Resilience after severe critical illness: a prospective, multicentre, observational study (RESIREA).

BACKGROUND: Critical-illness survivors may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and quality-of-life impairments. Resilience may protect against psychological trauma but has not been adequately studied after critical illness. We assessed resilience and its associations with PTSD and quality of life, and also identified factors associated with greater resilience. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, study in patients recruited at 41 French ICUs was done in parallel with the NUTRIREA-3 trial in patients given mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amines for shock. Three months to one year after intensive-care-unit admission, survivors completed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25), Impact of Event-Revised scale for PTSD symptoms (IES-R), SF-36 quality-of-life scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ). RESULTS: Of the 382 included patients, 203 (53.1%) had normal or high resilience (CD-RISC-25 ≥ 68). Of these resilient patients, 26 (12.8%) had moderate to severe PTSD symptoms (IES-R ≥ 24) vs. 45 (25.4%) patients with low resilience (p = 0.002). Resilient patients had higher SF-36 scores. Factors independently associated with higher CD-RISC-25 scores were higher MSPSS score indicating stronger social support (OR, 1.027; 95%CI 1.008-1.047; p = 0.005) and lower B-IPQ scores indicating a more threatening perception of the illness (OR, 0.973; 95%CI 0.950-0.996; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Resilient patients had a lower prevalence of PTSD symptoms and higher quality of life scores, compared to patients with low resilience. Higher scores for social support and illness perception were independently associated with greater resilience. Thus, our findings suggest that interventions to strengthen social support and improve illness perception may help to improve resilience. Such interventions should be evaluated in trials with PTSD mitigation and quality-of-life improvement as the target outcomes.

Low versus standard calorie and protein feeding in ventilated adults with shock: a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

BACKGROUND: The optimal calorie and protein intakes at the acute phase of severe critical illness remain unknown. We hypothesised that early calorie and protein restriction improved outcomes in these patients, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS: The pragmatic, randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group NUTRIREA-3 trial was performed in 61 French intensive care units (ICUs). Adults (≥18 years) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support for shock were randomly assigned to early nutrition (started within 24 h after intubation) with either low or standard calorie and protein targets (6 kcal/kg per day and 0·2-0·4 g/kg per day protein vs 25 kcal/kg per day and 1·0-1·3 g/kg per day protein) during the first 7 ICU days. The two primary endpoints were time to readiness for ICU discharge and day 90 all-cause mortality. Key secondary outcomes included secondary infections, gastrointestinal events, and liver dysfunction. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03573739, and is completed. FINDINGS: Of 3044 patients randomly assigned between July 5, 2018, and 8 Dec 8, 2020, eight withdrew consent to participation. By day 90, 628 (41·3%) of 1521 patients in the low group and 648 (42·8%) of 1515 patients in the standard group had died (absolute difference -1·5%, 95% CI -5·0 to 2·0; p=0·41). Median time to readiness for ICU discharge was 8·0 days (IQR 5·0-14·0) in the low group and 9·0 days (5·0-17·0) in the standard group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·12, 95% CI 1·02 to 1·22; p=0·015). Proportions of patients with secondary infections did not differ between the groups (HR 0·85, 0·71 to 1·01; p=0·06). The low group had lower proportions of patients with vomiting (HR 0·77, 0·67 to 0·89; p<0·001), diarrhoea (0·83, 0·73 to 0·94; p=0·004), bowel ischaemia (0·50, 0·26 to 0·95; p=0·030), and liver dysfunction (0·92, 0·86-0·99; p=0·032). INTERPRETATION: Compared with standard calorie and protein targets, early calorie and protein restriction did not decrease mortality but was associated with faster recovery and fewer complications. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Severe Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study (Remdeco-19).

BACKGROUND: Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Impact of early low-calorie low-protein versus standard-calorie standard-protein feeding on outcomes of ventilated adults with shock: design and conduct of a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.

Increased risk of permanent stoma in Crohn's disease associated with hidradenitis suppurativa: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) and hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory skin disease, induce similar inflammatory lesions of the groin and gluteal area. Both diseases are characterised by an inadequate immune response to commensal bacteria in genetically predisposed subjects and can be associated. AIM: To assess whether HS was associated with clinical and prognostic factors in CD. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study included 4645 patients with CD referred to Saint-Antoine Hospital gastroenterology tertiary care centre between 2003 and 2016. Matching variables were sex, age, age and the presence of perianal lesions at CD diagnosis, follow-up quality. HS was confirmed by dermatological examination; location, phenotype and severity (Hurley staging) were recorded. RESULTS: Hidradenitis suppurativa prevalence was 0.95% (44 cases); 80% of patients displayed Hurley stage II or III disease. CD preceded HS in 70% of cases with a median interval of 9 years (IQR 5.25-12.75). CD with HS was more active (56% vs 40% years with active disease, P < 0.001) and required more anti-TNF agents (39% vs 23% years spent with anti-TNF treatment, P < 0.001) than CD without HS. HS was associated with a higher risk of permanent stoma, 16.8% (IQR 7.5-33.3) vs 2.5% (IQR 0.8-7.4) in the control group (P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis confirmed HS as independent risk factor for permanent stoma (odds ratio 6.19; 95% CI, 2.30-38.33; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hidradenitis suppurativa is associated with worse CD prognosis, more active disease and increased risk of permanent stoma, despite a higher use of anti-TNF agents.