Identification of Distinct Clinical Phenotypes of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: Results from a Cohort Observational Study

Purpose: COVID-19 presents complex pathophysiology, and evidence collected points towards an intricate interaction between viral-dependent and individual immunological mechanisms. Identifying phenotypes through clinical and biological markers may provide a better understanding of the subjacent mechanisms and an early patient-tailored characterization of illness severity. Methods: A multicenter prospective cohort study was performed in 5 hospitals in Portugal and Brazil for one year between 2020-2021. All adult patients with an Intensive Care Unit admission with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were eligible. COVID-19 was diagnosed using clinical and radiologic criteria with a SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR test. A two-step hierarchical cluster analysis was made using several class-defining variables. Results: 814 patients were included. The cluster analysis revealed a three-class model, allowing for the definition of three distinct COVID-19 phenotypes: 407 patients in phenotype A, 244 patients in phenotype B, and 163 patients in phenotype C. Patients included in phenotype A were significantly older, with higher baseline inflammatory biomarkers profile, and a significantly higher requirement of organ support and mortality rate. Phenotypes B and C demonstrated some overlapping clinical characteristics but different outcomes. Phenotype C patients presented a lower mortality rate, with consistently lower C-reactive protein, but higher procalcitonin and interleukin-6 serum levels, describing an immunological profile significantly different from phenotype B. Conclusions: Severe COVID-19 patients exhibit three different clinical phenotypes with distinct profiles and outcomes. Their identification could have an impact on patients' care, justifying different therapy responses and inconsistencies identified across different randomized control trial results.

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies.

Methods

In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality.

Findings

Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference –1·69 [–9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5–8] vs 6 [5–8] cm H₂O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52–23·52]; p<0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75–0·86]; p<0·0001).

Interpretation

Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status.

Funding

No funding.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population.

METHODS

We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed.

FINDINGS

From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

FUNDING

Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Resuscitation fluid practices in Brazilian intensive care units: a secondary analysis of Fluid-TRIPS

Objective

To describe fluid resuscitation practices in Brazilian intensive care units and to compare them with those of other countries participating in the Fluid-TRIPS.

Methods

This was a prospective, international, cross-sectional, observational study in a convenience sample of intensive care units in 27 countries (including Brazil) using the Fluid-TRIPS database compiled in 2014. We described the patterns of fluid resuscitation use in Brazil compared with those in other countries and identified the factors associated with fluid choice.

Results

On the study day, 3,214 patients in Brazil and 3,493 patients in other countries were included, of whom 16.1% and 26.8% (p < 0.001) received fluids, respectively. The main indication for fluid resuscitation was impaired perfusion and/or low cardiac output (Brazil: 71.7% versus other countries: 56.4%, p < 0.001). In Brazil, the percentage of patients receiving crystalloid solutions was higher (97.7% versus 76.8%, p < 0.001), and 0.9% sodium chloride was the most commonly used crystalloid (62.5% versus 27.1%, p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis suggested that the albumin levels were associated with the use of both crystalloids and colloids, whereas the type of fluid prescriber was associated with crystalloid use only.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that crystalloids are more frequently used than colloids for fluid resuscitation in Brazil, and this discrepancy in frequencies is higher than that in other countries. Sodium chloride (0.9%) was the crystalloid most commonly prescribed. Serum albumin levels and the type of fluid prescriber were the factors associated with the choice of crystalloids or colloids for fluid resuscitation.