Non-COVID-19 intensive care admissions during the pandemic: a multinational registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a large number of critical care admissions. While national reports have described the outcomes of patients with COVID-19, there is limited international data of the pandemic impact on non-COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care treatment. METHODS: We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study using 2019 and 2020 data from 11 national clinical quality registries covering 15 countries. Non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 were compared with all admissions in 2019, prepandemic. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and standardised mortality ratio (SMR). Analyses were stratified by the country income level(s) of each registry. FINDINGS: Among 1 642 632 non-COVID-19 admissions, there was an increase in ICU mortality between 2019 (9.3%) and 2020 (10.4%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.17, p<0.001). Increased mortality was observed in middle-income countries (OR 1.25 95% CI 1.23 to 1.26), while mortality decreased in high-income countries (OR=0.96 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Hospital mortality and SMR trends for each registry were consistent with the observed ICU mortality findings. The burden of COVID-19 was highly variable, with COVID-19 ICU patient-days per bed ranging from 0.4 to 81.6 between registries. This alone did not explain the observed non-COVID-19 mortality changes. INTERPRETATION: Increased ICU mortality occurred among non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, driven by increased mortality in middle-income countries, while mortality decreased in high-income countries. The causes for this inequity are likely multi-factorial, but healthcare spending, policy pandemic responses, and ICU strain may play significant roles.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

UPDATES: This is the twelfth version (eleventh update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? CONTEXT: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and under way. The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants (such as omicron) and subvariants are also changing the role of therapeutics. This update provides updated recommendations for remdesivir, addresses the use of combination therapy with corticosteroids, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with severe or critical covid-19, and modifies previous recommendations for the neutralising monoclonal antibodies sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in patients with non-severe covid-19. NEW OR UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: • Remdesivir: a conditional recommendation for its use in patients with severe covid-19; and a conditional recommendation against its use in patients with critical covid-19. • Concomitant use of IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib: these drugs may now be combined, in addition to corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical covid-19. • Sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab: strong recommendations against their use in patients with covid-19, replacing the previous conditional recommendations for their use. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS: When moving from new evidence to updated recommendations, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) considered a combination of evidence assessing relative benefits and harms, values and preferences, and feasibility issues. For remdesivir, new trial data were added to a previous subgroup analysis and provided sufficiently trustworthy evidence to demonstrate benefits in patients with severe covid-19, but not critical covid-19. The GDG considered benefits of remdesivir to be modest and of moderate certainty for key outcomes such as mortality and mechanical ventilation, resulting in a conditional recommendation. For baricitinib, the GDG considered clinical trial evidence (RECOVERY) demonstrating reduced risk of death in patients already receiving corticosteroids and IL-6 receptor blockers. The GDG acknowledged that the clinical trials were not representative of the world population and that the risk-benefit balance may be less advantageous, particularly in patients who are immunosuppressed at higher risk of opportunistic infections (such as serious fungal, viral, or bacteria), those already deteriorating where less aggressive or stepwise addition of immunosuppressive medications may be preferred, and in areas where certain pathogens such as HIV or tuberculosis, are of concern. The panel anticipated that there would be situations where clinicians may opt for less aggressive immunosuppressive therapy or to combine medications in a stepwise fashion in patients who are deteriorating. The decision to combine the medications will depend on their availability, and the treating clinician's perception of the risk-benefit balance associated with combination immunosuppressive therapy, particularly in patient populations at risk of opportunistic infections who may have been under-represented in clinical trials. When making a strong recommendation against the use of monoclonal antibodies for patients with covid-19, the GDG considered in vitro neutralisation data demonstrating that sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab evaluated in clinical trials have meaningfully reduced neutralisation activity of the currently circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 and their subvariants. There was consensus among the panel that the absence of in vitro neutralisation activity strongly suggests absence of clinical effectiveness of these monoclonal antibodies. However, there was also consensus regarding the need for clinical trial evidence in order to confirm clinical efficacy of new monoclonal antibodies that reliably neutralise the circulating strains in vitro. Whether emerging new variants and subvariants might be susceptible to sotrovimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or other anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies cannot be predicted. PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS: • Recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­strong recommendations for systemic corticosteroids; IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) in combination with corticosteroids; and baricitinib as an alternative to IL-6 receptor blockers, in combination with corticosteroids. • Recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at highest risk of hospitalisation­a strong recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; conditional recommendations for molnupiravir and remdesivir. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19­a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids; a strong recommendation against convalescent plasma; a recommendation against fluvoxamine, except in the context of a clinical trial; and a strong recommendation against colchicine. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at low risk of hospitalisation­a conditional recommendation against nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. • Not recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­a recommendation against convalescent plasma except in the context of a clinical trial; and a conditional recommendation against the JAK inhibitors ruxolitinib and tofacitinib. • Not recommended, regardless of covid-19 disease severity­a strong recommendations against hydroxychloroquine and against lopinavir/ritonavir; and a recommendation against ivermectin except in the context of a clinical trial. ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline.

Epidemiology of critically ill patients in intensive care units in Nepal: a retrospective observational study

Background: Epidemiological data on critically ill patients is crucial for understanding resource utilisation, gaps in quality of care and for supporting surveillance of endemic or emerging diseases. We report the epidemiology of critically ill patients from 17 intensive care units (ICUs) in Nepal using an established and standardised ICU registry. Methods: The ICU registry data is collected prospectively and includes data on case mix, severity, organ support and outcomes. We conducted a retrospective observational study with all adult (≥18 years) critically ill patients admitted to 17 ICUs in Nepal between September 2019 and September 2022. We report on case mix, treatment received, severity of illness, standardised mortality rates (SMR), discharge outcomes and ICU service activity. Descriptive statistics were used to report the findings. Results: Of the 18603 unique admissions, 14% were operative, with 35% emergency surgeries. Patients' median age was 57 (IQR 40-71) and 59% were male. Hypertension and diabetes were common comorbidities and pneumonia accounted for 26% of all admissions. During the ICU stay, 39% of patients received mechanical ventilation, 29% received vasoactive medication and 10% received renal replacement therapy. The median predicted risk of death was 0.1 (IQR 0.1-0.3) using APACHE II and 0.2 (IQR 0.1-0.4) using eTropICS. The median SMR was 0.7 (IQR 0.5-0.8) and 0.8 (IQR 0.6-1.4) using eTropICS and APACHE II, respectively. Median length of stay was 4 days (IQR 2-7). Eighteen percent died in the ICU;of those alive at discharge, 12% went home, 84% went to another department and 3% went to another hospital. COVID-19 was the most common notifiable disease reported (12% of all admissions). Median ICU turnover was 9% (IQR 6-14) with bed capacity ranging from 43-278. Conclusions: These findings should guide forecasting and service planning to ensure ICUs can optimally care for critically ill patients in Nepal.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients.

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. Funding: Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Critical Care Pandemic Preparation: Considerations and Lessons Learned from COVID-19.

Pandemics, increases in disease incidence that affect multiple regions of the world, present huge challenges to health care systems and in particular to policymakers, public health authorities, clinicians, and all health care workers (HCWs). The recent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of severely ill patients, many of whom who have required hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The discipline of critical care is a vital and integral component of pandemic preparedness. Safe and effective critical care has the potential to improve outcomes, motivate individuals to seek timely medical attention, and attenuate the devastating sequelae of a severe pandemic. To achieve this, suitable critical care planning and preparation are essential.

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. RESULTS: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Operationalisation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system.

The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform (REMAP-CAP) adapted for COVID-19) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation in three countries under the umbrella of the Wellcome supported Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) critical  care network: Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Asia (CCA). The collaboration sought to overcome known barriers to multi centre-clinical trials in resource-limited settings. Methods described focused on six aspects of implementation: i, Strengthening an existing community of practice; ii, Remote study site recruitment, training and support; iii, Harmonising the REMAP CAP- COVID trial with existing care processes; iv, Embedding REMAP CAP- COVID case report form into the existing CCA registry platform, v, Context specific adaptation and data management; vi, Alignment with existing pandemic and critical care research in the CCA. Methods described here may enable other LMIC sites to participate as equal partners in international critical care trials of urgent public health importance, both during this pandemic and beyond.

Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Patients, with a Focus on Resource-Limited Settings.

The ongoing novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening the global human population, including in countries with resource-limited health facilities. Severe bilateral pneumonia is the main feature of severe COVID-19, and adequate ventilatory support is crucial for patient survival. Although our knowledge of the disease is still rapidly increasing, this review summarizes current guidance on the best provision of ventilatory support, with a focus on resource-limited settings. Key messages include that supplemental oxygen is a first essential step for the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia and should be a primary focus in resource-limited settings where capacity for invasive ventilation is limited. Oxygen delivery can be increased by using a non-rebreathing mask and prone positioning. The presence of only hypoxemia should in general not trigger intubation because hypoxemia is often remarkably well tolerated. Patients with fatigue and at risk for exhaustion, because of respiratory distress, will require invasive ventilation. In these patients, lung protective ventilation is essential. Severe pneumonia in COVID-19 differs in some important aspects from other causes of severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and limiting the positive end-expiratory pressure level on the ventilator may be important. This ventilation strategy might reduce the currently very high case fatality rate of more than 50% in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.