The Impact of COVID-19 on the Clinical Practices, Working Environment, and Social Life of Intensivists in Non-COVID ICU

Purpose Enlightening the changes in the usual clinical practices, working environment, and social life of Intensivists working in noncoronavirus disease intensive care units (non-COVID ICU) during the COVID pandemic. Materials and methods Observational cross-sectional study for Indian intensivists working in non-COVID ICUs conducted between July and September 2021. A 16-question online survey consisting of the work and social profile of the participating intensivists, changes in the usual clinical practices, working environment, and impact on their social life was administered. For the last three sections, intensivists were asked to compare pandemic times to prepandemic times (pre-mid-March 2020). Results The number of invasive interventions performed by intensivists working in the private sector with lesser clinical experience (<12 years) were significantly less as compared to the government sector (p = 0.07) and clinically experienced (p = 0.07). Intensivists without comorbidities performed significantly lesser number of patient examinations (p = 0.03). The cooperation from healthcare workers (HCWs) decreased significantly with lesser experienced intensivists (p = 0.05). Leaves were significantly reduced in case of private sector intensivists (p = 0.06). Lesser experienced intensivists (p = 0.06) and intensivists working in the private sector (p = 0.06) spent significantly lesser time with family. Conclusion Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) affected the non-COVID ICUs as well. Young and private sector intensivists were affected due to less leaves and family time. HCWs need proper training for better cooperation during the pandemic time. How to cite this article Ghatak T, Singh RK, Kumar A, Patnaik R, Sanjeev OP, Verma A, et al. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Clinical Practices, Working Environment, and Social Life of Intensivists in Non-COVID ICU. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):816–824.

Antibody response to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield®) vaccine in people on maintenance hemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: People on renal replacement therapy (RRT) have a high risk of COVID-19 infection and subsequent death. COVID-19 vaccination is strongly recommended for those on RRT. Data are limited on the immune response of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222 (Covishield®) vaccine in patients on RRT. METHODS: A prospective cohort of adult (age > 18 years), on RRT in the form of hemodialysis were included and received two intramuscular doses of Covishield®. A blood specimen of 5.0 mL was collected at two time points, within a few days before administering the first dose of the vaccine and at 4-16 weeks after the second dose. According to their prior COVID-19 infection status, the participants were grouped as (i) prior symptomatic COVID-19 infection, (ii) prior asymptomatic COVID-19 infection, and (iii) no prior COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: A large proportion (81%) of participants had anti-spike antibodies (ASAb) before vaccination, and a reasonable proportion (30%) also had neutralizing antibodies (NAb). The titer of ASAb was relatively low (207 U/mL) before vaccination. The ASAb titer (9405 [1635-25,000] U/mL) and percentage of NAb (96.4% [59.6-98.1%]) were markedly increased following the administration of two doses of the vaccine. The participants' prior COVID-19 exposure status did not influence the rise in ASAb titer and NAb percentage. Further, administering two doses of the Covishield vaccine helps them achieve a high ASAb titer. CONCLUSION: Two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222 (Covishield®) vaccine, given 12 weeks apart, achieve a high titer of ASAb and a high percentage of NAb in people on hemodialysis.

Durability of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield®) Vaccine Induced Antibody Response in Health Care Workers.

(i) Background: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield®) vaccine is widely used in India. We studied the Covishield® induced antibody response and its durability among health care workers (HCWs) (ii) Method: HCWs received two doses (0.5 mL) four weeks apart. Blood specimens, collected before each dose, day (D)60, D150 and D270 after second dose, were tested for anti-spike antibody (ASAb) titre and neutralising antibody (%) (NAb) using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche) and SARS-CoV-2 NAb ELISA Kit (Invitrogen), respectively. Data are expressed as proportions and median (interquartile range) and compared using non-parametric (iii) Result: Among 135 HCWs (83 males; age 45 (37−53); 36 had pre-existing ASAb), 29 (21.5%) acquired COVID-19 after 60 (39−68) days of vaccination. ASAb titre before second dose and at D60, D150, D270 were 77.2 (19.4−329.4), 512 (114.5−9212), 149 (51.6−2283) and 2079 (433.9−8644) U/mL, respectively. Compared to those without pre-existing ASAb, titres were significantly higher before second dose (5929 vs. 41, p < 0.001), D60 (3395 vs. 234, p = 0.007) and D150 (1805 vs. 103, p < 0.001) in participants with pre-existing ASAb; NAb were also higher (80 vs. 18, p < 0.001) before second dose. Between those who acquired infection or not after vaccination, ASAb titres were comparable before second dose (77 vs. 78, p = 0.362) but significantly higher at D60 (14,019 vs. 317, p < 0.001) and D150 (2062 vs. 121, p = 0.002) in the former group, though NAb percentage were higher at D60 (87 vs. 27, p < 0.001) and D150 (79 vs. 25, p = 0.007) only (iv) Conclusions: Covishield® induces a higher antibody titre in those with pre-existing ASAb. The vaccine induced antibody starts falling 5 months after vaccination.

Serological Immune Response Following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine (Covishield®) in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis.

INTRODUCTION: Data are limited on antibody response to the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222; Covishield®) in cirrhosis. We studied the antibody response following two doses of the ChAdOx1 vaccine, given 4-12 weeks apart, in cirrhosis. METHODS: Prospectively enrolled, 131 participants (71% males; age 50 (43-58); alcohol-related etiology 14, hepatitis B 33, hepatitis C 46, cryptogenic 21, autoimmune 9, others 8; Child-Turcott-Pugh class A/B/C 52/63/16). According to dose intervals, the participants were grouped as ≤6 weeks (group I), 7-12 weeks (group II), and 13-36 weeks (group III). Blood specimens collected at ≥4 weeks after the second dose were tested for anti-spike antibody titre (ASAb; positive ≥ 0.80 U/mL) and neutralizing antibody (NAb; positive ≥20% neutralization) using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche) and SARS-CoV-2 NAb ELISA Kit (Invitrogen), respectively. Data are expressed as number (proportion) and median (interquartile range) and compared using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Overall, 99.2% and 84% patients developed ASAb (titre 5440 (1719-9980 U/mL)) and NAb (92 (49.1-97.6%)), respectively. When comparing between the study groups, the ASAb titres were significantly higher in group II than in group I (2613 (310-7518) versus 6365 (2968-9463), p = 0.027) but were comparable between group II and III (6365 (2968-9463) versus 5267 (1739-11,653), p = 0.999). Similarly, NAb was higher in group II than in group I (95.5 (57.6-98.0) versus 45.9 (15.4-92.0); p < 0.001), but not between the groups II and III (95.5 (57.6-98.0) versus 92.4 (73.8-97.5); p = 0.386). CONCLUSION: Covishield® induces high titres of ASAb and NAb in cirrhosis. A higher titre is achieved if two doses are given at an interval of more than six weeks.

Association of hyperglycaemia at-admission & diabetes mellitus with 28 day mortality in patients admitted with moderate-severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective study.

Background & objectives: The association between hyperglycaemia at admission, diabetes mellitus (DM) status and mortality in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 infected patients is not clear. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between DM, at-admission hyperglycaemia and 28 day mortality in patients admitted with moderate-severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring intensive care. Methods: All consecutive moderate-to-severe patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) over six months were enrolled in this single-centre, retrospective study. The predicators for 28 day mortality were analysed from the independent variables including DM status and hyperglycaemia at-admission. Results: Four hundred and fifty two patients with SARS-CoV-2 were admitted to the ICU, with a mean age of 58.5±13.4 yr, 78.5 per cent being male, HbA1c of 7.2 per cent (6.3-8.8) and 63.7 per cent having DM. Overall, 28 day mortality was 48.9 per cent. In univariate analysis, mortality in diabetes patients was comparable with non-diabetes (47.9 vs. 50.6%, P=0.58), while it was significantly higher in hyperglycaemic group (60.4 vs. 35.8%, P<0.001). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, after adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities, hyperglycaemia at-admission was an independent risk factor of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06-1.99), P<0.05]. Interpretation & conclusions: This study showed that the presence of hyperglycaemia at-admission in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients was an independent predictor of 28 day mortality. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and more research from prospective studies is required.

Antibody Response to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are at a much higher risk of complications and death following COVID-19 and are poor vaccine responders. The data are limited on the immune response to Covishield® in KTRs. We prospectively recruited a cohort of 67 KTRs aged >18 between April 2021 and December 2021. Each participant was given two intramuscular doses of Covishield®, each of 0.5 mL, at an interval of 12 weeks. A blood specimen of 5.0 mL was collected from each participant at two points within a few days before administering the first dose of the vaccine and at any time between 4-12 weeks after administering the second dose. The sera were tested for anti-RBD antibody (ARAb) titre and neutralising antibody (NAb). An ACE2 competition assay was used as a proxy for virus neutralization. According to the prior COVID-19 infection, participants were grouped as (i) group A: prior symptomatic COVID-19 infection, (ii) group B: prior asymptomatic COVID-19 infection as evidenced by detectable ARAb in the prevaccination specimen, (iii) Group C: no prior infection with COVID-19, (iv) group D: Unclassified, i.e., participants had no symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, but their prevaccination specimen was not available for ARAb testing before vaccination. Fifty of sixty-seven participants (74.6%) provided paired specimens (group A 14, group B 27, and group C 9) and 17 participants (25.4%) provided only postvaccination specimens (group D). In the overall cohort (n = 67), 91% and 77.6% of participants developed ARAb and NAb, respectively. Their ARAb titre and NAb proportion were 2927 (520-7124) U/mL and 87.9 (24.4-93.2) %, respectively. Their median ARAb titre increased 65.6 folds, from 38.2 U/mL to 3137 U/mL. Similarly, the proportion of participants with NAb increased from 56% to 86%, and the NAb proportion raised 2.7 folds, from 23% to 91%. A comparison of vaccine response between the study groups showed that all those with or without prior COVID-19 infection showed a significant rise in ARAb titre (p < 0.05) and NAb proportion (p < 0.05) after the two doses of vaccine administration. The median value of folds rise in anti-RBD and NAb between groups A and B were comparable. Hence, ARAb is present in more than 3/4th of KTRs before the ChAdOx1 vaccine in India. The titer of ARAb and the proportion of NAb significantly increased after the two doses of the ChAdOx1 vaccine in KTRs.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Clinical Practices, Working Environment, and Social Life of Intensivists in Non-COVID ICU.

Purpose: Enlightening the changes in the usual clinical practices, working environment, and social life of Intensivists working in noncoronavirus disease intensive care units (non-COVID ICU) during the COVID pandemic. Materials and methods: Observational cross-sectional study for Indian intensivists working in non-COVID ICUs conducted between July and September 2021. A 16-question online survey consisting of the work and social profile of the participating intensivists, changes in the usual clinical practices, working environment, and impact on their social life was administered. For the last three sections, intensivists were asked to compare pandemic times to prepandemic times (pre-mid-March 2020). Results: The number of invasive interventions performed by intensivists working in the private sector with lesser clinical experience (<12 years) were significantly less as compared to the government sector (p = 0.07) and clinically experienced (p = 0.07). Intensivists without comorbidities performed significantly lesser number of patient examinations (p = 0.03). The cooperation from healthcare workers (HCWs) decreased significantly with lesser experienced intensivists (p = 0.05). Leaves were significantly reduced in case of private sector intensivists (p = 0.06). Lesser experienced intensivists (p = 0.06) and intensivists working in the private sector (p = 0.06) spent significantly lesser time with family. Conclusion: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) affected the non-COVID ICUs as well. Young and private sector intensivists were affected due to less leaves and family time. HCWs need proper training for better cooperation during the pandemic time. How to cite this article: Ghatak T, Singh RK, Kumar A, Patnaik R, Sanjeev OP, Verma A, et al. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Clinical Practices, Working Environment, and Social Life of Intensivists in Non-COVID ICU. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):816-824.

A questionnaire-based study on quality and adequacy of clinical communication between physician and family members of admitted Covid-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess adequacy of present means of clinical communication between physicians and (Covid-19) patients' family members, to analyse their perspectives and recommend felicitous practices for virtual conversation during ongoing pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based (20 questions) anonymous online survey was conducted including patient's relatives (Group-1) and treating physicians (Group-2), through Google Forms. RESULTS: Response Rate was 82.5%. Group-1 and Group-2 included 155 and 204 respondents respectively. Group-1 preferred update by resident doctors (39%), twice a day (41.9%), daily case-summaries (80%) and hand-written document/electronic messages (53%,31%) as consent. Whereas Group-2 favored update by senior consultants (63%), daily one appraisal (55.9%) and scanned copies of hand written consent (81%) before high-risk procedures. The groups broadly agreed on the desired duration for a fruitful discussion (5-10 min) and designating one responsible person from the family for daily appraisal. CONCLUSION: Use of modern techniques/technologies of communication (voice/video calls, texts) during the ongoing pandemic is acceptable to majority. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Study proposes a senior physician should communicate to a designated responsible family member at-least once a day for stable and twice a day for critical covid patients (more if patient's health condition changes), either by voice or video calls for 5-10 min.

Non-COVID Surgical Emergency During the Nationwide Lockdown due to Corona Pandemic: a Critical Appraisal

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared corona infection as a pandemic in February 2020. A nationwide lockdown was enforced by Indian government on 25 March 2020. Separate health facilities were developed to handle the confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease). Other than emergency services and care of cancer patients, all remaining healthcare activities were curtailed. Through this study, we intend to assess any change in number and pattern of non-COVID surgical emergencies during the lockdown as well as the interventions required. This was an observational study which included all patients with surgical emergencies who presented during the study period (25 March to 24 April 2020) after two stage screenings for corona infection (group 2). The results obtained from analysis of prospectively collected database were compared with a similar period (group 1) prior to the onset of pandemic in India using appropriate statistical tests. In group 2, an increase (17%) in number of patients was noted. The need of organ support was more than 4 times the usual period. An upsurge in neurosurgical emergencies was noted, though the number of interventions decreased by 40%. A significant decrease in hospital stay was also documented (7 days vs 12 days). The nationwide lockdown led to an increase and change in pattern of surgical emergencies, though the interventions required were less. Effective management entails appropriate preparedness.