Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis (RECORDS): study protocol for a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial.

INTRODUCTION: Corticosteroids affect variably survival in sepsis trials, suggesting heterogeneity in patients' response to corticosteroids. The RECORDS (Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis) trial aimed at defining endotypes associated with adults with sepsis responsiveness to corticosteroids. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RECORDS, a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial, will randomly assign to a biomarker stratum 1800 adults with community-acquired pneumonia, vasopressor-dependent sepsis, septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome. In each stratum, patients will be randomly assigned to receive a 7-day course of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone or their placebos. Patients with COVID-19 will be treated with a 10-day standard course of dexamethasone and randomised to fludrocortisone or its placebo. Primary outcome will be 90-day death or persistent organ dysfunction. Large simulation study will be performed across a range of plausible scenarios to foresee power to detect a 5%-10% absolute difference with corticosteroids. We will assess subset-by-treatment interaction by estimating in a Bayesian framework two quantities: (1) measure of influence, relying on the value of the estimation of corticosteroids' effect in each subset, and (2) measure of interaction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Dijon, France), on 6 April 2020. Trial results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04280497).

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in COVID-19 Patients Admitted in Intensive Care Units: Relapse, Therapeutic Failure and Attributable Mortality-A Multicentric Observational Study from the OutcomeRea Network.

Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence is high among critically ill COVID-19 patients. Its attributable mortality remains underestimated, especially for unresolved episodes. Indeed, the impact of therapeutic failures and the determinants that potentially affect mortality are poorly evaluated. We assessed the prognosis of VAP in severe COVID-19 cases and the impact of relapse, superinfection, and treatment failure on 60-day mortality. Methods: We evaluated the incidence of VAP in a multicenter prospective cohort that included adult patients with severe COVID-19, who required mechanical ventilation for ≥48 h between March 2020 and June 2021. We investigated the risk factors for 30-day and 60-day mortality, and the factors associated with relapse, superinfection, and treatment failure. Results: Among 1424 patients admitted to eleven centers, 540 were invasively ventilated for 48 h or more, and 231 had VAP episodes, which were caused by Enterobacterales (49.8%), P. aeruginosa (24.8%), and S. aureus (22%). The VAP incidence rate was 45.6/1000 ventilator days, and the cumulative incidence at Day 30 was 60%. VAP increased the duration of mechanical ventilation without modifying the crude 60-day death rate (47.6% vs. 44.7% without VAP) and resulted in a 36% increase in death hazard. Late-onset pneumonia represented 179 episodes (78.2%) and was responsible for a 56% increase in death hazard. The cumulative incidence rates of relapse and superinfection were 45% and 39.5%, respectively, but did not impact death hazard. Superinfection was more frequently related to ECMO and first episode of VAP caused by non-fermenting bacteria. The risk factors for treatment failure were an absence of highly susceptible microorganisms and vasopressor need at VAP onset. Conclusions: The incidence of VAP, mainly late-onset episodes, is high in COVID-19 patients and associated with an increased risk of death, similar to that observed in other mechanically ventilated patients. The high rate of VAP due to difficult-to-treat microorganisms, pharmacokinetic alterations induced by renal replacement therapy, shock, and ECMO likely explains the high cumulative risk of relapse, superinfection, and treatment failure.

High-Dose Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The COVIDICUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated. Objectives: To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021. Interventions: Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation network organisation and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Greater Paris, France: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the Île-de-France region (henceforth termed Greater Paris), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was considered early in the COVID-19 pandemic. We report ECMO network organisation and outcomes during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: In this multicentre cohort study, we present an analysis of all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe ARDS requiring ECMO who were admitted to 17 Greater Paris intensive care units between March 8 and June 3, 2020. Central regulation for ECMO indications and pooling of resources were organised for the Greater Paris intensive care units, with six mobile ECMO teams available for the region. Details of complications (including ECMO-related complications, renal replacement therapy, and pulmonary embolism), clinical outcomes, survival status at 90 days after ECMO initiation, and causes of death are reported. Multivariable analysis was used to identify pre-ECMO variables independently associated with 90-day survival after ECMO. FINDINGS: The 302 patients included who underwent ECMO had a median age of 52 years (IQR 45-58) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II of 40 (31-56), and 235 (78%) of whom were men. 165 (55%) were transferred after cannulation by a mobile ECMO team. Before ECMO, 285 (94%) patients were prone positioned, median driving pressure was 18 cm H2O (14-21), and median ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen was 61 mm Hg (IQR 54-70). During ECMO, 115 (43%) of 270 patients had a major bleeding event, 27 of whom had intracranial haemorrhage; 130 (43%) of 301 patients received renal replacement therapy; and 53 (18%) of 294 had a pulmonary embolism. 138 (46%) patients were alive 90 days after ECMO. The most common causes of death were multiorgan failure (53 [18%] patients) and septic shock (47 [16%] patients). Shorter time between intubation and ECMO (odds ratio 0·91 [95% CI 0·84-0·99] per day decrease), younger age (2·89 [1·41-5·93] for ≤48 years and 2·01 [1·01-3·99] for 49-56 years vs ≥57 years), lower pre-ECMO renal component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0·67, 0·55-0·83 per point increase), and treatment in centres managing at least 30 venovenous ECMO cases annually (2·98 [1·46-6·04]) were independently associated with improved 90-day survival. There was no significant difference in survival between patients who had mobile and on-site ECMO initiation. INTERPRETATION: Beyond associations with similar factors to those reported on ECMO for non-COVID-19 ARDS, 90-day survival among ECMO-assisted patients with COVID-19 was strongly associated with a centre's experience in venovenous ECMO during the previous year. Early ECMO management in centres with a high venovenous ECMO case volume should be advocated, by applying centralisation and regulation of ECMO indications, which should also help to prevent a shortage of resources. FUNDING: None.

A low level of CD16pos monocytes in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients is a marker of severity.

OBJECTIVES: Severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are characterized by an excessive production of inflammatory cytokines. Activated monocytes secrete high levels of cytokines. Human monocytes are divided into three major populations: conventional (CD14posCD16neg), non-classical (CD14dimCD16pos), and intermediate (CD14posCD16pos) monocytes. The aim of this study was to analyze whether the distribution of conventional (CD16neg) and CD16pos monocytes is different in patients with COVID-19 and whether the variations could be predictive of the outcome of the disease. METHODS: We performed a prospective study on 390 consecutive patients referred to the Emergency Unit, with a proven diagnosis of SARS-CoV 2 infection by RT-PCR. Using the CytoDiff™ reagent, an automated routine leukocyte differential, we quantified CD16neg and CD16pos monocytes. RESULTS: In the entire population, median CD16neg and CD16pos monocyte levels (0.398 and 0.054×109/L, respectively) were in the normal range [(0.3-0.7×109/L) and (0.015-0.065×109/L), respectively], but the 35 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) had a significantly (p<0.001) lower CD16pos monocyte count (0.018 × 109/L) in comparison to the 70 patients who were discharged (0.064 × 109/L) or were hospitalized in conventional units (0.058 × 109/L). By ROC curve analysis, the ratio [absolute neutrophil count/CD16pos monocyte count] was highly discriminant to identify patients requiring ICU hospitalization: with a cut-off 193.1, the sensitivity and the specificity were 74.3 and 81.8%, respectively (area under the curve=0.817). CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of CD16pos monocytes and the ratio [absolute neutrophil count/CD16pos monocyte count] could constitute a marker of the severity of disease in COVID-19 patients.

BMI and pneumonia outcomes in critically ill covid-19 patients: An international multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have unveiled a relationship between the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and obesity. The aims of this multicenter retrospective cohort study were to disentangle the association of BMI and associated metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking status) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients admitted to intensive care units for COVID-19 in 21 centers (in Europe, Israel, and the United States) were enrolled in this study between February 19, 2020, and May 19, 2020. Primary and secondary outcomes were the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and 28-day mortality, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1,461 patients were enrolled; the median (interquartile range) age was 64 years (40.9-72.0); 73.2% of patients were male; the median BMI was 28.1 kg/m2 (25.4-32.3); a total of 1,080 patients (73.9%) required IMV; and the 28-day mortality estimate was 36.1% (95% CI: 33.0-39.5). An adjusted mixed logistic regression model showed a significant linear relationship between BMI and IMV: odds ratio = 1.27 (95% CI: 1.12-1.45) per 5 kg/m2 . An adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model showed a significant association between BMI and mortality, which was increased only in obesity class III (≥40; hazard ratio = 1.68 [95% CI: 1.06-2.64]). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill COVID-19 patients, a linear association between BMI and the need for IMV, independent of other metabolic risk factors, and a nonlinear association between BMI and mortality risk were observed.

Neutrophil Extracellular Traps in SARS-CoV2 Related Pneumonia in ICU Patients: The NETCOV2 Study.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a poorly understood disease involving a high inflammatory status. Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) have been described as a new pathway to contain infectious diseases but can also participate in the imbalance of the inflammatory and the coagulation systems. NETs could be a therapeutic target in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Consecutive patients with SARS-CoV2 related pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit were included in a prospective bicentric study. Neutrophil extracellular trap concentrations were quantified in whole blood samples at day-1 and day-3 by flow cytometry. The primary outcome was the association between the blood NET quantification at ICU admission and the number of days with refractory hypoxemia defined by a PaO2/FIO2 ratio ≤100 mmHg. Results: Among 181 patients admitted to the ICUs for acute respiratory failure related to SARS-CoV2 pneumonia, 58 were included in the analysis. Patients were 62 [54, 69] years old in median, mostly male (75.9%). The median number of days with severe hypoxemia was 4 [2, 6] days and day-28 mortality was 27.6% (n = 16). The blood level of NETs significantly decreased between day-1 and day-3 in patients who survived (59.5 [30.5, 116.6] to 47 [33.2, 62.4] p = 0.006; 8.6 [3.4, 18.0] to 4 [1.4, 10.7] p = 0.001 and 7.4 [4.0, 16.7] to 2.6 [1.0, 8.3] p = 0.001 for MPO+, Cit-H3+, and MPO+ Cit-H3+ NETs, respectively) while it remained stable in patients who died (38.4 [26.0, 54.8] to 44.5 [36.4, 77.7] p = 0.542; 4.9 [1.3, 13.0] to 5.5 [2.8, 6.9] p = 0.839 and 4 [1.3, 13.6] to 2.7 [1.4, 4.5] p = 0.421 for MPO+, Cit-H3+, and MPO+ Cit-H3+ NETs, respectively). In multivariable negative binomial regression, the blood level of MPO+ NETs was negatively associated with the number of days with severe hypoxemia within 7 days (0.84 [0.73, 0.97]), while neither Cit-H3+ NETs nor double-positive NETs were significantly associated with the primary outcome. Conclusion: The whole blood level of NETs at day-1 was negatively associated with the number of days with severe hypoxemia in patients admitted to the intensive care unit for SARS-CoV2 related pneumonia. The lack of decrease of the blood level of NETs between day-1 and day-3 discriminated patients who died within day-28.

Tocilizumab for Severe Worsening COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: High levels of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) correlate with disease severity in COVID-19. We hypothesized that tocilizumab (a recombinant humanized anti-IL-6 receptor) could improve outcomes in selected patients with severe worsening COVID-19 pneumonia and high inflammatory parameters. METHODS: The TOCICOVID study included a prospective cohort of patients aged 16-80 years with severe (requiring > 6 L/min of oxygen therapy to obtain Sp02 > 94%) rapidly deteriorating (increase by ≥ 3 L/min of oxygen flow within the previous 12 h) COVID-19 pneumonia with ≥ 5 days of symptoms and C-reactive protein levels > 40 mg/L. They entered a compassionate use program of treatment with intravenous tocilizumab (8 mg/kg with a maximum of 800 mg per infusion; and if needed a second infusion 24 to 72 h later). A control group was retrospectively selected with the same inclusion criteria. Outcomes were assessed at D28 using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) methodology. RESULTS: Among the 96 patients included (81% male, mean (SD) age: 60 (12.5) years), underlying conditions, baseline disease severity, and concomitant medications were broadly similar between the tocilizumab (n = 49) and the control (n = 47) groups. In the IPTW analysis, treatment with tocilizumab was associated with a reduced need for overall ventilatory support (49 vs. 89%, wHR: 0.39 [0.25-0.56]; p < 0.001). Albeit lacking statistical significance, there was a substantial trend towards a reduction of mechanical ventilation (31% vs. 45%; wHR: 0.58 [0.36-0.94]; p = 0.026). However, tocilizumab did not improve overall survival (wHR = 0.68 [0.31-1.748], p = 0.338). Among the 85 (89%) patients still alive at D28, patients treated with tocilizumab had a higher rate of oxygen withdrawal (82% vs. 73.5%, wHR = 1.66 [1.17-2.37], p = 0.005), with a shorter delay before being weaned of oxygen therapy (mean 11 vs. 16 days; p < 0.001). At D28, the rate of patients discharged from hospital was higher in the tocilizumab group (70% vs. 40%, wHR = 1.82 [1.22-2.75]; p = 0.003). The levels of CRP and fibrinogen post therapy (p < 0.001 for both variables) were significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (interaction test, mixed model). Rates of neutropenia (35% vs. 0%; p < 0.001) were higher in the tocilizumab group, yet rates of infections (22% vs. 38%, p = 0.089) including ventilator-acquired pneumonia (8% vs. 26%, p = 0.022) were higher in the control group. CONCLUSION: These data could be helpful for the design of future trials aiming to counter COVID-19-induced inflammation, especially before patients require admission to the intensive care unit.

Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales outbreak: Another dark side of COVID-19.

In the hospital department dedicated to COVID-19-patient, infection prevention and control measures were upgraded. Therefore, the cross-transmission of other micro-organisms was thought unlikely to occur. However, we report an outbreak of NDM-5-producing Escherichia. coli in a 12-beds ICU dedicated to COVID-19 patients. This outbreak involved 6 patients of which 5 were asymptomatic carriers and 1 was infected. Several findings might have contributed to cross-transmission including the multiple-bedroom configuration of the department, uncomplete compliance for standard and contact precautions, overwork due to the burden of the disease, lack of training of staff for the care of ICU-patients, and misuse of gloves. Furthermore, as infection prevention and control measures were thought to be applied, contact patients were not screened for eXDR carriage. Applying rigorously standard and contact precautions and performing screening in contact patients when indicated must be the rules in COVID-19 wards.