[Should we interfere with the interleukin-6 receptor during COVID-19: What do we know?] / Inhibiteurs du récepteur de l'IL-6 dans le traitement de la COVID-19 : que savons-nous ?

COVID-19 is a viral infection with predominant respiratory tropism. In its most severe forms, the initial viral aggression leads to acute respiratory failure due to damage secondary to an exacerbated inflammatory response provoked by the activation of innate, followed by adaptive immunity. The inflammatory response may entail respiratory distress syndrome, if not multivisceral failure and death. IL-6 receptor inhibitors (Tocilizumab and Sarilumab) have been proposed as treatments. Numerous studies have provided new information, which remains heterogeneous and difficult to interpret. This review is aimed at clarifying the potential role of IL-6 receptor inhibitors in severe forms of COVID-19.

Impact of contact isolation for multidrug-resistant organisms on the occurrence of medical errors and adverse events.

UNLABELLED: Contact isolation of infected or colonised hospitalised patients is instrumental to interrupting multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) cross-transmission. Many studies suggest an increased rate of adverse events associated with isolation. We aimed to compare isolated to non-isolated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) for the occurrence of adverse events and medical errors. METHODS: We used the large database of the Iatroref III study that included consecutive patients from three ICUs to compare the occurrence of pre-defined medical errors and adverse events among isolated vs. non-isolated patients. A subdistribution hazard regression model with careful adjustment on confounding factors was used to assess the effect of patient isolation on the occurrence of medical errors and adverse events. RESULTS: Two centres of the Iatroref III study were eligible, an 18-bed and a 10-bed ICU (nurse-to-bed ratio 2.8 and 2.5, respectively), with a total of 1,221 patients. After exclusion of the neutropenic and graft transplant patients, a total of 170 isolated patients were compared to 980 non-isolated patients. Errors in insulin administration and anticoagulant prescription were more frequent in isolated patients. Adverse events such as hypo- or hyperglycaemia, thromboembolic events, haemorrhage, and MDRO ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) were also more frequent with isolation. After careful adjustment of confounders, errors in anticoagulant prescription [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) = 1.7, p = 0.04], hypoglycaemia (sHR = 1.5, p = 0.01), hyperglycaemia (sHR = 1.5, p = 0.004), and MDRO VAP (sHR = 2.1, p = 0.001) remain more frequent in isolated patients. CONCLUSION: Contact isolation of ICU patients is associated with an increased rate of some medical errors and adverse events, including non-infectious ones.

The ETHICA study (part II): simulation study of determinants and variability of ICU physician decisions in patients aged 80 or over.

PURPOSE: To assess physician decisions about ICU admission for life-sustaining treatments (LSTs). METHODS: Observational simulation study of physician decisions for patients aged ≥80 years. Each patient was allocated at random to four physicians who made decisions based on actual bed availability and existence of an additional bed before and after obtaining information on patient preferences. The simulations involved non-invasive ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and renal replacement therapy after a period of IMV (RRT after IMV). RESULTS: The physician participation rate was 100/217 (46 %); males without religious beliefs predominated, and median ICU experience was 9 years. Among participants, 85.7, 78, and 62 % felt that NIV, IMV, or RRT (after IMV) was warranted, respectively. By logistic regression analysis, factors associated with admission were age <85 years, self-sufficiency, and bed availability for NIV and IMV. Factors associated with IMV were previous ICU stay (OR 0.29, 95 % CI 0.13-0.65, p = 0.01) and cancer (OR 0.23, 95 % CI 0.10-0.52, p = 0.003), and factors associated with RRT (after IMV) were living spouse (OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.04-3.97, p = 0.038) and respiratory disease (OR 0.42, 95 % CI 0.23-0.76, p = 0.004). Agreement among physicians was low for all LSTs. Knowledge of patient preferences changed physician decisions for 39.9, 56, and 57 % of patients who disagreed with the initial physician decisions for NIV, IMV, and RRT (after IMV) respectively. An additional bed increased admissions for NIV and IMV by 38.6 and 13.6 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physician decisions for elderly patients had low agreement and varied greatly with bed availability and knowledge of patient preferences.