RESUMO
Rationale: It is unclear whether extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) can reduce the rate of intubation or the total time on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in adults experiencing an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: To determine whether ECCO2R increases the number of ventilator-free days within the first 5 days postrandomization (VFD-5) in exacerbation of COPD in patients who are either failing noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or who are failing to wean from IMV. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in 41 U.S. institutions (2018-2022) (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03255057). Subjects were randomized to receive either standard care with venovenous ECCO2R (NIV stratum: n = 26; IMV stratum: n = 32) or standard care alone (NIV stratum: n = 22; IMV stratum: n = 33). Measurements and Main Results: The trial was stopped early because of slow enrollment and enrolled 113 subjects of the planned sample size of 180. There was no significant difference in the median VFD-5 between the arms controlled by strata (P = 0.36). In the NIV stratum, the median VFD-5 for both arms was 5 days (median shift = 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0-0.0). In the IMV stratum, the median VFD-5 in the standard care and ECCO2R arms were 0.25 and 2 days, respectively; median shift = 0.00 (95% confidence interval: 0.00-1.25). In the NIV stratum, all-cause in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the ECCO2R arm (22% vs. 0%, P = 0.02) with no difference in the IMV stratum (17% vs. 15%, P = 0.73). Conclusions: In subjects with exacerbation of COPD, the use of ECCO2R compared with standard care did not improve VFD-5. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03255057).
Assuntos
Ventilação não Invasiva , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Adulto , Humanos , Dióxido de Carbono , Respiração , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/terapia , Circulação ExtracorpóreaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a strong risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 with VTE. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 sites between March 2021 and October 2022 with symptoms of acute respiratory illness were assessed for COVID-19, completion of the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series, and VTE. Prevalence of VTE was compared between unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with COVID-19. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was calculated using a test negative design. Vaccine effectiveness was also stratified by predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant. RESULTS: Among 18,811 patients (median age 63 [IQR:50-73], 49% women, 59% non-Hispanic White, 20% non-Hispanic Black, 14% Hispanic, and median of 2 comorbid conditions [IQR:1-3]), 9,792 were admitted with COVID-19 (44% vaccinated) and 9,019 were test-negative controls (73% vaccinated). Among patients with COVID-19, 601 were diagnosed with VTE by hospital day 28, of whom 170 were vaccinated. VTE was more common among unvaccinated than vaccinated COVID-19 patients (7.8% versus 4.0%; p=0.001). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was 84% (95% CI: 80-87%) overall. Vaccine effectiveness stratified by predominant circulating variant was 88% (73-95%) for alpha, 93% (90-95%) for delta, and 68% (58-76%) for omicron variants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Vaccination with the original monovalent mRNA series was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE, though data detailing prior history of VTE and use of anticoagulation were not available. These findings will inform risk-benefit considerations for those considering vaccination.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Influenza circulation during the 2022-2023 season in the United States largely returned to pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-pandemic patterns and levels. Influenza A(H3N2) viruses were detected most frequently this season, predominately clade 3C.2a1b.2a, a close antigenic match to the vaccine strain. METHODS: To understand effectiveness of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failure, and death, a multicenter sentinel surveillance network in the United States prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illness between 1 October 2022, and 28 February 2023. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failures, and death were measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. RESULTS: A total of 3707 patients, including 714 influenza cases (33% vaccinated) and 2993 influenza- and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls (49% vaccinated) were analyzed. VE against influenza-associated hospitalization was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%-46%) and varied by age (18-64 years: 47% [30%-60%]; ≥65 years: 28% [10%-43%]), and virus (A[H3N2]: 29% [6%-46%], A[H1N1]: 47% [23%-64%]). VE against more severe influenza-associated outcomes included: 41% (29%-50%) against influenza with hypoxemia treated with supplemental oxygen; 65% (56%-72%) against influenza with respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal failure treated with organ support; and 66% (40%-81%) against influenza with respiratory failure treated with invasive mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: During an early 2022-2023 influenza season with a well-matched influenza vaccine, vaccination was associated with reduced risk of influenza-associated hospitalization and organ failure.
Assuntos
Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1 , Vírus da Influenza A , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H3N2 , Eficácia de Vacinas , Vírus da Influenza B , Hospitalização , Vacinação , Estações do AnoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Assessing variant-specific COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and severity can inform public health risk assessments and decisions about vaccine composition. BA.2.86 and its descendants, including JN.1 (referred to collectively as "JN lineages"), emerged in late 2023 and exhibited substantial divergence from co-circulating XBB lineages. METHODS: We analyzed patients hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness at 26 hospitals in 20 U.S. states admitted October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated effectiveness of an updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccine dose against sequence-confirmed XBB and JN lineage hospitalization using logistic regression. Odds of severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, were compared for JN versus XBB lineage hospitalizations using logistic regression. RESULTS: 585 case-patients with XBB lineages, 397 case-patients with JN lineages, and 4,580 control-patients were included. VE in the first 7-89 days after receipt of an updated dose was 54.2% (95% CI = 36.1%-67.1%) against XBB lineage hospitalization and 32.7% (95% CI = 1.9%-53.8%) against JN lineage hospitalization. Odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% CI = 0.46-1.38) and IMV or death (aOR 0.69; 95% CI = 0.34-1.40) were not significantly different among JN compared to XBB lineage hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination provided protection against both XBB and JN lineage hospitalization, but protection against the latter may be attenuated by immune escape. Clinical severity of JN lineage hospitalizations was not higher relative to XBB.
RESUMO
In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. However, few estimates of updated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended illness are available. This analysis evaluated VE of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during September 2023-January 2024 using a test-negative, case-control design with data from two CDC VE networks. VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 51% (95% CI = 47%-54%) during the first 7-59 days after an updated dose and 39% (95% CI = 33%-45%) during the 60-119 days after an updated dose. VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization from two CDC VE networks were 52% (95% CI = 47%-57%) and 43% (95% CI = 27%-56%), with a median interval from updated dose of 42 and 47 days, respectively. Updated COVID-19 vaccine provided increased protection against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults. These results support CDC recommendations for updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Adolescente , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Comitês Consultivos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , HospitalizaçãoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate available evidence of physical and/or chemical compatibility of commonly used medications in critically ill patients with balanced crystalloids. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried from inception to September 2022. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language studies reporting physical and/or chemical compatibility data between 50 selected medications and balanced crystalloids were included. A previously designed tool to assess risk of bias was adapted for use. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 39 (78%) medications and 188 unique combinations with balanced crystalloids were included. Combinations included 35 (70%) medications with lactated Ringer's, 26 (52%) medications with Plasma-Lyte, 10 (20%) medications with Normosol, and one (2%) medication with Isolyte. Studies commonly evaluated physical and chemical compatibility (55.2%). More medications were evaluated via Y-site than admixture. Incompatibilities were identified in 18% of combinations comprising 13 individual drugs. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This systematic review evaluates the compatibility of select critical care medications with balanced crystalloid solutions. Results may be used as a tool to guide clinicians on balanced crystalloid compatibility, potentially increasing ubiquitous use and reducing patient exposure to normal saline. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Data are limited regarding chemical/physical compatibility of commonly used medications in critically ill patients with balanced crystalloids. Additional compatibility studies are warranted, particularly methodologically rigorous studies assessing Plasma-Lyte, Normosol, and Isolyte. Of the evaluated medications, there was a low frequency of incompatibilities with balanced crystalloids.
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Eletrólitos , Hidratação , Humanos , Hidratação/métodos , Estado Terminal/terapia , Soluções Cristaloides/uso terapêutico , Cloreto de Magnésio , Gluconatos , Acetato de Sódio , Cloreto de Potássio , Cloreto de SódioRESUMO
Background: Reduction in sedation exposure is an important metric in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, challenges arose during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in adhering to this practice, driven by concerns on transmission and disease severity issues. Accordingly, diverse sedation approaches emerged, although the effect on mortality has not been studied thoroughly. Methods: Retrospective cohort study in the medical ICU of seven hospitals within a major Health System in Northeast Ohio. We included all adult patients admitted with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) from March 2020 to December 2021. Results: Study included 2394 COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Across waves, sample included 55-63% male subjects, with an average age of 61-68 years (P < 0.001), Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III score 65.8-68.9 (P = 0.37), median IMV duration 8-10 days (P = 0.14), and median ICU duration 9.8-11.6 days (P = 0.084). Propofol remained the primary sedative (84-92%; P = 0.089). Ketamine use increased from the first (9.7%) to fourth (19%) wave (P = 0.002). Midazolam use decreased from the first (27.4%) to third (9.4%) wave (P = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use declined from 35% to 27-28% (P = 0.002) after the first wave. A multivariable regression analysis indicated clinical variables explained 34% of the variation in hospital mortality (R2). Factors associated with higher mortality included age [aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069); P < 0.001], COVID-19 wave, especially fourth wave [aOR = 2.147, (95% CI 1.370-3.365); P = 0.001], and higher number of vasopressors [aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856); P < 0.001]. Addition of sedative medications to a second model led to an increase in the R2 by only 1.6% to 35.6% [aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1); P > 0.05] for propofol, ketamine, and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a decrease in the odds of mortality [aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); P < 0.001]. Conclusion: Mortality in critical COVID-19 patients was mostly driven by illness severity, and the choice of sedation might have minimal impact when other factors are controlled.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hipnóticos e Sedativos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Respiração Artificial , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/terapia , COVID-19/complicações , Estudos Retrospectivos , Feminino , Idoso , Hipnóticos e Sedativos/uso terapêutico , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Mortalidade Hospitalar , SARS-CoV-2 , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/mortalidade , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Ohio/epidemiologia , Dexmedetomidina/uso terapêutico , APACHE , Midazolam/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Purpose: We sought to evaluate critically ill patients with delirium to evaluate inflammatory cytokine production and delirium progression and the role of antipsychotics. Materials and Methods: Adult critically ill patients with confirmed delirium according to a positive CAM-ICU score were included and IL-6 and IL-8 levels were trended for 24â h in this single-center, prospective, observational cohort study. Results: A total of 23 patients were consented and had blood samples drawn for inclusion. There was no difference in IL-6 and IL-8 levels at baseline, 4 to 8â h, and 22 to 28â h after enrollment when comparing patients based on antipsychotic exposure. We identified 2 patient clusters based on age, APACHE III, need for mechanical ventilation, and concomitant infection. In cluster 1, 5 (33.3%) patients received antipsychotics versus 5 (62.5%) patients in cluster 2 (P = .18). Patients in cluster 1 had more co-inflammatory conditions (P < .0001), yet numerically lower baseline IL-6 (P = .18) and IL-8 levels (P = .80) compared to cluster 2. Patients in cluster 1 had a greater median number of delirium-free days compared to cluster 2 (17.0 vs 6.0 days; P = .05). Conclusions: In critically ill patients with delirium, IL-6 and IL-8 levels were variable and antipsychotics were not associated with improvements in delirium or inflammatory markers.
Assuntos
Antipsicóticos , Delírio , Adulto , Humanos , Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Estudos Prospectivos , Interleucina-8 , Estado Terminal/terapia , Interleucina-6/uso terapêutico , Delírio/tratamento farmacológico , Unidades de Terapia IntensivaRESUMO
Rationale: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. Objectives: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to the standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. Measurements and Main Results: At the third interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the prespecified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n = 222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank, 117.3 [interquartile range, 60.0-169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-162.5] in control subjects; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of acute respiratory distress syndrome at 30 days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) control patients (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. Conclusions: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate and/or severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Células-Tronco Mesenquimais , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , SARS-CoV-2 , Pulmão , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an acute inflammatory respiratory failure condition that may be associated with brain injury. We aimed to describe the types of structural brain injuries detected by brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) among patients with ARDS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed and collected data on brain injuries as detected by brain MRI during index hospitalization of all patients with ARDS at a single tertiary center in the United States from January 2010 to October 2018 (pre-COVID era). Structural brain injuries were classified as cerebral ischemia (ischemic infarct and hypoxic-ischemic brain injury) or cerebral hemorrhage (intraparenchymal hemorrhage, cerebral microbleeds, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and subdural hematoma). Descriptive statistics were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 678 patients with ARDS, 66 (9.7%) underwent brain MRI during their ARDS illness. The most common indication for brain MRI was encephalopathy (45.4%), and the median time from hospital admission to MRI was 10 days (interquartile range 4-17). Of 66 patients, 29 (44%) had MRI evidence of brain injury, including cerebral ischemia in 33% (22 of 66) and cerebral hemorrhage in 21% (14 of 66). Among those with cerebral ischemia, common findings were bilateral globus pallidus infarcts (n = 7, 32%), multifocal infarcts (n = 5, 23%), and diffuse hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (n = 3, 14%). Of those with cerebral hemorrhage, common findings were cerebral microbleeds (n = 12, 86%) and intraparenchymal hemorrhage (n = 2, 14%). Patients with ARDS with cerebral hemorrhage had significantly greater use of rescue therapies, including prone positioning (28.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.03), inhaled vasodilator (35.7% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.046), and recruitment maneuver (14.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Structural brain injury was not uncommon among selected patients with ARDS who underwent brain MRI. The majority of brain injuries seen were bilateral globus pallidus infarcts and cerebral microbleeds.
Assuntos
Lesões Encefálicas , Hipóxia-Isquemia Encefálica , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Encéfalo/diagnóstico por imagem , Encéfalo/patologia , Lesões Encefálicas/complicações , Lesões Encefálicas/diagnóstico por imagem , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Infarto Cerebral/patologia , Hemorragia Cerebral/patologia , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomic and subgenomic RNA levels are frequently used as a correlate of infectiousness. The impact of host factors and SARS-CoV-2 lineage on RNA viral load is unclear. METHODS: Total nucleocapsid (N) and subgenomic N (sgN) RNA levels were measured by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in specimens from 3204 individuals hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 21 hospitals. RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were used to estimate RNA viral load. The impact of time of sampling, SARS-CoV-2 variant, age, comorbidities, vaccination, and immune status on N and sgN Ct values were evaluated using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Mean Ct values at presentation for N were 24.14 (SD 4.53) for non-variants of concern, 25.15 (SD 4.33) for Alpha, 25.31 (SD 4.50) for Delta, and 26.26 (SD 4.42) for Omicron. N and sgN RNA levels varied with time since symptom onset and infecting variant but not with age, comorbidity, immune status, or vaccination. When normalized to total N RNA, sgN levels were similar across all variants. CONCLUSIONS: RNA viral loads were similar among hospitalized adults, irrespective of infecting variant and known risk factors for severe COVID-19. Total N and subgenomic RNA N viral loads were highly correlated, suggesting that subgenomic RNA measurements add little information for the purposes of estimating infectivity.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , RNA Subgenômico , Carga Viral , RNA , RNA Viral/genéticaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with historically low influenza circulation during the 2020-2021 season, followed by an increase in influenza circulation during the 2021-2022 US season. The 2a.2 subgroup of the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b subclade that predominated was antigenically different from the vaccine strain. METHODS: To understand the effectiveness of the 2021-2022 vaccine against hospitalized influenza illness, a multistate sentinel surveillance network enrolled adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and tested for influenza by a molecular assay. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) was measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. A separate analysis was performed to illustrate bias introduced by including SARS-CoV-2-positive controls. RESULTS: A total of 2334 patients, including 295 influenza cases (47% vaccinated), 1175 influenza- and SARS-CoV-2-negative controls (53% vaccinated), and 864 influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2-positive controls (49% vaccinated), were analyzed. Influenza VE was 26% (95% CI: -14% to 52%) among adults aged 18-64 years, -3% (-54% to 31%) among adults aged ≥65 years, and 50% (15-71%) among adults aged 18-64 years without immunocompromising conditions. Estimated VE decreased with inclusion of SARS-CoV-2-positive controls. CONCLUSIONS: During a season where influenza A(H3N2) was antigenically different from the vaccine virus, vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of influenza hospitalization in younger immunocompetent adults. However, vaccination did not provide protection in adults ≥65 years of age. Improvements in vaccines, antivirals, and prevention strategies are warranted.
Assuntos
Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H3N2 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Eficácia de Vacinas , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Humanos , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Influenza Humana/virologia , Estações do Ano , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto Jovem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , SARS-CoV-2/isolamento & purificaçãoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Understanding the changing epidemiology of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs research priorities and public health policies. METHODS: Among adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 between 11 March 2021, and 31 August 2022 at 21 hospitals in 18 states, those hospitalized during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-predominant period (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/BA.5) were compared to those from earlier Alpha- and Delta-predominant periods. Demographic characteristics, biomarkers within 24 hours of admission, and outcomes, including oxygen support and death, were assessed. RESULTS: Among 9825 patients, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 years (47-72), 47% were women, and 21% non-Hispanic Black. From the Alpha-predominant period (Mar-Jul 2021; N = 1312) to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineage-predominant period (Jun-Aug 2022; N = 1307): the percentage of patients who had ≥4 categories of underlying medical conditions increased from 11% to 21%; those vaccinated with at least a primary COVID-19 vaccine series increased from 7% to 67%; those ≥75 years old increased from 11% to 33%; those who did not receive any supplemental oxygen increased from 18% to 42%. Median (IQR) highest C-reactive protein and D-dimer concentration decreased from 42.0 mg/L (9.9-122.0) to 11.5 mg/L (2.7-42.8) and 3.1 mcg/mL (0.8-640.0) to 1.0 mcg/mL (0.5-2.2), respectively. In-hospital death peaked at 12% in the Delta-predominant period and declined to 4% during the BA.4/BA.5-predominant period. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to adults hospitalized during early COVID-19 variant periods, those hospitalized during Omicron-variant COVID-19 were older, had multiple co-morbidities, were more likely to be vaccinated, and less likely to experience severe respiratory disease, systemic inflammation, coagulopathy, and death.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , Feminino , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Mortalidade Hospitalar , OxigênioRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization. METHODS: Case-control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states 11 March-15 December 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with 2 doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose 2) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: A total of 10 078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-91) versus 82% (95% CI, 79-85) at ≥180 days (P < .001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, P < .001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, P < .001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) (91% to 87%, P = .005), and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, P < .001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In a period largely predating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of 2 mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Hospitalização , Vacinas de mRNA , RNA Mensageiro , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , IdosoRESUMO
On June 21, 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for adults aged ≥60 years, offered to individual adults using shared clinical decision-making. Informed use of these vaccines requires an understanding of RSV disease severity. To characterize RSV-associated severity, 5,784 adults aged ≥60 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 U.S. states during February 1, 2022-May 31, 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare RSV disease severity with COVID-19 and influenza severity on the basis of the following outcomes: 1) standard flow (<30 L/minute) oxygen therapy, 2) high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), 3) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 4) invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Overall, 304 (5.3%) enrolled adults were hospitalized with RSV, 4,734 (81.8%) with COVID-19 and 746 (12.9%) with influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive standard flow oxygen, HFNC or NIV, and ICU admission than were those hospitalized with COVID-19 or influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive IMV or die compared with patients hospitalized with influenza (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.33-3.26). Among hospitalized older adults, RSV was less common, but was associated with more severe disease than COVID-19 or influenza. High disease severity in older adults hospitalized with RSV is important to consider in shared clinical decision-making regarding RSV vaccination.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Influenza Humana , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial , Vírus Sincicial Respiratório Humano , Humanos , Idoso , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/terapia , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/terapia , SARS-CoV-2 , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial/epidemiologia , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial/terapia , Hospitalização , Gravidade do Paciente , OxigênioRESUMO
As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , Adolescente , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Pandemias , Respiração Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA MensageiroRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To summarize knowledge and identify gaps in evidence regarding treatment of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DATA SOURCES: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they reported effects of treatments on right ventricular function, whether or not the intent was to modify right ventricular function. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two authors. Data items included the study design, patient population, type of intervention, comparison group, and RV-specific outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1,430 studies screened, 51 studies reporting on 1,526 patients were included. By frequency, the included studies examined the following interventions: ventilator settings (29.4%), inhaled medications (33.3%), extracorporeal life support (13.7%), intravenous or oral medications (13.7%), and prone positioning (9.8%). The majority of the studies were non-randomized experimental studies (53%), with the next most common being case reports (16%). Only 5.9% of studies were RCTs. In total, 27% of studies were conducted with the goal of modifying RV function. CONCLUSIONS: Given the prevalence of RVD in ARDS and its association with mortality, the dearth of research on this topic is concerning. This review highlights the need for prospective trials aimed at treating RV dysfunction in ARDS.
Assuntos
Ventrículos do Coração , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Respiração Artificial , Posicionamento do PacienteRESUMO
Prone position ventilation (PPV) is one of the few interventions with a proven mortality benefit in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), yet it is underutilized as demonstrated by multiple large observational studies. Significant barriers to its consistent application have been identified and studied. But the complex interplay of a multidisciplinary team makes its consistent application challenging. We present a framework of multidisciplinary collaboration that identifies the appropriate patients for this intervention and discuss our institutional experience applying a multidisciplinary team to implement prone position (PP) leading up to and through the current COVID-19 pandemic. We also highlight the role of such multidisciplinary teams in the effective implementation of prone positioning in ARDS throughout a large health care system. We emphasize the importance of proper selection of patients and provide guidance on how a protocolized approach can be utilized for proper patient selection.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Humanos , Decúbito Ventral , Pandemias , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Respiração Artificial , Posicionamento do PacienteRESUMO
Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022. Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension. Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina , Vasodilatadores , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Angiotensina II/metabolismo , Angiotensinas/administração & dosagem , Angiotensinas/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/complicações , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/fisiopatologia , COVID-19/terapia , Hipóxia/tratamento farmacológico , Hipóxia/etiologia , Hipóxia/mortalidade , Infusões Intravenosas , Ligantes , Oligopeptídeos/administração & dosagem , Oligopeptídeos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina/efeitos dos fármacos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vasodilatadores/administração & dosagem , Vasodilatadores/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cerebral microbleeds (CMB) have been observed in patients with critical illness. We sought to examine the frequency of CMB in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and association with neurologic complications including acute cerebral ischemia and seizures. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with ARDS from January 2010 to October 2018 was performed. Patients with brain MRIs with susceptibility weighted imaging or gradient echo sequences were included. We compared neurologic complications and intensive care unit outcomes between patients with and without CMB. Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) was defined as the presence of CMB, lacunar infarcts, enlarged perivascular spaces, and white matter hyperintensities. RESULTS: Of 678 patients with ARDS, 61 met inclusion criteria. Median age was 54 years (IQR 42-63) and 28 were males. Of 12 (20%) with CMB, 10 had lobar CMB. Four patients had CMB in the corpus callosum, all involving the splenium. Neurologic complications were more common in those with CMB including acute cerebral ischemia (41.7% versus 10.2%, p=0.008) and seizures (33.3% versus 8.2%, p=0.021). ARDS rescue therapies were more commonly used in patients with CMB (p=0.005). There was no difference in hospital mortality (41.7% versus 34.7%, p=0.652). Patients with CMB did not have a higher CSVD score than those without CMB when accounting for the presence of CMB (median=1 versus 0, p=0.891). CONCLUSION: CMB were present in twenty percent of patients with ARDS who had MRI and were more commonly seen in patients requiring ARDS rescue therapies.