Association of socioeconomic deprivation with outcomes in critically ill adult patients: an observational prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The influence of socioeconomic deprivation on health inequalities is established, but its effect on critically ill patients remains unclear, due to inconsistent definitions in previous studies. METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted from March to June 2018 in eight ICUs in the Greater Paris area. All admitted patients aged ≥ 18 years were enrolled. Socioeconomic phenotypes were identified using hierarchical clustering, based on education, health insurance, income, and housing. Association of phenotypes with 180-day mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 1,748 patients were included. Median age was 62.9 [47.4-74.5] years, 654 (37.4%) patients were female, and median SOFA score was 3 [1-6]. Study population was clustered in five phenotypes with increasing socioeconomic deprivation. Patients from phenotype A (n = 958/1,748, 54.8%) were without socioeconomic deprivation, patients from phenotype B (n = 273/1,748, 15.6%) had only lower education levels, phenotype C patients (n = 117/1,748, 6.7%) had a cumulative burden of 1[1-2] deprivations and all had housing deprivation, phenotype D patients had 2 [1-2] deprivations, all of them with income deprivation, and phenotype E patients (n = 93/1,748, 5.3%) included patients with 3 [2-4] deprivations and included all patients with health insurance deprivation. Patients from phenotypes D and E were younger, had fewer comorbidities, more alcohol and opiate use, and were more frequently admitted due to self-harm diagnoses. Patients from phenotype C (predominant housing deprivation), were more frequently admitted with diagnoses related to chronic respiratory diseases and received more non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Following adjustment for age, sex, alcohol and opiate use, socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality: phenotype A (reference); phenotype B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval CI 0.65-1.12); phenotype C (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.93); phenotype D (HR, 1.09; 95% CI 0.78-1.51); phenotype E (HR, 1.20; 95% CI 0.73-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: In a universal health care system, the most deprived socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality. The most disadvantaged populations exhibit distinct characteristics and medical conditions that may be addressed through targeted public health interventions.

Relationship between COVID-19 and ICU-acquired colonization and infection related to multidrug-resistant bacteria: a prospective multicenter before-after study.

PURPOSE: Patients presenting the most severe form of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have a prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay and are exposed to broad-spectrum antibiotics, but the impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance is unknown. METHODS: Observational prospective before-after study in 7 ICUs in France. All consecutive patients with an ICU stay > 48 h and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included prospectively and followed for 28 days. Patients underwent systematic screening for colonization with multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria upon admission and every week subsequently. COVID-19 patients were compared to a recent prospective cohort of control patients from the same ICUs. The primary objective was to investigate the association of COVID-19 with the cumulative incidence of a composite outcome including ICU-acquired colonization and/or infection related to MDR bacteria (ICU-MDR-col and ICU-MDR-inf, respectively). RESULTS: From February 27th, 2020 to June 2nd, 2021, 367 COVID-19 patients were included, and compared to 680 controls. After adjustment for prespecified baseline confounders, the cumulative incidence of ICU-MDR-col and/or ICU-MDR-inf was not significantly different between groups (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-2.09). When considering both outcomes separately, COVID-19 patients had a higher incidence of ICU-MDR-inf than controls (adjusted sHR 2.50, 95% CI 1.90-3.28), but the incidence of ICU-MDR-col was not significantly different between groups (adjusted sHR 1.27, 95% CI 0.85-1.88). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients had an increased incidence of ICU-MDR-inf compared to controls, but the difference was not significant when considering a composite outcome including ICU-MDR-col and/or ICU-MDR-inf.

Relationship between immunosuppression and intensive care unit-acquired colonization and infection related to multidrug-resistant bacteria: a prospective multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: The impact of immunosuppression on intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired colonization and infection related to multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria (ICU-MDR-col and ICU-MDR-inf, respectively) is unknown. METHODS: We carried out an observational prospective cohort study in 8 ICUs in France (all with single-bed rooms and similar organizational characteristics). All consecutive patients with an ICU stay > 48 h were included, regardless of immune status, and followed for 28 days. Patients underwent systematic screening for colonization with MDR bacteria upon admission and every week subsequently. Immunosuppression was defined as active cancer or hematologic malignancy, neutropenia, solid-organ transplant, use of steroids or immunosuppressive drugs, human immunodeficiency virus infection and genetic. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of a composite outcome including ICU-MDR-col and/or ICU-MDR-inf. RESULTS: 750 patients (65.9% males, median age 65 years) were included, among whom 264 (35.2%) were immunocompromised. Reasons for ICU admission, severity scores and exposure to invasive devices and antibiotics during ICU stay were comparable between groups. After adjustment for center and pre-specified baseline confounders, immunocompromised patients had a lower incidence rate of ICU-MDR-col and/or ICU-MDR-inf (adjusted incidence ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.91). When considered separately, the difference was significant for ICU-MDR-col, but not for ICU-MDR-inf. The distribution of MDR bacteria was comparable between groups, with a majority of Enterobacteriacae resistant to third-generation cephalosporins (~ 74%). CONCLUSION: Immunocompromised patients had a significantly lower incidence rate of a composite outcome including ICU-MDR-col and/or ICU-MDR-inf. This finding points to the role of contact precautions and isolation measures, and could have important implications on antibiotic stewardship in this population.

High-Dose Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The COVIDICUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated. Objectives: To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021. Interventions: Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.

Vaccine breakthrough hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs.

Life-threatening 'breakthrough' cases of critical COVID-19 are attributed to poor or waning antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in individuals already at risk. Pre-existing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs underlie at least 15% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases in unvaccinated individuals; however, their contribution to hypoxemic breakthrough cases in vaccinated people remains unknown. Here, we studied a cohort of 48 individuals (age 20-86 years) who received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine and developed a breakthrough infection with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia 2 weeks to 4 months later. Antibody levels to the vaccine, neutralization of the virus, and auto-Abs to type I IFNs were measured in the plasma. Forty-two individuals had no known deficiency of B cell immunity and a normal antibody response to the vaccine. Among them, ten (24%) had auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs (aged 43-86 years). Eight of these ten patients had auto-Abs neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω, while two neutralized IFN-ω only. No patient neutralized IFN-ß. Seven neutralized 10 ng/mL of type I IFNs, and three 100 pg/mL only. Seven patients neutralized SARS-CoV-2 D614G and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) efficiently, while one patient neutralized Delta slightly less efficiently. Two of the three patients neutralizing only 100 pg/mL of type I IFNs neutralized both D61G and Delta less efficiently. Despite two mRNA vaccine inoculations and the presence of circulating antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs may underlie a significant proportion of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia cases, highlighting the importance of this particularly vulnerable population.

The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every 5 y of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-ß are found in ∼20% of deceased patients across age groups, and in ∼1% of individuals aged <70 y and in >4% of those >70 y old in the general population. With a sample of 1,261 unvaccinated deceased patients and 34,159 individuals of the general population sampled before the pandemic, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to noncarriers. The RRD associated with any combination of autoantibodies was higher in subjects under 70 y old. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRDs were 17.0 (95% CI: 11.7 to 24.7) and 5.8 (4.5 to 7.4) for individuals <70 y and ≥70 y old, respectively, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRDs were 188.3 (44.8 to 774.4) and 7.2 (5.0 to 10.3), respectively. In contrast, IFRs increased with age, ranging from 0.17% (0.12 to 0.31) for individuals <40 y old to 26.7% (20.3 to 35.2) for those ≥80 y old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84% (0.31 to 8.28) to 40.5% (27.82 to 61.20) for autoantibodies neutralizing both. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, especially when neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω. Remarkably, IFRs increase with age, whereas RRDs decrease with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs is a strong and common predictor of COVID-19 death.

The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age-dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies.

SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every five years of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-ß are found in ~20% of deceased patients across age groups. In the general population, they are found in ~1% of individuals aged 20-70 years and in >4% of those >70 years old. With a sample of 1,261 deceased patients and 34,159 uninfected individuals, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to non-carriers. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRD was 17.0[95% CI:11.7-24.7] for individuals under 70 years old and 5.8[4.5-7.4] for individuals aged 70 and over, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRD was 188.3[44.8-774.4] and 7.2[5.0-10.3], respectively. IFRs increased with age, from 0.17%[0.12-0.31] for individuals <40 years old to 26.7%[20.3-35.2] for those ≥80 years old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84%[0.31-8.28] to 40.5%[27.82-61.20] for the same two age groups, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, particularly those neutralizing both IFN-α2 and -ω. Remarkably, IFR increases with age, whereas RRD decreases with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs appears to be second only to age among common predictors of COVID-19 death.

Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs are present in ~4% of uninfected individuals over 70 years old and account for ~20% of COVID-19 deaths.

Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/mL, in plasma diluted 1 to 10) of IFN-α and/or -ω are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 pneumonia, but not in subjects with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω (100 pg/mL, in 1/10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3,595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients > 80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1,124 deceased patients (aged 20 days-99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-ß. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected subjects from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of subjects carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals <70 years, 2.3% between 70 and 80 years, and 6.3% >80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-ß do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over-80s, and total fatal COVID-19 cases.

Targeted temperature management using the "Esophageal Cooling Device" after cardiac arrest (the COOL study): A feasibility and safety study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management (TTM) between 32 and 36°C is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of the "Esophageal Cooling Device" (ECD) in performing TTM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-centre, prospective, interventional study included 17 comatose OHCA patients. Main exclusion criteria were: delay between OHCA and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)>60min, delay between sustained ROSC and inclusion >360min, known oesophageal disease. A TTM between 32 and 34°C was performed using the ECD (Advanced Cooling Therapy, USA) connected to a heat exchanger console (Meditherm III®, Gaymar, France), without cold fluids' use. Primary endpoint was feasibility of inducing, maintaining TTM, and rewarming using the ECD alone. Secondary endpoints were adverse events, focusing on potential digestive damages. Results were expressed as median (interquartiles 25-75). RESULTS: Cooling rate to reach the Target Temperature (33°C-TT) was 0.26°C/h [0.19-0.36]. All patients reached the 32-34°C range with a time spent within the range of 26h [21-28] (3 patients did not reach 33°C). Temperature deviation outside the TT during TTM-maintenance was 0.10°C [0.03-0.20]. Time with deviation >1°C was 0h. Rewarming rate was 0.20°C/h [0.18-0.22]. Among the 16 gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures performed, 10 (62.5%) were normal. Minor oeso-gastric injuries (37.5% and 19%, respectively) were similar to usual orogastric tube injuries. One patient experienced severe oesophagitis mimicking peptic lesions, not cooling-related. No patient among the 9 alive at 3-month follow-up had gastrointestinal complains. CONCLUSION: ECD seems an interesting, safe, accurate, semi-invasive cooling method in OHCA patients treated with 33°C-TTM, particularly during the maintenance phase.

Tapered-cuff Endotracheal Tube Does Not Prevent Early Postoperative Pneumonia Compared with Spherical-cuff Endotracheal Tube after Major Vascular Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing major vascular surgery often develop postoperative pneumonia that impacts their outcomes. Conflicting data exist concerning the potential benefit of tapered-shaped cuffs on tracheal sealing. The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficiency of a polyvinyl chloride tapered-cuff endotracheal tube at reducing the postoperative pneumonia rate after major vascular surgery. Secondary objectives were to determine its impact on microaspiration, ventilator-associated pneumonia rate, and inner cuff pressure. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study included 109 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either spherical- (standard cuff) or taper-shaped (tapered cuff) endotracheal tubes inserted after anesthesia induction and then admitted to the intensive care unit after major vascular surgery. Cuff pressure was continuously recorded over 5 h. Pepsin and α-amylase concentrations in tracheal aspirates were quantified on postoperative days 1 and 2. The primary outcome was the early postoperative pneumonia frequency. RESULTS: Comparing the tapered-cuff with standard-cuff group, respectively, postoperative pneumonia rates were comparable (42 vs. 44%, P = 0.87) and the percentage (interquartile range) of cuff-pressure time with overinflation was significantly higher (16.1% [1.5 to 50] vs. 0.6% [0 to 8.3], P = 0.01), with a 2.5-fold higher coefficient of variation (20.2 [10.6 to 29.4] vs. 7.6 [6.2 to 10.2], P < 0.001). Although microaspiration frequencies were high, they did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: For major vascular surgery patients, polyvinyl chloride tapered-cuff endotracheal tubes with intermittent cuff-pressure control did not lower the early postoperative pneumonia frequency and did not prevent microaspiration.