RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between noninvasive ventilation (NIV) compared with invasive ventilation and mortality in subjects with severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective multi-center study of subjects with severe acute respiratory infection treated with ventilatory support between September 2012 and June 2018. We compared the 90-d mortality of subjects managed initially with NIV (NIV group) with those managed with invasive ventilation only (invasive ventilation group), adjusting by propensity score. RESULTS: Of 383 subjects, 189 (49%) were in the NIV group and 194 (51%) were in the invasive ventilation group. Of the subjects initially treated with NIV, 117 (62%) were eventually intubated. Crude 90-d mortality was lower in the NIV group versus the invasive ventilation group (42 [22.2%] vs 77 [39.7%]; P < .001). After propensity score adjustment, NIV was associated with lower 90-d mortality than invasive ventilation (odds ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; P < .001). The association of NIV with mortality compared with invasive ventilation was not different across the studied subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with severe acute respiratory infection and acute respiratory failure, NIV was commonly used. NIV was associated with a lower 90-d mortality. The observed high failure rate suggests the need for further research to optimize patient selection and facilitate early recognition of NIV failure.
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Ventilação não Invasiva , Pontuação de Propensão , Insuficiência Respiratória , Infecções Respiratórias , Humanos , Ventilação não Invasiva/métodos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infecções Respiratórias/terapia , Infecções Respiratórias/mortalidade , Infecções Respiratórias/complicações , Idoso , Estado Terminal/terapia , Estado Terminal/mortalidade , Doença Aguda , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , Insuficiência Respiratória/mortalidade , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Índice de Gravidade de DoençaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The optimal amount and timing of protein intake in critically ill patients are unknown. REPLENISH (Replacing Protein via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial evaluates whether supplemental enteral protein added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein given from ICU day five until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients will be randomized to receive supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein (range of 2-2.4 g/kg/day) or no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day). The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality; other outcomes include functional and health-related quality-of-life assessments at 90 days. The study sample size of 2502 patients will have 80% power to detect a 5% absolute risk reduction in 90-day mortality from 30 to 25%. Consistent with international guidelines, this statistical analysis plan specifies the methods for evaluating primary and secondary outcomes and subgroups. Applying this statistical analysis plan to the REPLENISH trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data. CONCLUSION: Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (RC19/414/R). Approvals were also obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be disseminated in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Proteínas Alimentares , Nutrição Enteral , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Humanos , Nutrição Enteral/métodos , Proteínas Alimentares/administração & dosagem , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do Tratamento , Respiração Artificial , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Protein intake is recommended in critically ill patients to mitigate the negative effects of critical illness-induced catabolism and muscle wasting. However, the optimal dose of enteral protein remains unknown. We hypothesize that supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition formula to achieve high amount of enteral protein (range 2-2.4 g/kg/day) given from ICU day 5 until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve moderate amount enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day) would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: The REPLENISH (Replacing Protein Via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial is an open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Patients will be randomized to the supplemental protein group or the control group. Patients in both groups will receive the primary enteral formula as per the treating team, which includes a maximum protein 1.2 g/kg/day. The supplemental protein group will receive, in addition, supplemental protein at 1.2 g/kg/day starting the fifth ICU day. The control group will receive the primary formula without supplemental protein. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Other outcomes include functional and quality of life assessments at 90 days. The trial will enroll 2502 patients. DISCUSSION: The study has been initiated in September 2021. Interim analysis is planned at one third and two thirds of the target sample size. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Qualidade de Vida , Adulto , Humanos , Estado Terminal/terapia , Nutrição Enteral/efeitos adversos , Nutrição Enteral/métodos , Tempo , Tamanho da Amostra , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estudos Multicêntricos como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the mobility levels among critically ill patients and the association of early mobility with incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter PREVENT trial, which evaluated adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h and found no effect on the primary outcome of incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis. Mobility levels were documented daily up to day 28 in the ICU using a tool with an 8-point ordinal scale. We categorized patients according to mobility levels within the first 3 ICU days into three groups: early mobility level 4-7 (at least active standing), 1-3 (passive transfer from bed to chair or active sitting), and 0 (passive range of motion). We evaluated the association of early mobility and incident lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality by Cox proportional models adjusting for randomization and other co-variables. RESULTS: Of 1708 patients, only 85 (5.0%) had early mobility level 4-7 and 356 (20.8%) level 1-3, while 1267 (74.2%) had early mobility level 0. Patients with early mobility levels 4-7 and 1-3 had less illness severity, femoral central venous catheters, and organ support compared to patients with mobility level 0. Incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 1/85 (1.3%) patients in the early mobility 4-7 group, 7/348 (2.0%) patients in mobility 1-3 group, and 50/1230 (4.1%) patients in mobility 0 group. Compared with early mobility group 0, mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 were not associated with differences in incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16, 8.90; p = 0.87 and 0.91, 95% CI 0.39, 2.12; p = 0.83, respectively). However, early mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 had lower 90-day mortality (aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 1.01; p = 0.052, and 0.43, 95% CI 0.30, 0.62; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of critically ill patients with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h were mobilized early. Early mobility was associated with reduced mortality, but not with different incidence of deep-vein thrombosis. This association does not establish causality, and randomized controlled trials are required to assess whether and to what extent this association is modifiable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).
Assuntos
Cateteres Venosos Centrais , Tromboembolia Venosa , Humanos , Anticoagulantes , Estado Terminal , IncidênciaRESUMO
Background: Type I interferons (IFNs) are essential antiviral cytokines induced upon respiratory exposure to coronaviruses. Defects in type I IFN signaling can result in severe disease upon exposure to respiratory viral infection and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Neutralizing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) to type I IFNs were reported as a risk factor for life-threatening COVID-19, but their presence has not been evaluated in patients with severe Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Methods: We evaluated the prevalence of type I IFN auto-Abs in a cohort of hospitalized patients with MERS who were enrolled in a placebo-controlled clinical trial for treatment with IFN-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir (MIRACLE trial). Samples were tested for type I IFN auto-Abs using a multiplex particle-based assay. Results: Among the 62 enrolled patients, 15 (24.2%) were positive for immunoglobulin G auto-Abs for at least one subtype of type I IFNs. Auto-Abs positive patients were not different from auto-Abs negative patients in age, sex, or comorbidities. However, the majority (93.3%) of patients who were auto-Abs positive were critically ill and admitted to the ICU at the time of enrollment compared to 66% in the auto-Abs negative patients. The effect of treatment with IFN-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir did not significantly differ between the two groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the presence of type I IFN auto-Abs in hospitalized patients with MERS.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Interferon Tipo I , Humanos , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Lopinavir/uso terapêutico , Interferon beta-1b/uso terapêutico , AutoanticorposRESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared to usual respiratory support reduces 180-day mortality and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This is a pre-planned follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID trial. In this multicenter, randomized clinical trial, adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of all enrolled patients except three who were lost at follow-up. The study outcomes were 180-day mortality, EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values, and EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, non-survivors were assigned a value of 0 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. RESULTS: Within 180 days, 63/159 patients (39.6%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared to 65/158 patients (41.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference - 1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.3, 9.3, p = 0.78). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the helmet noninvasive ventilation and the usual respiratory support groups did not differ in EQ-5D-5L index values (median 0.68 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], compared to 0.67 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], median difference 0.00 [95% CI - 0.32, 0.32; p = 0.91]) or EQ-VAS scores (median 70 [IQR 0, 93], compared to 70 [IQR 0, 90], median difference 0.00 (95% CI - 31.92, 31.92; p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive ventilation did not reduce 180-day mortality or improve HRQoL compared to usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Ventilação não Invasiva , Insuficiência Respiratória , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , Seguimentos , Dispositivos de Proteção da Cabeça , Qualidade de Vida , Insuficiência Respiratória/etiologia , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapiaRESUMO
Animal and human data indicate variable effects of interferons in treating coronavirus infections according to inflammatory status and timing of therapy. In this sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection Treated with a Combination of Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Interferon ß-1b), we evaluated the heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir versus placebo among hospitalized patients with MERS on 90-day mortality, according to cytokine levels and timing of therapy. We measured plasma levels of 17 cytokines at enrollment and tested the treatment effect on 90-day mortality according to cytokine levels (higher versus lower levels using the upper tertile (67%) as a cutoff point) and time to treatment (≤ 7 days versus > 7 days of symptom onset) using interaction tests. Among 70 included patients, 32 received interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir and 38 received placebo. Interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduced mortality in patients with lower IL-2, IL-8 and IL-13 plasma concentrations but not in patients with higher levels (p-value for interaction = 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05, respectively) and with early but not late therapy (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect according to other cytokine levels. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the assessment of inflammatory status can help in identifying patients with MERS who may benefit from interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir. Trial registration: This is a sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843).
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Ritonavir , Animais , Humanos , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Citocinas/uso terapêutico , Interferons/uso terapêutico , Lopinavir/uso terapêutico , Ritonavir/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Importance: Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited. Objective: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Ventilação não Invasiva , Oxigenoterapia , Insuficiência Respiratória , Doença Aguda , Barotrauma/etiologia , COVID-19/complicações , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Hipóxia/etiologia , Hipóxia/mortalidade , Hipóxia/terapia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ventilação não Invasiva/efeitos adversos , Ventilação não Invasiva/métodos , Oxigênio/administração & dosagem , Oxigênio/efeitos adversos , Oxigenoterapia/efeitos adversos , Oxigenoterapia/métodos , Insuficiência Respiratória/etiologia , Insuficiência Respiratória/mortalidade , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapiaRESUMO
There are contradictory data regarding the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) on the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and heart failure (HF) decompensation in critically ill patients. This study evaluated the effect of adjunctive use of IPC on the rate of incident DVT and ventilation-free days among critically ill patients with HF. In this pre-specified secondary analysis of the PREVENT trial (N = 2003), we compared the effect of adjunctive IPC added to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (IPC group), with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group) in critically ill patients with HF. The presence of HF was determined by the treating teams according to local practices. Patients were stratified according to preserved (≥ 40%) versus reduced (< 40%) left ventricular ejection fraction, and by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. The primary outcome was incident proximal lower-limb DVT, determined with twice weekly venous Doppler ultrasonography. As a co-primary outcome, we evaluated ventilation-free days as a surrogate for clinically important HF decompensation. Among 275 patients with HF, 18 (6.5%) patients had prevalent proximal lower-limb DVT (detected on trial day 1 to 3). Of 257 patients with no prevalent DVT, 11/125 (8.8%) patients in the IPC group developed incident proximal lower-limb DVT compared to 6/132 (4.5%) patients in the control group (relative risk, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-5.08, p = 0.17). There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the IPC and control groups (median 21 days versus 25 days respectively, p = 0.17). The incidence of DVT with IPC versus control was not different across NYHA classes (p value for interaction = 0.18), nor across patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (p value for interaction = 0.15). Ventilator-free days with IPC versus control were also not different across NYHA classes nor across patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In conclsuion, the use of adjunctive IPC compared with control was associated with similar rate of incident proximal lower-limb DVT and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with HF.Trial registration: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02040103 ) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Tromboembolia Venosa , Trombose Venosa , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Estado Terminal/terapia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Humanos , Dispositivos de Compressão Pneumática Intermitente , Volume Sistólico , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiologia , Trombose Venosa/tratamento farmacológico , Trombose Venosa/prevenção & controle , Função Ventricular EsquerdaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Ventilação não Invasiva , Insuficiência Respiratória , Adulto , Dispositivos de Proteção da Cabeça , Humanos , Ventilação não Invasiva/efeitos adversos , Insuficiência Respiratória/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
The objective of this study is to examine the IgG antibody response in critically ill patients with the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and to examine the association of early antibody response with mortality and viral clearance. We collected blood samples from 40 consecutive real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) confirmed critically ill MERS patients on ICU days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28. MERS-CoV antibodies were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), using wells coated with MERS-CoV S1 antigen. Patients were admitted to ICU after a median (Q1, Q3) of 9 (4, 13) days from onset of symptoms with an admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 11 (6.5, 12). Among the study cohort, 38 patients (95%) received invasive ventilation, 35 (88%) vasopressors, 21 (53%) renal replacement therapy and 17 (43%) corticosteroids. Median (Q1,Q3) ELISA optical density (OD) ratio significantly increased with time (p < 0.001) from 0.11 (0.07, 1.43) on day 1; to 0.69 (0.11, 2.08) on day 3, 2.72 (1.84, 3.54) on day 7, 2.51 (0.35, 3.35) on day 14 and 3.77 (3.70, 3.84) on day 28. Early antibody response (day 1-3) was observed in 13/39 patients (33%) and was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio: 0.31, 95% CI 0.10, 0.96, p = 0.04) but was not associated with faster clearance of MERS-CoV RNA. In conclusion, among critically ill patients with MERS, early antibody response was associated with lower mortality but not with faster clearance of MERS-CoV RNA. These findings have important implications for understanding pathogenesis and potential immunotherapy.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Antivirais/imunologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/imunologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Estado Terminal/mortalidade , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio/imunologia , Adulto , Idoso , Anticorpos Antivirais/sangue , Formação de Anticorpos , Estudos de Coortes , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Feminino , Humanos , Imunoglobulina G/sangue , Imunoglobulina G/imunologia , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Cinética , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Escores de Disfunção Orgânica , Terapia de Substituição Renal , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a risk factor for infection with coronaviruses. This study describes the demographic, clinical data, and outcomes of critically ill patients with diabetes and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia (September 2012-January 2018). We compared the demographic characteristics, underlying medical conditions, presenting symptoms and signs, management and clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with MERS who had diabetes compared to those with no diabetes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine if diabetes was an independent predictor of 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Of the 350 critically ill patients with MERS, 171 (48.9%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes were more likely to be older, and have comorbid conditions, compared to patients with no diabetes. They were more likely to present with respiratory failure requiring intubation, vasopressors, and corticosteroids. The median time to clearance of MERS-CoV RNA was similar (23 days (Q1, Q3: 17, 36) in patients with diabetes and 21.0 days (Q1, Q3: 10, 33) in patients with no diabetes). Mortality at 90 days was higher in patients with diabetes (78.9% versus 54.7%, p < 0.0001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that diabetes was an independent risk factor for 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.72). CONCLUSIONS: Half of the critically ill patients with MERS have diabetes; which is associated with more severe disease. Diabetes is an independent predictor of mortality among critically patients with MERS.
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Complicações do Diabetes/epidemiologia , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiologia , Corticosteroides , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Líquido da Lavagem Broncoalveolar/virologia , Estudos de Coortes , Comorbidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Estado Terminal , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio/genética , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio/isolamento & purificação , Nasofaringe/virologia , Insuficiência Respiratória/etiologia , Insuficiência Respiratória/mortalidade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Arábia Saudita/epidemiologia , Escarro/virologia , Traqueia/virologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we evaluated the inflammatory response in patients with severe acute respiratory infection due to the Middle East respiratory syndrome and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome and assessed the presence of distinct inflammatory subphenotypes using latent class analysis. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary care ICU in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS: Consecutive critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured cytokines on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 of ICU stay. We included 116 patients (40 with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and 76 with non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection). On ICU day 1, both patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection had higher levels of interleukin-3, interleukin-4, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, interleukin-17A, eotaxin, and epidermal growth factor compared with healthy controls. There were no differences in cytokines over time between patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection. Using day 1 cytokine levels, latent class analysis categorized patients into two subphenotypes: subphenotype 1 (n = 74 [64%]) and subphenotype 2 (n = 42 [36%]); the latter had significantly higher levels of interleukin-1ß, interleukin-1ra, interleukin-2, interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, interleukin-10, interleukin-12p70, interleukin-15, interleukin-17A, inducible protein-10, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, macrophage inflammatory protein-1α, macrophage inflammatory protein-1ß, tumor necrosis factor-α, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, interferon-α, and interferon-γ. Although baseline characteristics were not different between the two subphenotypes, patients in the subphenotype 2 had higher ICU mortality compared with the subphenotype 1 (18/42 [43%] vs 17/74 [23%]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: One third of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection and non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection demonstrated a subphenotype characterized by increased proinflammatory cytokines, consistent with cytokine storm. Further research is needed to examine whether immunomodulators have differential effects based on inflammatory subphenotypes.
Assuntos
COVID-19/imunologia , Estado Terminal , Síndrome da Liberação de Citocina/imunologia , Citocinas/imunologia , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio/imunologia , Adulto , COVID-19/complicações , Síndrome da Liberação de Citocina/complicações , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Arábia SauditaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Whether combined treatment with recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduces mortality among patients hospitalized with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients at nine sites in Saudi Arabia. Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed MERS were randomly assigned to receive recombinant interferon beta-1b plus lopinavir-ritonavir (intervention) or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.025. Prespecified subgroup analyses and safety analyses were conducted. Because of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, the data and safety monitoring board requested an unplanned interim analysis and subsequently recommended the termination of enrollment and the reporting of the results. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients were enrolled; 43 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the placebo group. A total of 12 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 23 (44%) in the placebo group died by day 90. The analysis of the primary outcome, with accounting for the adaptive design, yielded a risk difference of -19 percentage points (upper boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -3; one-sided P = 0.024). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment within 7 days after symptom onset led to lower 90-day mortality than use of placebo (relative risk, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.75), whereas later treatment did not. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (9%) in the intervention group and in 10 (19%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir led to lower mortality than placebo among patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The effect was greatest when treatment was started within 7 days after symptom onset. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; MIRACLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843.).
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Interferon beta-1b/uso terapêutico , Lopinavir/uso terapêutico , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Administração Oral , Adulto , Idoso , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Método Duplo-Cego , Combinação de Medicamentos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Injeções Subcutâneas , Interferon beta-1b/efeitos adversos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Lopinavir/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ritonavir/efeitos adversos , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Tempo para o TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: We examined the association between surveillance for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) among medical-surgical critically ill patients by twice-weekly ultrasonography and 90-day all-cause mortality. METHODS: This was a pre-planned sub-study of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02040103) that compared addition of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) to pharmacologic prophylaxis versus pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. The surveillance group included enrolled patients in the trial, while the non-surveillance group included eligible non-enrolled patients. Using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models, we examined the association of surveillance with the primary outcome of 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE). RESULTS: The surveillance group consisted of 1682 patients and the non-surveillance group included 383 patients. Using Cox proportional hazards model with bootstrapping, surveillance was associated with a decrease in 90-day mortality (adjusted HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57, 0.98). Surveillance was associated with earlier diagnosis of DVT [(median 4 days (IQR 2, 10) vs. 20 days (IQR 16, 22)] and PE [median 4 days (IQR 2.5, 5) vs. 7.5 days (IQR 6.1, 28.9)]. There was an increase in diagnosis of DVT (adjusted HR 5.49; 95% CI 2.92, 13.02) with no change in frequency in diagnosis of PE (adjusted HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.19, 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Twice-weekly surveillance ultrasonography was associated with an increase in DVT detection, reduction in diagnostic testing for non-lower limb DVT and PE, earlier diagnosis of DVT and PE, and lower 90-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103. Registered on 3 November 2013; Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506. Registered on 30 October 2013.
Assuntos
Embolia Pulmonar , Tromboembolia Venosa , Trombose Venosa , Estado Terminal , Humanos , Ultrassonografia , Trombose Venosa/diagnóstico por imagem , Trombose Venosa/prevenção & controleRESUMO
The MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection tReated with A Combination of Lopinavir/ritonavir and intErferon-ß1b) investigates the efficacy of a combination therapy of lopinavir/ritonavir and recombinant interferon-ß1b provided with standard supportive care, compared to placebo provided with standard supportive care, in hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The MIRACLE trial is designed as a recursive, two-stage, group sequential, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial. The aim of this article is to describe the statistical analysis plan for the MIRACLE trial. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. The MIRACLE trial is the first randomized controlled trial for MERS treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02845843. Registered on 27 July 2016.
Assuntos
Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Interferon beta-1b/uso terapêutico , Lopinavir/uso terapêutico , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio/efeitos dos fármacos , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Antivirais/efeitos adversos , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Método Duplo-Cego , Combinação de Medicamentos , Interações Hospedeiro-Patógeno , Humanos , Interferon beta-1b/efeitos adversos , Lopinavir/efeitos adversos , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio/patogenicidade , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Ritonavir/efeitos adversos , Arábia Saudita , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ribavirin and recombinant interferon (RBV/rIFN) therapy on the outcomes of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), accounting for time-varying confounders. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS from 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia diagnosed between September 2012 and January 2018. We evaluated the association of RBV/rIFN with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA clearance using marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders. RESULTS: Of 349 MERS patients, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-ß1a; none received rIFN-ß1b). RBV/rIFN was initiated at a median of 2 days (Q1, Q3: 1, 3 days) from intensive care unit admission. Crude 90-day mortality was higher in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126/205 [61.5%]; P = .02]. After adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders using a marginal structural model, RBV/rIFN was not associated with changes in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .73-1.44]; P = .87) or with more rapid MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, .30-1.44]; P = .29). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-ß1a) therapy was commonly used in critically ill MERS patients but was not associated with reduction in 90-day mortality or in faster MERS-CoV RNA clearance.
Assuntos
Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Interferon alfa-2/uso terapêutico , Ribavirina/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Estado Terminal , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , RNA Viral/sangue , Estudos Retrospectivos , Arábia Saudita , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been used in patients with the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, but the effectiveness of this approach has not been studied. METHODS: Patients with MERS from 14 Saudi Arabian centers were included in this analysis. Patients who were initially managed with NIV were compared to patients who were managed only with invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive MV). RESULTS: Of 302 MERS critically ill patients, NIV was used initially in 105 (35%) patients, whereas 197 (65%) patients were only managed with invasive MV. Patients who were managed with NIV initially had lower baseline SOFA score and less extensive infiltrates on chest radiograph compared with patients managed with invasive MV. The vast majority (92.4%) of patients who were managed initially with NIV required intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, and were more likely to require inhaled nitric oxide compared to those who were managed initially with invasive MV. ICU and hospital length of stay were similar between NIV patients and invasive MV patients. The use of NIV was not independently associated with 90-day mortality (propensity score-adjusted odds ratio 0.61, 95% CI [0.23, 1.60] P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MERS and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, NIV failure was very high. The use of NIV was not associated with improved outcomes.
Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Estado Terminal , Ventilação não Invasiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Estudos Retrospectivos , Arábia Saudita , Falha de Tratamento , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Whether adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis would result in a lower incidence of deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who were considered adults according to the local standards at the participating sites (≥14, ≥16, or ≥18 years of age) within 48 hours after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive either intermittent pneumatic compression for at least 18 hours each day in addition to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group). The primary outcome was incident (i.e., new) proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis, as detected on twice-weekly lower-limb ultrasonography after the third calendar day since randomization until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 2003 patients underwent randomization - 991 were assigned to the pneumatic compression group and 1012 to the control group. Intermittent pneumatic compression was applied for a median of 22 hours (interquartile range, 21 to 23) daily for a median of 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 13). The primary outcome occurred in 37 of 957 patients (3.9%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 41 of 985 patients (4.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.44; P = 0.74). Venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or any lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis) occurred in 103 of 991 patients (10.4%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 95 of 1012 patients (9.4%) in the control group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and death from any cause at 90 days occurred in 258 of 990 patients (26.1%) and 270 of 1011 patients (26.7%), respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients who were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression did not result in a significantly lower incidence of proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone. (Funded by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; PREVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02040103; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN44653506.).
Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Heparina/uso terapêutico , Dispositivos de Compressão Pneumática Intermitente , Trombose Venosa/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Adulto , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Terapia Combinada , Feminino , Heparina/efeitos adversos , Heparina de Baixo Peso Molecular/uso terapêutico , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Incidência , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Dispositivos de Compressão Pneumática Intermitente/efeitos adversos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Extremidade Inferior/diagnóstico por imagem , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do Tratamento , Ultrassonografia , Tromboembolia Venosa , Trombose Venosa/epidemiologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Macrolides have been reported to be associated with improved outcomes in patients with viral pneumonia related to influenza and other viruses, possibly because of their immune-modulatory effects. Macrolides have frequently been used in patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). This study investigated the association of macrolides with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (CoV) RNA clearance in critically ill patients with MERS. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of a multicenter cohort database included 14 tertiary-care hospitals in five cities in Saudi Arabia. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis was used to determine the association of macrolide therapy with 90-day mortality, and the Cox-proportional hazard model to determine the association of macrolide therapy with MERS-CoV RNA clearance. RESULTS: Of 349 critically ill MERS patients, 136 (39%) received macrolide therapy. Azithromycin was most commonly used (97/136; 71.3%). Macrolide therapy was commonly started before the patient arrived in the intensive care unit (ICU) (51/136; 37.5%), or on day1 in ICU (53/136; 39%). On admission to ICU, the baseline characteristics of patients who received and did not receive macrolides were similar, including demographic data and sequential organ failure assessment score. However, patients who received macrolides were more likely to be admitted with community-acquired MERS (P=0.02). Macrolide therapy was not independently associated with a significant difference in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] :0.47-1.51; P=0.56) or MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted HR: 0.88; 95% CI:0.47-1.64; P=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that macrolide therapy is not associated with a reduction in 90-day mortality or improvement in MERS-CoV RNA clearance.