospective comparison of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza mortality and outcomes in the ICUs of a French university hospital.

BACKGROUND: SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) has become a major worldwide health concern since its appearance in China at the end of 2019. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intrinsic mortality and burden of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza pneumonia in ICUs in the city of Lyon, France. DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: Six ICUs in a single institution in Lyon, France. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted to an ICU with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia from 27 February to 4 April 2020 (COVID-19 group) and seasonal influenza pneumonia from 1 November 2015 to 30 April 2019 (influenza group). A total of 350 patients were included in the COVID-19 group (18 refused to consent) and 325 in the influenza group (one refused to consent). Diagnosis was confirmed by RT-PCR. Follow-up was completed on 1 April 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Differences in 90-day adjusted-mortality between the COVID-19 and influenza groups were evaluated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients were younger, mostly men and had a higher median BMI, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive condition or respiratory history were less frequent. In univariate analysis, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding in-ICU mortality, 30, 60 and 90-day mortality. After Cox modelling adjusted on age, sex, BMI, cancer, sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, simplified acute physiology score SAPS II score, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and myocardial infarction, the probability of death associated with COVID-19 was significantly higher in comparison to seasonal influenza [hazard ratio 1.57, 95% CI (1.14 to 2.17); P = 0.006]. The clinical course and morbidity profile of both groups was markedly different; COVID-19 patients had less severe illness at admission (SAPS II score, 37 [28 to 48] vs. 48 [39 to 61], P < 0.001 and SOFA score, 4 [2 to 8] vs. 8 [5 to 11], P < 0.001), but the disease was more severe considering ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, PEEP level and prone positioning requirement. CONCLUSION: After ICU admission, COVID-19 was associated with an increased risk of death compared with seasonal influenza. Patient characteristics, clinical course and morbidity profile of these diseases is markedly different.

Association between voriconazole exposure and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in critically ill patients.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is essential for voriconazole to ensure optimal drug exposure, mainly in critically ill patients for whom voriconazole demonstrated a large variability. The study aimed at describing factors associated with trough voriconazole concentrations in critically ill patients and evaluating the impact of voriconazole concentrations on adverse effects. A 2-year retrospective multicenter cohort study (NCT04502771) was conducted in six intensive care units. Adult patients who had at least one voriconazole TDM were included. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of voriconazole concentrations, and univariable logistic regression analysis, to study the relationship between voriconazole concentrations and adverse effects. During the 2-year study period, 70 patients were included. Optimal trough voriconazole concentrations were reported in 37 patients (52.8%), subtherapeutic in 20 (28.6%), and supratherapeutic in 13 (18.6%). Adverse effects were reported in six (8.6%) patients. SOFA score was identified as a factor associated with an increase in voriconazole concentration (p = 0.025), mainly in the group of patients who had SOFA score ≥ 10. Moreover, an increase in voriconazole concentration was shown to be a risk factor for occurrence of adverse effects (p = 0.011). In that respect, critically ill patients who received voriconazole treatment must benefit from a TDM, particularly if they have a SOFA score ≥ 10. Indeed, identifying patients who are overdosed will help to prevent voriconazole related adverse effects. This result is of utmost importance given the recognized COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis in ICU patients for whom voriconazole is among the recommended first-line treatment.

Open-label randomized controlled trial of ultra-low tidal ventilation without extracorporeal circulation in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate to severe ARDS: study protocol for the VT4COVID trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe complication of COVID-19 pneumonia, with a mortality rate amounting to 34-50% in moderate and severe ARDS, and is associated with prolonged duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Such as in non-COVID ARDS, harmful mechanical ventilation settings might be associated with worse outcomes. Reducing the tidal volume down to 4 mL kg-1 of predicted body weight (PBW) to provide ultra-low tidal volume ventilation (ULTV) is an appealing technique to minimize ventilator-inducted lung injury. Furthermore, in the context of a worldwide pandemic, it does not require any additional material and consumables and may be applied in low- to middle-income countries. We hypothesized that ULTV without extracorporeal circulation is a credible option to reduce COVID-19-related ARDS mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: The VT4COVID study is a randomized, multi-centric prospective open-labeled, controlled superiority trial. Adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit with COVID-19-related mild to severe ARDS defined by a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 150 mmHg under invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 48 h, and consent to participate to the study will be eligible. Patients will be randomized into two balanced parallels groups, at a 1:1 ratio. The control group will be ventilated with protective ventilation settings (tidal volume 6 mL kg-1 PBW), and the intervention group will be ventilated with ULTV (tidal volume 4 mL kg-1 PBW). The primary outcome is a composite score based on 90-day all-cause mortality as a prioritized criterion and the number of ventilator-free days at day 60 after inclusion. The randomization list will be stratified by site of recruitment and generated using random blocks of sizes 4 and 6. Data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this manuscript is to provide primary publication of study protocol to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency. Enrollment of patients in the study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349618 . Registered on April 16, 2020.