Subjective sleep quality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Brazilian rural population.

OBJECTIVES: Prior studies have examined sleep during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but have few compared sleep measured both during and prior to COVID. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on subjective sleep quality in general and separately by gender and age (<50 vs. ≥50 years). Further, we compared sleep quality between those who did and did not follow quarantine orders. METHODS: This sample is from the Baependi Heart Study, a family-based cohort of adults in South-eastern Brazil. Longitudinal data were from 417 individuals who completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) twice: between January 2010 and September 2014 (pre-COVID) and during the COVID-19 stay-at-home order March-June, 2020. Cross-sectional analysis included 800 participants. RESULTS: Mean (±SD) PSQI scores were significantly higher during than before COVID-19 (5.7 ± 3.8 vs. 5.0 ± 3.3, p < .01). This increase was significant among women and among adults ≥50 years but not in men or younger adults. The significant increase in PSQI was only observed in those who quarantined during COVID-19 (5.9 ±3.7 vs. 5.2 ±3.4, p < .01) and not those who did not quarantine (5.0 ± 3.7 vs. 4.5 ± 3, p = .12). In cross-sectional analyses, individuals who quarantined had higher PSQI scores than nonquarantined individuals (6.1 ± 3.9 vs. 5.0 ± 3.5, p < .01). The quarantine status-dependent differences were significant for women (6.4 ± 4 vs. 5.2 ± 3.7, p < .01) and older adults (6.6 ± 0.1 vs. 5.5 ± 3.3, p = .04). Differences by quarantine status were attenuated after adjusting for age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective sleep quality declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among women, older adults, and those compliant to quarantine orders.

Timing to Intubation COVID-19 Patients: Can We Put It Off until Tomorrow?

BACKGROUND: The decision to intubate COVID-19 patients receiving non-invasive respiratory support is challenging, requiring a fine balance between early intubation and risks of invasive mechanical ventilation versus the adverse effects of delaying intubation. This present study analyzes the association between intubation day and mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We performed a unicentric retrospective cohort study considering all COVID-19 patients consecutively admitted between March 2020 and August 2020 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after intubation, and a Cox model was used to evaluate the effect of time from onset of symptoms to intubation in mortality. RESULTS: A total of 592 (20%) patients of 3020 admitted with COVID-19 were intubated during study period, and 310 patients who were intubated deceased 28 days after intubation. Each additional day between the onset of symptoms and intubation was significantly associated with higher in-hospital death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.018; 95% CI, 1.005-1.03). CONCLUSION: Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were intubated and mechanically ventilated, delaying intubation in the course of symptoms may be associated with higher mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was approved by the local Ethics Committee (opinion number 3.990.817; CAAE: 30417520.0.0000.0068).

Distinct Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients with Positive or Negative RT-PCR Test.

Identification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab sample is a common test for diagnosing COVID-19. However, some patients present clinical, laboratorial, and radiological evidence of COVID-19 infection with negative RT-PCR result(s). Thus, we assessed whether positive results were associated with intubation and mortality. This study was conducted in a Brazilian tertiary hospital from March to August of 2020. All patients had clinical, laboratory, and radiological diagnosis of COVID-19. They were divided into two groups: positive (+) RT-PCR group, with 2292 participants, and negative (-) RT-PCR group, with 706 participants. Patients with negative RT-PCR testing and an alternative most probable diagnosis were excluded from the study. The RT-PCR(+) group presented increased risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and 28-day mortality, when compared to the RT-PCR(-) group. A positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result was independently associated with intubation and 28 day in-hospital mortality. Accordingly, we concluded that patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis based on clinical data, despite a negative RT-PCR test from nasopharyngeal samples, presented more favorable outcomes than patients with positive RT-PCR test(s).

Endothelial injury in COVID-19 and septic patients.

Systemic inflammatory response, as observed in sepsis and severe COVID-19, may lead to endothelial damage. Therefore, we aim to compare the extent of endothelial injury and its relationship to inflammation in both diseases. We included patients diagnosed with sepsis (SEPSIS group, n = 21), mild COVID-19 (MILD group, n = 31), and severe COVID-19 (SEVERE group, n = 24). Clinical and routine laboratory data were obtained, circulating cytokines (INF-γ, TNF-α, and IL-10) and endothelial injury markers (E-Selectin, Tissue Factor (TF) and von Willebrand factor (vWF)) were measured. Compared to the SEPSIS group, patients with severe COVID-19 present similar clinical and laboratory data, except for lower circulating IL-10 and E-Selectin levels. Compared to the MILD group, patients in the SEVERE group showed higher levels of TNF-α, IL-10, and TF. There was no clear relationship between cytokines and endothelial injury markers among the three studied groups; however, in SEVERE COVID-19 patients, there is a positive relationship between INF-γ with TF and a negative relationship between IL-10 and vWF. In conclusion, COVID-19 and septic patients have a similar pattern of cytokines and endothelial dysfunction markers. These findings highlight the importance of endothelium dysfunction in COVID-19 and suggest that endothelium should be better evaluated as a therapeutic target for the disease.

Lower peripheral blood Toll-like receptor 3 expression is associated with an unfavorable outcome in severe COVID-19 patients.

The role of innate immunity in COVID-19 is not completely understood. Therefore, this study explored the impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on the expression of Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs) in peripheral blood cells and their correlated cytokines. Seventy-nine patients with severe COVID-19 on admission, according to World Health Organization (WHO) classification, were divided into two groups: patients who needed mechanical ventilation and/or deceased (SEVERE, n = 50) and patients who used supplementary oxygen but not mechanical ventilation and survived (MILD, n = 29); a control group (CONTROL, n = 17) was also enrolled. In the peripheral blood, gene expression (mRNA) of Toll-like receptors (TLRs) 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, retinoic-acid inducible gene I (RIGI), NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3), interferon alpha (IFN-α), interferon beta (IFN-ß), interferon gamma (IFN-γ), interferon lambda (IFN-λ), pro-interleukin(IL)-1ß (pro-IL-1ß), and IL-18 was determined on admission, between 5-9 days, and between 10-15 days. Circulating cytokines in plasma were also measured. When compared to the COVID-19 MILD group, the COVID-19 SEVERE group had lower expression of TLR3 and overexpression of TLR4.

Mortality and other outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease pneumonia admitted to the emergency department: A prospective observational Brazilian study.

BACKGROUND: The first cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Brazil were diagnosed in February 2020. Our Emergency Department (ED) was designated as a COVID-19 exclusive service. We report our first 500 confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia patients. METHODS: From 14 March to 16 May 2020, we enrolled all patients admitted to our ED that had a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Infection was confirmed via nasopharyngeal swabs or tracheal aspirate PCR. The outcomes included hospital discharge, invasive mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital death, among others. RESULTS: From 2219 patients received in the ED, we included 506 with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. We found that 333 patients were discharged home (65.9%), 153 died (30.2%), and 20 (3.9%) remained in the hospital. A total of 300 patients (59.3%) required ICU admission, and 227 (44.9%) needed invasive ventilation. The multivariate analysis found age, number of comorbidities, extension of ground glass opacities on chest CT and troponin with a direct relationship with all-cause mortality, whereas dysgeusia, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-ii receptor blocker and number of lymphocytes with an inverse relationship with all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This was a sample of severe patients with COVID-19, with 59.2% admitted to the ICU and 41.5% requiring mechanical ventilator support. We were able to ascertain the outcome in majority (96%) of patients. While the overall mortality was 30.2%, mortality for intubated patients was 55.9%. Multivariate analysis agreed with data found in other studies although the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-ii receptor blocker as a protective factor could be promising but would need further studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Brazilian registry of clinical trials: RBR-5d4dj5.

Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial With N-acetylcysteine for Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: A local increase in angiotensin 2 after inactivation of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may induce a redox imbalance in alveolar epithelium cells, causing apoptosis, increased inflammation and, consequently, impaired gas exchange. We hypothesized that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) administration could restore this redox homeostasis and suppress unfavorable evolution in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-center trial conducted at the Emergency Department of Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil, to determine whether NAC in high doses can avoid respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. We enrolled 135 patients with severe COVID-19 (confirmed or suspected), with an oxyhemoglobin saturation <94% or respiratory rate >24 breaths/minute. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 21 g (~300 mg/kg) for 20 hours or dextrose 5%. The primary endpoint was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary endpoints were time of mechanical ventilation, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), time in ICU, and mortality. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups, with no significant differences in age, sex, comorbidities, medicines taken, and disease severity. Also, groups were similar in laboratory tests and chest computed tomography scan findings. Sixteen patients (23.9%) in the placebo group received endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, compared with 14 patients (20.6%) in the NAC group (P = .675). No difference was observed in secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of NAC in high doses did not affect the evolution of severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC): U1111-1250-356 (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8969zg/).