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.

The Impact of Midodrine Tapering Versus Nontapering Regimens on the Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Midodrine has been used in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting to reduce the time to vasopressor discontinuation. The limited data supporting midodrine use have led to variability in the pattern of initiation and discontinuation of midodrine. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 midodrine discontinuation regimens during weaning vasopressors in critically ill patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City. Included patients were adults admitted to ICU who received midodrine after being unable to be weaned from intravenous vasopressors for more than 24 hours. Patients were categorized into two subgroups depending on the pattern of midodrine discontinuation (tapered dosing regimen vs. nontapered regimen). The primary endpoint was the incidence of inotropes and vasopressors re-initiation after midodrine discontinuation. RESULTS: The incidence of inotropes or vasopressors' re-initiation after discontinuation of midodrine was lower in the tapering group (15.4%) compared with the non-tapering group (40.7%) in the crude analysis as well as regression analysis (odd ratio [OR] = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.73, P = 0.02). The time required for the antihypertensive medication(s) initiation after midodrine discontinuation was longer in patients who had dose tapering (beta coefficient (95% CI): 3.11 (0.95, 5.28), P = 0.005). Moreover, inotrope or vasopressor requirement was lower 24 hours post midodrine initiation. In contrast, the two groups had no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, or ICU length of stay. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: These real-life data showed that tapering midodrine dosage before discontinuation in critically ill patients during weaning from vasopressor aids in reducing the frequency of inotrope or vasopressor re-initiation. Application of such a strategy might be a reasonable approach among ICU patients unless contraindicated.

Evaluation of Apixaban standard dosing in underweight patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as first-line agents in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Research is currently investigating the use of Apixaban in underweight patients, with some results suggesting altered pharmacokinetics, decreased drug absorption, and potential overdosing in this population. This study examined the effectiveness and safety of standard Apixaban dosing in adult patients with atrial NVAF weighing less than 50 kg. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC); adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) below 25 who received a standard dose of Apixaban (5 mg twice daily) were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on their weight at the time of Apixaban initiation. Underweight was defined as patients weighing ≤ 50 kg, while the control group (Normal weight) comprised patients weighing > 50 kg. We followed the patients for at least one year after Apixaban initiation. The study's primary outcome was the incidence of stroke events, while secondary outcomes included bleeding (major or minor), thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Propensity score (PS) matching with a 1:1 ratio was used based on predefined criteria and regression model was utilized as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 1,433 patients were screened; of those, 277 were included according to the eligibility criteria. The incidence of stroke events was lower in the underweight than in the normal weight group at crude analysis (0% vs. 9.1%) p-value = 0.06), as well in regression analysis (OR (95%CI): 0.08 (0.001, 0.76), p-value = 0.002). On the other hand, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the odds of major and minor bleeding (OR (95%CI): 0.39 (0.07, 2.03), p-value = 0.26 and OR (95%CI): 1.27 (0.56, 2.84), p-value = 0.40, respectively). CONCLUSION: This exploratory study revealed that underweight patients with NVAF who received standard doses of Apixaban had fewer stroke events compared to normal-weight patients, without statistically significant differences in bleeding events. To confirm these findings, further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer observation durations are required.

Opioid and benzodiazepine requirements in critically ill post-surgical children with down syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Down syndrome (DS), or Trisomy 21, is defined by the existence of an additional chromosome 21. Various physiological considerations in DS patients might lead to challenges in adequate pain management and sedation after surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the variations of the requirement needed for pain management and sedation in patients with DS who have undergone surgery compared to patients without DS. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies were conducted, focusing on critically ill patients with DS who were admitted to Intensive care units (ICUs) post-surgery and received opioids and/or benzodiazepines. Searches were conducted in four databases from their inception to November 18, 2023 (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science). The primary outcome measured was the dosage of Oral Morphine Equivalent (OME) administered in the days following surgery. Fixed-effect models were used, an approach advisable when only a limited number of studies are available. RESULTS: Out of the 992 studies initially screened, the systematic review included ten studies, encompassing 730 patients, while the meta-analysis consisted of seven studies, encompassing 533 patients. Of the seven studies included in the analysis, 298 patients were identified to have DS, and 235 patients served as controls. Patients with DS showed a slight increase in OME needs on the first day, but this increase was not statistically significant (mean difference [MD] = 0.09; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: [-0.02, 0.20]; P = 0.11). There was also no significant difference in the requirement for Midazolam on the first day among DS patients (MD = 0.01; CI [-0.16, 0.19]; P = 0.88). In addition, the duration of mechanical ventilation was not statistically significant in patients with DS compared with the control group (MD = -1.46 hours; 95% CI [-9.74, 6.82]; P = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Patients with Down syndrome did not require more sedation or analgesia in the first three days after surgery than patients without Down syndrome. Additionally, the two groups showed no significant difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Team-based learning versus traditional teaching effect on pharmacy Students' Performance: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several pharmacy schools have implemented team-based learning (TBL) in their curriculum worldwide. Yet, TBL's effectiveness compared to traditional teaching in improving students' outcomes in pharmacy education is yet to be assessed collectively. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the performance of pharmacy students following the implementation of team-based learning (TBL) in the pharmacy curriculum as opposed to traditional learning methods. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that assessed students' performance after TBL was implemented in a pharmacy curriculum. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, the review conducted searches in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar until July 26, 2023. Results: A total of 11 studies comparing TBL against traditional teaching methods and assessing students' performance were included. The pooled analysis, involving 2,400 students from 10 studies, demonstrated a mean difference (MD) in favor of TBL (MD = 2.27, 95 % CI [-0.85, 5.40]). However, notable heterogeneity was observed with an I2 value of 82 %, and the observed difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: TBL exhibited enhanced student performance in pharmacy education compared to traditional teaching, although the difference was not statistically significant. The meta-analysis findings support the use of TBL in pharmacy education for various pharmacy courses (pharmaceutical and clinical sciences courses) and students at different levels. However, there is a need for more robust studies to comprehensively evaluate TBL, considering aspects such as students' performance and engagement, skills development, and satisfaction.

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.

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.

Evaluation of Apixaban safety and effectiveness in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of apixaban to reduce stroke risk in morbidly obese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is still undetermined. The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis recommends avoiding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC)s in morbidly obese patients (body mass index > 40 or weight > 120 kg) because of limited clinical data. This exploratory study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using apixaban in morbidly obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40) patients with AF. METHODS: An exploratory retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single-center, including adult patients with non-valvular AF using apixaban between 01/01/2016 and 31/12/2019. Patients were excluded if they were known to have liver cirrhosis Child-Pugh C, mechanical valve, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, follow up < 3 months, or using apixaban with a dose of ≤5 or > 10 mg/day. Included patients were categorized into two groups based on their BMI (BMI<40 Vs. BMI ≥ 40). The primary outcome was all thrombotic events, while the secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding after apixaban initiation. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the patient's age, gender, and HAS-BLED score. RESULTS: A total of 722 patients were eligible; 254 patients were included after propensity score matching based on the selected criteria. The prevalence of all thrombotic events was similar between the two groups in the first year of apixaban initiation (OR (95%CI): 0.58 (0.13, 2.5), p-value = 0.46). In addition, the odds of developing major and minor bleeding were not statistically significant between the two groups (OR (95%CI): 0.39 (0.07, 2.03), p-value = 0.26 and OR (95%CI): 1.27 (0.56, 2.84), p-value = 0.40), respectively). CONCLUSION: This exploratory study showed similar effectiveness and safety of apixaban use in both morbid and non-morbid obese patients with non-valvular AF. However, a larger randomized controlled trial with a longer follow-up period needs to confirm our findings.

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.

The Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cohort Study.

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can boost the systematic inflammatory response in critically ill patients, causing a systemic hyperinflammatory state leading to multiple complications. In COVID-19 patients, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is surrounded by controversy regarding their impacts on viral infections. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICS in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its clinical outcomes. Method: A multicenter, noninterventional, cohort study for critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received ICS. All patients aged ≥ 18 years old with confirmed COVID-19 and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were screened. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the use of ICS ± long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS)-matched was used based on patient's Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic corticosteroids use, and acute kidney injury (AKI) within 24 h of ICU admission. We considered a P-value of < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 954 patients were eligible; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). The 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.53 [0.31, 0.93], P-value = 0.03) was statistically significant lower in patients who received ICS. Conversely, the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of ICS ± LABA in COVID-19 patients may have survival benefits at 30 days. However, it was not associated with in-hospital mortality benefits nor VFDs.

Pain in sickle cell diseases; physicians' knowledge, attitude, and barriers: A cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the status of acute pain management in sickle cell disease patients, and to explore the association between professional experience and therapeutic preferences among the physicians for the management of sickle cell disease-related acute pain management. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted from June to September 2018 and comprised physicians from 20 hospitals across Saudi Arabia. Data was collected using a 13-item survey form investigating physicians' general information and related barriers regarding acute pain management in sickle cell disease patients. Data was analysed using SPSS 25. RESULTS: Of the 300 individuals approached through emails, 201(67%) responded. There were 122(61%) males and 78(39%) females; 126(63%) had experience <5 years, while 41(20%) had experience >10 years; the largest group of physicians belonged to Internal Medicine 46(23%); 41(20.4%) came across sickle cell disease patients 'very often' and 31(15.4) had never come across such a patient. There was no significant association between professional experience and therapeutic management preferences (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' knowledge, attitude and practice related to acute pain management in sickle cell disease patients was adequate. More awareness is needed for optimal management of pain in such patients.

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

The potential role of adjunctive ascorbic acid in the prevention of colistin-induced nephrotoxicity in critically ill patients: A retrospective study.

Background: Colistin is considered a valuable and last-resort therapeutic option for MDR gram-negative bacteria. Nephrotoxicity is the most clinically pertinent adverse effect of colistin. Vivo studies suggest that administering oxidative stress-reducing agents, such as ascorbic acid, is a promising strategy to overcome colistin-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN). However, limited clinical data explores the potential benefit of adjunctive ascorbic acid therapy for preventing CIN. Therefore, this study aims to assess the potential nephroprotective role of ascorbic acid as adjunctive therapy against CIN in critically ill patients. Method: This was a retrospective cohort study at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) for all critically ill adult patients who received IV colistin. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the ascorbic acid use as concomitant therapy within three days of colistin initiation. The primary outcome was CIN odds after colistin initiation, while the secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ICU, and hospital LOS. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the patient's age, SOFA score, and serum creatinine. Results: A total of 451 patients were screened for eligibility; 90 patients were included after propensity score matching based on the selected criteria. The odds of developing CIN after colistin initiation were similar between patients who received ascorbic acid (AA) as adjunctive therapy compared to patients who did not (OR (95 %CI): 0.83 (0.33, 2.10), p-value = 0.68). In addition, the 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ICU, and hospital LOS were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Adjunctive use of Ascorbic acid during colistin therapy was not associated with lower odds of CIN. Further studies with a larger sample size are required to confirm these findings.