Assessing glycemic variability in critically ill patients: A prospective cohort study comparing insulin infusion therapy with insulin sliding scale.

Glycemic variability (GV) has been associated with an increased mortality rate among critically ill patients. The clinical outcomes of having less GV even with slight hyperglycemia are better than those having tight glycemic control but higher GV. Insulin infusion remains the preferred method to control stress hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. However, its impacts on GV and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients still need further investigation. This study intended to evaluate the impact of insulin infusion therapy (IIT) compared to the insulin sliding scale (ISS) on the extent of GV and explore its impact on the clinical outcomes for critically ill patients. A prospective, single-center observational cohort study was conducted at a tertiary academic hospital in Saudi Arabia between March 2021 and November 2021. The study included adult patients admitted to ICUs who received insulin for stress hyperglycemia management. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the regimen of insulin therapy during ICU stay (IIT versus ISS). The primary outcome was the GV between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, the incidence of hypoglycemia, and ICU length of stay (LOS). A total of 381 patients were screened; out of them, eighty patients met the eligibility criteria. The distribution of patients having diabetes and a history of insulin use was similar between the two groups. The GV was lower in the IIT group compared to the ISS group using CONGA (- 0.65, 95% CI [- 1.16, - 0.14], p-value = 0.01). Compared with ISS, patients who received IIT had a lower incidence of hypoglycemia that required correction (6.8% vs 2.77%; p-value = 0.38). In contrast, there were no significant differences in ICU LOS and ICU mortality between the two groups. Our study demonstrated that the IIT is associated with decreased GV significantly in critically ill patients without increasing the incidence of severe hypoglycemia. There is no survival benefit with the use of the IIT. Further studies with larger sample size are required to confirm our findings and elaborate on IIT's potential effect in reducing ICU complications in critically ill patients.

The predictors and risk factors of two-year rejection in renal transplant patients: A multicenter case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplantation is a definitive treatment for end-stage renal disease. It is associated with improved life expectancy and quality of life. One of the most common complications following kidney transplantation is graft rejection. To our knowledge, no previous study has identified rejection risk factors in kidney transplant recipients in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the specific risk factors of graft rejection. METHODS: A multicenter case-control study was conducted at four transplant centers in Saudi Arabia. All adult patients who underwent a renal transplant in the period between 01/01/2015 and 31/12/2021 were screened for eligibility. Included patients were categorized into two groups (cases and control) based on the occurrence of biopsy-proven rejection within two years. The primary outcome was to determine the risk factors for rejection within the first two years of transplant. Exact matching was utilized using a 1:4 ratio based on patients' age, gender, and transplant year. RESULTS: Out of 1320 screened renal transplant recipients, 816 patients were included. The overall prevalence of two-year rejection was 13.9%. In bivariate analysis, deceased donor status, the presence Donor Specific Antibody (DSA), intraoperative hypotension, serum Chloride levels, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida, and any Infection within two years were linked with increased risk of two-year rejection. However, in the logistic regression analysis, DSA was identified as a significant risk for two-year rejection (Adjusted OR 2.68; 95% CI, 1.10, 6.49, p = 0.03). While, the presence of Panel-reactive antibody (PRA) and higher serum chloride levels one week prior to transplant was associated with lower odds of rejection (Adjusted OR 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03, 0.53, p = 0.005 and Adjusted OR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86, 0.98, p = 0.02, respectively). Furthermore, blood infection, infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa or BK virus within two years of transplant was associated with higher odds of two-year rejection (Adjusted OR 3.10; 95% CI, 1.48, 6.48, p = 0.003, Adjusted OR 3.23; 95% CI, 0.87, 11.97, p = 0.08 and Adjusted OR 2.76; 95% CI, 0.89, 8.48, p = 0.07, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the need for appropriate prevention and management of infections following kidney transplantation to avoid more serious problems, such as rejection, which could significantly raise the likelihood of allograft failure and probably death. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to investigate the impact of serum chloride levels prior to transplant and intraoperative hypotension on the risk of rejection.

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.

When antivirals backfire: An evaluation of favipiravir's clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Favipiravir is an oral antiviral, that might treat COVID-19 by enhancing viral eradication, particularly in patients with mild-to-moderate disease. Yet, the findings on the use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHOD: A multicenter retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) was conducted from March 2020 to July 2021. Patients were categorized based on favipiravir use (control vs. favipiravir). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during the stay. RESULTS: After propensity score (PS) matching (1:1 ratio), 146 patients were included in the final analysis. A higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality were observed in patients receiving favipiravir compared to the control group at crude analysis (65.3% vs. 43.8%; P-value=0.009 and 56.3% vs. 40.3; P-value=0.06, respectively); however, no differences were observed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.73, 1.87; P-value =0.51 and HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53, 1.39; P-value=0.53, respectively). Conversely, the MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in patients who received favipiravir than the control group (ß coefficient 0.51; CI 0.09, 0.92; P-value = 0.02, ß coefficient 0.41; CI 0.17, 0.64; P-value = 0.0006, respectively). Complications during the stay were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate a reduction in mortality; instead, it was linked with longer MV duration and ICU stay. This finding suggests limiting favipiravir use to infections where it is more effective, other than COVID-19. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

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.

Single versus multiple doses of Tocilizumab in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A two-center, retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the optimal tocilizumab dosing regimen. METHODS: A two-center, retrospective cohort study, for COVID19 critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). We included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older who received tocilizumab during ICU stay. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of the received tocilizumab doses. The primary outcome was the in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were included in the study; 70.4% (210 patients) received a single dose of tocilizumab. After adjusting for possible confounders, the 30-day mortality (HR 0.79 95% CI 0.43-1.45 P = 0.44) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.46-1.49; P = 0.53) were not significantly different between the two groups. On the flip side, patients who received multiple doses had higher pneumonia odds than a single dose (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.79-8.12 P = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: Repeating tocilizumab doses were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19 critically ill patients, but it was associated with higher odds of pneumonia compared to a single dose.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: Anti-diabetic drugs with potential effects on cancer.

Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP- 4) inhibitors belong to the oral antidiabetic drugs. They are used for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes mellitus. DPP-4 is an enzyme which puts down the action of hormone, incretin. Incretins belong to the group of hypoglycaemic gastrointestinal hormones. Some studies show that DPP-4 inhibitors causes cancer and some study show that they have anticancer property. This review sheds light on the role of the different types of DPP-4 inhibitors in cancer therapy.