Effect of Vitamin C on Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: An Observational Study and Subsequent Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether vitamin C provides any benefit when administered in critically ill patients, including those with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), is controversial. We endeavored to estimate the effect of administration of vitamin C on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by performing an observational study and subsequent meta-analysis. METHODS: Firstly, we conducted an observational study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who consecutively underwent invasive mechanical ventilation in an academic intensive care unit (ICU) during the second pandemic wave. We compared all-cause mortality of patients receiving vitamin C ("vitamin C" group) or not ("control" group) on top of standard-of-care. Subsequently, we systematically searched PubMed and CENTRAL for relevant studies, which reported on all-cause mortality (primary outcome) and/or morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19 receiving vitamin C or not treatment. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO. RESULTS: In the observational study, baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Mortality was 20.0% (2/10) in the vitamin C group vs. 47.6% (49/103; p = 0.11) in the control group. Subsequently, the meta-analysis included 11 studies (6 observational; five randomized controlled trials) enrolling 1,807 critically ill patients with COVID-19. Mortality of patients receiving vitamin C on top of standard-of-care was not lower than patients receiving standard-of-care alone (25.8 vs. 34.7%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57-1.26; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: After combining results of our observational cohort with those of relevant studies into a meta-analysis of data from 1,807 patients, we found that administration vitamin C as opposed to standard-of-care alone might not be associated with lower of mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additional evidence is anticipated from relevant large randomized controlled trials which are currently underway. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021276655.

Does Route of Full Feeding Affect Outcome among Ventilated Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.

The outbreak of the new coronavirus strain SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) highlighted the need for appropriate feeding practices among critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This study aimed to describe feeding practices of intubated COVID-19 patients during their second week of hospitalization in the First Department of Critical Care Medicine, Evaggelismos General Hospital, and evaluate potential associations with all cause 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. We enrolled adult intubated COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between September 2020 and July 2021 and prospectively monitored until their hospital discharge. Of the 162 patients analyzed (52.8% men, 51.6% overweight/obese, mean age 63.2 ± 11.9 years), 27.2% of patients used parenteral nutrition, while the rest were fed enterally. By 30 days, 34.2% of the patients in the parenteral group had died compared to 32.7% of the patients in the enteral group (relative risk (RR) for the group receiving enteral nutrition = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-1.06, p = 0.120). Those in the enteral group demonstrated a lower duration of hospital stay (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.85-0.97, p = 0.036) as well as mechanical ventilation support (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89-0.99, p = 0.043). Enteral feeding during second week of ICU hospitalization may be associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization and stay in mechanical ventilation support among critically ill intubated patients with COVID-19.

Validation of Inflammopathic, Adaptive, and Coagulopathic Sepsis Endotypes in Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Complex critical syndromes like sepsis and coronavirus disease 2019 may be composed of underling "endotypes," which may respond differently to treatment. The aim of this study was to test whether a previously defined bacterial sepsis endotypes classifier recapitulates the same clinical and immunological endotypes in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Prospective single-center observational cohort study. SETTING: Patients were enrolled in Athens, Greece, and blood was shipped to Inflammatix (Burlingame, CA) for analysis. PATIENTS: Adult patients within 24 hours of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and chest radiography. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We studied 97 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, of which 50 went on to severe respiratory failure (SRF) and 16 died. We applied a previously defined 33-messenger RNA classifier to assign endotype (Inflammopathic, Adaptive, or Coagulopathic) to each patient. We tested endotype status against other clinical parameters including laboratory values, severity scores, and outcomes. Patients were assigned as Inflammopathic (29%), Adaptive (44%), or Coagulopathic (27%), similar to our prior study in bacterial sepsis. Adaptive patients had lower rates of SRF and no deaths. Coagulopathic and Inflammopathic endotypes had 42% and 18% mortality rates, respectively. The Coagulopathic group showed highest d-dimers, and the Inflammopathic group showed highest C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our predefined 33-messenger RNA endotypes classifier recapitulated immune phenotypes in viral sepsis (coronavirus disease 2019) despite its prior training and validation only in bacterial sepsis. Further work should focus on continued validation of the endotypes and their interaction with immunomodulatory therapy.