Dynamics of disease characteristics and clinical management of critically ill COVID-19 patients over the time course of the pandemic: an analysis of the prospective, international, multicentre RISC-19-ICU registry.

BACKGROUND: It remains elusive how the characteristics, the course of disease, the clinical management and the outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) worldwide have changed over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: Prospective, observational registry constituted by 90 ICUs across 22 countries worldwide including patients with a laboratory-confirmed, critical presentation of COVID-19 requiring advanced organ support. Hierarchical, generalized linear mixed-effect models accounting for hospital and country variability were employed to analyse the continuous evolution of the studied variables over the pandemic. RESULTS: Four thousand forty-one patients were included from March 2020 to September 2021. Over this period, the age of the admitted patients (62 [95% CI 60-63] years vs 64 [62-66] years, p < 0.001) and the severity of organ dysfunction at ICU admission decreased (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment 8.2 [7.6-9.0] vs 5.8 [5.3-6.4], p < 0.001) and increased, while more female patients (26 [23-29]% vs 41 [35-48]%, p < 0.001) were admitted. The time span between symptom onset and hospitalization as well as ICU admission became longer later in the pandemic (6.7 [6.2-7.2| days vs 9.7 [8.9-10.5] days, p < 0.001). The PaO2/FiO2 at admission was lower (132 [123-141] mmHg vs 101 [91-113] mmHg, p < 0.001) but showed faster improvements over the initial 5 days of ICU stay in late 2021 compared to early 2020 (34 [20-48] mmHg vs 70 [41-100] mmHg, p = 0.05). The number of patients treated with steroids and tocilizumab increased, while the use of therapeutic anticoagulation presented an inverse U-shaped behaviour over the course of the pandemic. The proportion of patients treated with high-flow oxygen (5 [4-7]% vs 20 [14-29], p < 0.001) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (14 [11-18]% vs 24 [17-33]%, p < 0.001) throughout the pandemic increased concomitant to a decrease in invasive mechanical ventilation (82 [76-86]% vs 74 [64-82]%, p < 0.001). The ICU mortality (23 [19-26]% vs 17 [12-25]%, p < 0.001) and length of stay (14 [13-16] days vs 11 [10-13] days, p < 0.001) decreased over 19 months of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Characteristics and disease course of critically ill COVID-19 patients have continuously evolved, concomitant to the clinical management, throughout the pandemic leading to a younger, less severely ill ICU population with distinctly different clinical, pulmonary and inflammatory presentations than at the onset of the pandemic.

SIMEU position paper on non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19 pneumonia.

The rapid worldwide spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has put health systems under pressure to a level never experienced before, putting intensive care units in a position to fail to meet an exponentially growing demand. The main clinical feature of the disease is a progressive arterial hypoxemia which rapidly leads to ARDS which makes the use of intensive care and mechanical ventilation almost inevitable. The difficulty of health systems to guarantee a corresponding supply of resources in intensive care, together with the uncertain results reported in the literature with respect to patients who undergo early conventional ventilation, make the search for alternative methods of oxygenation and ventilation and potentially preventive of the need for tracheal intubation, such as non-invasive respiratory support techniques particularly valuable. In this context, the Emergency Department, located between the area outside the hospital and hospital ward and ICU, assumes the role of a crucial junction, due to the possibility of applying these techniques at a sufficiently early stage and being able to rapidly evaluate their effectiveness. This position paper describes the indications for the use of non-invasive respiratory support techniques in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-related pneumonia, formulated by the Non-invasive Ventilation Faculty of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) on the base of what is available in the literature and on the authors' direct experience. Rationale, literature, tips & tricks, resources, risks and expected results, and patient interaction will be discussed for each one of the escalating non-invasive respiratory techniques: standard oxygen, HFNCO, CPAP, NIPPV, and awake self-repositioning. The final chapter describes our suggested approach to the failing patient.

Inhaled Methoxyflurane versus Intravenous Morphine for Severe Trauma Pain in the Emergency Setting: Subgroup Analysis of MEDITA, a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label Trial.

PURPOSE: Opioid analgesics remain the cornerstone of treatment for severe trauma pain in the emergency setting, but there are barriers to their use. This post hoc analysis of a previously reported trial (MEDITA) investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane versus intravenous (IV) morphine for severe trauma pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MEDITA was a Phase IIIb, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study in Italian pre-hospital units and emergency departments (EudraCT: 2017-001565-25; NCT03585374). Adult patients (N=272) with moderate-to-severe trauma pain (score ≥4 on the Numerical Rating Scale [NRS]) were randomized 1:1 to inhaled methoxyflurane (3 mL) or standard analgesic treatment (SAT; IV paracetamol 1g or ketoprofen 100mg for moderate pain [NRS 4-6] and IV morphine 0.1mg/kg for severe pain [NRS ≥7]). Analyses were performed for the severe pain subgroup. The primary efficacy variable was the overall change from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity at 3, 5 and 10min post-randomization. Non-inferiority of methoxyflurane versus morphine was concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was <1; superiority was concluded if the upper 95% CI was <0. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients (methoxyflurane: 49; SAT: 44) were included in the severe pain intention-to-treat population. The reduction in VAS pain intensity over the first 10min was superior for methoxyflurane versus morphine (adjusted mean treatment difference: -5.54mm; 95% CI: -10.49, -0.59mm; p=0.029). Median time to onset of pain relief was 9min for methoxyflurane and 15min for morphine. Patients rated treatment efficacy and physicians rated treatment practicality "Excellent" or "Very good" for more methoxyflurane-treated patients (42.8% and 67.3%) than morphine-treated patients (18.1% and 22.8%). Adverse events, all non-serious, were reported in 20.4% of methoxyflurane-treated patients and in 4.8% of morphine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Methoxyflurane provided superior short-term pain relief to IV morphine in patients with severe trauma pain and offers an effective non-narcotic treatment option.

Sixty-Day Mortality Among 520 Italian Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients According to the Adopted Ventilatory Strategy in the Context of an Integrated Multidisciplinary Clinical Organization: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Although the decision of which ventilation strategy to adopt in COVID-19 patients is crucial, yet the most appropriate means of carrying out this undertaking is not supported by strong evidence. We therefore described the organization of a province-level healthcare system during the occurrence of the COVID-19 epidemic and the 60-day outcomes of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients according to the respiratory strategy adopted given the limited available resources. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All COVID-19 patients (26/02/2020-18/04/2020) in the Rimini Province of Italy were included in this population-based cohort study. The hospitalized patients were classified according to the maximum level of respiratory support: oxygen supplementation (Oxygen group), non-invasive ventilation (NIV-only group), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV-only group), and IMV after an NIV trial (IMV-after-NIV group). Sixty-day mortality risk was estimated with a Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusted by age, sex, and administration of steroids, canakinumab, and tocilizumab. RESULTS: We identified a total of 1,424 symptomatic patients: 520 (36.5%) were hospitalized, while 904 (63.5%) were treated at home with no 60-day deaths. Based on the respiratory support, 408 (78.5%) were assigned to the Oxygen group, 46 (8.8%) to the NIV-only group, 25 (4.8%) to the IMV-after-NIV group, and 41 (7.9%) to the IMV-only group. There was no significant difference in the PaO2/FiO2 at IMV inception in the IMV-after-NIV and IMV-only groups (p=0.9). Overall 60-day mortality was 24.2% (Oxygen: 23.0%; NIV-only: 19.6%; IMV-after-NIV: 32.0%; IMV-only: 36.6%; p=0.165). Compared with the Oxygen group, the adjusted 60-day mortality risk significantly increased in the IMV-after-NIV (HR 2.776; p=0.024) and IMV-only groups (HR 2.966; p=0.001). CONCLUSION: This study provided a population-based estimate of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in a severely affected Italian province. A similar 60-day mortality risk was found for patients undergoing immediate IMV and those intubated after an NIV trial with favorable outcomes after prolonged IMV.

Analgesic Efficacy, Practicality and Safety of Inhaled Methoxyflurane Versus Standard Analgesic Treatment for Acute Trauma Pain in the Emergency Setting: A Randomised, Open-Label, Active-Controlled, Multicentre Trial in Italy (MEDITA).

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled low-dose methoxyflurane is approved in Europe for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in adults, but data versus active comparators are sparse. The phase IIIb Methoxyflurane in Emergency Department in ITAly (MEDITA) trial investigated the analgesic efficacy, practicality and safety of methoxyflurane versus standard analgesic treatment (SAT) for acute trauma pain. METHODS: This was a randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label trial conducted in 15 Italian emergency units. Adults with limb trauma and pain score ≥ 4 on numerical rating scale (NRS) were randomised 1:1 to inhaled methoxyflurane 3 mL or SAT [intravenously administered (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg for severe pain (NRS ≥ 7); IV paracetamol 1 g or IV ketoprofen 100 mg for moderate pain (NRS 4-6)]. The primary endpoint was overall change in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain intensity from baseline (time of randomisation) to 3, 5 and 10 min. Non-inferiority and superiority of methoxyflurane versus SAT were concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment comparison (methoxyflurane-SAT) was less than 1 and less than 0, respectively. RESULTS: Between 8 February 2018 and 8 February 2019, 272 patients were randomised (136 per treatment group). A total of 270 patients (mean age 51 years; 49% male; 34% with severe pain; mean baseline VAS 67 mm) were treated and analysed for efficacy and safety. Superiority of methoxyflurane was demonstrated for moderate-to-severe pain (adjusted mean treatment difference - 5.94 mm; 95% CI - 8.83, - 3.06 mm), moderate pain (- 5.97 mm; 95% CI - 9.55, - 2.39 mm) and severe pain (- 5.54 mm; 95% CI - 10.49, - 0.59 mm). Median onset of pain relief was 9 min for methoxyflurane and 15 min for SAT. Practicality of methoxyflurane treatment was rated "Excellent", "Very Good" or "Good" by 90% of clinicians vs. 64% for SAT. Adverse events (all non-serious) were reported by 17% of methoxyflurane-treated patients and 3% of SAT-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Methoxyflurane provided superior pain relief to SAT in patients with moderate-to-severe trauma pain and may offer a simple, fast, effective non-opioid treatment option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered with EudraCT (2017-001565-25) on 2 March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03585374) on 13 July 2018. FUNDING: Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals S.r.l.