The concomitant use of ultra short beta-blockers with vasopressors and inotropes in critically ill patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Septic shock is associated with systemic inflammatory response, hemodynamic instability, impaired sympathetic control, and the development of multiorgan dysfunction that requires vasopressor or inotropic support. The regulation of immune function in sepsis is complex and varies over time. However, activating Beta-2 receptors and blocking Beta-1 receptors reduces the proinflammatory response by influencing cytokine production. Evidence that supports the concomitant use of ultra short beta-blockers with inotropes and vasopressors in patients with septic shock is still limited. This study aimed to evaluate the use of ultra short beta-blockers and its impact on the ICU related outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, heart rate control, shock resolution, and vasopressors/inotropes requirements. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including critically ill patients with septic shock who received inotropes and vasopressors. Patients who received either epinephrine or norepinephrine without beta-blockers "control group" were compared to patients who received ultra short beta-blockers concomitantly with either epinephrine or norepinephrine "Intervention group". MEDLINE and Embase databases were utilized to systematically search for studies investigating the use of ultra short beta-blockers in critically ill patients on either epinephrine or norepinephrine from inception to October 10, 2023. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality. While, length of stay, heart rate control, and inotropes/ vasopressors requirements were considered secondary outcomes. Results: Among 47 potentially relevant studies, nine were included in the analysis. The 28-day mortality risk was lower in patients with septic shock who used ultra short beta-blockers concomitantly with either epinephrine or norepinephrine compared with the control group (RR (95%CI): 0.69 (0.53, 0.89), I2=26%; P=0.24). In addition, heart rate was statistically significantly lower with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -22.39 (95% CI: -24.71, -20.06) among the beta-blockers group than the control group. The SMD for hospital length of stay and the inotropes requirement were not statistically different between the two groups (SMD (95%CI): -0.57 (-2.77, 1.64), and SMD (95%CI): 0.08 (-0.02, 0.19), respectively). Conclusion: The use of ultra short beta-blockers concomitantly with either epinephrine or norepinephrine in critically ill patients with septic shock was associated with better heart rate control and survival benefits without increment in the inotropes and vasopressors requirement.

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.

Association between tocilizumab and emerging multidrug-resistant organisms in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an IgG1 class recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits the IL-6 receptor. Several randomized clinical trials have evaluated its safety and efficacy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and these studies demonstrate conflicting results. Our study aimed to determine the association between tocilizumab treatment and microbial isolation and emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary government hospitals in Saudi Arabia. All critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units with a positive COVID-19 PCR test between March 1 and December 31, 2020, who met study criteria were included. Patients who received tocilizumab were compared to those who did not receive it. RESULTS: A total of 738 patients who met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Of these, 262 (35.5%) received tocilizumab, and 476 (64.5%) were included in the control group. Patients who received tocilizumab had higher odds for microbial isolation (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.91-1.94, p = 0.13); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Development of resistant organisms (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51-1.98, p = 0.99) or detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.29-1.54, p = 0.34) was not statistically significant between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is not associated with higher microbial isolation, the emergence of resistant organisms, or the detection of CRE organisms.

Evaluation of zinc sulfate as an adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two center propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Zinc is a trace element that plays a role in stimulating innate and acquired immunity. The role of zinc in critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with COVID-19 who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia were retrospectively assessed for zinc use from March 1, 2020 until March 31, 2021. After propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria, we assessed the association of zinc used as adjunctive therapy with the 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the in-hospital mortality, ventilator free days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complication (s) during ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were included, 82 patients received zinc. Patients who received zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy have a lower 30-day mortality (HR 0.52, CI 0.29, 0.92; p = 0.03). On the other hand, the in-hospital mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (HR 0.64, CI 0.37-1.10; p = 0.11). Zinc sulfate use was associated with a lower odds of acute kidney injury development during ICU stay (OR 0.46 CI 0.19-1.06; p = 0.07); however, it did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of zinc sulfate as an additional treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients may improve survival. Furthermore, zinc supplementation may have a protective effect on the kidneys.