Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone's clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient's age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission. RESULTS: After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality.

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.

Evaluation of Early Tocilizumab Effect on Multiorgan Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been proposed as potential rescue therapy for severe COVID-19. No previous study has primarily assessed the role of TCZ in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction. Hence, this multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TCZ early use versus standard of care in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs. Patients were categorized into two groups, the treatment group includes patients who received early TCZ therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission and the control group includes patients who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the multiorgan dysfunction on day three of the ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were 30-day, and in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU-related complications. Results: After propensity score matching, 300 patients were included in the analysis based on predefined criteria with a ratio of 1:2. Patients who received TCZ had lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission compared to the control group (beta coefficient: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.01, P-value = 0.04). Moreover, respiratory failure requiring MV was statistically significantly lower in patients who received early TCZ compared to the control group (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31, 0.91, P-value = 0.02). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in patients who received TCZ than those who did not (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37, 0.85, P-value = 0 .006 and HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36, 0.82, P-value = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In addition to the mortality benefits associated with early TCZ use within 24 hours of ICU admission, the use of TCZ was associated with a significantly lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Evaluation of the use of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in asthma critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown mortality benefits with corticosteroids in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, there is inconsistency regarding the use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone in COVID-19, and this has not been extensively evaluated in patients with a history of asthma. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in critically ill patients with asthma and COVID-19. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the in-hospital mortality. Other endpoints include 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver injury, length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFDs), and hospital-acquired infections. Propensity score (PS) matching, and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: A total of one hundred-five patients were included. Thirty patients received methylprednisolone, whereas seventy-five patients received dexamethasone. After PS matching (1:1 ratio), patients who received methylprednisolone had higher but insignificant in-hospital mortality in both crude and logistic regression analysis, [(35.0% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.22) and (OR 2.31; CI: 0.56 - 9.59; P = 0.25), respectively]. There were no statistically significant differences in the 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring MV, AKI, acute liver injury, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and hospital-acquired infections. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients with asthma may lead to increased in-hospital mortality and shorter VFDs compared to dexamethasone; however, it failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret these data cautiously, and further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to establish more conclusive evidence and support these conclusions.

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.

The effect of oseltamivir use in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter propensity score-matched study.

Background: Oseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance. Results: A total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: -0.84, 95%CI: (-1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: -0.27, 95% CI: [-0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: Oseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.  METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate.  RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

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.

Evaluation of Low-Dose Aspirin use among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is widely used as a cardioprotective agent due to its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties. The literature has assessed and evaluated its role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, no data are available regarding its role in COVID-19 critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg) and its impact on outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHOD: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on aspirin use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients were eligible, and 352 patients were included after propensity score matching. The in-hospital mortality (HR 0.73 [0.56, 0.97], p = 0.03) was lower in patients who received aspirin during stay. Conversely, patients who received aspirin had a higher odds of major bleeding than those in the control group (OR 2.92 [0.91, 9.36], p = 0.07); however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed a possible mortality benefit for patients who used aspirin therapy prior to hospitalization and continued during ICU stay (HR 0.72 [0.52, 1.01], p = 0.05), but not with the new initiation of aspirin (HR 1.22 [0.68, 2.20], p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Continuation of aspirin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were receiving it prior to ICU admission may have a mortality benefit; nevertheless, it may be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding. Appropriate evaluation for safety versus benefits of utilizing aspirin therapy during ICU stay in COVID19 critically ill patients is highly recommended.