Statistical analysis plan for the replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients (REPLENISH) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal amount and timing of protein intake in critically ill patients are unknown. REPLENISH (Replacing Protein via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial evaluates whether supplemental enteral protein added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein given from ICU day five until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients will be randomized to receive supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein (range of 2-2.4 g/kg/day) or no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day). The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality; other outcomes include functional and health-related quality-of-life assessments at 90 days. The study sample size of 2502 patients will have 80% power to detect a 5% absolute risk reduction in 90-day mortality from 30 to 25%. Consistent with international guidelines, this statistical analysis plan specifies the methods for evaluating primary and secondary outcomes and subgroups. Applying this statistical analysis plan to the REPLENISH trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data. CONCLUSION: Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (RC19/414/R). Approvals were also obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be disseminated in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Saudi expert consensus on acquired hemophilia A diagnosis and management.

Objectives: Acquired hemophilia affects approximately one in 1 million people. Timely diagnosis is key to appropriate disease management and the prevention of life-threatening complications. Patients with this condition may initially be seen by inexperienced physicians and remain underdiagnosed for several years. This consensus statement is aimed at providing guidelines for all practitioners in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to diagnose and manage acquired hemophilia A. Methods: This consensus statement reflects the opinions drafted by a group of hematology specialists, who used an explicit systematic process to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Results: This consensus statement provides a guide for all practitioners in the KSA regarding the diagnosis of clinical presentation, relevance, characteristics of bleeding symptoms, and case management; it additionally provides guidance for non-specialists. All management aspects, including diagnosis and treatment modalities, are discussed. Conclusions: Patients with acquired hemophilia may initially be seen by physicians who lack appropriate expertise in diagnosing and managing this condition. This consensus statement from the premier experts on the disease in the KSA provides details for diagnosing and managing acquired hemophilia.

Diagnostic accuracy of ePOS score in predicting DNR labeling after ICU admission: A prospective observational study (ePOS-DNR).

Background: Resuscitation can sometimes be futile and making a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision is in the best interest of the patient. The electronic poor outcome screening (ePOS) score was developed to predict 6-month poor outcomes of critically ill patients. We explored the diagnostic accuracy of the ePOS score in predicting DNR decisions in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This study was conducted at the ICU of a tertiary referral hospital in Saudi Arabia between March and May 2023. Prospectively, we calculated ePOS scores for all eligible consecutive admissions after 48 h in the ICU and recorded the DNR orders. The ability of the score to predict DNR was explored using logistic regression. Youden's ideal cut-off value was calculated using the DeLong method, and different diagnostic accuracy measures were generated with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We enrolled 857 patients, 125 received a DNR order and 732 did not. The average ePOS score of DNR and non-DNR patients was 28.2±10.7 and 15.2±9.7, respectively. ePOS score, as a predictor of DNR order, had an area under receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve of 81.8 % (95% CI: 79.0 to 84.3, P <0.001). Youden's ideal cut-off value >17 was associated with a sensitivity of 87.2 (95% CI: 80.0 to 92.5, P <0.001), specificity of 63.9 (95% CI: 60.3 to 67.4, P <0.001), positive predictive value of 29.2 (95% CI: 24.6 to 33.8, P <0.001), negative predictive value of 96.7 (95% CI: 95.1 to 98.3, P <0.001), and diagnostic odds ratio 12.1 (95% CI: 7.0 to 20.8, P <0.001). Conclusions: In this study, the ePOS score performed well as a diagnostic test for patients who will be labeled as DNR during their ICU stay. A cut-off score >17 may help guide clinical decisions to withhold or commence resuscitative measures.

The relationship between asymptomatic atherosclerosis and hepcidin-25 in chronic kidney disease patients.

BACKGROUND: The most common and lethal consequence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The persistent inflammation present in CKD increases hepcidin levels. Iron accumulates in the arterial wall in atherosclerosis. Hepcidin-25 was thought to accelerate the development of atherosclerotic plaques by blocking iron release from macrophages. Therefore, we sought to determine the relationship between hepcidin-25 and asymptomatic atherosclerosis in non-dialysis CKD patients. OBJECTIVES: Investigate the relationship between hepcidin-25 and subclinical atherosclerosis in non-dialysis CKD patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional SETTINGS: Outpatient clinic for urology and nephrology at a university hospital SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Participants above the age of 18 years included a group of healthy controls and a group of CKD patients who were not routinely maintained on hemodialysis. The latter group was further divided according to eGFR into CKD-3, CKD-4 and CKD-5 subgroups. We excluded patients with comorbidities, patients with chronic liver disease, and other conditions or habits. CBC, kidney function tests, and serum levels of hepcidin-25 (SH-25), TNF-α, IL-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), TC, TG, LDL-C and HDL-C were assessed. To measure carotid intima media thickness (CIMT) and determine presence of plaques, carotid ultrasonography was performed. The near or far walls of common carotid artery, bulb, and internal carotid artery were used to measure CIMT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SH-25 association and indicators of subclinical atherosclerosis. SAMPLE SIZE: 128 participants, the control group (n=25) and the non-hemodialysis CKD patients (n=103) RESULTS: The CKD patients had significantly higher serum levels of markers of inflammation including IL-6, TNF-α, and hs-CRP (P<.001 for each) compared to the controls. There was a significantly higher level of TC, TG and LDL-C (P<.001 for each) and a lower level of HDL-C (P<.001) in the CDK patients compared to controls. SH-25 was considerably higher in all CKD subgroups, especially with progression of CKD. CIMT was increased in CKD patients especially CKD-4 and CKD-5 subgroups when compared to healthy participants (P<.001 for each). In the patient group, CIMT showed a positive correlation with SH-25, (r=.65 and P<.001), IL-6 (r=.65, P<.001), TNF-α (r=.71, P<.001), and hs-CRP (r=.52, P<.001). The ROC curve study showed that SH-25 (AUC=.86, P<.001), IL-6 (AUC=.83, P<.001), hs-CRP (AUC=.72, P<.001), TNF-α (AUC=.82, P<.001) were strong predictors of subclinical atherosclerosis in the CKD patients. CONCLUSIONS: SH-25 and CIMT had a positive relationship in CKD patients. The ROC curve showed that SH-25 is a reliable predictor of carotid atherosclerosis. Therefore, we suggest that SH-25 is a vital biomarker of asymptomatic atherosclerosis. LIMITATIONS: Single-center.

Replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients: the REPLENISH randomized clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Protein intake is recommended in critically ill patients to mitigate the negative effects of critical illness-induced catabolism and muscle wasting. However, the optimal dose of enteral protein remains unknown. We hypothesize that supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition formula to achieve high amount of enteral protein (range 2-2.4 g/kg/day) given from ICU day 5 until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve moderate amount enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day) would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: The REPLENISH (Replacing Protein Via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial is an open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Patients will be randomized to the supplemental protein group or the control group. Patients in both groups will receive the primary enteral formula as per the treating team, which includes a maximum protein 1.2 g/kg/day. The supplemental protein group will receive, in addition, supplemental protein at 1.2 g/kg/day starting the fifth ICU day. The control group will receive the primary formula without supplemental protein. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Other outcomes include functional and quality of life assessments at 90 days. The trial will enroll 2502 patients. DISCUSSION: The study has been initiated in September 2021. Interim analysis is planned at one third and two thirds of the target sample size. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Predictors of Mortality in Adults With Sickle Cell Disease Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit in King Saud Medical City, Saudi Arabia.

Background Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common genetic blood disorder in Saudi Arabia. A limited number of studies have been conducted on SCD patients regarding their intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. We aimed to identify the cause of ICU admission in SCD patients and to identify predictors of mortality. Methodology We identified 64 patients with SCD, aged 14 years and older, who were admitted to the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020. Results Acute chest syndrome was the most frequent primary diagnosis for ICU admission in 29 (45.3%) patients followed by vaso-occlusive crisis in 23 (35.9%) patients. Pregnancy in eight (12.5%) patients was the most prevalent co-existing condition. The median age was 29 years, with males comprising 45.3% and females comprising 54.7% of the study population. Arterial blood gas pH less than 7.2 on ICU admission (p= <0.001), hemodialysis support (p= 0.049), the use of vasopressors (p= 0.016), intubation (p= <0.001), and being intubated within the first 24 hours of ICU stay (p= 0.04) had a statistically significant association with mortality at ICU discharge out of all the variables tested. Mortality on ICU discharge was 7 (10.9%). Conclusion This was a retrospective study carried out in King Saud Medical City. Comparing the results of the study to those of similar ones conducted around the world revealed a low SCD ICU mortality rate. This low mortality may be a result of improved overall ICU care. We recommend a multi-center, prospective study in future.

Mortality Rates in Early versus Late Intensive Care Unit Readmission.

Background: ICU readmission is associated with poor outcomes. Few studies have directly compared the outcomes of early versus late readmissions, especially in Saudi Arabia. Objective: To compare the outcomes between early and late ICU readmissions, mainly with regards to hospital mortality. Methods: This retrospective study included unique patients who, within the same hospitalization, were admitted to the ICU, discharged to the general wards, and then readmitted to the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between January 01, 2015, and June 30, 2022. Patients readmitted within 2 calendar days were grouped into the Early readmission group, while those readmitted after 2 calendar days were in the Late readmission group. Results: A total of 997 patients were included, of which 753 (75.5%) belonged to the Late group. The mortality rate in the Late group was significantly higher than that in the Early group (37.6% vs. 29.5%, respectively; 95% CI: 1%-14.8%; P = 0.03). The readmission length of stay (LOS) and severity score of both groups were similar. The odds ratio of mortality for the Early group was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51-0.98, P = 0.04); other significant risk factors were age (OR = 1.023, 95% CI: 1.016-1.03; P < 0.001) and readmission LOS (OR = 1.017, 95% CI: 1.009-1.026; P < 0.001). The most common reason for readmission in the Early group was high Modified Early Warning Score, while in the Late group, it was respiratory failure followed by sepsis or septic shock. Conclusion: Compared with late readmission, early readmission was associated with lower mortality, but not with lower LOS or severity score.

Deferoxamine in the management of COVID-19 adult patients admitted to ICU: a prospective observational cohort study.

COVID-19 infection is associated with high mortality, and despite extensive studying the scientific society is still working to find a definitive treatment. Some experts postulated a beneficial role of Deferoxamine. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 adult patients admitted to the ICU who received deferoxamine to those who received standard of care. Methods: Prospective observational cohort study, in the ICU of a tertiary referral hospital in Saudi Arabia to compare all-cause hospital mortality between COVID-19 patients who received deferoxamine and standard of care. Results: A total of 205 patients were enrolled, with an average age of 50.1±14.3, 150 patients received standard of care only, and 55 patients received deferoxamine additionally. Hospital mortality was lower in deferoxamine group (25.5 vs. 40.7%, 95% CI=1.3-29.2%; P=0.045). Clinical status score upon discharge was lower in deferoxamine group (3.6±4.3 vs. 6.2±4, 95% CI: 1.4-3.9; P<0.001), as was the difference between discharge score and admission score (indicating clinical improvement). More patients admitted with mechanical ventilation were successfully extubated in the deferoxamine group (61.5 vs. 14.3%, 95% CI: 15-73%; P=0.001), with a higher median ventilator-free days. There were no differences between groups in adverse events. Deferoxamine group was associated with hospital mortality [odds ratio=0.46 (95% CI: 0.22-0.95); P=0.04]. Conclusions: Deferoxamine may have mortality and clinical improvement benefits in COVID-19 adults admitted to ICU. Further powered and controlled studies are required.

Tocilizumab Outcomes in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU and the Role of Non-Tocilizumab COVID-19-Specific Medical Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody proposed to manage cytokine release syndrome (CRS) associated with severe COVID-19. Previously published reports have shown that tocilizumab may improve the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, no precise data about the role of other medical therapeutics concurrently used for COVID-19 on this outcome have been published. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the overall outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU who received tocilizumab with the outcome of matched patients who did not receive tocilizumab while controlling for other confounders, including medical therapeutics for critically ill patients admitted to ICUs. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia between 1 March 2020, and October 31, 2020. Propensity-score matching was utilized to compare patients who received tocilizumab to patients who did not. In addition, the log-rank test was used to compare the 28 day hospital survival of patients who received tocilizumab with those who did not. Then, a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the matched groups was performed to evaluate the impact of the remaining concurrent medical therapeutics that could not be excluded via matching 28 day hospital survival rates. The primary outcome measure was patients' overall 28 day hospital survival, and the secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay and ICU survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1470 unmatched patients were included, of whom 426 received tocilizumab. The total number of propensity-matched patients was 1278. Overall, 28 day hospital survival revealed a significant difference between the unmatched non-tocilizumab group (586; 56.1%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.016), and this difference increased even more in the propensity-matched analysis between the non-tocilizumab group (466.7; 54.6%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.005). The matching model successfully matched the two groups' common medical therapeutics used to treat COVID-19. Two medical therapeutics remained significantly different, favoring the tocilizumab group. A multivariate logistic regression was performed for the 28 day hospital survival in the propensity-matched patients. It showed that neither steroids (OR: 1.07 (95% CI: 0.75-1.53)) (p = 0.697) nor favipiravir (OR: 1.08 (95% CI: 0.61-1.9)) (p = 0.799) remained as a predictor for an increase in 28 day survival. CONCLUSION: The tocilizumab treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU improved the overall 28 day hospital survival, which might not be influenced by the concurrent use of other COVID-19 medical therapeutics, although further research is needed to confirm this.

Long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support: follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared to usual respiratory support reduces 180-day mortality and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This is a pre-planned follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID trial. In this multicenter, randomized clinical trial, adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of all enrolled patients except three who were lost at follow-up. The study outcomes were 180-day mortality, EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values, and EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, non-survivors were assigned a value of 0 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. RESULTS: Within 180 days, 63/159 patients (39.6%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared to 65/158 patients (41.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference - 1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.3, 9.3, p = 0.78). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the helmet noninvasive ventilation and the usual respiratory support groups did not differ in EQ-5D-5L index values (median 0.68 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], compared to 0.67 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], median difference 0.00 [95% CI - 0.32, 0.32; p = 0.91]) or EQ-VAS scores (median 70 [IQR 0, 93], compared to 70 [IQR 0, 90], median difference 0.00 (95% CI - 31.92, 31.92; p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive ventilation did not reduce 180-day mortality or improve HRQoL compared to usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Impact of a national collaborative project to improve the care of mechanically ventilated patients.

This prospective quasi-experimental study from the NASAM (National Approach to Standardize and Improve Mechanical Ventilation) collaborative assessed the impact of evidence-based practices including subglottic suctioning, daily assessment for spontaneous awakening trial (SAT), spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), head of bed elevation, and avoidance of neuromuscular blockers unless otherwise indicated. The study outcomes included VAE (primary) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Changes in daily care process measures and outcomes were evaluated using repeated measures mixed modeling. The results were reported as incident rate ratio (IRR) for each additional month with 95% confidence interval (CI). A comprehensive program that included education on evidence-based practices for optimal care of mechanically ventilated patients with real-time benchmarking of daily care process measures to drive improvement in forty-two ICUs from 26 hospitals in Saudi Arabia (>27,000 days of observation). Compliance with subglottic suctioning, SAT and SBT increased monthly during the project by 3.5%, 2.1% and 1.9%, respectively (IRR 1.035, 95%CI 1.007-1.064, p = 0.0148; 1.021, 95% CI 1.010-1.032, p = 0.0003; and 1.019, 95%CI 1.009-1.029, p = 0.0001, respectively). The use of neuromuscular blockers decreased monthly by 2.5% (IRR 0.975, 95%CI 0.953-0.998, p = 0.0341). The compliance with head of bed elevation was high at baseline and did not change over time. Based on data for 83153 ventilator days, VAE rate was 15.2/1000 ventilator day (95%CI 12.6-18.1) at baseline and did not change during the project (IRR 1.019, 95%CI 0.985-1.053, p = 0.2812). Based on data for 8523 patients; the mortality was 30.4% (95%CI 27.4-33.6) at baseline, and decreased monthly during the project by 1.6% (IRR 0.984, 95%CI 0.973-0.996, p = 0.0067). A national quality improvement collaborative was associated with improvements in daily care processes. These changes were associated with a reduction in mortality but not VAEs. Registration The study is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03790150).

Favipiravir Efficacy And Safety For The Treatment Of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease is caused by the enveloped, single stranded RNA virus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) becoming the deadliest disease of the century. Its global outbreak has led researchers to develop drugs or vaccines to prevent the spread of the disease. Favipiravir is an approved orally administered antiviral drug that selectively inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, used off-label to treat COVID-19. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug for severe COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective study, carried out at the ICU of King Saud Medical City (KSMC) from June 2020 to August 2020. Including a total of one thousand six hundred and ninety-nine patients (n=1699). Categorized into a treatment group (193 patients) who received Favipiravir along with standard care, and non-treatment group (1506 patients) who received standard care only. RESULTS: ICU all-cause mortality was similar in both groups i.e., (Treated group 38.3% Vs Untreated group 39.4%, 95% CI of difference: -6.6% to +8.4%; p = 0.8). The subgroup analysis of survivors as compared to deceased in the treatment group showed that survivors had significantly lower age, international normalising ratio (INR), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine. The mean ICU length of stay (LOS) was shorter for survivors compared to deceased (11.2± 8.03 Vs 16.7±9.8 days respectively), while hospital LOS was almost similar between the two groups. Advanced age (OR 1.03 [95% CI: 1.01-1.06]; p=0.004), higher INR and BUN were significantly associated with increased odds of mortality. Comparison of lab investigations at day 1 and day 10 in the treatment group (regardless of outcome) showed that there was a significant increase in Alanine transaminase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALK), and Bilirubin, while an insignificant trend of increase in Aspartate transaminase (AST) and creatinine was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Favipiravir showed better therapeutic responses in patients with severe COVID-19 infection, in terms of average duration of stay in the intensive care unit and was well tolerated in the younger age, but showed no mortality benefit. However, elevated levels of inflammatory markers, including increased ALT, AST, BUN, bilirubin, and creatinine, needs to be carefully examined.

Early Versus Late DNR Orders and its Predictors in a Saudi Arabian ICU: A Descriptive Study.

Background: Practices of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders show discrepancies worldwide, but there are only few such studies from Saudi Arabia. Objective: To describe the practice of DNR orders in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care ICU. Methods: This retrospective study included all patients who died with a DNR order at the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between January 1 to December 31, 2021. The percentage of early DNR (i.e., ≤48 hours of ICU admission) and late DNR (>48 hours) orders were determined and the variables between the two groups were compared. The determinants of late DNR were also investigated. Results: A total of 723 cases met the inclusion criteria, representing 14.9% of all ICU discharges and 63% of all ICU deaths during the study period. The late DNR group comprised the majority of the cases (78.3%), and included significantly more patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), community acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute kidney injury, and COVID-19, and significantly fewer cases of readmissions and malignancies. Septic shock lowered the odds of a late DNR (OR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.9;P= 0.02), while ARDS (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 2-5.4;P < 0.001), ischemic stroke (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1-5.4;P= 0.02), and CAP (OR = 2, 95% CI: 1.3-3.1;P= 0.003) increased the odds of a late DNR. Conclusion: There was a higher frequency of late DNR orders in our study compared to those reported in several studies worldwide. Cases with potential for a favorable outcome were more likely to have a late DNR order, while those with expected poorer outcomes were more likely to have an early DNR order. The discrepancies highlight the need for clearer guidelines to achieve consistency.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs Usual Respiratory Support on Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The HELMET-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited. Objective: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.

"Ventilator-free days" composite outcome in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with tocilizumab: A retrospective competing risk analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity, with more severe cases presenting with a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6; hence, the interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was used for the management of severe cases. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free day composite outcomes among critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This retrospective propensity score-matching study compared mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. The matched groups were similar. The ventilator-free days composite outcome was higher in the intervention group (sub-distribution hazard ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-6.3; p = 0.02), the mortality rate in the intensive care unit was not different (37.9% vs 62%, p = 0.1), and actual ventilator-free days were significantly longer in the tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio for death in the tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25-0.97; p = 0.04). Positive cultures were not significantly different among the groups (55.2% vs 34.5% in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively; p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free days, insignificantly lower mortality, and higher superinfection.

Thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes in moderate COVID-19 patients: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Many thrombotic complications are linked to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Antithrombotic treatments are important for prophylaxis against these thrombotic events. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare enoxaparin and rivaroxaban as prophylactic anticoagulants in moderate cases of COVID-19 in terms of efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study involved 124 patients with moderate COVID-19 (pneumonia without hypoxia) divided into two groups. The first group (G1) comprised 66 patients who received enoxaparin subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg every 12 h until discharge from the hospital. The second group (G2) comprised 58 patients who received oral rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg once daily until discharge from the hospital. The outcomes evaluated in this study were as follows: intermediate care unit (IMCU) duration, the number of patients transferred from the IMCU to the intensive care unit (ICU), ICU duration, the total length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and thrombotic and bleeding complications. RESULTS: No significant differences in IMCU duration (p = 0.39), ICU duration (p = 0.96), and total length of hospital stay (p = 0.73) were observed between the two groups. The percentage of patients requiring ICU admission after hospitalization was 21.2% in G1 and 22.4% in G2 (p = 0.87). The mortality rate was 12.1% in G1 and 10.3% in G2 (p = 0.76). The proportion of patients who had thrombotic complications was 9.1% in G1 and 12.1% in G2 (p = 0.59). The incidence of mild bleeding was 3% in G1 and 1.7% in G2 (p = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Either enoxaparin or rivaroxaban may be used as thromboprophylaxis agents in managing patients with moderate COVID-19. Either medication has no clear advantage over the other.

Machine learning decision tree algorithm role for predicting mortality in critically ill adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is currently a major cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions globally. The role of machine learning in the ICU is evolving but currently limited to diagnostic and prognostic values. A decision tree (DT) algorithm is a simple and intuitive machine learning method that provides sequential nonlinear analysis of variables. It is simple and might be a valuable tool for bedside physicians during COVID-19 to predict ICU outcomes and help in critical decision-making like end-of-life decisions and bed allocation in the event of limited ICU bed capacities. Herein, we utilized a machine learning DT algorithm to describe the association of a predefined set of variables and 28-day ICU outcome in adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. We highlight the value of utilizing a machine learning DT algorithm in the ICU at the time of a COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a prospective and multicenter cohort study involving 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020. The predictors of 28-day ICU mortality were identified using two predictive models: conventional logistic regression and DT analyses. RESULTS: There were 1468 critically ill COVID-19 patients included in the study. The 28-day ICU mortality was 540 (36.8 %), and the 90-day mortality was 600 (40.9 %). The DT algorithm identified five variables that were integrated into the algorithm to predict 28-day ICU outcomes: need for intubation, need for vasopressors, age, gender, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio. CONCLUSION: DT is a simple tool that might be utilized in the ICU to identify critically ill COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of 28-day ICU mortality. However, further studies and external validation are still required.

External Validation of 4C ISARIC Mortality Score in Critically ill COVID-19 Patients from Saudi Arabia.

Background: ISARIC mortality score is a risk stratification tool that helps predict the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients. However, this tool was developed and validated in a British population, and thus, the external validation of this tool in local populations is important. Objectives: External validation of the ISARIC mortality score in COVID-19 patients from a large Saudi Arabian intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This is a retrospective study that included all adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from March 2020 to June 2021. Patients who were pregnant or had pulmonary tuberculosis/human immunodeficiency virus were excluded along with patients with missing variables. Data were collected to calculate the ISARIC mortality score and then fitting receiver operator characteristic curve against patients' outcome. Results: A total of 1493 critically ill COVID-19 patients were included. The mortality was 38%, the area under the curve of the score was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.83, P < 0.001) and the cutoff value correctly classified 72.7% of the cohort. The cutoff value of >9 had sensitivity of 70.5% (95% CI: 66.6-74.3); specificity, 73.97% (95% CI: 71-76.8); positive predictive value, 62.4% (95% CI: 59.5-65.2) and negative predictive value, 80.2% (95% CI: 78.2-82.4). Conclusion: The ISARIC score was found to have excellent predictive ability for mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients in our Saudi Arabian cohort. A cutoff score of >9 was the optimal criterion.

Helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients (Helmet-COVID): statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk  and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.

Effect of Tocilizumab on "Ventilator Free Days" Composite Outcome in SARS-CoV-2 Patients: A Retrospective Competing Risk Analysis.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity. More severe cases demonstrate a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6, hence IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was tried for the management of severe cases. Aims: Effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free days among critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients. Method: Retrospective propensity score matching study, comparing mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group. Results: 29 patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. Matched groups were similar. Ventilator-free days were more numerous in the intervention group (SHR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.2 - 6.3; p = 0.02), ICU mortality rate was not different (37.9% versus 62%, p = 0.1), actual ventilator-free periods were significantly longer in tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio of death in tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25 - 0.97; p = 0.04). There was no difference in positive cultures among groups (55.2% in tocilizumab group versus 34.5% in the control; p = 0.1). Conclusion: Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated SARS-CoV-2 patients; it is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free periods, and insignificantly lower mortality and higher superinfection.