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.

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.

Safety and tolerability of Empagliflozin use during the holy month of Ramadan by fasting patients with type 2 diabetes: A prospective cohort study.

Background: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients are exposed to a 7.5 times higher risk of hypoglycemia while fasting during Ramadan. Relevant diabetes guidelines prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors over other classes. There is a great need to enrich data on their safe and effective use by fasting patients at greater risk of hypoglycemia. Therefore, this study aims to assess the safety and tolerability of Empagliflozin in T2DM Muslim patients during Ramadan. Methodology: A prospective cohort study was conducted for adult Muslim T2DM patients. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on Empagliflozin use during Ramadan (Control versus Empagliflozin). The primary outcomes were the incidence of hypoglycemia symptoms and confirmed hypoglycemia. Other outcomes were secondary. All patients were followed up to eight weeks post-Ramadan. A propensity score (PS) matching and Risk Ratio (RR) were used to report the outcomes. Results: Among 1104 patients with T2DM who were screened, 220 patients were included, and Empagliflozin was given to 89 patients as an add-on to OHDs. After matching with PS (1:1 ratio), the two groups were comparable. The use of other OHDs, such as sulfonylurea, DPP4 inhibitors, and Biguanides, was not statistically different between the two groups. The risk of hypoglycemia symptoms during Ramadan was lower in patients who received Empagliflozin than in the control group (RR 0.48 CI 0.26, 0.89; p-value = 0.02). Additionally, the risk of confirmed hypoglycemia was not statistically significant between the two groups (RR 1.09 CI 0.37, 3.22; p-value = 0.89). Conclusion: Empagliflozin use during Ramadan fasting was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia symptoms and higher tolerability. Further randomized control trials are required to confirm these findings.

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.

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.

Short-Term Versus Long-Term Systemic Corticosteroid Use in the Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: The administration of systemic corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation is the first line of management. The duration of this administration, however, is not well established in clinical practice. The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes between short-term and long-term corticosteroid use in the acute exacerbation of COPD patients. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study was conducted. From 2014 to 2018, all patients over 40 years old with COPD who were admitted to the hospital with a case of COPD exacerbation and received systemic corticosteroids at presentation were included. The subjects were divided into two groups according to the duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy. The primary outcome was hospital re-admission within 180 days. The secondary outcomes were 30 days mortality and length of hospitalisation. The two groups were compared using an independent sample t-test, a Chi-square test, and a Mann-Whitney U test, according to the data type. RESULTS: Eighty patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 52 (65%) patients completed long-term therapy, while 28 (35%) patients were on short-term treatment. A total of 15 (28.8%) patients reached the primary endpoint in the long-term treatment group versus 19 (67.9%) in the short-term treatment group (P = 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 4 (7.7%) and 0 (0%), respectively, and the median length of hospitalisation was 6.5 and 7.5 days in the long-term group and short-term group, respectively (P = 0.32, P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: Long-term corticosteroid use in the management of acute COPD exacerbation was significantly associated with fewer 180 days re-admission. The duration of corticosteroid use remains controversial, and further studies are recommended to assess the relationship between patient profile and adherence to therapy post-discharge with re-exacerbation.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Arab Countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a major obstacle to the large efforts made by governments and health organizations toward achieving successful COVID-19 vaccination programs. Healthcare worker's (HCWs) acceptance or refusal of the vaccine is an influencing factor to the attitudes of their patients and general population. This study aimed to report the acceptance rates for COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs in Arab countries and identify key factors driving the attitudes of HCWs in the Arab world toward vaccines. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched using pre-specified keywords. All cross-sectional studies that assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and/or acceptance among HCWs in Arab countries until July 2022, were included. The quality of the included studies and the risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool. The pooled acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine was assessed using a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of 861 articles were identified, of which, 43 were included in the study. All the studies were cross-sectional and survey-based. The total sample size was 57,250 HCWs and the acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine was 60.4% (95% CI, 53.8% to 66.6%; I2, 41.9%). In addition, the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate among males was 65.4% (95% CI, 55.9% to 73.9%; I2, 0%) while among females was 48.2% (95% CI, 37.8% to 58.6%; I2, 0%). The most frequently reported factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were being male, higher risk perception of contracting COVID-19, positive attitude toward the influenza vaccine, and higher educational level. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy most frequently included concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, living in rural areas, low monthly income, and fewer years of practice experience. CONCLUSION: A moderate acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccines was reported among HCWs in the Arab World. Considering potential future pandemics, regulatory bodies should raise awareness regarding vaccine safety and efficacy and tailor their efforts to target HCWs who would consequently influence the public with their attitude towards vaccines.

Healthcare workers' mental health and perception towards vaccination during COVID-19 pandemic in a Pediatric Cancer Hospital.

The consistent increase of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases parallel with the rate of deaths and the controversial response regarding the vaccines caused an increase in the burden of psychological diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological condition of healthcare workers (HCWs) in a pediatric cancer hospital and to identify the knowledge, attitude, and perception (KAP) of HCWs toward COVID-19 vaccination. A cross-sectional observational study was conducted between April to May 2021. A validated, confidential survey was employed to measure the mental health of HCWs and the KAP toward COVID-19 vaccines. The total responses were 395, of which 11.4% physicians, 18.5% pharmacists, and 70.1% were nurses. Sixty-six percent of HCWs had different degrees of anxiety and depression. Nurses significantly accounted for the highest anxiety levels (P = 0.003), while the cumulative anxiety score was significantly higher in HCWs who had a positive history of COVID-19 infection (P = 0.026). Although 67.6% of HCWs believe that "vaccines are essential for us,", the vaccination rate was 21.3%. The Factors associated with not receiving the vaccine were younger ages (P = 0.014), nurses (P = 3.6987 × 10-7), negative history of COVID-19 infection (P = 0.043) and believing that infections can happen after taking the vaccine (P = 1.5833 × 10-7). Healthcare organizations must take serious intervention to decrease the mental load on HCWs and facilitate the vaccination process.

The Impact of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Administration in Critically ill COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

The use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a potential benefit. This study aims to evaluate the effect of ESAs on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01-03-2020 to 31-07-2021. We included adult patients who were ≥ 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were categorized depending on ESAs administration during their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the length of stay; other endpoints were considered secondary. After propensity score matching (1:3), the overall included patients were 120. Among those, 30 patients received ESAs. A longer duration of ICU and hospital stay was observed in the ESA group (beta coefficient: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = < .01, beta coefficient: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12-0.69; P = < .01, respectively). In addition, the ESA group's ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly shorter than the control group. Moreover, patients who received ESAs have higher odds of liver injury and infections during ICU stay than the control group. The use of ESAs in COVID-19 critically ill patients was associated with longer hospital and ICU stays, with no survival benefits but linked with lower VFDs.

Doxycycline's Potential Role in Reducing Thrombosis and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Doxycycline has revealed potential effects in animal studies to prevent thrombosis and reduce mortality. However, less is known about its antithrombotic role in patients with COVID-19. Our study aimed to evaluate doxycycline's impact on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Patients who received doxycycline in intensive care units (ICUs) were compared to patients who did not (control). The primary outcome was the composite thrombotic events. The secondary outcomes were 30-day and in-hospital mortality, length of stay, ventilator-free days, and complications during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS) matching was used based on the selected criteria. Logistic, negative binomial, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used as appropriate. After PS (1:3) matching, 664 patients (doxycycline n = 166, control n = 498) were included. The number of thromboembolic events was lower in the doxycycline group (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26-1.08; P = .08); however, it failed to reach to a statistical significance. Moreover, D-dimer levels and 30-day mortality were lower in the doxycycline group (beta coefficient [95% CI]: -0.22 [-0.46, 0.03; P = .08]; HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52-1.00; P = .05, respectively). In addition, patients who received doxycycline had significantly lower odds of bacterial/fungal pneumonia (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; P = .02). The use of doxycycline as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 might may be a desirable therapeutic option for thrombosis reduction and survival benefits.

Survival implications vs. complications: unraveling the impact of vitamin D adjunctive use in critically ill patients with COVID-19-A multicenter cohort study.

Background: Despite insufficient evidence, vitamin D has been used as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study that included all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their vitamin D use throughout their ICU stay (control vs. vitamin D). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, and ICU-acquired complications. Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analyses were employed as appropriate. Results: A total of 1,435 patients were included in the study. Vitamin D was initiated in 177 patients (12.3%), whereas 1,258 patients did not receive it. A total of 288 patients were matched (1:1) using PS. The in-hospital mortality showed no difference between patients who received vitamin D and the control group (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87-1.71; p = 0.26). However, MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in the vitamin D group (beta coefficient 0.24 (95% CI 0.00-0.47), p = 0.05 and beta coefficient 0.16 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.33), p = 0.07, respectively). As an exploratory outcome, patients who received vitamin D were more likely to develop major bleeding than those who did not [OR 3.48 (95% CI 1.10, 10.94), p = 0.03]. Conclusion: The use of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with survival benefits but was linked with longer MV duration, ICU LOS, and higher odds of major bleeding.

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically lll Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study - New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19.

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Late-onset toxicities of monoclonal antibodies in cancer patients.

Cancer therapy duration is variable and may take years, adding a new challenge of maintaining the best life quality for cancer survivors. In cancer patients, late-onset toxicities have been reported with monoclonal antibodies and may involve several body organs or systems. They are defined as an autoimmune illnesses that can happen months to years after treatment discontinuation. Late-onset toxicities have become a focus of clinical care and related research. After cancer therapy is completed, the patient should receive longitudinal follow-up to detect these late effects as early as possible. The current review summarizes the recently reported late-onset toxicities of four classes of monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD52, anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1 and anti-CD20) with guidance for the diagnostic tools, appropriate management and treatment.

Late-onset toxicities have been reported in cancer patients with monoclonal antibodies therapy and may involve several body organs or systems. They are defined as autoimmune illnesses that can happen months to years after treatment discontinuation. The reported late-onset toxicities include; bruises due to decreased platelet count associated with alemtuzumab, ipilimumab-induced pneumonitis, hepatitis, gastrointestinal disorders, cardiovascular complications and neurosarcoidosis. Moreover, endocrinal side effects of nivolumab, pembrolizumab-induced colitis, dermatological toxicities and acute encephalopathy, and rituximab-induced late-onset decrease in neutrophils count. Several treatment options are available for managing late-onset toxicities, including corticosteroids. After monoclonal antibodies therapy is completed in cancer patients, they should receive a longitudinal follow-up to detect these late effects as early as possible.