Antisense therapy to block the Kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19: The ASKCOV randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of antisense therapy to block kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind, controlled trial enrolling hospitalized COVID-19 patients that required supplementary oxygen to sustain peripheral oxygen saturation. Key exclusion criteria included use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and patients with more than 10 days since symptom onset or more than 48 h of oxygen use. Patients were randomized to either one subcutaneous dose of ISIS721744, an antisense that blocks prekallikrein, or placebo. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of oxygen support up to 15 days (DAFOR15). Secondary endpoints included organ failure score, need and duration of mechanical ventilation up to 15 days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Exploratory endpoints included physiological parameters, biomarkers, and quality of life. RESULTS: From October 10, 2020, to December 09, 2020, 111 patients were randomized at thirteen sites in Brazil (56 to treatment and 55 to control group). Average age was 57.5 years, and most patients were male (68.5%). There were no significant differences in DAFOR15 between groups (5.9 ± 5.2 days for the intervention arm and 7.7 ± 5.1 for the control group; mean difference - 0.65, 95% confidence intervals from -2.95 to 1.36, p = 0.520). CONCLUSION: Antisense therapy designed to block the kallikrein-kinin pathway did not demonstrate clinical benefits in increasing days-alive without respiratory support at 15 days in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04549922.

Epidemiology, ventilation management and outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients versus patients with ARDS due to pneumonia in the Pre-COVID era.

BACKGROUND: Ventilation management may differ between COVID-19 ARDS (COVID-ARDS) patients and patients with pre-COVID ARDS (CLASSIC-ARDS); it is uncertain whether associations of ventilation management with outcomes for CLASSIC-ARDS also exist in COVID-ARDS. METHODS: Individual patient data analysis of COVID-ARDS and CLASSIC-ARDS patients in six observational studies of ventilation, four in the COVID-19 pandemic and two pre-pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to compare epidemiology and ventilation characteristics. The primary endpoint were key ventilation parameters; other outcomes included mortality and ventilator-free days and alive (VFD-60) at day 60. RESULTS: This analysis included 6702 COVID-ARDS patients and 1415 CLASSIC-ARDS patients. COVID-ARDS patients received lower median VT (6.6 [6.0 to 7.4] vs 7.3 [6.4 to 8.5] ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001) and higher median PEEP (12.0 [10.0 to 14.0] vs 8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001), at lower median ΔP (13.0 [10.0 to 15.0] vs 16.0 [IQR 12.0 to 20.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001) and higher median Crs (33.5 [26.6 to 42.1] vs 28.1 [21.6 to 38.4] mL/cm H2O; p < 0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, higher ΔP had an independent association with higher 60-day mortality and less VFD-60 in both groups. Higher PEEP had an association with less VFD-60, but only in COVID-ARDS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show important differences in key ventilation parameters and associations thereof with outcomes between COVID-ARDS and CLASSIC-ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05650957), December 14, 2022.

VATICAN (Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis Initiative to Conduct Antibiotic Evaluation): protocol for a multicenter randomized open-label trial of watchful waiting versus antimicrobial therapy for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis is a common condition among invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units, for which the best treatment strategy is currently unknown. We designed the VATICAN (Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis Initiative to Conduct Antibiotic Evaluation) trial to assess whether a watchful waiting antibiotic treatment strategy is noninferior to routine antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis regarding days free of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: VATICAN is a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter noninferiority trial. Patients with suspected ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis without evidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia or hemodynamic instability due to probable infection will be assigned to either a watchful waiting strategy, without antimicrobial administration for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis and prescription of antimicrobials only in cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis or septic shock, or another infectious diagnosis, or to a routine antimicrobial treatment strategy for seven days. The primary outcome will be mechanical ventilation-free days at 28 days, and a key secondary outcome will be ventilator-associated pneumonia-free survival. Through an intention-to-treat framework with a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, the primary outcome analysis will address noninferiority with a 20% margin, which translates to a 1.5 difference in ventilator-free days. Other analyses will follow a superiority analysis framework. CONCLUSION: The VATICAN trial will follow all national and international ethical standards. We aim to publish the trial in a high-visibility general journal and present it at critical care and infectious disease conferences for dissemination. These results will likely be immediately applicable to the bedside upon trial completion and will provide information with a low risk of bias for guideline development.

Dapagliflozin for Critically Ill Patients With Acute Organ Dysfunction: The DEFENDER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, but their effect on outcomes of critically ill patients with organ failure is unknown. Objective: To determine whether the addition of dapagliflozin, an SGLT-2 inhibitor, to standard intensive care unit (ICU) care improves outcomes in a critically ill population with acute organ dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted at 22 ICUs in Brazil. Participants with unplanned ICU admission and presenting with at least 1 organ dysfunction (respiratory, cardiovascular, or kidney) were enrolled between November 22, 2022, and August 30, 2023, with follow-up through September 27, 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomized to 10 mg of dapagliflozin (intervention, n = 248) plus standard care or to standard care alone (control, n = 259) for up to 14 days or until ICU discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and ICU length of stay through 28 days, analyzed using the win ratio method. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the hierarchical outcome, duration of organ support-free days, ICU, and hospital stay, assessed using bayesian regression models. Results: Among 507 randomized participants (mean age, 63.9 [SD, 15] years; 46.9%, women), 39.6% had an ICU admission due to suspected infection. The median time from ICU admission to randomization was 1 day (IQR, 0-1). The win ratio for dapagliflozin for the primary outcome was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.13; P = .89). Among all secondary outcomes, the highest probability of benefit found was 0.90 for dapagliflozin regarding use of kidney replacement therapy among 27 patients (10.9%) in the dapagliflozin group vs 39 (15.1%) in the control group. Conclusion and Relevance: The addition of dapagliflozin to standard care for critically ill patients and acute organ dysfunction did not improve clinical outcomes; however, confidence intervals were wide and could not exclude relevant benefits or harms for dapagliflozin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05558098.

Core sepsis-related competencies for medical students: an international consensus by Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition which may arise from infection in any organ system and requires early recognition and management. Healthcare professionals working in any specialty may need to manage patients with sepsis. Educating medical students about this condition may be an effective way to ensure all future doctors have sufficient ability to diagnose and treat septic patients. However, there is currently no consensus on what competencies medical students should achieve regarding sepsis recognition and treatment. This study aims to outline what sepsis-related competencies medical students should achieve by the end of their medical student training in both high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions and in low or lower-middle income countries/regions. METHODS: Two separate panels from high or upper-middle income and low or lower-middle income countries/regions participated in a Delphi method to suggest and rank sepsis competencies for medical students. Each panel consisted of 13-18 key stakeholders of medical education and doctors in specialties where sepsis is a common problem (both specialists and trainees). Panelists came from all continents, except Antarctica. RESULTS: The panels reached consensus on 38 essential sepsis competencies in low or lower-middle income countries/regions and 33 in high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions. These include competencies such as definition of sepsis and septic shock and urgency of antibiotic treatment. In the low or lower-middle income countries/regions group, consensus was also achieved for competencies ranked as very important, and was achieved in 4/5 competencies rated as moderately important. In the high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions group, consensus was achieved in 41/57 competencies rated as very important but only 6/11 competencies rated as moderately important. CONCLUSION: Medical schools should consider developing curricula to address essential competencies, as a minimum, but also consider addressing competencies rated as very or moderately important.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Strategies to alleviate heat stress on performance and physiological parameters in feedlot-finished cattle under heat stress conditions. A systematic review-meta-analysis.

Strategies to alleviate heat stress on live performance - dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), and feed conversion efficiency (FCE) - and on physiological parameters - respiratory rate (RR) and panting score (PS) - of feedlot-finished cattle were evaluated by systematic review-meta-analysis. Using the PICO framework were identified 3813 records, with 31 publications and 6729 cattle being considered in the meta-analysis (MA). The comparison most reported was sun vs. shade (n = 24 publications), followed by shade vs. shade (area per animal and effectivity in reduce solar load) (n = 7 publications) and sun vs. sprinkling (n = 4 publications). Cattle with access to shade with total reduction in solar load improved ADG (p = 0.008) and FCE (p = 0.024), and reduced RR (p < 0.001) compared to unshaded animals. Cattle with access to shade with a height between 3 and 4 m increased ADG (p < 0.001), tended to improve FCE (p = 0.054), and reduced RR (p < 0.001) compared to unshaded animals. An area of shade from 2 to 4 m2/animal increased ADG (p = 0.002), and higher than 4 m2/animal reduced RR (p < 0.001) compared to unshaded animals. Animals that received sprinkling volume below 1 L/animal/min improved ADG (p = 0.008) compared to unshaded animals. Cattle with access to shade with a high area per animal improved DMI (p = 0.023) and ADG (p < 0.001) compared to animals with a low area. In univariate meta-regression, it was observed that the variables significantly (P < 0.05) influencing DMI were THI category; influencing ADG were cattle gender, THI category, and coat color; influencing FCE were cattle age and hemisphere; and influencing RR were country, THI category and climate. Performance and physiological parameters of feedlot-finished cattle under heat stress depend on animal and environmental characteristics.

Different ventilation intensities among various categories of patients ventilated for reasons other than ARDS--A pooled analysis of 4 observational studies.

PURPOSE: We investigated driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) and associations with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients ventilated for reasons other than ARDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data analysis of a pooled database that included patients from four observational studies of ventilation. ΔP and MP were compared among invasively ventilated non-ARDS patients with sepsis, with pneumonia, and not having sepsis or pneumonia. The primary endpoint was ΔP; secondary endpoints included MP, ICU mortality and length of stay, and duration of ventilation. RESULTS: This analysis included 372 (11%) sepsis patients, 944 (28%) pneumonia patients, and 2040 (61%) patients ventilated for any other reason. On day 1, median ΔP was higher in sepsis (14 [11-18] cmH2O) and pneumonia patients (14 [11-18]cmH2O), as compared to patients not having sepsis or pneumonia (13 [10-16] cmH2O) (P < 0.001). Median MP was also higher in sepsis and pneumonia patients. ΔP, as opposed to MP, was associated with ICU mortality in sepsis and pneumonia patients. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of ventilation differed between patients with sepsis or pneumonia and patients receiving ventilation for any other reason; ΔP was associated with higher mortality in sepsis and pneumonia patients. REGISTRATION: This post hoc analysis was not registered; the individual studies that were merged into the used database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01268410 (ERICC), NCT02010073 (LUNG SAFE), NCT01868321 (PRoVENT), and NCT03188770 (PRoVENT-iMiC).

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Determinants of fluid use and the association between volume of fluid used and effect of balanced solutions on mortality in critically ill patients: a secondary analysis of the BaSICS trial.

PURPOSE: Fluid use could modulate the effect of balanced solutions (BS) on outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It is uncertain whether fluid use practices are driven more by patient features or local practices. It is also unclear whether a "dose-response" for the potential benefits of balanced solutions exists. METHODS: The secondary analysis of the Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) compared 0.9% saline versus Plasma-Lyte 148® (BS) for fluid therapy in the ICU. The relative contribution of patient features and enrolling site (the random effect) on the volume of fluid used up to day 3 after admission was assessed using different methods, including a Bayesian regression, a frequentist mixed model, and a random forest, all adjusted for relevant patient confounders. Subsequently, a variety of methods were used to assess whether volume of fluid used modulated the effect of BS on 90-day mortality, including a traditional subgroup analysis for patients that remained alive and in the ICU up to 3 days, a Bayesian network accounting for competing risks, and an analysis based on site practices. RESULTS: 10,505 patients were analyzed. Median fluid use in the BS arm and in the 0.9% saline arm were 2500 mL and 2488 mL, respectively. The random effect in the Bayesian regression explained 0.32 (95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.24-0.41) of all model variance (0.33, 95% credible intervals from 0.32-0.35). Frequentist and random forest models produced similar results. In the analysis including only patients alive and in the ICU at 3 days, there was a strong suggestion of interaction between fluid use and the effect of BS, driven mostly by a lower mortality with BS compared to 0.9% saline as fluid use increased for patients with sepsis. These results were consistent in the Bayesian network analysis and in an analysis based on site practices, where septic patients enrolled to BS at high fluid use sites had a lower mortality (absolute risk reduction of - 0.13 [95% credible interval - 0.27 to - 0.01]; 0.98 probability of benefit). CONCLUSION: Baseline patient characteristics collected in the BaSICS trial explain less of the variance of fluid use during the first 3 days than the enrolling site. Volume of fluid used and the effects of BS appear to interact, mostly in the sepsis subgroup where there was a strong association between fluid use after enrollment and the effect of BS on 90-day mortality.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Evidence-Based Checklist to Delay Cardiac Arrest in Brain-Dead Potential Organ Donors: The DONORS Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of goal-directed care to reduce loss of brain-dead potential donors to cardiac arrest is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist in the clinical management of brain-dead potential donors in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: The Donation Network to Optimize Organ Recovery Study (DONORS) was an open-label, parallel-group cluster randomized clinical trial in Brazil. Enrollment and follow-up were conducted from June 20, 2017, to November 30, 2019. Hospital ICUs that reported 10 or more brain deaths in the previous 2 years were included. Consecutive brain-dead potential donors in the ICU aged 14 to 90 years with a condition consistent with brain death after the first clinical examination were enrolled. Participants were randomized to either the intervention group or the control group. The intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted from June 15 to August 30, 2020. Interventions: Hospital staff in the intervention group were instructed to administer to brain-dead potential donors in the intervention group an evidence-based checklist with 13 clinical goals and 14 corresponding actions to guide care, every 6 hours, from study enrollment to organ retrieval. The control group provided or received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was loss of brain-dead potential donors to cardiac arrest at the individual level. A prespecified sensitivity analysis assessed the effect of adherence to the checklist in the intervention group. Results: Among the 1771 brain-dead potential donors screened in 63 hospitals, 1535 were included. These patients included 673 males (59.2%) and had a median (IQR) age of 51 (36.3-62.0) years. The main cause of brain injury was stroke (877 [57.1%]), followed by trauma (485 [31.6%]). Of the 63 hospitals, 31 (49.2%) were assigned to the intervention group (743 [48.4%] brain-dead potential donors) and 32 (50.8%) to the control group (792 [51.6%] brain-dead potential donors). Seventy potential donors (9.4%) at intervention hospitals and 117 (14.8%) at control hospitals met the primary outcome (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.08; P = .11). The primary outcome rate was lower in those with adherence higher than 79.0% than in the control group (5.3% vs 14.8%; RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.78; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized clinical trial was inconclusive in determining whether the overall use of an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist reduced brain-dead potential donor loss to cardiac arrest. The findings suggest that use of such a checklist has limited effectiveness without adherence to the actions recommended in this checklist. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03179020.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated. METHODS: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study. CONCLUSION: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRY: NCT05558098.

Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study / Dapagliflozina em pacientes com doença crítica: justificativa e desenho do estudo DEFENDER

ABSTRACT Background: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated. Methods: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study. Conclusion: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT05558098

RESUMO Antecedentes: A doença crítica é um importante ônus permanente da assistência médica em todo o mundo e está associada a altas taxas de mortalidade. Os inibidores do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 têm demonstrado consistentemente benefícios nos desfechos cardiovasculares e renais. Os efeitos dos inibidores do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 em doenças agudas ainda não foram devidamente investigados. Métodos: O DEFENDER é um estudo de iniciativa do investigador, multicêntrico, randomizado, aberto, desenhado para avaliar a eficácia e a segurança da dapagliflozina em 500 participantes adultos com disfunção orgânica aguda hospitalizados na unidade de terapia intensiva. Os participantes aptos serão randomizados 1:1 para receber 10mg de dapagliflozina e o tratamento padrão por até 14 dias ou apenas o tratamento padrão. O desfecho primário é um composto hierárquico de mortalidade hospitalar, início de terapia renal substitutiva e tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, até 28 dias. O monitoramento da segurança será rigoroso durante todo o estudo. Conclusão: O DEFENDER é o primeiro estudo desenvolvido para investigar o uso de um inibidor do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 em pacientes de unidade de terapia intensiva geral com disfunção orgânica aguda. O estudo fornecerá informações relevantes sobre o uso de medicamentos dessa classe promissora em pacientes críticos. Registro ClincalTrials.gov: NCT05558098

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia / II Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

ABSTRACT Objective: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. Conclusion: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

RESUMO Objetivo: Atualizar as recomendações para embasar as decisões para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: A elaboração desta diretriz foi feita por especialistas, incluindo representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas. O método utilizado para o desenvolvimento rápido de diretrizes baseou-se na adoção e/ou adaptação de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) e contou com o apoio da plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Chegaram-se a 21 recomendações, incluindo recomendações fortes quanto ao uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar e recomendações condicionais para o uso de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe, em pacientes com oxigênio suplementar ou ventilação não invasiva, e de anticoagulantes, para prevenção de tromboembolismo. Devido à suspensão da autorização de uso, não foi possível fazer recomendações para o tratamento com casirivimabe + imdevimabe. Foram feitas recomendações fortes contra o uso de azitromicina em pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana, hidroxicloroquina, plasma convalescente, colchicina e lopinavir + ritonavir, além de recomendações condicionais contra o uso de ivermectina e rendesivir. Conclusão: Foram criadas novas recomendações para o tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19, como as recomendações de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe. Ainda são recomendados corticosteroides e profilaxia contra tromboembolismo, esta em caráter condicional. Vários medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes e não devem ser usados, no intuito de proporcionar o melhor tratamento segundo os princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover a economia de recursos.

Use of a Portable Mechanical Ventilator during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation is Feasible, Improves Respiratory Parameters, and Prevents the Decrease of Dynamic Lung Compliance. / O Uso de um Ventilador Mecânico Portátil na Ressuscitação Cardiopulmonar é Viável, Melhora os Parâmetros Respiratórios e Previne a Redução da Complacência Pulmonar Dinâmica.

BACKGROUND: For practical and protective ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), a 150-grams mechanical ventilator (VLP2000E) that limits peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) during simultaneous ventilation with chest compressions was developed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of VLP2000E ventilation during CPR and to compare monitored parameters versus bag-valve ventilation. METHODS: A randomized experimental study with 10 intubated pigs per group. After seven minutes of ventricular fibrillation, 2-minute CPR cycles were delivered. All animals were placed on VLP2000E after achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). RESULTS: Bag-valve and VLP2000E groups had similar ROSC rate (60% vs. 50%, respectively) and arterial oxygen saturation in most CPR cycles, different baseline tidal volume [0.764 (0.068) vs. 0.591 (0.123) L, p = 0.0309, respectively] and, in 14 cycles, different PIP [52 (9) vs. 39 (5) cm H2O, respectively], tidal volume [0.635 (0.172) vs. 0.306 (0.129) L], ETCO2[14 (8) vs. 27 (9) mm Hg], and peak inspiratory flow [0.878 (0.234) vs. 0.533 (0.105) L/s], all p < 0.0001. Dynamic lung compliance (≥ 0.025 L/cm H2O) decreased after ROSC in bag-valve group but was maintained in VLP2000E group [0.019 (0.006) vs. 0.024 (0.008) L/cm H2O, p = 0.0003]. CONCLUSIONS: VLP2000E ventilation during CPR is feasible and equivalent to bag-valve ventilation in ROSC rate and arterial oxygen saturation. It produces better respiratory parameters, with lower airway pressure and tidal volume. VLP2000E ventilation also prevents the significant decrease of dynamic lung compliance observed after bag-valve ventilation. Further preclinical studies confirming these findings would be interesting.

FUNDAMENTOS: Para ventilação prática e protetora durante a ressuscitação cardiopulmonar (RCP), desenvolveu-se um ventilador mecânico (VLP2000E) de 150 gramas que limita o pico de pressão inspiratória (PPI) durante ventilação e compressões torácicas simultâneas. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a viabilidade da ventilação com VLP2000E durante RCP e comparar os parâmetros monitorados versus ventilação com bolsa-válvula. MÉTODOS: Estudo experimental randomizado com 10 porcos intubados por grupo. Após sete minutos de fibrilação ventricular, iniciaram-se ciclos de RCP de 2 minutos. Todos os animais foram ventilados com VLP2000E após o retorno da circulação espontânea (RCE). RESULTADOS: Os grupos bolsa-válvula e VLP2000E apresentaram taxa de RCE (60% vs. 50%, respectivamente) e saturação arterial de oxigênio similares na maioria dos ciclos de RCP, volume corrente basal diferente [0,764 (0,068) vs. 0,591 (0,123) L, p = 0,0309, respectivamente] e, em 14 ciclos, diferentes PPI [52 (9) vs. 39 (5) cm H2O, respectivamente], volume corrente [0,635 (0,172) vs. 0,306 (0,129) L], ETCO2 [14 (8) vs. 27 (9) mm Hg], e pico de fluxo inspiratório [0,878 (0,234) vs. 0,533 (0,105) L/s], todos p < 0,0001. A complacência pulmonar dinâmica (≥ 0,025 L/cm H2O) diminuiu após o RCE no grupo bolsa-válvula, mas se manteve no grupo VLP2000E [ 0,019 (0,006) vs. 0,024 (0,008) L/cm H2O, p = 0,0003]. CONCLUSÕES: Ventilação com VLP2000E durante RCP é viável e equivalente a ventilação com bolsa-válvula quanto à taxa de RCE e saturação arterial de oxigênio. Esse ventilador produz melhores parâmetros respiratórios, com pressão das vias aéreas e volume corrente menores. Ventilação com VLP2000E também previne a redução significante da complacência pulmonar dinâmica observada após ventilação com bolsa-válvula. Seria interessante realizar mais estudos pré-clínicos para confirmar esses resultados.

Ninety-day outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in São Paulo, Brazil: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has been associated with a significant burden to those who survive the acute phase. We aimed to describe the quality of life and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days after hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to a private hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between April of 2020 and April of 2021 were interviewed by telephone at 30 and 90 days after discharge to assess the quality of life and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. RESULTS: A total of 2,138 patients were included. The mean age was 58.6 ± 15.8 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 9.0 (5.0-15.8) days. Between the two time points, depression increased from 3.1% to 7.2% (p < 0.001), anxiety increased from 3.2% to 6.2% (p < 0.001), and PTSD increased from 2.3% to 5.0% (p < 0.001). At least one physical symptom related to COVID-19 diagnosis persisted in 32% of patients at day 90. CONCLUSIONS: Persistence of physical symptoms was high even at 90 days after discharge. Although the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was low, these symptoms persisted for three months, with a significant increase between the time points. This finding indicates the need to identify at-risk patients so that they can be given an appropriate referral at discharge.