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.

Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial.

Background: COVID-19 progression is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Randomised trials have demonstrated that anticoagulants reduce the risk of thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but a benefit of routine anticoagulation has not been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, evaluating the use of rivaroxaban in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients. Adults ≥18 years old, with probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presenting within ≤7 days from symptom onset with no clear indication for hospitalization, plus at least 2 risk factors for complication, were randomised 1:1 either to rivaroxaban 10 mg OD for 14 days or to routine care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of venous thromboembolic events, need of mechanical ventilation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or death due to COVID-19 during the first 30 days. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04757857. Findings: Enrollment was prematurely stopped due to sustained reduction in new COVID-19 cases. From September 29th, 2020, through May 23rd, 2022, 660 patients were randomised (median age 61 [Q1-Q3 47-69], 55.7% women). There was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and control in the primary efficacy endpoint (4.3% [14/327] vs 5.8% [19/330], RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46). There was no major bleeding in the control group and 1 in the rivaroxaban group. Interpretation: On light of these findings no decision can be made about the utility of rivaroxaban to improve outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19. Metanalyses data provide no evidence of a benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19. These findings were the result of an underpowered study, therefore should be interpreted with caution. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer S.A.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. / Hidroxicloroquina para Pacientes com COVID-19 não Hospitalizados: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate. CONCLUSION: Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

FUNDAMENTO: Revisões sistemáticas anteriores não identificaram benefício do uso da hidroxicloroquina ou da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados. Após a publicação dessas revisões, os resultados do COPE, o maior ensaio clínico randomizado até hoje, tornaram-se disponíveis. OBJETIVOS: Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) para sintetizar as evidências sobre a eficácia e a segurança da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados em comparação a controle ou tratamento padrão. MÉTODOS: As buscas foram conduzidas nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library e ClinicalTrials.gov, e complementadas por busca manual. Foram realizadas metanálises diretas e avaliações de risco de viés e certeza da evidência, incluindo análise do tamanho ótimo da informação (OIS, optimal information size). Um nível de significância de 0,05 foi adotado na metanálise. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTADOS: Oito ECRs com 3219 participantes foram incluídos. As taxas de internação por COVID-19 e de eventos adversos não foram significativamente diferentes entre hidroxicloroquina (5,6% e 5,1%) e controle (7,4% e 20,4%) [risco relativo (RR) 0,77, intervalo de confiança 95% (IC95%), 0,57-1,04, I2: 0%; RR 1,78, IC95% 0,90; 3,52, I2: 93%, respectivamente)]. O OIS (7880) não foi alcançado para hospitalização por COVID-19, independentemente da simulação para a taxa de evento e redução do RR estimados. CONCLUSÃO: A evidência de muito baixa qualidade indicou falta de benefício com hidroxicloroquina em prevenir internações por COVID-19. Apesar de ser a revisão sistemática com o maior número de participantes incluídos, o OIS, considerando a resposta à infecção anterior à vacinação, não foi atingido.

Attributable mortality due to nosocomial sepsis in Brazilian hospitals: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial sepsis is a major healthcare issue, but there are few data on estimates of its attributable mortality. We aimed to estimate attributable mortality fraction (AF) due to nosocomial sepsis. METHODS: Matched 1:1 case-control study in 37 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized patients in participating hospitals were included. Cases were hospital non-survivors and controls were hospital survivors, which were matched by admission type and date of discharge. Exposure was defined as occurrence of nosocomial sepsis, defined as antibiotic prescription plus presence of organ dysfunction attributed to sepsis without an alternative reason for organ failure; alternative definitions were explored. Main outcome measurement was nosocomial sepsis-attributable fractions, estimated using inversed-weight probabilities methods using generalized mixed model considering time-dependency of sepsis occurrence. RESULTS: 3588 patients from 37 hospitals were included. Mean age was 63 years and 48.8% were female at birth. 470 sepsis episodes occurred in 388 patients (311 in cases and 77 in control group), with pneumonia being the most common source of infection (44.3%). Average AF for sepsis mortality was 0.076 (95% CI 0.068-0.084) for medical admissions; 0.043 (95% CI 0.032-0.055) for elective surgical admissions; and 0.036 (95% CI 0.017-0.055) for emergency surgeries. In a time-dependent analysis, AF for sepsis rose linearly for medical admissions, reaching close to 0.12 on day 28; AF plateaued earlier for other admission types (0.04 for elective surgery and 0.07 for urgent surgery). Alternative sepsis definitions yield different estimates. CONCLUSION: The impact of nosocomial sepsis on outcome is more pronounced in medical admissions and tends to increase over time. The results, however, are sensitive to sepsis definitions.

Rivaroxaban in Outpatients with Mild or Moderate COVID-19: Rationale and Design of the Study CARE (CARE - Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII). / Rivaroxabana em Pacientes Ambulatoriais com COVID-19 Leve ou Moderada: Fundamentação e Desenho do Estudo CARE (CARE ­ Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated a high risk of arterial and venous thromboembolic events as a consequence of direct viral damage to endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 and a procoagulant milieu due to increased biomarkers, such as D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII. Although randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapies have been conducted in hospitalized patients, few have evaluated the role of thromboprophylaxis in an outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces the risk of venous or arterial thrombotic events, invasive ventilatory support, and death in COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: The COVID Antithrombotic Rivaroxaban Evaluation (CARE) study, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 14 days or local standard treatment alone to prevent adverse outcomes, is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). The inclusion criteria are adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild or moderate symptoms without indication for hospitalization, within 7 days of symptom onset, and 1 risk factor for COVID-19 complication (> 65 years, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung diseases, smoking, immunosuppression, or obesity). The primary composite endpoint, which includes venous thromboembolism, invasive mechanical ventilation, major acute cardiovascular events, and mortality within 30 days of randomization, will be assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. All patients will provide informed consent. A significance level of 5% will be used for all statistical tests. RESULTS: Major thrombotic and bleeding outcomes, hospitalizations, and deaths will be centrally adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee blinded to the assigned treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The CARE study will provide relevant and contemporary information about the potential role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19.

FUNDAMENTO: Estudos anteriores revelaram alto risco de eventos tromboembólicos arteriais e venosos como consequência de danos virais diretos do SARS-CoV-2 em células endoteliais e um meio procoagulante devido ao aumento de biomarcadores como o D-dímero, fibrinogênio, fator VIII. Foram realizados ensaios controlados randomizados de terapias antitrombóticas em pacientes internados, no entanto, poucos estudos avaliaram o papel da tromboprofilaxia no ambiente ambulatorial. OBJETIVO: Avaliar se a profilaxia antitrombótica com rivaroxabana reduz o risco de eventos trombóticos venosos ou arteriais, suporte ventilatório invasivo e morte em pacientes ambulatoriais com COVID-19. MÉTODOS: O estudo CARE é um ensaio randomizado, aberto, multicêntrico e controlado por rivaroxabana 10 mg uma vez por dia durante 14 dias ou tratamento local padrão isolado, para a prevenção de resultados adversos, registrado no Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). Os critérios de inclusão são adultos com infecção confirmada ou suspeita do SARS-CoV-2, com sintomas leves ou moderados, sem indicação de hospitalização, no prazo de 7 dias após o início dos sintomas e um fator de risco de complicação da COVID-19 (>65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). O desfecho primário composto inclui tromboembolismo venoso, necessidade de ventilação mecânica invasiva, eventos cardiovasculares agudos maiores e mortalidade no prazo de 30 dias após a randomização, sendo avaliado segundo o princípio da intenção de tratar. Todos os pacientes assinaram termo de consentimento. Foi estabelecido um nível de significância de 5% para todos os testes estatísticos. RESULTADOS: Os principais desfechos trombóticos e hemorrágicos, hospitalizações e mortes serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente, sob a condição cega para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. CONCLUSÃO: O estudo CARE fornecerá informação relevante e contemporânea sobre o possível papel da tromboprofilaxia em pacientes ambulatoriais com COVID-19.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, phase II/III, multicentre, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn trial.

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients. Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087. Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups. Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less. Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13).