RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) are susceptible to a wide array of complications that can be life-threatening or impose them to long-term complications. The COVID-19 oral mucocutaneous complications require multidisciplinary management and research for their pathophysiological course and epidemiological significance; therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of the critically ill COVID-19 patients with oral complications. METHODS: We described the clinical and microbiological characteristics of the critically ill COVID-19 patients in our ICU department (Banska Bystrica, Slovakia). In addition, we reviewed the current body of evidence in Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for the oral mucocutaneous complications of ICU patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Three out of nine critically ill patients (33.3%) in our ICU department presented with oral complications including haemorrhagic ulcers and necrotic ulcers affecting the lips and tongue. The microbiological assessment revealed the presence of opportunistic pathogens, confirming the possibility of co-infection. On reviewing the current literature, two hundred ten critically ill patients were reported to have oral complications due to their stay in the ICU setting. Perioral pressure ulcers were the most common complication, followed by oral candidiasis, herpetic and haemorrhagic ulcers, and acute onset macroglossia. The prolonged prone positioning and mechanical ventilation devices were the primary risk factors for those oral complications, in addition to the immunosuppressive drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary approach is strongly advocated for monitoring and management of COVID-19 patients, thus implying that dermatology and oral healthcare specialists and nurses should be integrated within the ICU teams.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The development of new fertility treatment options has facilitated individualized assisted reproductive technology (ART) protocols to improve outcomes. Manufacturing improvements to recombinant human follitropin alfa have allowed precise dosing based on mass (filled-by-mass; FbM) rather than bioactivity (filled-by-bioassay; FbIU). Continued monitoring and reporting of follitropin alfa treatment outcomes in routine clinical practice is essential. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the frequency of different controlled ovarian-stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in new European Union member states, and to provide post-registration efficacy and safety data on follitropin alfa. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 2-year, prospective, observational, multicentre, Phase IV study conducted at ART clinics in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Women aged 18-47 years undergoing ovarian stimulation with follitropin alfa for conventional IVF or ICSI were eligible for inclusion. The main treatment outcome was cumulative clinical pregnancy rate. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Clinical pregnancy outcomes were available for 4055 of 4085 (99.3%) patients. In total, 1897 (46.8%) patients used follitropin alfa FbIU; 2133 (52.6%) used follitropin alfa FbM. Clinical pregnancy was achieved by 39.5% (1603/4055) of patients. A greater proportion of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome achieved a clinical pregnancy than those with endometriosis (41.8% vs 37.8%, respectively). A higher cumulative pregnancy rate was observed with the use of follitropin alfa FbM than follitropin alfa FbIU (41.3% vs 37.8%, respectively; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the most comprehensive audit of individualized ART in clinical practice in Central and Eastern Europe. Overall, clinical pregnancy was achieved by 39.5% of patients after stimulation with follitropin alfa. The use of follitropin alfa FbM resulted in a higher cumulative pregnancy rate than did the FbIU formulation. However, limitations of the study include the observational and non-comparative study design, and descriptive nature of statistical analyses; furthermore, the study was not designed to make direct comparisons between the success rates of different ovarian-stimulation protocols.
