Comparison of the safety and efficacy for different regimens of pharmaco-prophylaxis among severely burned patients: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in critically ill patients, including severe burn cases. Burn patients respond differently to medications due to pharmacokinetic changes. This study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of different VTE pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients admitted to the ICU with severe burns.

METHODS

A pilot, open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted on ICU patients with severe burns (BSA ≥ 20%). By using block randomization, patients were allocated to receive high-dose enoxaparin 30 mg q12hours (E30q12), standard-dose enoxaparin 40 mg q24hours (E40q24), or unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5000 Units q8hours. In this study, the primary outcomes assessed were the recruitment and consent rates, as well as bleeding or hematoma at both the donor and graft site. Additionally, secondary measures were evaluated to provide further insights.

RESULTS

Twenty adult patients out of 114 screened were enrolled and received E30q12 (40%), E40q24 (30%), and UFH (30%). The recruitment rate was one patient per month with a 100% consent rate. Donor site bleeding occurred in one patient (16.7%) in the UFH group. On the other hand, graft site bleeding was only reported in one patient (12.5%) who received E30q12. Major bleeding happened in two patients, one in E30q12 and one in the UFH group. Five patients (25.0%) had minor bleeding; two patients (25.0%) received E30q12, two patients E40q24, and one patient UFH. RBC transfusion was needed in four patients, two on E30q12 and two on UFH. Only one patient had VTE, while four patients died in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

The study observed a low recruitment rate but a high consent rate. Furthermore, there were no major safety concerns identified with any of the three pharmacologic prophylaxis regimens that were evaluated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05237726.

Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone's clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient's age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission.

RESULTS

After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality.

Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare systems are complex and challenging for all stakeholders, but artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various fields, including healthcare, with the potential to improve patient care and quality of life. Rapid AI advancements can revolutionize healthcare by integrating it into clinical practice. Reporting AI's role in clinical practice is crucial for successful implementation by equipping healthcare providers with essential knowledge and tools.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

This review article provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the current state of AI in clinical practice, including its potential applications in disease diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and patient engagement. It also discusses the associated challenges, covering ethical and legal considerations and the need for human expertise. By doing so, it enhances understanding of AI's significance in healthcare and supports healthcare organizations in effectively adopting AI technologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current investigation analyzed the use of AI in the healthcare system with a comprehensive review of relevant indexed literature, such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE, with no time constraints but limited to articles published in English. The focused question explores the impact of applying AI in healthcare settings and the potential outcomes of this application.

RESULTS

Integrating AI into healthcare holds excellent potential for improving disease diagnosis, treatment selection, and clinical laboratory testing. AI tools can leverage large datasets and identify patterns to surpass human performance in several healthcare aspects. AI offers increased accuracy, reduced costs, and time savings while minimizing human errors. It can revolutionize personalized medicine, optimize medication dosages, enhance population health management, establish guidelines, provide virtual health assistants, support mental health care, improve patient education, and influence patient-physician trust.

CONCLUSION

AI can be used to diagnose diseases, develop personalized treatment plans, and assist clinicians with decision-making. Rather than simply automating tasks, AI is about developing technologies that can enhance patient care across healthcare settings. However, challenges related to data privacy, bias, and the need for human expertise must be addressed for the responsible and effective implementation of AI in healthcare.

The effect of oseltamivir use in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter propensity score-matched study

Background

Oseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance.

Results

A total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: -0.84, 95%CI: (-1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: -0.27, 95% CI: [-0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

Oseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Type I interferon autoantibodies in hospitalized patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome and association with outcomes and treatment effect of interferon beta‐1b in MIRACLE clinical trial

Background

Type I interferons (IFNs) are essential antiviral cytokines induced upon respiratory exposure to coronaviruses. Defects in type I IFN signaling can result in severe disease upon exposure to respiratory viral infection and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Neutralizing autoantibodies (auto‐Abs) to type I IFNs were reported as a risk factor for life‐threatening COVID‐19, but their presence has not been evaluated in patients with severe Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

Methods

We evaluated the prevalence of type I IFN auto‐Abs in a cohort of hospitalized patients with MERS who were enrolled in a placebo‐controlled clinical trial for treatment with IFN‐β1b and lopinavir‐ritonavir (MIRACLE trial). Samples were tested for type I IFN auto‐Abs using a multiplex particle‐based assay.

Results

Among the 62 enrolled patients, 15 (24.2%) were positive for immunoglobulin G auto‐Abs for at least one subtype of type I IFNs. Auto‐Abs positive patients were not different from auto‐Abs negative patients in age, sex, or comorbidities. However, the majority (93.3%) of patients who were auto‐Abs positive were critically ill and admitted to the ICU at the time of enrollment compared to 66% in the auto‐Abs negative patients. The effect of treatment with IFN‐β1b and lopinavir‐ritonavir did not significantly differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the presence of type I IFN auto‐Abs in hospitalized patients with MERS.

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically lll Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study - New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The potential role of adjunctive ascorbic acid in the prevention of colistin-induced nephrotoxicity in critically ill patients: A retrospective study

Background

Colistin is considered a valuable and last-resort therapeutic option for MDR gram-negative bacteria. Nephrotoxicity is the most clinically pertinent adverse effect of colistin. Vivo studies suggest that administering oxidative stress-reducing agents, such as ascorbic acid, is a promising strategy to overcome colistin-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN). However, limited clinical data explores the potential benefit of adjunctive ascorbic acid therapy for preventing CIN. Therefore, this study aims to assess the potential nephroprotective role of ascorbic acid as adjunctive therapy against CIN in critically ill patients.

Method

This was a retrospective cohort study at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) for all critically ill adult patients who received IV colistin. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the ascorbic acid use as concomitant therapy within three days of colistin initiation. The primary outcome was CIN odds after colistin initiation, while the secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ICU, and hospital LOS. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the patient's age, SOFA score, and serum creatinine.

Results

A total of 451 patients were screened for eligibility; 90 patients were included after propensity score matching based on the selected criteria. The odds of developing CIN after colistin initiation were similar between patients who received ascorbic acid (AA) as adjunctive therapy compared to patients who did not (OR (95 %CI): 0.83 (0.33, 2.10), p-value = 0.68). In addition, the 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ICU, and hospital LOS were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

Adjunctive use of Ascorbic acid during colistin therapy was not associated with lower odds of CIN. Further studies with a larger sample size are required to confirm these findings.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome by cytokine levels

Animal and human data indicate variable effects of interferons in treating coronavirus infections according to inflammatory status and timing of therapy. In this sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection Treated with a Combination of Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Interferon β-1b), we evaluated the heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir versus placebo among hospitalized patients with MERS on 90-day mortality, according to cytokine levels and timing of therapy. We measured plasma levels of 17 cytokines at enrollment and tested the treatment effect on 90-day mortality according to cytokine levels (higher versus lower levels using the upper tertile (67%) as a cutoff point) and time to treatment (≤ 7 days versus > 7 days of symptom onset) using interaction tests. Among 70 included patients, 32 received interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir and 38 received placebo. Interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduced mortality in patients with lower IL-2, IL-8 and IL-13 plasma concentrations but not in patients with higher levels (p-value for interaction = 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05, respectively) and with early but not late therapy (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect according to other cytokine levels. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the assessment of inflammatory status can help in identifying patients with MERS who may benefit from interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir. Trial registration: This is a sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843).

Evaluation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) treatment for moderate-to-severe ARDS in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study

Background

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as rescue therapy in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) despite the recommendation against the use of this treatment. To date, the effect of iNO on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS remains arguable. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of iNO in critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated from March 01, 2020, until July 31, 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the improvement in oxygenation parameters 24 h after iNO use. Other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used based on the predefined criteria.

Results

A total of 1598 patients were screened, and 815 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Among them, 210 patients were matched based on predefined criteria. Oxygenation parameters (PaO₂, FiO₂ requirement, P/F ratio, oxygenation index) were significantly improved 24 h after iNO administration within a median of six days of ICU admission. However, the risk of 30-day and in-hospital mortality were found to be similar between the two groups (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.82; p = 0.45 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94, 2.11; p= 0.10, respectively). On the other hand, ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly fewer, and  ICU and hospital LOS were significantly longer in the iNO group. In addition, patients who received iNO had higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR (95% CI): 2.35 (1.30, 4.26), p value = 0.005) and hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.76, 5.83), p value = 0.001).

Conclusion

In critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, iNO rescue therapy is associated with improved oxygenation parameters but no mortality benefits. Moreover, iNO use is associated with higher odds of AKI, pneumonia, longer LOS, and fewer VFDs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04158-y.

The safety and effectiveness of tocilizumab in older adult critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Evidence supports tocilizumab (TCZ) benefit and safety in adult patients with severe COVID-19. However, its effectiveness in critically ill older adult patients remains questionable. Thus, the study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TCZ in older critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study for all critically ill older adults (aged ≥65 years) with confirmed COVID-19 infection and admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). Eligible patients were categorized into two groups based on TCZ use during ICU stay (control vs TCZ). Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 368 critically ill older adult patients were included in the study. Fifty one patients (13.8%) received TCZ. The in-hospital mortality was lower in the TCZ group (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.76, P-value = 0.005). Patients who received TCZ had lower odds of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (OR [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.10-0.98], P-value = 0.04). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for 30-days mortality, ventilator-free days, length of stay, and complications during ICU stay.

CONCLUSION

Tocilizumab use in critically ill older adult patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and a similar safety profile.

The impact of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors use on the clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, cohort study

Background

The cardiovascular complications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be attributed to the hyperinflammatory state leading to increased mortality in patients with COVID-19. HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (statins) are known to have pleiotropic and anti-inflammatory effects and may have antiviral activity along with their cholesterol-lowering activity. Thus, statin therapy is potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection. This study investigated the impact of statin use on the clinical outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the statin use during ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score based on patient's age and admission APACHE II and SOFA scores. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, while 30 day mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 30 days, and ICU complications were secondary endpoints.

Results

A total of 1,049 patients were eligible; 502 patients were included after propensity score matching (1:1 ratio). The in-hospital mortality [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.54, 0.89), P = 0.004] and 30-day mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI 0.58, 0.98), P = 0.03] were significantly lower in patients who received statin therapy on multivariable cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Moreover, patients who received statin therapy had lower odds of hospital-acquired pneumonia [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.32, 0.69), P < 0.001], lower levels of inflammatory markers on follow-up, and no increased risk of liver injury.

Conclusion

The use of statin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a beneficial role and survival benefit with a good safety profile.

Evaluation of Low-Dose Aspirin use among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study

Background

Aspirin is widely used as a cardioprotective agent due to its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties. The literature has assessed and evaluated its role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, no data are available regarding its role in COVID-19 critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg) and its impact on outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Method

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on aspirin use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria.

Results

A total of 1033 patients were eligible, and 352 patients were included after propensity score matching. The in-hospital mortality (HR 0.73 [0.56, 0.97], p = 0.03) was lower in patients who received aspirin during stay. Conversely, patients who received aspirin had a higher odds of major bleeding than those in the control group (OR 2.92 [0.91, 9.36], p = 0.07); however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed a possible mortality benefit for patients who used aspirin therapy prior to hospitalization and continued during ICU stay (HR 0.72 [0.52, 1.01], p = 0.05), but not with the new initiation of aspirin (HR 1.22 [0.68, 2.20], p = 0.50).

Conclusion

Continuation of aspirin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were receiving it prior to ICU admission may have a mortality benefit; nevertheless, it may be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding. Appropriate evaluation for safety versus benefits of utilizing aspirin therapy during ICU stay in COVID19 critically ill patients is highly recommended.

Statins and Risk of Thrombosis in Critically ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Coagulation abnormalities are one of the most important complications of severe COVID-19, which might lead to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Hypercoagulability with hyperfibrinogenemia causes large vessel thrombosis and major thromboembolic sequelae. Statins are potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection due to their pleiotropic effect. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of statins in reducing the risk of thrombosis among hospitalized critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were categorized based on their usage of statins throughout their ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score. The primary endpoint was the odds of all cases of thrombosis; other outcomes were considered secondary.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients were eligible; following propensity score matching, 396 patients were included (1:1 ratio). The odds of all thrombosis cases and VTE events did not differ significantly between the two groups (OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.43, 1.66), P = 0.62 and OR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43, 2.98), P = 0.81, respectively. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients who received statin therapy had lower 30-day (HR 0.72 (95 % CI 0.54, 0.97), P = 0.03) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.67 (95 % CI 0.51, 0.89), P = 0.007). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant between the two groups except for D-dimer levels (peak) during ICU stay.

CONCLUSION

The use of statin therapy during ICU stay was not associated with thrombosis reduction in critically ill patients with COVID-19; however, it has been associated with survival benefits.

A case report on the association between QTc prolongation and remdesivir therapy in a critically ill patient

Remdesivir is a direct-acting inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that is used to treat severe COVID-19 infections. We report a patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who experienced palpitations and syncope two days after starting remdesivir therapy. The QTc interval was prolonged on the Electrocardiogram (ECG) without any significant electrolyte abnormalities or concomitant use of medications with QTc prolongation. Although the cardiac side effects of remdesivir therapy have been well documented, the link between remdesivir therapy and QTc interval prolongation in patients with severe COVID-19 has only been observed in a few cases. Because this arrhythmia has the potential to result in sudden cardiac death, practitioners should be aware of the QTc interval prolongation associated with remdesivir therapy.

The impact of early target attainment of vancomycin in critically ill patients with confirmed Gram-positive infection: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin is a commonly used antibiotic in critically ill patients for various indications. Critical illness imposes pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamics challenges, which makes optimizing vancomycin in this population cumbersome. Data are scarce on the clinical impact of time to therapeutic trough levels of vancomycin in critically ill patients.  This study aims to evaluate the timing to achieve therapeutic trough level of vancomycin on 30-day mortality in critically ill patients.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted for all adult critically ill patients with confirmed Gram-positive infection who received IV vancomycin between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. We compared early (< 48 h) versus late (≥ 48 h) attainment of vancomycin therapeutic trough levels. The primary outcome was the 30-day mortality in critically ill patients. Secondary outcomes were the development of resistant organisms, microorganisms eradication within 4-5 days of vancomycin initiation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and length of stay (LOS). Propensity score-matched (1:1 ratio) used based on patient's age, serum creatinine, and albumin values at baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were included; 110 patients attained the therapeutic trough levels within 48 h of vancomycin initiation. Late achievement of the therapeutic trough levels was associated with higher 30-day mortality (HR: 2.54; 95% CI [1.24-5.22]; p = 0.01). Additionally, patients who achieved therapeutic trough levels of vancomycin late were more likely to develop AKI (OR = 2.59; 95% CI [1.01-6.65]; p = 0.04). Other outcomes were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Early achievement of vancomycin therapeutic levels in patients with confirmed Gram-positive infection was associated with possible survival benefits.

Appropriateness of Using Vitamin K for the Correction of INR Elevation Secondary to Hepatic Disease in Critically ill Patients: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Using vitamin K for correction of coagulopathy in critically ill patients is controversial with limited evidence. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin K in the correction of international normalized ratio (INR) elevation secondary to liver disease in critically ill patients.

METHOD

A retrospective study of critically ill patients with coagulopathy secondary to liver disease. The primary outcome was to evaluate the association between vitamin K administration and the incidence of new bleeding events in critically ill patients with INR elevation; other outcomes were considered secondary. Patients were categorized into two groups based on vitamin K administration to correct INR elevation. The propensity score was generated based on disease severity scores and the use of pharmacological DVT prophylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were included in the study. Forty-seven patients (48%) received vitamin K during the study period. The odds of the new bleeding event was not statistically different between groups (OR 2.4, 95% CI 0.28-21.67, P = .42). Delta of INR reduction was observed with a median of 0.63 when the first dose is given (P-value: <.0001). However the INR reduction with other subsequent doses of vitamin K was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The administration of vitamin K for INR correction in critically ill patients with coagulopathy secondary to liver disease was not associated with a lower odds of new bleeding events. Further studies are needed to assess the value of vitamin K administration in critically ill patients with liver diseases related coagulopathy.

Association between tocilizumab and emerging multidrug-resistant organisms in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab is an IgG1 class recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits the IL-6 receptor. Several randomized clinical trials have evaluated its safety and efficacy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and these studies demonstrate conflicting results. Our study aimed to determine the association between tocilizumab treatment and microbial isolation and emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary government hospitals in Saudi Arabia. All critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units with a positive COVID-19 PCR test between March 1 and December 31, 2020, who met study criteria were included. Patients who received tocilizumab were compared to those who did not receive it.

RESULTS

A total of 738 patients who met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Of these, 262 (35.5%) received tocilizumab, and 476 (64.5%) were included in the control group. Patients who received tocilizumab had higher odds for microbial isolation (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.91-1.94, p = 0.13); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Development of resistant organisms (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51-1.98, p = 0.99) or detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.29-1.54, p = 0.34) was not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tocilizumab use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is not associated with higher microbial isolation, the emergence of resistant organisms, or the detection of CRE organisms.

Evaluation of zinc sulfate as an adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two center propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

Zinc is a trace element that plays a role in stimulating innate and acquired immunity. The role of zinc in critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with COVID-19 who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia were retrospectively assessed for zinc use from March 1, 2020 until March 31, 2021. After propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria, we assessed the association of zinc used as adjunctive therapy with the 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the in-hospital mortality, ventilator free days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complication (s) during ICU stay.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were included, 82 patients received zinc. Patients who received zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy have a lower 30-day mortality (HR 0.52, CI 0.29, 0.92; p = 0.03). On the other hand, the in-hospital mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (HR 0.64, CI 0.37-1.10; p = 0.11). Zinc sulfate use was associated with a lower odds of acute kidney injury development during ICU stay (OR 0.46 CI 0.19-1.06; p = 0.07); however, it did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The use of zinc sulfate as an additional treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients may improve survival. Furthermore, zinc supplementation may have a protective effect on the kidneys.

Ascorbic acid as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a propensity score matched study

Ascorbic acid represents an appealing option for clinicians to utilize in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic due to its proposed clinical efficacy, relative safety, and low cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using ascorbic acid in supplemental doses as adjunctive therapy for patients critically ill with COVID-19. This was a two-center, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study. All critically ill adult patients admitted to ICU with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1st and December 31st, 2020, were included in the final analysis. The study was conducted at two large governmental tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The purpose was to investigate the clinical outcomes of low-dose ascorbic acid as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 after propensity score matching using baseline severity scores, systematic use of corticosteroids, and study centers. A number of 739 patients were included in this study, among whom 296 patients were included after propensity score matching. There was no association between the administration of ascorbic acid and in-hospital mortality or the 30-day mortality [OR (95% CI) 0.77 (0.47, 1.23), p value = 0.27 and OR (95% CI) 0.73 (0.43, 1.20), p value = 0.21, respectively]. Using ascorbic acid was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis compared with the non-ascorbic-acid group [6.1% vs. 13% respectively; OR (95% CI) 0.42 (0.184, 0.937), p value = 0.03]. Low dose of ascorbic acid as an adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with mortality benefits, but it was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of thiamine as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two-center propensity score matched study

Background

Thiamine is a precursor of the essential coenzyme thiamine pyrophosphate required for glucose metabolism; it improves the immune system function and has shown to reduce the risk of several diseases. The role of thiamine in critically ill septic patient has been addressed in multiple studies; however, it’s role in COVID-19 patients is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of thiamine as an adjunctive therapy on mortality in COVID-19 critically ill patients.

Methods

This is a two-center, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study for critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID19. All patients aged 18 years or older admitted to ICUs between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, with positive PCR COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. We investigated thiamine use as an adjunctive therapy on the clinical outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients after propensity score matching.

Results

A total of 738 critically ill patients with COVID-19 who had been admitted to ICUs were included in the study. Among 166 patients matched using the propensity score method, 83 had received thiamine as adjunctive therapy. There was significant association between thiamine use with in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.19–0.78; P value = 0.008) as well as the 30-day mortality (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.18–0.78; P value = 0.009). Moreover, patients who received thiamine as an adjunctive therapy were less likely to have thrombosis during ICU stay [OR (95% CI) 0.19 (0.04–0.88), P value = 0.03].

Conclusion

Thiamine use as adjunctive therapy may have potential survival benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis. Further interventional studies are required to confirm these findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03648-9.

Interferon Beta-1b and Lopinavir-Ritonavir for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Whether combined treatment with recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduces mortality among patients hospitalized with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients at nine sites in Saudi Arabia. Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed MERS were randomly assigned to receive recombinant interferon beta-1b plus lopinavir-ritonavir (intervention) or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.025. Prespecified subgroup analyses and safety analyses were conducted. Because of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, the data and safety monitoring board requested an unplanned interim analysis and subsequently recommended the termination of enrollment and the reporting of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were enrolled; 43 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the placebo group. A total of 12 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 23 (44%) in the placebo group died by day 90. The analysis of the primary outcome, with accounting for the adaptive design, yielded a risk difference of -19 percentage points (upper boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -3; one-sided P = 0.024). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment within 7 days after symptom onset led to lower 90-day mortality than use of placebo (relative risk, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.75), whereas later treatment did not. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (9%) in the intervention group and in 10 (19%) in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir led to lower mortality than placebo among patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The effect was greatest when treatment was started within 7 days after symptom onset. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; MIRACLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843.).

Treatment of Middle East respiratory syndrome with a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β1b (MIRACLE trial): statistical analysis plan for a recursive two-stage group sequential randomized controlled trial

The MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection tReated with A Combination of Lopinavir/ritonavir and intErferon-β1b) investigates the efficacy of a combination therapy of lopinavir/ritonavir and recombinant interferon-β1b provided with standard supportive care, compared to placebo provided with standard supportive care, in hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The MIRACLE trial is designed as a recursive, two-stage, group sequential, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial. The aim of this article is to describe the statistical analysis plan for the MIRACLE trial. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. The MIRACLE trial is the first randomized controlled trial for MERS treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02845843. Registered on 27 July 2016.

Treatment of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome with a combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon-β1b (MIRACLE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

It had been more than 5 years since the first case of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus infection (MERS-CoV) was recorded, but no specific treatment has been investigated in randomized clinical trials. Results from in vitro and animal studies suggest that a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β1b (IFN-β1b) may be effective against MERS-CoV. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of treatment with a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and recombinant IFN-β1b provided with standard supportive care, compared to treatment with placebo provided with standard supportive care in patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS requiring hospital admission.

Methods

The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. Hospitalized adult patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS will be enrolled in this recursive, two-stage, group sequential, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial. The trial is initially designed to include 2 two-stage components. The first two-stage component is designed to adjust sample size and determine futility stopping, but not efficacy stopping. The second two-stage component is designed to determine efficacy stopping and possibly readjustment of sample size. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality.

Discussion

This will be the first randomized controlled trial of a potential treatment for MERS. The study is sponsored by King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Enrollment for this study began in November 2016, and has enrolled thirteen patients as of Jan 24-2018.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02845843. Registered on 27 July 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2427-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Topical versus subconjunctival anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab and Aflibercept) for treatment of corneal neovascularization

In order to evaluate the effect of topical and subconjunctival anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy, Ranibizumab, Bevacizumab and Aflibercept as a therapy for corneal neovascularization (NV) treatment, the aim of this study was to review all data related to some of anti-VEGF as a promising therapies for corneal NV treatment. Corneal NV is a dangerous condition leading to a marked reduction in vision due to angiogenesis of abnormal vessels that block light. During the recent years, we have recognized new drug proliferation for corneal NV treatment. Recently, anti-VEGF therapies are one of the most important drugs used for corneal NV treatment. Several growth factors are involved in angiogenesis. The most important growth factor in corneal angiogenesis is VEGF. VEGF can be considered as key mediators in corneal angiogenesis. It is upregulated during corneal NV. In fact, anti-VEGF therapies have shown efficacy in attenuation of corneal NV in both animal models and clinical trials. A promising therapeutic success has been achieved using antibodies directed against VEGF. Bevacizumab has demonstrated efficacy and efficiency in the treatment of different neo-vascular ocular diseases and it has partially reduced corneal NV through different routes of administrations: topical, subconjunctival, and intraocular application. A similar efficacy to bevacizumab profiles in the treatment of neo-vascular age-related macular degeneration was induced by ranibizumab. Moreover, at worse levels of initial visual acuity of diabetic macular edema, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. Anti-VEGF agents (Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab and Aflibercept) seem to have a higher efficiency and efficacy for corneal NV treatment. Both subconjunctival therapy and topical therapy of bevacizumab prohibit corneal NV, while early treatment with subconjunctival administration of ranibizumab may successfully reduce corneal NV. Therefore, establishment of safe doses is highly important before these drugs can be involved in the clinical setting. Further investigations and studies are highly warranted to adjust the dose and route of administration for the antibodies directed against VEGF to be the key therapeutic agents in the corneal NV treatment.

Exploring quality of life among renal and liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the worldwide recognition of the importance of quality of life (QOL) assessment, research data on QOL for renal and liver transplant recipients are limited. The main objective of this study was to explore and compare QOL in renal and liver transplant patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This cross-sectional study was conducted at at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Saudi Arabia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Saudis 16 years of age or more who received liver or renal transplantation at least three months before the study participated. QOL was evaluated using the World Health Organization QOL instrument (WHOQOL-BREF).

RESULTS

Renal and liver transplant patients were highly or moderately satisfied with most circumstances of life. Using data for subjects in all WHO centers, renal and liver transplant patients domain scores in this study were significantly higher in the psychological health domain, social relations and environmental domain (P < .0001). The results also show that renal and liver transplant recipients who were male, or had higher education or who were employed had higher QOL scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that both renal and liver transplant recipients achieved very high QOL domain scores as compared with international data. Lower QOL was significantly associated with social disadvantages, suggesting that these patients may require more focused attention and counselling following transplantation.