Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma as a therapy for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Aims: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in SARS-CoV-2 is promising but intriguing due to heterogeneity of published studies. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma use in COVID-19 to identify its safety and efficacy. Material and Methods: We comprehensively searched the databases - PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for journal papers published between December 2019 and January 2021 about the use of CPT in SARS-CoV-2, and performed a meta-analysis using random effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Of 1529 records, 11 studies were eligible (five RCTs, two nonrandomized intervention trials, three prospective observational, and one retrospective), and all were conducted in confirmed patients of SARS-CoV-2. Out of the 11 studies, four investigated the effect of CPT on mortality, three on symptom alleviation, five on duration of hospital stay, four on time to discharge, three on the effect on viral clearance, three on the improvement in antibody titers, two on oxygen requirement, and two on adverse events. The pooled estimate for relative risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 was no different after CPT than control (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.10), (p = 0.426) but the relative risk of clinical improvement of symptoms was better after CPT (RR: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.97. 2.70). There was earlier hospital discharge after CPT over control (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.79, 2.80), improved viral clearance (RR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.53), and quicker detection of antibody titer (RR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.53). No difference was observed for adverse effects between CPT and control (RR: 0.92.; 95% CI: 0.63 1.35). Conclusion: CPT appears to be a safe and promising treatment in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 leading to faster clinical improvement, reduced oxygen requirement, early hospital discharge, and quicker emergence of protective antibodies despite having no mortality benefit.

An Observational Study on the Effects of Delayed Initiation of End-of-Life Care in Terminally ill Young Adults in the Intensive Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: The early initiation of end-of-life (EOL) care in terminally ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) offers distinct advantages but requires the consent and cooperation of the patients or their relatives. The terminally ill young adults pose distinct set of challenges. The present study was conducted to measure the prevalence and identify and compare the risk factors for the delayed initiation of EOL in terminally ill young adults. METHODS: The retrospective study was conducted in a mixed medical-surgical 7-bedded ICU after extracting the medical records of all terminally ill young adults in the age group of 20-40 years admitted between June 2014 and November 2018. Only "treatment futile" patients were eligible for inclusion. The patients already on EOL care or with unproven diagnosis were excluded from the study. The commencement of EOL care was divided into (a) normal group (N) and (b) late group (L). The two groups were compared with respect to the demographic factors, outcome, and patient satisfaction level. The factors responsible for the delay were investigated. All statistical analyses were performed using software SPSS 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: Out of 66 terminally ill young adults with treatment futility, 23 (38.9%) were in the N group and 36 (61.1%) were in the L group (0.8 ± 0.4 days vs. 3.1 ± 1.6 days; P = 0.01). The education level and social and family support of the relatives of the N group were higher (P = 0.03; P - 0.04). The N group had lesser drug consumption of ICU resource usage (14.7% vs. 36.1%, P = 0.01; 18.5% vs. 24.7%, P = 0.04). There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and satisfaction level at the time of discharge (or death) from the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a high prevalence of delayed initiation of EOL care in terminally ill young adults and identified the factors responsible for them. The normal initiation of EOL care reduced the usage of medications and resources without affecting the level of patient satisfaction.

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treatment of COVID19 -a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of SARS CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome corona virus 2) also known as COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) continues to remain an enigma even after six months of the pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been one of the most widely tested drugs for SARS CoV2 on account of its antiviral properties. However the results so far have been far from categorical. The meta-analyses conducted till date are also lacking in precision and appropriateness. This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of HCQ in SARS CoV2 by overcoming the limitations of earlier meta-analysis. METHODS: A total of 5 prominent medical databases were searched and fourteen studies (n = 12455) were included in the systematic review and meta-analyses. The data on survival, alleviation of symptoms, conversion of RT PCR positivity to negativity, use and efficacy in presence of co-morbidities (Hypertension, diabetes and heart disease) and cardiac and gastrointestinal side effects were extracted. Meta-analysis was applied to calculate the pooled estimates. Fixed-effects model results were chosen since I2 was <25%.Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA version 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). RESULTS: The pooled estimates showed that HCQ treatment did not significantly affect survival at 14 and 28 days in COVID-19 patients with respect to the control population (RR: 1.003, 95% CI: 0.983-1.022), alleviation of symptoms at day 10 (RR: 1.044, 95% CI: 0.911 1.196), success in presence of co-morbidities (RR: 1.058, 95% CI: 1.035-1.082) and conversion from RT PCR positive to RT PCR negative on day 6 (RR:1.123, 95% CI: 1.041 1.212). There was higher risk for cardiac side effects (RR: 2.012, 95% CI: 1.428 2.833) and gastrointestinal side effects (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 0.730 2.380) in HCQ recipients. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence on the safety and efficacy of HCQ either alone or in combination with other drugs in SARS CoV2 infection.

A Comparison of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Score and Serum Procalcitonin Change for Predicting Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis.

INTRODUCTION: The prediction of mortality in acute pancreatitis (AP) is a useful estimate for effective treatment. Scoring systems such as acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II, computed tomography (CT) severity index (CTSI), bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP), etc., are used for prediction. Biomarkers like C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) are also considered useful for prognostication. The aim of this retrospective study was to correlate the changes in serum PCT level with APACHE II score between admission and 48 hours as mortality predictor in AP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The observational study was conducted in a cohort of 42 patients admitted consecutively in the seven-bedded general intensive care unit (ICU) of our institute between June 2016 and May 2018, with the diagnosis of AP. The APACHE II score and serum PCT level at admission and 48 hours were retrieved from the hospital database. The change in APACHE II and PCT level was compared between ICU "survivors" and "nonsurvivors." The predictive accuracy of APACHE II and PCT was measured using area under receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve. A p value <0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients enrolled, 30 patients (71.42%) were survivors and 12 (28.58%) were nonsurvivors. The median APACHE II score in nonsurvivors increased from 16 (7-19) to 23 (11-29) and remained unchanged at 16 (9-19 at admission; 10-22 at 48 hours) in survivors. The median PCT levels increased from 3.8 (1.2-5.6) to 6.2 (1.9-12.5) in nonsurvivors and decreased from 3.8 (1.2-5.6) to 2.2 (0.6-2.9) in survivors. Serum PCT change compared better than the APACHE II score change among survivors (r = 0.455, p = 0.011) with a mean (±standard deviation SD) change of 1.41 (±1.59). CONCLUSION: The change in serum PCT and APACHE II between admission and 48 hours correlates well and is useful for mortality prediction in AP. Serum PCT change compares better than APACHE II score change in survivors. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Choudhuri AH, Duggal S, Biswas PS, Uppal R. A Comparison of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Score and Serum Procalcitonin Change for Predicting Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(3):190-194.

A survey of physicians' appreciation and knowledge about airway safety measures in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The implementation of safety measures during airway management is a major concern to prevent COVID-19 transmission during pandemic. Various guidelines and advisories are in vogue to ensure safe practices. However, their success depends on the caregivers' knowledge and understanding. This survey was conducted to assess the knowledge and safety concerns amongst physicians towards airway management in the background of COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey instrument of thirty questions covering three timelines of airway management viz. 'before', 'during' and 'after' airway intervention was created. The questionnaire was electronically mailed to the eligible physicians over a period of one month via a web-based platform and the responses were analyzed. The responses were depicted numerically as percentage. A multiple discriminant analysis was used to test the accuracy of responses after adjusting for common variables. RESULTS: Out of 407 responses, 300 were eligible for analysis. The respondents with correct answers to questions with single correct response were 46%, 69% and 57.3%, along the three timelines and the respondents with more than 75% correct responses in questions with multiple correct responses were 49%, 58% and 31% along the same timelines. About 75% of the participants became aware of transmission through aerosols aftermath pandemic. About two-third of the participants had knowledge about the safety guidelines and recommendations. Majority of the respondents were aware of the safety measures 'during airway intervention'. CONCLUSION: Our study found satisfactory knowledge and appreciable concern among the practicing physicians regarding airway safety measures in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. However, more physicians were aware about the measures required to be adopted 'during' airway intervention. The survey highlights the need for a more focused training of the caregivers about safety measures 'before' and 'after' airway intervention.