Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

Effect of early administration of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and risk of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome: EARLY-DEX COVID-19 trial

Introduction and objectives

Corticosteroids are among the drugs demonstrating a mortality benefit for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The RECOVERY trial highlighted that dexamethasone reduced 28-day mortality for hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring either supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation. It is noted that approximately 30% of COVID-19 patients, initially presenting with mild symptoms, will advance to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially those with detectable laboratory markers of inflammation indicative of disease progression. Our research aimed to explore the efficacy of dexamethasone in preventing the progression to ARDS in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who do not yet require additional oxygen but are at high risk of developing ARDS, potentially leading to a reduction in morbimortality.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the impact of dexamethasone on adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia who did not need supplementary oxygen at admission but were identified as having risk factors for ARDS. The risk of ARDS was determined based on specific criteria: elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels over 245 U/L, C-reactive protein levels exceeding 100 mg/L, and a lymphocyte count below 0.80 × 109/L. Participants were randomly allocated to either receive dexamethasone or the standard care. The primary endpoints included the incidence of moderate or severe ARDS and all-cause mortality within 30 days post-enrollment.

Results

One hundred twenty-six patients were randomized. Among them, 41 were female (30.8%), with a mean age of 48.8 ± 14.4 years. Ten patients in the dexamethasone group (17.2%) and ten patients in the control group (14.7%) developed moderate ARDS with no significant differences. Mechanical ventilation was required in six patients (4.7%), with four in the treatment group and two in the control group. There were no deaths during hospitalization or during follow-up. An intermediate analysis for futility showed some differences between the control and treatment groups (Z = 0.0284). However, these findings were within the margins close to the region where the null hypothesis would not be rejected.

Conclusion

In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without oxygen needs but at risk of progressing to severe disease, early dexamethasone administration did not lead to a decrease in ARDS development.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04836780.

COVID-19 ethics: unique aspects and a review as of early 2024

COVID-19 presents a variety of ethical challenges in a set of arenas, arenas not always considered in past pandemics. These challenges include issues related to autonomy, distributive ethics, and the establishment of policies of equity and justice. Methods are a literature review based on regular editing of an online textbook during the COVID-19 outbreak and a literature review using key ethical terms. Patients are confronted with new issues related to autonomy. Providers need to expand their concepts of ethical issues to include decisions based on proportionality and public health ethics. The public health sector needs to assess the beneficence of alternative modes of disease control. The research community needs to redefine the concept of informed consent in emergent conditions. All elements of the medical spectrum-physicians, scientists, and the community-at-large including the pharmaceutical industry-need to consider the multifaceted methods for preventing future pandemics. This will require giving particular emphasis to public health funding and ending the documented discrimination that exists in the provision of proven therapies. The developing world is especially at risk for most of the ethical issues, especially those related to equity and justice. The ethical issues associated with the COVID-19 outbreak are not unique but provide a diverse set of issues that apply to patients, providers, social groups, and investigators. The further study of such issues can help with preventing future outbreaks.

Remdesivir is Associated with Reduced Mortality in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Not Requiring Supplemental Oxygen

Background

Remdesivir has demonstrated benefit in some hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on supplemental oxygen and in nonhospitalized patients breathing room air. The durability of this benefit across time periods with different circulating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants of concern (VOC) is unknown. This comparative effectiveness study in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and not receiving supplemental oxygen at admission compared those starting remdesivir treatment in the first 2 days of admission with those receiving no remdesivir during their hospitalization across different VOC periods.

Method

Using a large, multicenter US hospital database, in-hospital mortality rates were compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 but not requiring supplemental oxygen at admission between December 2020 and April 2022. Patients receiving remdesivir at hospital admission were matched 1:1 to those not receiving remdesivir during hospitalization, using propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess 14- and 28-day in-hospital mortality rates or discharge to hospice.

Results

Among the 121 336 eligible patients, 58 188 remdesivir-treated patients were matched to 17 574 unique patients not receiving remdesivir. Overall, 5.4% of remdesivir-treated and 7.3% in the non-remdesivir group died within 14 days, and 8.0% and 9.8%, respectively, died within 28 days. Remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the in-hospital mortality rate compared with non-remdesivir treatment (14-day and 28-day adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 0.75 [0.68-0.83] and 0.83 [0.76-0.90], respectively). This significant mortality benefit endured across the different VOC periods.

Conclusions

Remdesivir initiation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and not requiring supplemental oxygen at admission was associated with a significantly reduced in-hospital mortality rate. These findings highlight a potential survival benefit when clinicians initiated remdesivir on admission across the dominant variant eras of the evolving pandemic.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital with and without respiratory symptoms

Background

COVID-19 is primarily known as a respiratory illness; however, many patients present to hospital without respiratory symptoms. The association between non-respiratory presentations of COVID-19 and outcomes remains unclear. We investigated risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients with no respiratory symptoms (NRS) and respiratory symptoms (RS) at hospital admission.

Methods

This study describes clinical features, physiological parameters, and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, stratified by the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms at hospital admission. RS patients had one or more of: cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, runny nose or wheezing; while NRS patients did not.

Results

Of 178,640 patients in the study, 86.4 % presented with RS, while 13.6 % had NRS. NRS patients were older (median age: NRS: 74 vs RS: 65) and less likely to be admitted to the ICU (NRS: 36.7 % vs RS: 37.5 %). NRS patients had a higher crude in-hospital case-fatality ratio (NRS 41.1 % vs. RS 32.0 %), but a lower risk of death after adjusting for confounders (HR 0.88 [0.83-0.93]).

Conclusion

Approximately one in seven COVID-19 patients presented at hospital admission without respiratory symptoms. These patients were older, had lower ICU admission rates, and had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality after adjusting for confounders.

In-hospital survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with glucocorticoids: a multicenter real-world data study

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major challenge to healthcare systems globally. Millions of people have been infected, and millions of deaths have been reported worldwide. Glucocorticoids have attracted worldwide attention for their potential efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. Various glucocorticoids with different dosages and treatment durations have been studied in patients with different severities, with a suitable dosage and treatment duration not yet defined. This study aimed to investigate whether in-hospital survival differs between critically ill patients treated with low-dose glucocorticoids, high-dose glucocorticoids or no glucocorticoids. All critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit of the Charité Hospital-Universitätsmedizin Berlin between February 2020 and December 2021 with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving supplemental oxygen were eligible to participate in this multicenter real-world data study. Patients were retrospectively assigned to one of three groups: the high corticosteroid dose (HighC) group (receiving 6 mg parenteral dexamethasone or an equivalent corticosteroid dosage for ten days), the low corticosteroid dose (LowC) group (receiving less than 6 mg parenteral dexamethasone or an equivalent corticosteroid dosage for ten days), or the no corticosteroid (NoC) group. Overall survival and risk effects were compared among groups within the total observation period, as well as at 35 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to compare the risk of death between the treatment groups. Out of 1561 critically ill COVID-19 patients, 1014 were included in the baseline analysis. In the survival study, 1009 patients were assigned to the NoC (n = 346), HighC (n = 552), or LowC group (n = 111). The baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, except for age, BMI, APACHE II score, SOFA and SAPS II. While the 35-day survival did not show any differences, a landmark analysis of the patients surviving beyond 35 days revealed differences between groups. The restricted mean survival time was 112 days in the LowC group [95% CI: 97 - 128], 133 days in the HighC group [95% CI: 124 - 141] and 144 days in the NoC group [95% CI: 121 - 167]. The multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated that, regardless of age, sex, health status or invasive oxygenation, a low-dose treatment increased the hazard of death of critically ill COVID-19 patients by a factor of 2.09 ([95% CI: 0.99, 4.4], p = 0.05) and a high-dose corticosteroid treatment increased the risk by a factor of 1.07 ([95% CI: 0.53, 2.15], p = 0.85) compared to no treatment with glucocorticoids. The analysis reveals that corticosteroid treatment does not influence the survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit within 35 days. Our evaluations further suggest that regardless of ventilation status, the decision-making process for administering corticosteroid therapy should account for the individual severity of the illness.

K-Means Clustering Identifies Diverse Clinical Phenotypes in COVID-19 Patients: Implications for Mortality Risks and Remdesivir Impact

INTRODUCTION

The impact of remdesivir on mortality in patients with COVID-19 is still controversial. We aimed to identify clinical phenotype clusters of COVID-19 hospitalized patients with highest benefit from remdesivir use and validate these findings in an external cohort.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients hospitalized between February 2020 and February 2021 for COVID-19. The derivation cohort comprised subjects admitted to Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. The validation cohort included patients from Hospital Universitari Mutua de Terrassa (Terrassa) and Hospital Universitari La Fe (Valencia), all tertiary centers in Spain. We employed K-means clustering to group patients according to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) cycle threshold (Ct) values and lymphocyte counts at diagnosis, and pre-test symptom duration. The impact of remdesivir on 60-day mortality in each cluster was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1160 patients (median age 66, interquartile range (IQR) 55-78) were included. We identified five clusters, with mortality rates ranging from 0 to 36.7%. Highest mortality rate was observed in the cluster including patients with shorter pre-test symptom duration, lower lymphocyte counts, and lower Ct values at diagnosis. The absence of remdesivir administration was associated with worse outcome in the high-mortality cluster (10.5% vs. 36.7%; p < 0.001), comprising subjects with higher viral loads. These results were validated in an external multicenter cohort of 981 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with COVID-19 exhibit varying mortality rates across different clinical phenotypes. K-means clustering aids in identifying patients who derive the greatest mortality benefit from remdesivir use.

Optimal timing for awake prone positioning in Covid-19 patients: Insights from an observational study from two centers

BACKGROUND

The widespread application and interest in awake prone positioning stems from its ease and availability and its ability to enhance patients' oxygenation. Nevertheless, due to the absence of consensus over the regimen of awake prone positioning, the efficacy of awake prone positioning remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the optimal regimen for awake prone positioning, including the timing of initiation, ideal daily duration, and strategies for improving patient comfort and encouraging adherence.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING(S)

Two university-affiliated hospitals in Shanghai.

PARTICIPANTS

Between December 2022 and February 2023, a total of 475 patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia who received awake prone positioning were observed.

METHODS

The data were collected from the hospital's electronic medical record system. The differentiation efficiency of peripheral blood oxygen saturation [SpO2]:fractional oxygen concentration in inspired air [FiO2] ratio at first awake prone positioning for different outcomes was tested by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the relationship between time to occurrence of 28-day outcomes and collected variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted with the percentage of 28-day outcomes according to the SpO2:FiO2 ratio at first awake prone positioning after controlling covariates through Cox regression.

RESULTS

The best efficiency in predicting patient outcomes was achieved when the cutoff SpO2:FiO2 ratio at first awake prone positioning was 200. Patients with a reduced SpO2:FiO2 ratio (≤200) experienced more adverse respiratory outcomes (RR = 5.42, 95%CI [3.35, 8.76], p < 0·001) and higher mortality (RR = 16.64, 95%CI [5.53, 50.13], p < 0.001). Patients with a SpO2:FiO2 ratio of ≥200 at first awake prone positioning, longer duration between first awake prone positioning and admission, more awake prone positioning days, and better awake prone positioning completion were significantly protected from 28-day adverse respiratory outcomes and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating awake prone positioning with a SpO2:FiO2 ratio exceeding 200, increasing the number of awake prone positioning days, prolonging the time between first awake prone positioning and admission, and achieving better completion of awake prone positioning were found to be significantly associated with reduced adverse respiratory outcomes and mortality.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05795751; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

SFX-01 in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Introduction

Sulforaphane can induce the transcription factor, Nrf2, promoting antioxidant and anti-inflammatory responses. In this study, hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were treated with stabilised synthetic sulforaphane (SFX-01) to evaluate impact on clinical status and inflammation.

Methods

Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of SFX-01 (300 mg oral capsule, once daily for 14 days) conducted in Dundee, UK, between November 2020 and May 2021. Patients had radiologically confirmed CAP and CURB-65 (confusion, urea >7 mmol·L-1, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths·min-1, blood pressure <90 mmHg (systolic) or ≤60 mmHg (diastolic), age ≥65 years) score ≥1. The primary outcome was the seven-point World Health Organization clinical status scale at day 15. Secondary outcomes included time to clinical improvement, length of stay and mortality. Effects on Nrf2 activity and inflammation were evaluated on days 1, 8 and 15 by measurement of 45 serum cytokines and mRNA sequencing of peripheral blood leukocytes.

Results

The trial was terminated prematurely due to futility with 133 patients enrolled. 65 patients were randomised to SFX-01 treatment and 68 patients to placebo. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was the cause of CAP in 103 (77%) cases. SFX-01 treatment did not improve clinical status at day 15 (adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.41-1.83; p=0.71), time to clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.49), length of stay (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56-1.26) or 28-day mortality (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 0.67-3.16). The expression of Nrf2 targets and pro-inflammatory genes, including interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β and tumour necrosis factor-α, was not significantly changed by SFX-01 treatment. At days 8 and 15, respectively, 310 and 42 significant differentially expressed genes were identified between groups (false discovery rate adjusted p<0.05, log2FC >1).

Conclusion

SFX-01 treatment did not improve clinical status or modulate key Nrf2 targets in patients with CAP primarily due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Safety and Outcome of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Outside ICU Setting in Hypoxemic Patients With COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is frequently applied outside ICU setting in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. However, safety concerns limit more widespread use. We aimed to assess the safety and clinical outcomes of initiation of HFNO therapy in COVID-19 on non-ICU wards.

DESIGN

Prospective observational multicenter pragmatic study.

SETTING

Respiratory wards and ICUs of 10 hospitals in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Adult patients treated with HFNO for COVID-19-associated hypoxemia between December 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients with treatment limitations were excluded from this analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Outcomes included intubation and mortality rate, duration of hospital and ICU stay, severity of respiratory failure, and complications. Using propensity-matched analysis, we compared patients who initiated HFNO on the wards versus those in ICU. Six hundred eight patients were included, of whom 379 started HFNO on the ward and 229 in the ICU. The intubation rate in the matched cohort ( n = 214 patients) was 53% and 60% in ward and ICU starters, respectively ( p = 0.41). Mortality rates were comparable between groups (28-d [8% vs 13%], p = 0.28). ICU-free days were significantly higher in ward starters (21 vs 17 d, p < 0.001). No patient died before endotracheal intubation, and the severity of respiratory failure surrounding invasive ventilation and clinical outcomes did not differ between intubated ward and ICU starters (respiratory rate-oxygenation index 3.20 vs 3.38; Pa o2 :F io2 ratio 65 vs 64 mm Hg; prone positioning after intubation 81 vs 78%; mortality rate 17 vs 25% and ventilator-free days at 28 d 15 vs 13 d, all p values > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, initiation of HFNO outside the ICU was safe, and clinical outcomes were similar to initiation in the ICU. Furthermore, the initiation of HFNO on wards saved time in ICU without excess mortality or complicated course. Our results indicate that HFNO initiation outside ICU should be further explored in other hypoxemic diseases and clinical settings aiming to preserve ICU capacity and healthcare costs.

COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis. New evidence

Recent publications have questioned the efficacy of using therapeutic or intermediate doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in COVID-19 patients, especially in the most severe patients. In order to update these recommendations, a non-systematic review has been carried out in the main medical databases. A total of 14 randomized clinical trials, 14 meta-analyses and the recommendations of 12 scientific societies were selected, stratified according to the type of patient (outpatient, hospitalized, admitted to critical care or post-discharge). The efficacy of LMWH and other therapeutic approaches (rivaroxaban, apixaban, sulodexide, acetylsalicylic acid and P2Y12 inhibitors) has been analyzed. The findings recommend using standard doses of LMWH as thromboprophylaxis in critically hospitalized COVID-19 patients and therapeutic doses in non-critically hospitalized patients if the risk of bleeding is low. In outpatients and those discharged from the hospital, LMWH could be used at a prophylactic dose if there are thrombotic risk factors, and the bleeding risk is low. It is not recommended to associate antiplatelet agents with LMWH unless previously indicated.

Pathogen evolution, prevention/control strategy and clinical features of COVID-19: experiences from China

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported at the end of 2019 as a worldwide health concern causing a pandemic of unusual viral pneumonia and many other organ damages, which was defined by the World Health Organization as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pandemic is considered a significant threat to global public health till now. In this review, we have summarized the lessons learnt during the emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2, including its prototype and variants. The overall clinical features of variants of concern (VOC), heterogeneity in the clinical manifestations, radiology and pathology of COVID-19 patients are also discussed, along with advances in therapeutic agents.

Severe SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia and Pneumomediastinum/Pneumothorax: A Prospective Observational Study in an Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit

INTRODUCTION

The occurrence of pneumomediastinum (PM) and/or pneumothorax (PTX) in patients with severe pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was evaluated.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study conducted in patients admitted to the intermediate respiratory care unit (IRCU) of a COVID-19 monographic hospital in Madrid (Spain) between December 14, 2020 and September 28, 2021. All patients had a diagnosis of severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and required noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS): high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). The incidences of PM and/or PTX, overall and by NIRS, and their impact on the probabilities of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and death were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 1306 patients were included. 4.3% (56/1306) developed PM/PTX, 3.8% (50/1306) PM, 1.6% (21/1306) PTX, and 1.1% (15/1306) PM + PTX. 16.1% (9/56) of patients with PM/PTX had HFNC alone, while 83.9% (47/56) had HFNC + CPAP/BiPAP. In comparison, 41.7% (521/1250) of patients without PM and PTX had HFNC alone (odds ratio [OR] 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.13-0.55; p < .001), while 58.3% (729/1250) had HFNC + CPAP/BiPAP (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.81-7.68; p < .001). The probability of needing IMV among patients with PM/PTX was 67.9% (36/53) (OR 7.46; 95% CI 4.12-13.50; p < .001), while it was 22.1% (262/1185) among patients without PM and PTX. Mortality among patients with PM/PTX was 33.9% (19/56) (OR 4.39; 95% CI 2.45-7.85; p < .001), while it was 10.5% (131/1250) among patients without PM and PTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted to the IRCU for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia requiring NIRS, incidences of PM/PTX, PM, PTX, and PM + PTX were observed to be 4.3%, 3.8%, 1.6%, and 1.1%, respectively. Most patients with PM/PTX had HFNC + CPAP/BiPAP as the NIRS device, much more frequently than patients without PM and PTX. The probabilities of IMV and death among patients with PM/PTX were 64.3% and 33.9%, respectively, higher than those observed in patients without PM and PTX, which were 21.0% and 10.5%, respectively.

Antibiotic prescribing guideline recommendations in COVID-19: a systematic survey

Background

COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting public health crises. Antimicrobial overuse in patients with COVID-19 threatens to worsen AMR. Guidelines are fundamental in encouraging antimicrobial stewardship. We sought to assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing guidelines and recommendations in the context of COVID-19, and whether they incorporate principles of antimicrobial stewardship.

Methods

We performed a systematic survey which included a search using the concepts "antibiotic/antimicrobial" up to November 15, 2022 of the eCOVID-19 living map of recommendations (RecMap) which aggregates guidelines across a range of international sources and all languages. Guidelines providing explicit recommendations regarding antibacterial use in COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Guideline and recommendation quality were assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments, respectively. We extracted guideline characteristics including panel representation and the presence or absence of explicit statements related to antimicrobial stewardship (i.e., judicious antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance or adverse effects as a consequence of antibiotic use). We used logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between guideline characteristics including quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. Protocol registration (OSF): https://osf.io/4pgtc.

Findings

Twenty-eight guidelines with 63 antibiotic prescribing recommendations were included. Recommendations focused on antibiotic initiation (n = 52, 83%) and less commonly antibiotic selection (n = 13, 21%), and duration of therapy (n = 15, 24%). Guideline and recommendation quality varied widely. Twenty (71%) guidelines incorporated at least one concept relating to antimicrobial stewardship. Including infectious diseases expertise on the guideline panel (OR 9.44, 97.5% CI: 1.09-81.59) and AGREE-REX score (OR 3.26, 97.5% CI: 1.14-9.31 per 10% increase in overall score) were associated with a higher odds of guidelines addressing antimicrobial stewardship.

Interpretation

There is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing guidelines in terms of both quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. These findings can help guideline developers better address antibiotic stewardship in future recommendations beyond COVID-19.

Funding

This project was funded by Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE centres.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula oxygen therapy in COVID-19: retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes - single center experience

Background

High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy emerged as the therapy of choice in COVID-19-related pneumonia and moderate to severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). HFNC oxygen therapy in COVID-19 has been recommended based its use to treat AHRF of other etiologies, and studies on assessing outcomes in COVID-19 patients are highly needed. This study aimed to examine outcomes in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia and severe AHRF treated with HFNC.

Materials and methods

The study included 235 COVID-19 patients with pneumonia treated with HFNC. Data extracted from medical records included demographic characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, clinical and oxygenation status, clinical complications, as well as the length of hospital stay. Patients were segregated into two groups based on their oxygen therapy needs: HDU group, those who exclusively required HFNC and ICU group, those whose oxygen therapy needed to be escalated at some point of hospital stay. The primary outcome was the need for respiratory support escalation (noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation) and the secondary outcome was the in-hospital all-cause mortality.

Results

The primary outcome was met in 113 (48%) of patients. The overall mortality was 70%, significantly higher in the ICU group [102 (90.2%) vs. 62 (50.1%), p < 0.001]. The rate of intrahospital infections was significantly higher in the ICU group while there were no significant differences in the length of hospital stay between the groups. The ICU group exhibited significant increases in D-dimer, NLR, and NEWS values, accompanied by a significant decrease in the SaO2/FiO2 ratio. The multivariable COX proportional regression analysis identified malignancy, higher levels of 4C Mortality Score and NEWS2 as significant predictors of mortality.

Conclusion

High-Flow Nasal Cannula oxygen therapy is a safe type of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with significantly less possibility for emergence of intrahospital infections. In 52% of patients, HFNC was successful in treating AHRF in COVID-19 patients. Overall, mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia with AHRF is still very high, especially in patients treated with noninvasive/invasive mechanical ventilation.

COVID-19 treatment strategies with drugs centrally procured by the German Federal Ministry of Health in a representative tertiary care hospital: a temporal analysis

Introduction

To ensure the fastest and earliest possible treatment, the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) initiated central procurement and nationwide distribution of new drugs against COVID-19. A single centre was used for a retrospective temporal analysis of this procedure.

Methods

A descriptive analysis of hospitalization and treatment of COVID-19 patients with drugs centrally procured by the BMG at St. Georg Hospital, Leipzig, Germany, for the period from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2023 was employed considering the approval status, evolving guidelines and recommendations of medical societies.

Results

In total, 3,412 patients ≥18 years (54.9% men) with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted. The mean age was 64 years during the reporting period and 66.1/70.6 years during the first and second COVID-19 waves, respectively. 964 patients (28.2%) received COVID-19 therapy with drugs procured centrally by the BMG. Remdesivir was the most commonly used (63%). SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing monoclonal antibodies represented 23% of the therapies. Peroral antivirals (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir) were used in 14% of COVID-19 patients, with molnupiravir being insignificant (five prescriptions).

Conclusions

Specific therapeutic approaches were mainly based on antiviral therapy in the early phase of COVID-19 to prevent severe disease progression in vulnerable patient groups. Most drugs had not been approved at the time of central procurement; therefore, prescriptions were given on a case-by-case basis after careful risk-benefit assessments. All available neutralizing monoclonal SARS-CoV-2 antibodies lost efficacy during the pandemic due to different circulating immune escape variants. Remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir remained effective therapies in the early phase of COVID-19.

Therapies for people hospitalized with COVID-19 and alignment with national clinical guidelines in a large hospital, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2020-2021

Background

Clinical practice guidelines were continually changing during the COVID-19 pandemic to reflect the best available evidence for a novel virus. In Kazakhstan, the national clinical guidelines for COVID-19 patient care were regularly modified and it was not known if and to what extent these guidelines were being followed in practice.

Methods

We conducted a sub-analysis of data collected from an observational study among people hospitalized with COVID-19 in a large infectious disease hospital in Almaty in four cross-sections of increased COVID-19 incidence: T1 (1 June-30 August 2020); T2 (1 October-31 December 2020); T3 (1 April-31 May 2021); and T4 (1 July-26 October 2021). Modifications to the national COVID-19 treatment guidelines were identified and clinical data were abstracted from electronic medical records. We assessed frequency of antibiotic, glucocorticoid, anticoagulant, and antiviral administered in each period and determined if these aligned with national clinical guidelines. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare practices across periods.

Results

Six modifications were made to national COVID-19 treatment guidelines during this study. Of 1,146 people hospitalized with COVID-19, 14% were in T1, 14% in T2, 22% in T3, and 50% in T4. Anticoagulant treatment was administered to 87% (range: 56%-95%), antibiotic treatment to 60% (range: 58%-64%), glucocorticoid to 55% (range: 43%-64%) and antiviral therapy 15% (range: 7%-22%). Majority of treatments were not aligned with national guidelines, including 98% of anticoagulant use, 95% of antibiotic use, 56% of glucocorticoid use, and 56% of antiviral use. There were no significant changes in practice following changes in guidelines for antibiotic use (64% in T1 to 58% in T2, p = 0.30). There was significant increase in use of anticoagulant (84% in T2 vs. 95% in T3, p < 0.01), glucocorticoid (43% in T2 vs. 64% in T3, p < 0.01), and antiviral treatment (7% in T3 vs. 15% in T4, p < 0.01) after guidelines updates.

Conclusion

The majority of treatments administered to people hospitalized with COVID-19 in four periods of high incidence in Almaty were not aligned with updated clinical guidelines. Antibiotic misuse was markedly high throughout. Increased awareness and training on clinical practice guidelines as updates are released may help improve adoption of evidence-based practices.

Temporal evolution of laboratory characteristics in patients critically ill with COVID‑19 admitted to the intensive care unit (Review)

In the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), laboratory medicine has played a crucial role in both diagnosis and severity assessment. Although the importance of baseline laboratory findings has been extensively reported, data regarding their evolution over the clinical course are limited. The aim of the present narrative review was to provide the dynamic changes of the routine laboratory variables reported in patients with severe COVID-19 over the course of their critical illness. A search was made of the literature for articles providing data on the time-course of routine laboratory tests in patients with severe COVID-19 during their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). White blood cell, neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, platelet counts, as well as D-dimer, fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase and serum albumin levels were selected as disease characteristics and routine laboratory parameters. A total of 25 research articles reporting dynamic trends in the aforementioned laboratory parameters over the clinical course of severe COVID-19 were identified. During the follow-up period provided by each study, the majority of the laboratory values remained persistently abnormal in both survivors and non-survivors. Furthermore, in the majority of studies, the temporal trends of laboratory values distinctly differentiated patients between survivors and non-survivors. In conclusion, there are distinct temporal trends in selected routine laboratory parameters between survivors and non-survivors with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, indicating their importance in the prognosis of clinical outcome.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

Remdesivir (Veklury®), a nucleotide analogue prodrug with broad-spectrum antiviral activity, is approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Unlike some antivirals, remdesivir has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. In the pivotal ACTT-1 trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, daily intravenous infusions of remdesivir significantly reduced time to recovery relative to placebo. Subsequent trials provided additional support for the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, with a greater benefit seen in patients with minimal oxygen requirements at baseline. Clinical trials also demonstrated the efficacy of remdesivir in other patient populations, including outpatients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as well as hospitalized paediatric patients. In terms of mortality, results were equivocal. However, remdesivir appeared to have a small mortality benefit in hospitalized patients who were not already being ventilated at baseline. Remdesivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, but pharmacovigilance data found an increased risk of hepatic, renal and cardiovascular adverse drug reactions in the real-world setting. In conclusion, remdesivir represents a useful treatment option for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require supplemental oxygen.

Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in Tunisia

BACKGROUND

In this study, we explored whether awake prone position (PP) can impact prognosis of severe hypoxemia coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of severe, critically ill adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Patients were divided into two groups: group G1, patients who benefited from a vigilant and effective PP (>4 hours minimum/24) and group G2, control group. We compared demographic, clinical, paraclinical and evolutionary data.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-nine patients were hospitalized during the study period, 273 met the inclusion criteria. PP was performed in 192 patients (70.3%). The two groups were comparable in terms of demographic characteristics, clinical severity and modalities of oxygenation at intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The mean PaO2/ FIO2 ratios were 141 and 128 mm Hg, respectively (P=0.07). The computed tomography scan was comparable with a critical >75% in 48.5% (G1) versus 54.2% (G2). The median duration of the daily PP session was 13±7 hours per day. The average duration of spontaneous PP days was 7 days (4-19). Use of invasive ventilation was lower in the G1 group (27% vs. 56%, P=0.002). Healthcare-associated infections were significantly lower in G1 (42.1% vs. 82%, P=0.01). Duration of total mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay were comparable between the two groups. Mortality was significantly higher in G2 (64% vs. 28%, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed that awake PP can improve prognosis in COVID-19 patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this result.

COVID-19 and Pregnancy: An Updated Review about Evidence-Based Therapeutic Strategies

The COVID-19 pandemic posed a significant challenge for clinicians in managing pregnant women, who were at high risk of virus transmission and severe illness. While the WHO declared in May 2023 that COVID-19 is no longer a public health emergency, it emphasized that it remains a global health threat. Despite the success of vaccines, the possibility of new pandemic waves due to viral mutations should be considered. Ongoing assessment of the safety and effectiveness of pharmacological therapies is crucial in clinical practice. This narrative review summarizes the evidence-based therapeutic strategies for pregnant women with COVID-19, considering over three years of pandemic experience. The review discusses the safety and effectiveness of various drug regimens (antivirals, anticoagulants, corticosteroids, immunoglobulins, monoclonal antibodies, and therapeutic gases) and procedures (prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Drugs with contraindications, inefficacy during pregnancy, or unknown adverse effects were excluded from our evaluation. The aim is to provide healthcare professionals with a comprehensive guide for managing pregnant women with COVID-19 based on lessons learned from the pandemic outbreak.

Hemodynamic Effects of Awake Prone Positioning With COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure

INTRODUCTION

Awake prone positioning (PP) reduces need for intubation for patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure. We investigated the hemodynamic effects of awake PP in non-ventilated subjects with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center prospective cohort study. Adult hypoxemic subjects with COVID-19 not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation receiving at least one PP session were included. Hemodynamic assessment was done with transthoracic echocardiography before, during, and after a PP session.

RESULTS

Twenty-six subjects were included. We observed a significant and reversible increase in cardiac index (CI) during PP compared to supine position (SP): 3.0 ± 0.8 L/min/m2 in PP, 2.5 ± 0.6 L/min/m2 before PP (SP1), and 2.6 ± 0.5 L/min/m2 after PP (SP2, P < .001). A significant improvement in right ventricular (RV) systolic function was also evidenced during PP: The RV fractional area change was 36 ± 10% in SP1, 46 ± 10% during PP, and 35 ± 8% in SP2 (P < .001). There was no significant difference in PaO2 /FIO2 and breathing frequency.

CONCLUSION

CI and RV systolic function are improved by awake PP in non-ventilated subjects with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.

The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) became crucial in treating patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Despite the fear of viral aerosolization, non-invasive respiratory support has gained attention as a way to alleviate ICU overcrowding and reduce the risks associated with intubation. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increased demand for research, resulting in numerous publications on observational studies, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses in the past three years. This comprehensive narrative overview describes the physiological rationale, pre-COVID-19 evidence, and results of observational studies and randomized control trials regarding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure in adult patients with COVID-19 and associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The review also highlights the significance of guidelines and recommendations provided by international societies and the need for further well-designed research to determine the optimal use of NIRS in treating this population.

Antiviral Therapy of COVID-19

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community has focused on prophylactic vaccine development. In parallel, the experience of the pharmacotherapy of this disease has increased. Due to the declining protective capacity of vaccines against new strains, as well as increased knowledge about the structure and biology of the pathogen, control of the disease has shifted to the focus of antiviral drug development over the past year. Clinical data on safety and efficacy of antivirals acting at various stages of the virus life cycle has been published. In this review, we summarize mechanisms and clinical efficacy of antiviral therapy of COVID-19 with drugs based on plasma of convalescents, monoclonal antibodies, interferons, fusion inhibitors, nucleoside analogs, and protease inhibitors. The current status of the drugs described is also summarized in relation to the official clinical guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. In addition, here we describe innovative drugs whose antiviral effect is provided by antisense oligonucleotides targeting the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Analysis of laboratory and clinical data suggests that current antivirals successfully combat broad spectra of emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2 providing reliable defense against COVID-19.

Awake prone position in COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the effects of awake prone positioning (APP) in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched up to June 1, 2022. All randomized trials investigating the effects of APP were included in the present meta-analysis. The primary outcome was intubation rate, and the secondary outcomes included the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, and mortality. Prescribed subgroup analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized trials enrolling 2324 patients were ultimately included in the present study. The results indicated that APP was associated with a significant reduction in the intubation rate (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93, P = 0.007). However, no differences could be observed in the length of ICU stay or hospitalization or mortality. Subgroup analysis suggested that patients in the ICU settings (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91, P = 0.004), patients whose median APP time was more than 4 h (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93, P = 0.008), and patients with an average baseline SpO₂ to FiO₂ ratio less than 200 (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92) were more likely to benefit from APP, indicated a significantly reduced intubation rate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, nonintubated adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 infection who underwent APP were shown to have a significantly reduced intubation rate. However, no differences in ICU or hospital length of stay or mortality could be observed between APP and usual care.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022337846.

Risk factors for developing ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infection in patients with severe COVID-19: a multinational, multicentre study, prospective, observational study

Around one-third of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 develop a severe illness that requires admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). In clinical practice, clinicians have learned that patients admitted to the ICU due to severe COVID-19 frequently develop ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI). This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics, the factors associated with VA-LRTI, and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. This was a multicentre, observational cohort study conducted in ten countries in Latin America and Europe. We included patients with confirmed rtPCR for SARS-CoV-2 requiring ICU admission and endotracheal intubation. Only patients with a microbiological and clinical diagnosis of VA-LRTI were included. Multivariate Logistic regression analyses and Random Forest were conducted to determine the risk factors for VA-LRTI and its clinical impact in patients with severe COVID-19. In our study cohort of 3287 patients, VA-LRTI was diagnosed in 28.8% [948/3287]. The cumulative incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was 18.6% [610/3287], followed by ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) 10.3% [338/3287]. A total of 1252 bacteria species were isolated. The most frequently isolated pathogens were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (21.2% [266/1252]), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.1% [239/1252]) and Staphylococcus aureus (15.5% [194/1,252]). The factors independently associated with the development of VA-LRTI were prolonged stay under invasive mechanical ventilation, AKI during ICU stay, and the number of comorbidities. Regarding the clinical impact of VA-LRTI, patients with VAP had an increased risk of hospital mortality (OR [95% CI] of 1.81 [1.40-2.34]), while VAT was not associated with increased hospital mortality (OR [95% CI] of 1.34 [0.98-1.83]). VA-LRTI, often with difficult-to-treat bacteria, is frequent in patients admitted to the ICU due to severe COVID-19 and is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including higher mortality. Identifying risk factors for VA-LRTI might allow the early patient diagnosis to improve clinical outcomes.Trial registration: This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

The intersection of obesity and (long) COVID-19: Hypoxia, thrombotic inflammation, and vascular endothelial injury

The role of hypoxia, vascular endothelial injury, and thrombotic inflammation in worsening COVID-19 symptoms has been generally recognized. Damaged vascular endothelium plays a crucial role in forming in situ thrombosis, pulmonary dysfunction, and hypoxemia. Thrombotic inflammation can further aggravate local vascular endothelial injury and affect ventilation and blood flow ratio. According to the results of many studies, obesity is an independent risk factor for a variety of severe respiratory diseases and contributes to high mechanical ventilation rate, high mortality, and slow recovery in COVID-19 patients. This review will explore the mechanisms by which obesity may aggravate the acute phase of COVID-19 and delay long COVID recovery by affecting hypoxia, vascular endothelial injury, and thrombotic inflammation. A systematic search of PubMed database was conducted for papers published since January 2020, using the medical subject headings of "COVID-19" and "long COVID" combined with the following keywords: "obesity," "thrombosis," "endothelial injury," "inflammation," "hypoxia," "treatment," and "anticoagulation." In patients with obesity, the accumulation of central fat restricts the expansion of alveoli, exacerbating the pulmonary dysfunction caused by SARS-CoV-2 invasion, inflammatory damage, and lung edema. Abnormal fat secretion and immune impairment further aggravate the original tissue damage and inflammation diffusion. Obesity weakens baseline vascular endothelium function leading to an early injury and pre-thrombotic state after infection. Enhanced procoagulant activity and microthrombi promote early obstruction of the vascular. Obesity also prolongs the duration of symptoms and increases the risk of sequelae after hospital discharge. Persistent viral presence, long-term inflammation, microclots, and hypoxia may contribute to the development of persistent symptoms, suggesting that patients with obesity are uniquely susceptible to long COVID. Early interventions, including supplemental oxygen, comprehensive antithrombotic therapy, and anti-inflammatory drugs, show effectiveness in many studies in the prevention of serious hypoxia, thromboembolic events, and systemic inflammation, and are therefore recommended to reduce intensive care unit admission, mortality, and sequelae.

Glucocorticoid Therapy in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in significant mortality in pandemic proportions. Inflammation in response to the infection contributes to the pathogenesis of pneumonia. This review will discuss prior studies on the use of glucocorticoids to treat respiratory infections, the rationale for the use glucocorticoids in COVID-19, and review of existing data. We will also highlight outstanding research questions for future studies.

Newly Proposed Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Does Inclusion of High Flow Nasal Cannula Solve the Problem?

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common life-threatening clinical syndrome which accounts for 10% of intensive care unit admissions. Since the Berlin definition was developed, the clinical diagnosis and therapy have changed dramatically by adding a minimum positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to the assessment of hypoxemia compared to the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC) definition in 1994. High-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) have become widely used as an effective respiratory support for hypoxemia to the extent that their use was proposed in the expansion of the ARDS criteria. However, there would be problems if the diagnosis of a specific disease or clinical syndrome occurred, based on therapeutic strategies.

Potential of Lactoferrin in the Treatment of Lung Diseases

Lactoferrin (LF) is a multifunctional iron-binding glycoprotein that exhibits a variety of properties, such as immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and anticancer, that can be used to treat numerous diseases. Lung diseases continue to be the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Many of the therapies currently used to treat these diseases have limited efficacy or are associated with side effects. Therefore, there is a constant pursuit for new drugs and therapies, and LF is frequently considered a therapeutic agent and/or adjunct to drug-based therapies for the treatment of lung diseases. This article focuses on a review of the existing and most up-to-date literature on the contribution of the beneficial effects of LF on the treatment of lung diseases, including asthma, viral infections, cystic fibrosis, or lung cancer, among others. Although in vitro and in vivo studies indicate significant potency of LF in the treatment of the listed diseases, only in the case of respiratory tract infections do human studies seem to confirm them by demonstrating the effectiveness of LF in reducing episodes of illness and shortening the recovery period. For lung cancer, COVID-19 and sepsis, the reports are conflicting, and for other diseases, there is a paucity of human studies conclusively confirming the beneficial effects of LF.

Should We Interfere with the Interleukin-6 Receptor During COVID-19: What Do We Know So Far?

Severe manifestations of COVID-19 consist of acute respiratory distress syndrome due to an initially local reaction leading to a systemic inflammatory response that results in hypoxia. Many therapeutic approaches have been attempted to reduce the clinical consequences of an excessive immune response to viral infection. To date, systemic corticosteroid therapy is still the most effective intervention. More recently, new hope has emerged with the use of interleukin (IL)-6 receptor inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab). However, the great heterogeneity of the methodology and results of published studies obfuscate the true value of this treatment, leading to a confusing synthesis in recent meta-analyses, and the persistence of doubts in terms of patient groups and the appropriate time to treat. Moreover, their effects on the anti-infectious or pro-healing response are still poorly studied. This review aims to clarify the potential role of IL-6 receptor inhibitors in the treatment of severe forms of COVID-19.

Clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir: a retrospective analysis of a large tertiary care center in Germany

PURPOSE

The benefits of antiviral treatment with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain controversial. Clinical analyses are needed to demonstrate which patient populations are most likely to benefit.

METHODS

In a retrospective monocentric analysis, patients with COVID-19 treated between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021 at Hospital St. Georg, Leipzig, Germany were evaluated. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement, and the secondary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Propensity score matching was used for the endpoint analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 839 patients were fully evaluated, 68% of whom received specific COVID-19 drug therapy. Remdesivir was used in 31.3% of the patients, corticosteroids in 61.7%, and monoclonal antibodies in 2.3%. While dexamethasone administration was the most common therapeutic approach during the second pandemic wave, combination therapy with remdesivir and corticosteroids predominated during the third wave. Cox regression analysis revealed that combination therapy was not associated with faster clinical improvement (median: 13 days in both matched groups, HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.77-1.21], P = 0.762). By contrast, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the corticosteroid-remdesivir group (14.8% versus 22.2% in the corticosteroid group, HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.95], P = 0.03) in the low-care setting. This effect was also demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of patients with remdesivir monotherapy (n = 44) versus standard of care (SOC).

CONCLUSION

In COVID-19 patients with only mild disease (low-flow oxygen therapy and treatment in a normal ward) who received corticosteroids and/or remdesivir in addition to SOC, early administration of remdesivir was associated with a measurable survival benefit.

Respiratory viruses: their importance and lessons learned from COVID-19

Respiratory virus infection can cause severe illnesses capable of inducing acute respiratory failure that can progress rapidly to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). ARDS is related to poor outcomes, especially in individuals with a higher risk of infection, such as the elderly and those with comorbidities, i.e. obesity, asthma, diabetes mellitus and chronic respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Despite this, effective antiviral treatments available for severe viral lung infections are scarce. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrated that there is also a need to understand the role of airborne transmission of respiratory viruses. Robust evidence supporting this exists, but better comprehension could help implement adequate measures to mitigate respiratory viral infections. In severe viral lung infections, early diagnosis, risk stratification and prognosis are essential in managing patients. Biomarkers can provide reliable, timely and accessible information possibly helpful for clinicians in managing severe lung viral infections. Although respiratory viruses highly impact global health, more research is needed to improve care and prognosis of severe lung viral infections. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, diagnosis, clinical characteristics, management and prognosis of patients with severe infections due to respiratory viruses.

THE ROLE OF AGE AND COMORBIDITIES ON THE OUTCOME OF CONFIRMED CLINICALLY CRITICAL COVID-19 PATIENTS TREATED WITH REMDESIVIR AT INDONESIA'S NATIONAL REFERRAL HOSPITAL

Background

There is currently no viable pharmaceutical therapy for COVID-19 illness that has been validated. The use of remdesivir is one of the medications for which there is no consistent evidence of a significant therapeutic benefit or a meaningful effect on survival.

Aim

The aim of this study was to determine the role of age and comorbidities on the outcome of confirmed clinically critical COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir at Indonesia's National Referral Hospital.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was used in this study. The subjects in this study were confirmed clinically critical COVID-19 patients who were treated at Dr. M Djamil Hospital Padang, one of Indonesia's national referral hospitals, from January 2 to June 30, 2021. The number of sample size in this study was 90 patients. The variables of this study were divided into three independent variables (age, comorbidities, and a number of comorbidities). A dependent variable was the outcome of confirmed clinically critical COVID-19 patients. The Chi-square test was performed in bivariate analysis, and the odds ratio was calculated. SPSS version 17.0 was used to analyze the data.

Results

The results of this study found that there was an association between ages 50-59 years (OR = 10.23, 95% CI 1.89-55.53), 60-69 years (OR = 4.58, 95% CI 1.25-16.76), and > 70 years (OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.38 -9.59), comorbid diabetes mellitus (OR = 9.78, 95% CI 1.23-77.66), the number of comorbid > 1 (OR = 10.97, 95% CI 2.19-54.96, and the number of comorbid 1 (OR = 5.69, 95% CI 1.59- 20.41) with the outcome of confirmed clinically critical COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir.

Conclusion

The significance of age and comorbidities on the outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir at Indonesia's national referral hospital was confirmed in this study. This study could assist in the management of patient therapy, potentially decreasing morbidity and even patient mortality.

Providing respiratory and ventilation care in the face of shifting evidence: current opinion in critical care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the clinical problem and noninvasive treatments of hypoxemia in critically-ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia and describe recent advances in evidence supporting bedside decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation, along with awake prone positioning are potentially helpful therapies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy has been widely implemented as a form of oxygen support supported by prepandemic randomized controlled trials showing possible benefit over noninvasive ventilation. Given the sheer volume of patients, noninvasive ventilation was often required, and based on a well conducted randomized controlled trial there was a developing role for helmet-interface noninvasive. Coupled with noninvasive supports, the use of awake prone positioning demonstrated physiological benefits, but randomized controlled trial data did not demonstrate clear outcome superiority.

SUMMARY

The use of noninvasive oxygen strategies and our understanding of the proposed mechanisms are evolving. Variability in patient severity and physiology may dictate a personalized approach to care. High-flow nasal oxygen may be paired with awake and spontaneously breathing prone-positioning to optimize oxygen and lung mechanics but requires further insight before widely applying to clinical practice.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

METHODS

In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012.

FINDINGS

Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57-0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug.

INTERPRETATION

Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

FUNDING

Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.

COVID-19 treatments approved in the European Union and clinical recommendations for the management of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 continues to have a serious impact on public health worldwide. Most patients develop mild to moderate symptoms and recover without requiring special treatment, but up to 15% develop severe (dyspnea, hypoxia, lung involvement) or critical symptoms (respiratory failure, septic shock, thromboembolism, multiorgan dysfunction). Although vaccination is having a substantial impact on case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths, there remains a need for new effective treatments against COVID-19.

METHODS

This short review aims at reporting on current therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 focussing on new drugs authorized in the European Union, describing the treatment strategies and the clinical recommendations for the management of hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients based on the available guidelines for clinical practice.

RESULTS

New effective drugs, like antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies, have been developed as therapy against severe and life-threatening disease courses. Specifically, the European Medicines Agency has authorized two antiviral medicines (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir), supporting also early use of molnupiravir before marketing authorization, and four monoclonal antibodies (regdanvimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab). In addition, three drugs (anakinra, tocilizumab, baricitinib) previously authorized for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis are also available to treat COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations and guidelines for clinical practice should be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available in favour or against specific interventions, to inform all stakeholders involved in the health care of COVID-19 patients both in the community and in the hospital setting, aiming at improving the quality of care and therefore the patient outcome.KEY MESSAGESCOVID-19 has been recognized as a multisystem disorder affecting many body systems; this wide spectrum of clinical patterns made difficult an appropriate choice of treatments able to counteract severe symptoms of the disease and alleviate the burden on the healthcare system.New effective drugs, like antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies, have been developed and approved by the European Medicines Agency as therapy against severe and life-threatening disease courses.Recommendations and guidelines should be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available in favour or against specific interventions aiming at improving the quality of care and therefore the patient outcome.

Investigation of hs-TnI and sST-2 as Potential Predictors of Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Survived Hospitalization for COVID-19 Pneumonia

Introduction: COVID-19 survivors reveal an increased long-term risk for cardiovascular disease. Biomarkers like troponins and sST-2 improve stratification of cardiovascular risk. Nevertheless, their prognostic value for identifying long-term cardiovascular risk after having survived COVID-19 has yet to be evaluated. Methods: In this single-center study, admission serum biomarkers of sST-2 and hs-TnI in a single cohort of 251 hospitalized COVID-19 survivors were evaluated. Concentrations were correlated with major cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as cardiovascular death and/or need for cardiovascular hospitalization during follow-up after hospital discharge [FU: 415 days (403; 422)]. Results: MACE was a frequent finding during FU with an incidence of 8.4% (cardiovascular death: 2.8% and/or need for cardiovascular hospitalization: 7.2%). Both biomarkers were reliable indicators of MACE (hs-TnI: sensitivity = 66.7% & specificity = 65.7%; sST-2: sensitivity = 33.3% & specificity = 97.4%). This was confirmed in a multivariate proportional-hazards analysis: besides age (HR = 1.047, 95% CI = 1.012−1.084, p = 0.009), hs-TnI (HR = 4.940, 95% CI = 1.904−12.816, p = 0.001) and sST-2 (HR = 10.901, 95% CI = 4.509−29.271, p < 0.001) were strong predictors of MACE. The predictive value of the model was further improved by combining both biomarkers with the factor age (concordance index hs-TnI + sST2 + age = 0.812). Conclusion: During long-term FU, hospitalized COVID-19 survivors, hs-TnI and sST-2 at admission, were strong predictors of MACE, indicating both proteins to be involved in post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.

Prolonged higher dose methylprednisolone vs. conventional dexamethasone in COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomised controlled trial (MEDEAS)

Introduction

Dysregulated systemic inflammation is the primary driver of mortality in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Current guidelines favor a 7–10-day course of any glucocorticoid equivalent to dexamethasone 6 mg·day−1. A comparative RCT with a higher dose and a longer duration of intervention was lacking.

Methods

We conducted a multi-center, open-label RCT to investigate methylprednisolone 80 mg as a continuous daily infusion for 8 days followed by slow taperingversusdexamethasone 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen or noninvasive respiratory support. Primary outcome: reduction in 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: mechanical ventilation-free days at 28 days, need for ICU referral, length of hospitalisation, need for tracheostomy, changes in PaO2:FiO2 ratio, C-reactive protein levels and WHO clinical progression scale at days 3, 7, and 14.

Results

677 randomised patients were included. Findings are reported as methylprednisolone (n=337)versusdexamethasone (n=340). By day 28, there were no significant differences in mortality (35[10.4%]versus41[12.1%]; p=0.49), nor in the median mechanical ventilation-free days (23[14]versus24[16]; p=0.49). ICU referral was necessary in 41[12.2%]versus45[13.2%]; p=0.68 and tracheostomy in 8[2.4%]versus9[2.6%]; p=0.82. Survivors in the methylprednisolone group required a longer median hospitalisation (15[11]versus14[11] days; p=0.005) and experienced an improvement in C-reactive protein levels, but not in PaO2:FiO2ratio, at days 7 and 14. There were no differences in disease progression at the prespecified timepoints.

Conclusion

Prolonged, higher dose methylprednisolone did not reduce mortality at 28 days compared to conventional dexamethasone in COVID-19 pneumonia.

From conventional to living guidelines - faster updates for better informed guidance? A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The goal of living guidelines is keeping recommendations in guidelines up-to-date as new evidence becomes available. This review aims at scoping the prevalence and formal characteristics of living guidelines in the field of medicine and explore differences between formats.

METHODS

A selective search of living guidelines in MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar and six relevant online repositories for guidelines (MAGICApp, AWMF, GIN, NICE, WHO-Iris, BIGG) was conducted. Authors and editors were contacted to receive previous non-living guideline versions. Living guidelines were subsequently analyzed according to pre-defined methodological criteria as described below (inter-comparison). Differences between living and their conventional (non-living) versions were assessed (intra-comparison).

RESULTS

83 living guidelines were identified and selected for further screening, out of which 26 were eligible for analysis. 61.5% were new publications (de-novo guidelines) and 38.5% updates of pre-existing guidelines. There are some concepts defining, for example, the update cycle (AWMF, maximum of 12 months) but not all living guidelines follow or refer to existing concepts. The analysis shows that living guidelines in line with the established standards for (non-living) clinical guidelines involve an evidence standard, an extensive consensus process (often in the form of a Delphi process), and the inclusion of stakeholders (patients/relatives) in the development process, despite the high frequency of updates. When comparing living and conventional guidelines with the descriptive approach changes were found in update frequency (being more frequent with living guidelines, annually at the latest) and publication format (towards more digital) and public consultation (living guidelines offered more possibilities), no substantial methodological differences were observed in the description of consensus processes, changes in number of recommendations, inclusion of patient representatives. Given the small number of comparable pairs, the results reflect a tendency in the analyzed sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition and development of living guidelines varied. Standardization (i. e. in the form of a checklist, procedure template) is needed to assess quality of the living process.

Clinical and computed tomography features of patients suspected of COVID-19 in the university hospital of Oran, Algeria

BACKGROUND

The analysis of the clinical and radiological characteristics of COVID-19 patients around the world observed a rich semiology, different from one country to another, and within the same country.

AIM

To analyze the clinical, computed tomography (CT) features, and the outcome of patients suspected of COVID-19 hospitalized in a COVID-19 unit of Oran university hospital (Algeria).

METHODS

We collected retrospectively the files of patients suspected of COVID-19 admitted in a COVID-19 unit during July 2020. Data were collected on standardized questionnaire with prior coding of parameters. Patients were admitted according to a triage based on their clinical situation and the chest CT aspects suggestive of COVID-19. Two physicians reviewed the high-resolution CT (HR-CT) images independently, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus with the input of two others experimented physicians.

RESULTS

112 patients (64% males, median age: 68 (18-88) years) were included. The main symptoms were dyspnea (51.7%), cough (34%), fatigue (14%). Almost the half (49.1%) of patients had hypoxemia. The HR-CT findings were typical of COVID-19 in 96% of patients. Although 61% of patients had favorable prognosis, mortality rate was 30%. Mutlivariate analysis of risk factors for death showed that patients aged > 60 years had a 4-fold risk of death (95% confidence interval: [1.27-12.58], p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Dyspnea, cough and fatigue were predominant symptoms, moderate and severe COVID-19 characterized our patients. Age > 60 years was a major risk factor for the deaths of our patients.

The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in COVID-19

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, anecdotal reports emerged suggesting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase susceptibility to infection and adversely impact clinical outcomes. This narrative literature review (March 2020–July 2021) attempted to clarify the relationship between NSAID use and COVID-19 outcomes related to disease susceptibility or severity. Twenty-four relevant publications (covering 25 studies) reporting original research data were identified; all were observational cohort studies, and eight were described as retrospective. Overall, these studies are consistent in showing that NSAIDs neither increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection nor worsen outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This is reflected in current recommendations from major public health authorities across the world, which support NSAID use for analgesic or antipyretic treatment during COVID-19. Thus, there is no basis on which to restrict or prohibit use of these drugs by consumers or patients to manage their health conditions and symptoms during the pandemic.

Scars of COVID-19: A bibliometric analysis of post-COVID-19 fibrosis

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) becomes a worldwide public health threat. Increasing evidence proves that COVID-19-induced acute injuries could be reversed by a couple of therapies. After that, post-COVID-19 fibrosis (PCF), a sequela of "Long COVID," earns rapidly emerging concerns. PCF is associated with deteriorative lung function and worse quality of life. But the process of PCF remains speculative. Therefore, we aim to conduct a bibliometric analysis to explore the overall structure, hotspots, and trend topics of PCF.

Materials and methods

A comprehensive search was performed in the Web of Science core database to collect literature on PCF. Search syntax included COVID-19 relevant terms: "COVID 19," "COVID-19 Virus Disease," "COVID-19 Virus Infection," "Coronavirus Disease-19," "2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease," "2019 Novel Coronavirus Infection," "SARS Coronavirus 2 Infection," "COVID-19 Pandemic," "Coronavirus," "2019-nCoV," and "SARS-CoV-2"; and fibrosis relevant terms: "Fibrosis," "Fibroses," and "Cirrhosis." Articles in English were included. Totally 1,088 publications were enrolled. Searching results were subsequentially exported and collected for the bibliometric analysis. National, organizational, and individual level data were analyzed and visualized through biblioshiny package in the R, VOSviewer software, the CiteSpace software, and the Graphical Clustering Toolkit (gCLUTO) software, respectively.

Results

The intrinsic structure and development in the field of PCF were investigated in the present bibliometric analysis. The topmost keywords were "COVID-19" (occurrences, 636) surrounded by "SARS-CoV-2" (occurrences, 242), "coronavirus" (occurrences, 123), "fibrosis" (occurrences, 120), and "pneumonia" (occurrences, 94). The epidemiology, physiopathology, diagnosis, and therapy of PCF were extensively studied. After this, based on dynamic analysis of keywords, hot topics sharply changed from "Wuhan," "inflammation," and "cytokine storm" to "quality of life" and "infection" through burst detection; from "acute respiratory syndrome," "cystic-fibrosis" and "fibrosis" to "infection," "COVID-19," "quality-of-life" through thematic evolution; from "enzyme" to "post COVID." Similarly, co-cited references analysis showed that topics of references with most citations shift from "pulmonary pathology" (cluster 0) to "COVID-19 vaccination" (cluster 6). Additionally, the overview of contributors, impact, and collaboration was revealed. Summarily, the USA stood out as the most prolific, influential, and collaborative country. The Udice French Research University, Imperial College London, Harvard University, and the University of Washington represented the largest volume of publications, citations, H-index, and co-authorships, respectively. Dana Albon was the most productive and cited author with the strongest co-authorship link strength. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis topped the list of prolific and influential journals.

Conclusion

Outcomes gained from this study assisted professionals in better realizing PCF and would guide future practices. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and therapeutics were study hotspots in the early phase of PCF research. As the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and progress in this field, recent attention shifted to the quality of life of patients and post-COVID comorbidities. Nevertheless, COVID-19 relevant infection and vaccination were speculated to be research trends with current and future interest. International cooperation as well as in-depth laboratory experiments were encouraged to promote further explorations in the field of PCF.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: January 2022 update on the use of therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in acutely ill patients

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines.

RESULTS

The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants.

CONCLUSION

This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness.

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support.

RESULTS

A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: March 2022 update on the use of anticoagulation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines.

RESULTS

The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness.

Unmet needs in pneumonia research: a comprehensive approach by the CAPNETZ study group

Introduction

Despite improvements in medical science and public health, mortality of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has barely changed throughout the last 15 years. The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has once again highlighted the central importance of acute respiratory infections to human health. The “network of excellence on Community Acquired Pneumonia” (CAPNETZ) hosts the most comprehensive CAP database worldwide including more than 12,000 patients. CAPNETZ connects physicians, microbiologists, virologists, epidemiologists, and computer scientists throughout Europe. Our aim was to summarize the current situation in CAP research and identify the most pressing unmet needs in CAP research.

Methods

To identify areas of future CAP research, CAPNETZ followed a multiple-step procedure. First, research members of CAPNETZ were individually asked to identify unmet needs. Second, the top 100 experts in the field of CAP research were asked for their insights about the unmet needs in CAP (Delphi approach). Third, internal and external experts discussed unmet needs in CAP at a scientific retreat.

Results

Eleven topics for future CAP research were identified: detection of causative pathogens, next generation sequencing for antimicrobial treatment guidance, imaging diagnostics, biomarkers, risk stratification, antiviral and antibiotic treatment, adjunctive therapy, vaccines and prevention, systemic and local immune response, comorbidities, and long-term cardio-vascular complications.

Conclusion

Pneumonia is a complex disease where the interplay between pathogens, immune system and comorbidities not only impose an immediate risk of mortality but also affect the patients’ risk of developing comorbidities as well as mortality for up to a decade after pneumonia has resolved. Our review of unmet needs in CAP research has shown that there are still major shortcomings in our knowledge of CAP.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

Managing two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in northern emergency departments in Paris: COVIDORG II

Context

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion