Ketamine-based Sedation Use in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Backgrounds: Ketamine possesses analgesia, anti-inflammation, anticonvulsant, and neuroprotection properties. However, the evidence that supports its use in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 is insufficient. The study's goal was to assess ketamine's effectiveness and safety in critically ill, mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with COVID-19. Methods: Adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in a multicenter retrospective-prospective cohort study. Patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021, to five ICUs in Saudi Arabia were included. Eligible patients who required MV within 24 hours of ICU admission were divided into two sub-cohort groups based on their use of ketamine (Control vs. Ketamine). The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. P/F ratio differences, lactic acid normalization, MV duration, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:2 ratio) based on the selected criteria. Results: In total, 1,130 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 1036 patients (91.7 %) were in the control group, whereas 94 patients (8.3 %) received ketamine. The total number of patients after PS matching, was 264 patients, including 88 patients (33.3 %) who received ketamine. The ketamine group's LOS was significantly lower (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -0.26 (-0.45, -0.07), P = 0.008). Furthermore, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved 24 hours after the start of ketamine treatment compared to the pre-treatment period (6 hours) (124.9 (92.1, 184.5) vs. 106 (73.1, 129.3; P = 0.002). Additionally, the ketamine group had a substantially shorter mean time for lactic acid normalization (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -1.55 (-2.42, -0.69), P 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of MV or mortality. Conclusions: Ketamine-based sedation was associated with lower hospital LOS and faster lactic acid normalization but no mortality benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, larger prospective studies are recommended to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative in critically ill adult patients.

The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 critically ill patients co-infected with other respiratory viruses: a multicenter, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that non-critically ill COVID-19 patients co-infected with other respiratory viruses have poor clinical outcomes. However, limited studies focused on this co-infections in critically ill patients. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients infected with COVID-19 and co-infected by other respiratory viruses. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted for all adult patients with COVID-19 who were hospitalized in the ICUs between March, 2020 and July, 2021. Eligible patients were sub-categorized into two groups based on simultaneous co-infection with other respiratory viruses throughout their ICU stay. Influenza A or B, Human Adenovirus (AdV), Human Coronavirus (i.e., 229E, HKU1, NL63, or OC43), Human Metapneumovirus, Human Rhinovirus/Enterovirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Parainfluenza virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) were among the respiratory viral infections screened. Patients were followed until discharge from the hospital or in-hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 836 patients were included in the final analysis. Eleven patients (1.3%) were infected concomitantly with other respiratory viruses. Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (38.5%) was the most commonly reported co-infection. No difference was observed between the two groups regarding the 30-day mortality (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13, 1.20; p = 0.10). The in-hospital mortality was significantly lower among co-infected patients with other respiratory viruses compared with patients who were infected with COVID-19 alone (HR 0.32 95% CI 0.10, 0.97; p = 0.04). Patients concomitantly infected with other respiratory viruses had longer median mechanical ventilation (MV) duration and hospital length of stay (LOS). CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were concomitantly infected with other respiratory viruses had comparable 30-day mortality to those not concomitantly infected. Further proactive testing and care may be required in the case of co-infection with respiratory viruses and COVID-19. The results of our study need to be confirmed by larger studies.

The use of Tocilizumab in COVID-19 critically ill patients with renal impairment: a multicenter, cohort study.

Tocilizumab (TCZ) is recommended in patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen therapy or ventilatory support. Despite the wide use of TCZ, little is known about its safety and effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. Therefore, this study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of TCZ in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included all adult COVID-19 patients with renal impairment (eGFR˂60 mL/min) admitted to the ICUs between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on TCZ use (Control vs. TCZ). The primary endpoint was the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) during ICU stay. We screened 1599 patients for eligibility; 394 patients were eligible, and 225 patients were included after PS matching (1:2 ratio); there were 75 TCZ-treated subjects and 150 controls. The rate of AKI was higher in the TCZ group compared with the control group (72.2% versus 57.4%; p = 0.03; OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.34; p = 0.04). Additionally, the ICU length of stay was significantly longer in patients who received TCZ (17.5 days versus 12.5 days; p = 0.006, Beta coefficient: 0.30 days, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.50; p = 0.005). On the other hand, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality were lower in patients who received TCZ compared to the control group (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.73; p = 0.01 and HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.96; p = 0.03, respectively). The use of TCZ in this population was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of AKI while improving the overall survival on the other hand. Further research is needed to assess the risks and benefits of TCZ treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients with renal impairment.

Evaluation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) treatment for moderate-to-severe ARDS in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as rescue therapy in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) despite the recommendation against the use of this treatment. To date, the effect of iNO on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS remains arguable. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of iNO in critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated from March 01, 2020, until July 31, 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the improvement in oxygenation parameters 24 h after iNO use. Other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used based on the predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1598 patients were screened, and 815 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Among them, 210 patients were matched based on predefined criteria. Oxygenation parameters (PaO2, FiO2 requirement, P/F ratio, oxygenation index) were significantly improved 24 h after iNO administration within a median of six days of ICU admission. However, the risk of 30-day and in-hospital mortality were found to be similar between the two groups (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.82; p = 0.45 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94, 2.11; p= 0.10, respectively). On the other hand, ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly fewer, and  ICU and hospital LOS were significantly longer in the iNO group. In addition, patients who received iNO had higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR (95% CI): 2.35 (1.30, 4.26), p value = 0.005) and hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.76, 5.83), p value = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, iNO rescue therapy is associated with improved oxygenation parameters but no mortality benefits. Moreover, iNO use is associated with higher odds of AKI, pneumonia, longer LOS, and fewer VFDs.

Assessing glycemic variability in critically ill patients: A prospective cohort study comparing insulin infusion therapy with insulin sliding scale.

Glycemic variability (GV) has been associated with an increased mortality rate among critically ill patients. The clinical outcomes of having less GV even with slight hyperglycemia are better than those having tight glycemic control but higher GV. Insulin infusion remains the preferred method to control stress hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. However, its impacts on GV and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients still need further investigation. This study intended to evaluate the impact of insulin infusion therapy (IIT) compared to the insulin sliding scale (ISS) on the extent of GV and explore its impact on the clinical outcomes for critically ill patients. A prospective, single-center observational cohort study was conducted at a tertiary academic hospital in Saudi Arabia between March 2021 and November 2021. The study included adult patients admitted to ICUs who received insulin for stress hyperglycemia management. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the regimen of insulin therapy during ICU stay (IIT versus ISS). The primary outcome was the GV between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, the incidence of hypoglycemia, and ICU length of stay (LOS). A total of 381 patients were screened; out of them, eighty patients met the eligibility criteria. The distribution of patients having diabetes and a history of insulin use was similar between the two groups. The GV was lower in the IIT group compared to the ISS group using CONGA (- 0.65, 95% CI [- 1.16, - 0.14], p-value = 0.01). Compared with ISS, patients who received IIT had a lower incidence of hypoglycemia that required correction (6.8% vs 2.77%; p-value = 0.38). In contrast, there were no significant differences in ICU LOS and ICU mortality between the two groups. Our study demonstrated that the IIT is associated with decreased GV significantly in critically ill patients without increasing the incidence of severe hypoglycemia. There is no survival benefit with the use of the IIT. Further studies with larger sample size are required to confirm our findings and elaborate on IIT's potential effect in reducing ICU complications in critically ill patients.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on hospital readmissions in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Saudi Arabia: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Sacubitril/valsartan is an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that has been shown in multiple clinical trials to have clinical benefits and is recommended by major clinical management guidelines as a first-line treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The most significant benefit that was observed in clinical trials is its effect in reducing hospital readmissions. However, little evidence supports its effectiveness in practice, especially in Saudi Arabia. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted using the patient medical records at 2 tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Eligible patients were adults (≥18 years old) with a confirmed diagnosis of HFrEF who were discharged on either sacubitril/valsartan or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in addition to the other recommended therapy for HFrEF. The primary endpoint was the all-cause 30-day readmission rate. The secondary endpoints included all-cause readmissions at 60-day, 90-day, and 12 months. Additionally, 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day readmissions due to HF were evaluated. A total of 398 patients were included in our analysis; 199 (50.0%) received sacubitril/valsartan (group 1), and 199 (50.0%) received ACEI/ARB (group 2). Our results showed that all-cause 30-day readmissions in group 1 were significantly lower than in group 2 (7% vs 25.0%, RR 0.28, 95% Cl 0.16-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer 60-day, 90-day, and 12-month all-cause readmissions were identified in group 1 compared to group 2 (11% vs 30.7%, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.56; P < .001), (11.6%. vs 32.6%, RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23-0.55; P < .001) and (23.6% vs 51.2%, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.62; P < .001), respectively. Furthermore, HF readmissions at 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day in group 1 were significantly lower than in group 2 (P < .05). Sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of HFrEF is associated with a significantly lower rate of all-cause readmission as well as HF readmissions compared to ACEI/ARB. These benefits extend up to 12 months post-discharge.

Clinical pharmacy services in acute care setting during mass gatherings (Hajj): Insights from a task force.

BACKGROUND: Hajj is the largest mass gathering worldwide that takes place every year in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive guide and expectations for delivering and optimizing clinical pharmacy services during one of the largest mass gatherings in the world, Hajj pilgrimage METHODS: A task force initiated and included members of clinical pharmacists who previously participated in delivering clinical pharmacy services during the Hajj pilgrimage, members of the Saudi Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SSCP), and policymakers from different sectors and representatives from pharmaceutical care of the Ministry of Health (MOH). The members established an expert task force to conceptualize and draft the proposed suggestions highlighting the roles and responsibilities of clinical pharmacists during the annual Hajj season. RESULTS: The task force determined the following key domains 1) pharmaceutical care (administration and strategic plan, resources, formulary management); 2) pharmacists' activities (clinical pharmacy services and documentation, professional training and development, and staff credentials, and qualifications); 3) challenges and proposed solutions. The task force was divided into groups to draft each domain and provide suggested statements and insights for each section. Finally, the group members of the task force issued 15 opinion statements. CONCLUSION: Mass gatherings such as Hajj pilgrimage, represent a unique opportunity to demonstrate the value of pharmacists in advancing health care delivery within a multidisciplinary team. These suggestions and insights could guide the implementation of clinical pharmacy services in acute settings during mass gatherings (Hajj). Future studies should focus on assessing the applicability and the impact of the provided suggestions.

The association between tocilizumab therapy and the development of thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, cohort study.

The use of tocilizumab for the management of COVID-19 emerged since it modulates inflammatory markers by blocking interleukin 6 receptors. Concerns regarding higher thrombosis risk while using tocilizumab were raised in the literature. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between tocilizumab therapy and the development of thromboembolic events in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A propensity score-matched, multicenter cohort study for critically ill adult patients with COVID-19. Eligible patients admitted to ICU between March 2020 and July 2021 were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on tocilizumab use within 24 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of all thrombosis cases during ICU stay. The secondary endpoints were 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and the highest coagulation parameters follow-up (i.e., D-dimer, Fibrinogen) during the stay. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was based on nine matching covariates. Among a total of 867 eligible patients, 453 patients were matched (1:2 ratio) using propensity scores. The thrombosis events were not statistically different between the two groups in crude analysis (6.8% vs. 7.7%; p-value = 0.71) and regression analysis [OR 0.83, 95% CI (0.385, 1.786)]. Peak D-dimer levels did not change significantly when the patient received tocilizumab (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.19 (- 0.08, 0.47)), while there was a significant reduction in fibrinogen levels during ICU stay (beta coefficient (95% CI): - 0.15 (- 0.28, - 0.02)). On the other hand, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in tocilizumab-treated patients (HR 0.57, 95% CI (0.37, 0.87), [HR 0.67, 95% CI (0.46, 0.98), respectively). The use of tocilizumab in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with higher thrombosis events or peak D-dimer levels. On the other hand, fibrinogen levels, 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in the tocilizumab group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Non-Critically Ill Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism is high in patients with COVID-19, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. The evidence that supports the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen in non-critically ill patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is still limited. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received standard thromboprophylaxis anticoagulation with intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for published studies until August 17th, 2022. We included studies on patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received thromboprophylaxis during their hospital stay. Patients who received standard prophylaxis dose "control group" were compared to patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis "intervention group". Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing seven studies involving a total of 1931 patients. The risk of all-cause thrombosis was not statistically different between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 20.21]). The risk of minor bleeding was reported to be lower in patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21, 1.97), while had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the standard prophylaxis (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.43, 4.61); however, did not reach the statistical significance. The overall risk for all hospital mortality favored the utilization of intermediate to high doses over the standard thromboprophylaxis dosing (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29, 0.75). In medically ill patients with COVID-19, there is no difference between standard and intermediate to high prophylaxis dosing regarding thrombosis and bleeding. However, it appears that intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens are linked to additional survival benefits.

The Impact of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Administration in Critically ill COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

The use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a potential benefit. This study aims to evaluate the effect of ESAs on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01-03-2020 to 31-07-2021. We included adult patients who were ≥ 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were categorized depending on ESAs administration during their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the length of stay; other endpoints were considered secondary. After propensity score matching (1:3), the overall included patients were 120. Among those, 30 patients received ESAs. A longer duration of ICU and hospital stay was observed in the ESA group (beta coefficient: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = < .01, beta coefficient: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12-0.69; P = < .01, respectively). In addition, the ESA group's ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly shorter than the control group. Moreover, patients who received ESAs have higher odds of liver injury and infections during ICU stay than the control group. The use of ESAs in COVID-19 critically ill patients was associated with longer hospital and ICU stays, with no survival benefits but linked with lower VFDs.

Doxycycline's Potential Role in Reducing Thrombosis and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Doxycycline has revealed potential effects in animal studies to prevent thrombosis and reduce mortality. However, less is known about its antithrombotic role in patients with COVID-19. Our study aimed to evaluate doxycycline's impact on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Patients who received doxycycline in intensive care units (ICUs) were compared to patients who did not (control). The primary outcome was the composite thrombotic events. The secondary outcomes were 30-day and in-hospital mortality, length of stay, ventilator-free days, and complications during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS) matching was used based on the selected criteria. Logistic, negative binomial, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used as appropriate. After PS (1:3) matching, 664 patients (doxycycline n = 166, control n = 498) were included. The number of thromboembolic events was lower in the doxycycline group (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26-1.08; P = .08); however, it failed to reach to a statistical significance. Moreover, D-dimer levels and 30-day mortality were lower in the doxycycline group (beta coefficient [95% CI]: -0.22 [-0.46, 0.03; P = .08]; HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52-1.00; P = .05, respectively). In addition, patients who received doxycycline had significantly lower odds of bacterial/fungal pneumonia (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; P = .02). The use of doxycycline as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 might may be a desirable therapeutic option for thrombosis reduction and survival benefits.