Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Randomized controlled phase 2 trial of hydroxychloroquine in childhood interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: No results of controlled trials are available for any of the few treatments offered to children with interstitial lung diseases (chILD). We evaluated hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in a phase 2, prospective, multicentre, 1:1-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group/crossover trial. HCQ (START arm) or placebo were given for 4 weeks. Then all subjects received HCQ for another 4 weeks. In the STOP arm subjects already taking HCQ were randomized to 12 weeks of HCQ or placebo (= withdrawal of HCQ). Then all subjects stopped treatment and were observed for another 12 weeks. RESULTS: 26 subjects were included in the START arm, 9 in the STOP arm, of these four subjects participated in both arms. The primary endpoint, presence or absence of a response to treatment, assessed as oxygenation (calculated from a change in transcutaneous O2-saturation of ≥ 5%, respiratory rate ≥ 20% or level of respiratory support), did not differ between placebo and HCQ groups. Secondary endpoints including change of O2-saturation ≥ 3%, health related quality of life, pulmonary function and 6-min-walk-test distance, were not different between groups. Finally combining all placebo and all HCQ treatment periods did not identify significant treatment effects. Overall effect sizes were small. HCQ was well tolerated, adverse events were not different between placebo and HCQ. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging important shortcomings of the study, including a small study population, the treatment duration, lack of outcomes like lung function testing below age of 6 years, the small effect size of HCQ treatment observed requires careful reassessments of prescriptions in everyday practice (EudraCT-Nr.: 2013-003714-40, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu , registered 02.07.2013). Registration The study was registered on 2 July 2013 (Eudra-CT Number: 2013-003714-40), whereas the approval by BfArM was received 24.11.2014, followed by the approval by the lead EC of the University Hospital Munich on 20.01.2015. At clinicaltrials.gov the trial was additionally registered on November 8, 2015 (NCT02615938).