Awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The role of awake prone positioning (aPP) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of aPP in acute respiratory failure related to COronaVIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19). Studies reporting on the clinical course of patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 treated or not treated by aPP were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (ProsperoID: CRD42022333211). The primary study outcome was the composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation; the individual components of the primary outcome were secondary study outcomes. The composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation was available for 6 studies (1884 patients), five randomized and one prospective; a significant reduction in the risk of this outcome was observed in patients treated vs. not treated by aPP (33.5% vs. 39.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; I2 0%). In-hospital death was reported in 34 studies (6808 patients) and occurred in 17.4% vs. 23.5% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (random effect OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.79; I2 59%); orotracheal intubation was observed in 25.8% vs. 32.7% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (27 studies, 5369 patients; random effect OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.27; I2 84%). aPP reduces the risk for death or orotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. Further studies should be conducted to confirm the clinical benefit of aPP outside the ICU.Registration Prospero ID: CRD42022333211.

Effects of Direct Oral Anticoagulants' Nonrecommended Dose in Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of nonrecommended direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) doses in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are still undefined. SUMMARY: We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared nonrecommended versus recommended doses of DOACs, published up to December 2021. Primary study outcomes were ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism (IS/TIA/SE) and major bleeding (MB). All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. We determined pooled odds ratios (ORs) between groups of patients with a random-effect model. Twenty-three studies with 175,801 patients were included. Nonrecommended doses were associated with a higher risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause mortality, but not of MB as compared to recommended doses of DOACs (OR 1.25 [95% CI: 1.14-1.38], OR 1.69 [95% CI: 1.31-2.18] and OR 1.10 [95% CI: 0.93-1.31], respectively). The nonrecommended low dose was associated with an increased risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause death (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.05-1.39] and OR 1.66 [95% CI: 1.18-2.35], respectively) but not of MB (OR 1.01 [95% CI: 0.83-1.22] as compared to recommended doses. Subgroup analysis of nonrecommended low doses of DOACs showed a nonsignificant increase in IS/TIA/SE in Asians (OR 1.17 [95% CI: 0.89-1.54] vs. non-Asian (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.07-1.36]). KEY MESSAGES: Compared with recommended doses, nonrecommended low doses of DOACs increase the risk of ischemic events without decreasing the risk of bleeding. For Asians, the efficacy of DOACs seemed preserved despite the nonrecommended low-dose prescription. Clinicians should carefully adhere to recommended DOAC prescription advice in managing NVAF patients.