Mechanical power and 30-day mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients with and without Coronavirus Disease-2019: a hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies linked a high intensity of ventilation, measured as mechanical power, to mortality in patients suffering from "classic" ARDS. By contrast, mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 may present with intact pulmonary mechanics while undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time. We investigated whether an association between higher mechanical power and mortality is modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective study included critically ill, adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h between March 2020 and December 2021 at a tertiary healthcare facility in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary exposure was median mechanical power during the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation, calculated using a previously validated formula. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. As co-primary analysis, we investigated whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 modified the primary association. We further investigated the association between mechanical power and days being alive and ventilator free and effect modification of this by a diagnosis of COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, effect modification and negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, severity of disease and in-hospital factors, were applied. RESULTS: 1,737 mechanically ventilated patients were included, 411 (23.7%) suffered from COVID-19. 509 (29.3%) died within 30 days. The median mechanical power during the first 24 h of ventilation was 19.3 [14.6-24.0] J/min in patients with and 13.2 [10.2-18.0] J/min in patients without COVID-19. A higher mechanical power was associated with 30-day mortality (ORadj 1.26 per 1-SD, 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI 1.09-1.46; p = 0.002). Effect modification and interaction analysis did not support that this association was modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.38; p-for-interaction = 0.68). A higher mechanical power was associated with a lower number of days alive and ventilator free until day 28 (IRRadj 0.83 per 7.1 J/min increase; 95% CI 0.75-0.91; p < 0.001, adjusted risk difference - 2.7 days per 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI - 4.1 to - 1.3). CONCLUSION: A higher mechanical power is associated with elevated 30-day mortality. While patients with COVID-19 received mechanical ventilation with higher mechanical power, this association was independent of a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19.

Preparedness of Frontline Doctors in Jordan Healthcare Facilities to COVID-19 Outbreak.

The number of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease of 2019) cases in Jordan is rising rapidly. A serious threat to the healthcare system appears on the horizon. Our study aims to evaluate preparedness of Jordanian frontline doctors to the worsening scenario. It has a questionnaire-based cross-sectional structure. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate preparedness according to knowledge about virus transmission and protective measures, adherence to protection guidelines, and psychological impacts affecting doctors. Institutional factors affecting doctors' readiness like adopting approach protocols and making protection equipment available were investigated; 308 doctors from different healthcare facilities participated (response rate: 53.9%). Approximately 25% of doctors (n = 77) previously took care of COVID-19 patients, and 173 (56.2%) have institutional COVID-19 approach protocols. Only 57 doctors (18.5%) reported all PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) available. The self-reported score of preparedness to deal with COVID-19 patients was 4.9 ± 2.4. Doctors having institutional protocols for dealing with COVID-19 cases and those with sustained availability of PPE reported higher scores of preparedness (5.5 ± 2.3 and 6.2 ± 2.1 with p < 0.001, respectively). Correlations with knowledge score, adherence to PPE score, and psychological impacts were investigated. The study revealed multiple challenges and insufficiencies that can affect frontline doctors' preparedness. Policy makers are urged to take these findings into consideration and to act promptly.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm: A Comparative Study on Post-Vaccination Antibody Titers.

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines induce immunity through different mechanisms. The aim of this study is to compare the titers of specific antibodies in subjects vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Sinopharm vaccine. This prospective observational cohort included Jordanian adults vaccinated with two doses, 21 days apart, of either of the two aforementioned vaccines. Titers were collected 6 weeks after the administration of the second dose. Overall, 288 participants were included, of which 141 were administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while 147 were administered the Sinopharm vaccine. Remarkably, 140 (99.3%) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients had positive IgG titers, while 126 (85.7%) of Sinopharm recipients had positive IgG (p < 0.001). The mean titer for IgG among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients was 515.5 ± 1143.5 BAU/mL, compared to 170.0 ± 230.0 BAU/mL among Sinopharm subjects (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine positively correlated with positive IgG titers (OR: 25.25; 95% CI: 3.25-196.15; p = 0.002), compared with a negative effect of cardiovascular diseases (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.11-0.99; p = 0.48) on IgG titers. In conclusion, fully vaccinated recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had superior quantitative efficiency compared to Sinopharm recipients. A booster dose is supported for Sinopharm recipients, or those with chronic immunosuppressive diseases.

Qualitative Assessment of Early Adverse Effects of Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm COVID-19 Vaccines by Telephone Interviews.

Vaccines are considered the best approach for countering the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we compared early side effects associated with vaccination with the Sinopharm and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this observational cohort were interviewed based on semi-structured telephone interviews, with enquiries about side effects that developed after vaccination with each dose of these vaccines. Overall, 1004 participants were enrolled, of which 51.1% received Sinopharm vaccine and 48.9% received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. After the first dose, 46.3% of participants had an adverse reaction, with injection site pain most commonly being reported (33.2%). Participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had significantly higher frequencies of all types of adverse reactions (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the duration of adverse reactions between the two vaccines. Regarding the second dose, 48.6% of participants had adverse reactions, with injection site pain being most commonly reported (29%). Those who received the Pfizer vaccine reported higher frequencies of all adverse reactions (p < 0.01). However, a longer duration of adverse reactions was seen among Sinopharm vaccine recipients as compared to Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients (p = 0.01). In conclusion, early adverse effects are reported following all types of vaccines but these are more likely to be encountered following the administration of new-generation vaccines. These side effects are mostly mild and treatable.

Hesitancy towards COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study.

Vaccination is the most promising strategy to counter the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccine hesitancy is a serious global phenomenon, and therefore the aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the effect of educational background, work field, and social media on attitudes towards vaccination in Jordan. We compared between medical personnel who were in direct contact with patients and non-medical individuals at Jordan University Hospital in terms of demographics, knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, rumors received via social media, their trust in these vaccines, and the encouraging factors for vaccination. 646 individuals were enrolled in this study, of which 287 (44.4%) were from medical field, and 359 (55.6%) from non-medical field. 226 (35%) were planning to take the vaccine once available, with a positive response from 131 (45.6%) medical field workers, compared to 94 (26.2%) non-medical individuals (p < 0.001). The social media rumor that was believed the most was the unsafety of these vaccines (n = 283; 43.8%). Only 163 (56.8%) of medical persons did not believe any of the circulated rumors, compared to 126 (35.1%) of non-medical persons (p < 0.001). The effect of medical personnel advice (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.98; p = 0.026) and social media (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.41; p = 0.012) were significantly associated with the willingness to take COVID-19 vaccine once available. In conclusion, medical personnel and social media play a crucial role in increasing the society's inclination towards vaccination by providing the community with updated evidence-based information about COVID-19 vaccines as an efficient medical countermeasure and by correcting the previously spread misinformation.

The Potential Role of Lithium as an Antiviral Agent against SARS-CoV-2 via Membrane Depolarization: Review and Hypothesis

Studies on potential treatments of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) are important to improve the global situation in the face of the pandemic. This review proposes lithium as a potential drug to treat COVID-19. Our hypothesis states that lithium can suppress NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain containing-3 (NLRP3) inflammasome activity, inhibit cell death, and exhibit immunomodulation via membrane depolarization. Our hypothesis was formulated after finding consistent correlations between these actions and membrane depolarization induced by lithium. Eventually, lithium could serve to mitigate the NLRP3-mediated cytokine storm, which is allegedly reported to be the inciting event of a series of retrogressive events associated with mortality from COVID-19. It could also inhibit cell death and modulate the immune system to attenuate its release, clear the virus from the body, and interrupt the cycle of immune-system dysregulation. Therefore, these effects are presumed to improve the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 patients. As the numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to rise exponentially without a clear consensus on potential therapeutic agents, urgent conduction of preclinical and clinical studies to prove the efficacy and safety of lithium is reasonable.