Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Impact of impaired pulmonary function on clinical outcomes in survivors of severe COVID-19 without pre-existing respiratory disease.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of impaired pulmonary function on patient-centered outcomes after hospital discharge due to severe COVID-19 in patients without preexisting respiratory disease. METHODS: This is an ongoing prospective cohort study evaluating patients (> 18 years of age) 2-6 months after hospital discharge due to severe COVID-19. Respiratory symptoms, health-related quality of life, lung function, and the six-minute walk test were assessed. A restrictive ventilatory defect was defined as TLC below the lower limit of normal, as assessed by plethysmography. Chest CT scans performed during hospitalization were scored for the presence and extent of parenchymal abnormalities. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 17.2 ± 5.9 weeks after the diagnosis of COVID-19, 120 patients were assessed. Of those, 23 (19.2%) reported preexisting chronic respiratory diseases and presented with worse lung function and exertional dyspnea at the follow-up visit in comparison with their counterparts. When we excluded the 23 patients with preexisting respiratory disease plus another 2 patients without lung volume measurements, a restrictive ventilatory defect was observed in 42/95 patients (44%). This subgroup of patients (52.4% of whom were male; mean age, 53.9 ± 11.3 years) showed reduced resting gas exchange efficiency (DLCO), increased daily-life dyspnea, increased exertional dyspnea and oxygen desaturation, and reduced health-related quality of life in comparison with those without reduced TLC (50.9% of whom were male; mean age, 58.4 ± 11.3 years). Intensive care need and higher chest CT scores were associated with a subsequent restrictive ventilatory defect. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a restrictive ventilatory defect approximately 4 months after severe COVID-19 in patients without prior respiratory comorbidities implies worse clinical outcomes.

Association between prolonged corticosteroids use in COVID-19 and increased mortality in hospitalized patients: a retrospective study with inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated a beneficial effect of early use of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to compare hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received short-course corticosteroid treatment with those who received prolonged-course corticosteroid treatment to determine whether prolonged use of corticosteroids improves clinical outcomes, including mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including adult patients with positive testing for Sars-CoV-2 hospitalized for more than 10 days. Data were obtained from electronic medical records. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the duration of treatment with corticosteroids: a short-course (10 days) and a prolonged-course (longer than 10 days) group. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was used to evaluate whether prolonged use of corticosteroids improved outcomes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital infection and the association of different doses of corticosteroids with hospital mortality. Restricted cubic splines were used to assess the nonlinear association between mortality and dose and duration of corticosteroids use. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,539 patients with COVID-19. Among them, 1127 received corticosteroids for more than 10 days (prolonged-course group). The in-hospital mortality was higher in patients that received prolonged course corticosteroids (39.5% vs. 26%, p < 0.001). The IPTW revealed that prolonged use of corticosteroids significantly increased mortality [relative risk (RR) = 1.52, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.24-1.89]. In comparison to short course treatment, the cubic spline analysis showed an inverted U-shaped curve for mortality, with the highest risk associated with the prolonged use at 30 days (RR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.21-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged course of treatment with corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was associated with higher mortality.

Risk assessment validation in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: Data from a Southern Brazil registry (RESPHIRAR study).

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a severe and progressive disease characterized by increased pulmonary vascular resistance, ultimately leading to right heart failure and death. Registries are a valuable tool in the research of rare conditions such as PAH. Moreover, the risk assessment strategy has been validated in European and North American registries and has been reported to provide an accurate prediction of mortality and the clinical advantage of reaching low-risk status. However, there is no available data from Brazil. Thus, the aim of the present study was to describe the characteristics of a sample of PAH from Southern Brazil and to retrospectively validate the risk assessment at our population. The RESPHIRAR is a retrospective and multicentric registry on pulmonary hypertension. With a join collaboration from nine centers in Southern Brazil, demographics, clinical presentation, and hemodynamics data of PAH were collected between 2007 and 2017. Moreover, the REVEAL 2.0 and REVEAL 2.0 Lite risk assessments were validated in our population. Overall, 370 PAH patients were included in the present study. Patients were predominantly female (78.5%) and had a mean age of 41.8 ± 18.8 years. Most patients (33.4%) had idiopathic PAH, 30.2% had PAH associated with congenital heart disease, and 23.5% had PAH associated with connective tissue disease. The low-risk group showed significantly lower mortality than the intermediated- or high-risk group at diagnosis (p < 0.05). In conclusion, our data suggest that REVEAL 2.0 and REVEAL 2.0 Lite risk assessments can predict mortality risk in PAH patients in Southern Brazil.

Impact of impaired pulmonary function on clinical outcomes in survivors of severe COVID-19 without pre-existing respiratory disease / Impacto do comprometimento da função pulmonar nos desfechos clínicos em sobreviventes de COVID-19 grave sem doenças respiratórias preexistentes

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the impact of impaired pulmonary function on patient-centered outcomes after hospital discharge due to severe COVID-19 in patients without preexisting respiratory disease. Methods: This is an ongoing prospective cohort study evaluating patients (> 18 years of age) 2-6 months after hospital discharge due to severe COVID-19. Respiratory symptoms, health-related quality of life, lung function, and the six-minute walk test were assessed. A restrictive ventilatory defect was defined as TLC below the lower limit of normal, as assessed by plethysmography. Chest CT scans performed during hospitalization were scored for the presence and extent of parenchymal abnormalities. Results: At a mean follow-up of 17.2 ± 5.9 weeks after the diagnosis of COVID-19, 120 patients were assessed. Of those, 23 (19.2%) reported preexisting chronic respiratory diseases and presented with worse lung function and exertional dyspnea at the follow-up visit in comparison with their counterparts. When we excluded the 23 patients with preexisting respiratory disease plus another 2 patients without lung volume measurements, a restrictive ventilatory defect was observed in 42/95 patients (44%). This subgroup of patients (52.4% of whom were male; mean age, 53.9 ± 11.3 years) showed reduced resting gas exchange efficiency (DLCO), increased daily-life dyspnea, increased exertional dyspnea and oxygen desaturation, and reduced health-related quality of life in comparison with those without reduced TLC (50.9% of whom were male; mean age, 58.4 ± 11.3 years). Intensive care need and higher chest CT scores were associated with a subsequent restrictive ventilatory defect. Conclusions: The presence of a restrictive ventilatory defect approximately 4 months after severe COVID-19 in patients without prior respiratory comorbidities implies worse clinical outcomes.

RESUMO Objetivo: Investigar o impacto do comprometimento da função pulmonar nos desfechos centrados no paciente após a alta hospitalar em pacientes sem doenças respiratórias preexistentes que foram hospitalizados em virtude de COVID-19 grave. Métodos: Trata-se de um estudo prospectivo de coorte em andamento, no qual pacientes com COVID-19 grave (com idade > 18 anos) são avaliados 2-6 meses depois da alta hospitalar. Avaliamos os sintomas respiratórios, a qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde, a função pulmonar e a distância percorrida no teste de caminhada de seis minutos. A definição de distúrbio ventilatório restritivo foi CPT abaixo do limite inferior da normalidade na pletismografia. As imagens de TC de tórax realizadas durante a hospitalização foram avaliadas quanto à presença e extensão de alterações parenquimatosas. Resultados: Em média 17,2 ± 5,9 semanas depois do diagnóstico de COVID-19, foram avaliados 120 pacientes. Destes, 23 (19,2%) relataram doenças respiratórias crônicas preexistentes e apresentaram pior função pulmonar e maior dispneia aos esforços na consulta de acompanhamento quando comparados aos outros participantes. Quando excluímos os 23 pacientes com doenças respiratórias preexistentes e mais 2 pacientes (sem medidas de volumes pulmonares), observamos distúrbio ventilatório restritivo em 42/95 pacientes (44%). Esse subgrupo de pacientes (52,4% dos quais eram do sexo masculino, com média de idade de 53,9 ± 11,3 anos) apresentou menor eficiência das trocas gasosas (DLCO), maior dispneia na vida diária e dessaturação de oxigênio ao exercício e redução da qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde em comparação com aqueles sem redução da CPT (50,9% dos quais eram do sexo masculino, com média de idade de 58,4 ± 11,3 anos). A necessidade de terapia intensiva e pontuações mais altas no escore de alterações parenquimatosas na TC de tórax apresentaram relação com distúrbio ventilatório restritivo subsequente. Conclusões: A presença de distúrbio ventilatório restritivo aproximadamente 4 meses depois da COVID-19 grave em pacientes sem comorbidades respiratórias prévias implica piores desfechos clínicos.

Brazilian Thoracic Society recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a serious and debilitating disease caused by occlusion of the pulmonary arterial bed by hematic emboli and by the resulting fibrous material. Such occlusion increases vascular resistance and, consequently, the pressure in the region of the pulmonary artery, which is the definition of pulmonary hypertension. The increased load imposed on the right ventricle leads to its progressive dysfunction and, finally, to death. However, CTEPH has a highly significant feature that distinguishes it from other forms of pulmonary hypertension: the fact that it can be cured through treatment with pulmonary thromboendarterectomy. Therefore, the primary objective of the management of CTEPH should be the assessment of patient fitness for surgery at a referral center, given that not all patients are good candidates. For the patients who are not good candidates for pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, the viable therapeutic alternatives include pulmonary artery angioplasty and pharmacological treatment. In these recommendations, the pathophysiological bases for the onset of CTEPH, such as acute pulmonary embolism and the clinical condition of the patient, will be discussed, as will the diagnostic algorithm to be followed and the therapeutic alternatives currently available.

Severe hepatopulmonary syndrome with hypoxemia refractory to liver transplant: Recovery after 67 days of ECMO support.

Hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) is a complication of end stage liver disease (ESLD) and is manifested by severe hypoxemia, which usually responds to liver transplantation (LT). As compared to patients undergoing LT for other etiologies, patients with HPS present an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. There is no effective treatment for patients whose hypoxemia does not respond to LT. This subset of patients is at a highly increased risk of death. There are very few reports on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in this setting with rapid response. However, there is no prior report of ECMO utilization for longer than 4 weeks. We present the case of a 17 year-old male patient who underwent LT for ESLD secondary to chronic portal vein thrombosis and HPS. He received a liver from a deceased donor and presented with severe HPS after LT, requiring ECMO support for 67 days. The patient was discharged home and is breathing in ambient air. He is currently asymptomatic and has a normal liver function.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Quality of life and long-term outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19: Protocol for a prospective cohort study (Coalition VII). / Qualidade de vida e desfechos em longo prazo após hospitalização por COVID-19: Protocolo para um estudo de coorte prospectivo (Coalizão VII).

INTRODUCTION: The long-term effects caused by COVID-19 are unknown. The present study aims to assess factors associated with health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes among survivors of hospitalization for COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective cohort study nested in five randomized clinical trials designed to assess the effects of specific COVID-19 treatments in over 50 centers in Brazil. Adult survivors of hospitalization due to proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection will be followed-up for a period of 1 year by means of structured telephone interviews. The primary outcome is the 1-year utility score of health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations, return to work or study, physical functional status assessed by the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dyspnea assessed by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, need for long-term ventilatory support, symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and self-rated health assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L Visual Analog Scale. Generalized estimated equations will be performed to test the association between five sets of variables (1- demographic characteristics, 2- premorbid state of health, 3- characteristics of acute illness, 4- specific COVID-19 treatments received, and 5- time-updated postdischarge variables) and outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of all participant institutions. The results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

INTRODUÇÃO: Os efeitos provocados pela COVID-19 em longo prazo são desconhecidos. O presente estudo tem como objetivo avaliar os fatores associados com a qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde e os desfechos em longo prazo em sobreviventes à hospitalização por COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Este será um estudo multicêntrico de coorte prospectivo, aninhado em cinco ensaios clínicos randomizados desenhados para avaliar os efeitos dos tratamentos específicos para COVID-19 em mais de 50 centros no Brasil. Pacientes adultos sobreviventes à hospitalização por infecção por SARS-CoV-2 comprovada ou suspeita serão seguidos por um período de 1 ano, por meio de entrevistas telefônicas estruturadas. O desfecho primário é o escore de utilidade para qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde após 1 ano, avaliado segundo o questionário EuroQol-5D3L. Os desfechos secundários incluirão mortalidade por todas as causas, eventos cardiovasculares graves, reospitalizações, retorno ao trabalho ou estudo, condição funcional física avaliada pelo instrumento Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dispneia avaliada segundo a escala de dispneia modificada do Medical Research Council, necessidade de suporte ventilatório em longo prazo, sintomas de ansiedade e depressão avaliados segundo a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, sintomas de transtorno de estresse pós-traumático avaliados pela ferramenta Impact of Event Scale-Revised e autoavaliação da condição de saúde, conforme a Escala Visual Analógica do EuroQol-5D3L. Serão utilizadas equações de estimativas generalizada para testar a associação entre cinco conjuntos de variáveis (1 - características demográficas, 2 - condição de saúde pré-morbidade, 3 - características da doença aguda, 4 - terapias específicas para COVID-19 recebidas e 5 - variáveis pós-alta atualizadas) e desfechos. ÉTICA E DISSEMINAÇÃO: O protocolo do estudo foi aprovado pelos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa de todas as instituições participantes. Os resultados serão disseminados por meio de conferências e periódicos revisados por pares.

Pulmonology approach in the investigation of chronic unexplained dyspnea.

Chronic unexplained dyspnea and exercise intolerance represent common, distressing symptoms in outpatients. Clinical history taking and physical examination are the mainstays for diagnostic evaluation. However, the cause of dyspnea may remain elusive even after comprehensive diagnostic evaluation-basic laboratory analyses; chest imaging; pulmonary function testing; and cardiac testing. At that point (and frequently before), patients are usually referred to a pulmonologist, who is expected to be the main physician to solve this conundrum. In this context, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), to assess physiological and sensory responses from rest to peak exercise, provides a unique opportunity to unmask the mechanisms of the underlying dyspnea and their interactions with a broad spectrum of disorders. However, CPET is underused in clinical practice, possibly due to operational issues (equipment costs, limited availability, and poor remuneration) and limited medical education regarding the method. To counter the latter shortcoming, we aspire to provide a pragmatic strategy for interpreting CPET results. Clustering findings of exercise response allows the characterization of patterns that permit the clinician to narrow the list of possible diagnoses rather than pinpointing a specific etiology. We present a proposal for a diagnostic workup and some illustrative cases assessed by CPET. Given that airway hyperresponsiveness and pulmonary vascular disorders, which are within the purview of pulmonology, are common causes of chronic unexplained dyspnea, we also aim to describe the role of bronchial challenge tests and the diagnostic reasoning for investigating the pulmonary circulation in this context.

Qualidade de vida e desfechos em longo prazo após hospitalização por COVID-19: Protocolo para um estudo de coorte prospectivo (Coalizão VII) / Quality of life and long-term outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19: Protocol for a prospective cohort study (Coalition VII)

RESUMO Introdução: Os efeitos provocados pela COVID-19 em longo prazo são desconhecidos. O presente estudo tem como objetivo avaliar os fatores associados com a qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde e os desfechos em longo prazo em sobreviventes à hospitalização por COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Este será um estudo multicêntrico de coorte prospectivo, aninhado em cinco ensaios clínicos randomizados desenhados para avaliar os efeitos dos tratamentos específicos para COVID-19 em mais de 50 centros no Brasil. Pacientes adultos sobreviventes à hospitalização por infecção por SARS-CoV-2 comprovada ou suspeita serão seguidos por um período de 1 ano, por meio de entrevistas telefônicas estruturadas. O desfecho primário é o escore de utilidade para qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde após 1 ano, avaliado segundo o questionário EuroQol-5D3L. Os desfechos secundários incluirão mortalidade por todas as causas, eventos cardiovasculares graves, reospitalizações, retorno ao trabalho ou estudo, condição funcional física avaliada pelo instrumento Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dispneia avaliada segundo a escala de dispneia modificada do Medical Research Council, necessidade de suporte ventilatório em longo prazo, sintomas de ansiedade e depressão avaliados segundo a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, sintomas de transtorno de estresse pós-traumático avaliados pela ferramenta Impact of Event Scale-Revised e autoavaliação da condição de saúde, conforme a Escala Visual Analógica do EuroQol-5D3L. Serão utilizadas equações de estimativas generalizada para testar a associação entre cinco conjuntos de variáveis (1 - características demográficas, 2 - condição de saúde pré-morbidade, 3 - características da doença aguda, 4 - terapias específicas para COVID-19 recebidas e 5 - variáveis pós-alta atualizadas) e desfechos. Ética e disseminação: O protocolo do estudo foi aprovado pelos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa de todas as instituições participantes. Os resultados serão disseminados por meio de conferências e periódicos revisados por pares.

Abstract Introduction: The long-term effects caused by COVID-19 are unknown. The present study aims to assess factors associated with health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes among survivors of hospitalization for COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: This is a multicenter prospective cohort study nested in five randomized clinical trials designed to assess the effects of specific COVID-19 treatments in over 50 centers in Brazil. Adult survivors of hospitalization due to proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection will be followed-up for a period of 1 year by means of structured telephone interviews. The primary outcome is the 1-year utility score of health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations, return to work or study, physical functional status assessed by the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dyspnea assessed by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, need for long-term ventilatory support, symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and self-rated health assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L Visual Analog Scale. Generalized estimated equations will be performed to test the association between five sets of variables (1- demographic characteristics, 2- premorbid state of health, 3- characteristics of acute illness, 4- specific COVID-19 treatments received, and 5- time-updated postdischarge variables) and outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of all participant institutions. The results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Phase Angle Evaluation of Lung Disease Patients and Its Relationship with Nutritional and Functional Parameters.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the value of phase angle (PhA) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) and its association with nutritional and functional parameters. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 77 patients under follow-up at the pulmonary outpatient clinic of a public hospital. Anthropometric measurements and functional assessments of physical and pulmonary capacity were performed, and a regular physical activity questionnaire was administered. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 38 patients with COPD (mean age, 63.8 ± 9.9 years; 68.4% female) and 39 patients with PH (mean age, 46.6 ± 14.4 years; 79.5% female). There was no difference in anthropometric measurements between patients with COPD and PH. Patients with COPD had mild to moderate limitations of pulmonary function, while patients with PH had only mild limitations (p < 0.01). Although the median distance covered in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) was different between the COPD and PH groups (p < 0.05), it was considered adequate for these populations. Mean PhA was within the range considered adequate in patients with COPD (6.3°±1°) and PH (6.2°±0.8°) (p > 0.05). In the statistical analyses, although the correlations were weak, adequate PhA correlated with fat free mass index, 6MWT, disease staging, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory volume in the first second. CONCLUSION: The anthropometric profile of both patient groups was very similar, and PhA values were within the expected range. Despite weak correlations, PhA is a clinical component to be followed and investigated in patients with lung disease.

Pulmonology approach in the investigation of chronic unexplained dyspnea / Abordagem pneumológica na investigação de dispneia crônica inexplicada

ABSTRACT Chronic unexplained dyspnea and exercise intolerance represent common, distressing symptoms in outpatients. Clinical history taking and physical examination are the mainstays for diagnostic evaluation. However, the cause of dyspnea may remain elusive even after comprehensive diagnostic evaluation-basic laboratory analyses; chest imaging; pulmonary function testing; and cardiac testing. At that point (and frequently before), patients are usually referred to a pulmonologist, who is expected to be the main physician to solve this conundrum. In this context, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), to assess physiological and sensory responses from rest to peak exercise, provides a unique opportunity to unmask the mechanisms of the underlying dyspnea and their interactions with a broad spectrum of disorders. However, CPET is underused in clinical practice, possibly due to operational issues (equipment costs, limited availability, and poor remuneration) and limited medical education regarding the method. To counter the latter shortcoming, we aspire to provide a pragmatic strategy for interpreting CPET results. Clustering findings of exercise response allows the characterization of patterns that permit the clinician to narrow the list of possible diagnoses rather than pinpointing a specific etiology. We present a proposal for a diagnostic workup and some illustrative cases assessed by CPET. Given that airway hyperresponsiveness and pulmonary vascular disorders, which are within the purview of pulmonology, are common causes of chronic unexplained dyspnea, we also aim to describe the role of bronchial challenge tests and the diagnostic reasoning for investigating the pulmonary circulation in this context.

RESUMO A dispneia crônica inexplicada e a intolerância ao exercício representam sintomas comuns e angustiantes em pacientes ambulatoriais. O histórico clínico e o exame físico são as bases da avaliação diagnóstica. No entanto, a causa da dispneia pode permanecer inexplicada mesmo após uma avaliação diagnóstica abrangente - análises laboratoriais básicas, exames de imagem do tórax, testes de função pulmonar e testes cardíacos. Nesse momento (e frequentemente antes), os pacientes geralmente são encaminhados a um pneumologista, o qual se espera que seja o principal médico para a resolução desse enigma. Nesse contexto, o teste de exercício cardiopulmonar (TECP), para avaliação de respostas fisiológicas e sensoriais do repouso ao pico do exercício, proporciona uma oportunidade única de desvendar os mecanismos subjacentes à dispneia e as interações desses mecanismos com um amplo espectro de distúrbios. No entanto, o TECP é subutilizado na prática clínica, possivelmente por questões operacionais (custos dos equipamentos, disponibilidade limitada e baixa remuneração) e limitação da formação médica em relação ao método. Para enfrentar esta última deficiência, almejamos fornecer uma estratégia pragmática para a interpretação dos resultados do TECP. O agrupamento dos achados da resposta ao exercício permite a caracterização de padrões que possibilitam ao clínico restringir a lista de possíveis diagnósticos, em vez de apontar uma etiologia específica. Apresentamos uma proposta de avaliação diagnóstica e alguns casos ilustrativos avaliados por TECP. Como a hiper-responsividade das vias aéreas e os distúrbios vasculares pulmonares, que são da competência da pneumologia, são causas comuns de dispneia crônica inexplicada, também objetivamos descrever o papel dos testes de broncoprovocação e o raciocínio diagnóstico para a investigação da circulação pulmonar nesse contexto.

Clinical characteristics and predictors of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in Southern Brazil. / Características clínicas e preditores de ventilação mecânica em pacientes com COVID-19 hospitalizados no sul do país.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and predictors of mechanical ventilation of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in a single center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed and included adult inpatients hospitalized from March 17th to May 3rd, 2020, who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clinical and demographic characteristics were extracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: Overall, 88 consecutive patients were included in this study. The median age of the patients was 63 years (IQR 49 - 71); 59 (67%) were male, 65 (86%) had a college degree and 67 (76%) had at least one comorbidity. Twenty-nine (33%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, 18 (20%) patients needed mechanical ventilation, and 9 (10.2%) died during hospitalization. The median length of stay in the intensive care unit and the median duration of mechanical ventilation was 23 and 29.5 days, respectively. An age ≥ 65 years was an independent risk factor for mechanical ventilation (OR 8.4 95%CI 1.3 - 55.6 p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Our findings describe the first wave of Brazilian patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Age was the strongest predictor of respiratory insufficiency and the need for mechanical ventilation in our population.

OBJETIVO: Descrever as características clínicas e os preditores de ventilação mecânica em pacientes adultos internados com COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Conduziu-se um estudo de coorte retrospectiva com inclusão de pacientes hospitalizados entre 17 de março e 3 de maio de 2020, que tiveram o diagnóstico de infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2. As características clínicas e demográficas foram extraídas de registros em prontuário eletrônico. RESULTADOS: Incluíram-se no estudo 88 pacientes consecutivos. A mediana da idade dos pacientes foi de 63 anos (IQR: 49 - 71); 59 (67%) pacientes eram do sexo masculino, 65 (86%) tinham educação universitária e 67 (76%) tinham, no mínimo, uma comorbidade. Dentre eles, 29 (33%) pacientes foram admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva, 18 (20%) necessitaram de ventilação mecânica e nove (10,2%) morreram durante a hospitalização. O tempo mediano de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva e o tempo mediano de ventilação mecânica foram, respectivamente, de 23 e 29,5 dias. Idade acima ou igual a 65 anos foi fator de risco independente para ventilação mecânica (RC: 8,4; IC95% de 1,3 - 55,6; valor de p = 0,02). CONCLUSÃO: Nossos achados descrevem a primeira onda de pacientes brasileiros hospitalizados por COVID-19. Em nossa população, idade foi o maior preditor de insuficiência respiratória e necessidade de ventilação mecânica.

Características clínicas e preditores de ventilação mecânica em pacientes com COVID-19 hospitalizados no sul do país / Clinical characteristics and predictors of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in Southern Brazil

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever as características clínicas e os preditores de ventilação mecânica em pacientes adultos internados com COVID-19. Métodos: Conduziu-se um estudo de coorte retrospectiva com inclusão de pacientes hospitalizados entre 17 de março e 3 de maio de 2020, que tiveram o diagnóstico de infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2. As características clínicas e demográficas foram extraídas de registros em prontuário eletrônico. Resultados: Incluíram-se no estudo 88 pacientes consecutivos. A mediana da idade dos pacientes foi de 63 anos (IQR: 49 - 71); 59 (67%) pacientes eram do sexo masculino, 65 (86%) tinham educação universitária e 67 (76%) tinham, no mínimo, uma comorbidade. Dentre eles, 29 (33%) pacientes foram admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva, 18 (20%) necessitaram de ventilação mecânica e nove (10,2%) morreram durante a hospitalização. O tempo mediano de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva e o tempo mediano de ventilação mecânica foram, respectivamente, de 23 e 29,5 dias. Idade acima ou igual a 65 anos foi fator de risco independente para ventilação mecânica (RC: 8,4; IC95% de 1,3 - 55,6; valor de p = 0,02). Conclusão: Nossos achados descrevem a primeira onda de pacientes brasileiros hospitalizados por COVID-19. Em nossa população, idade foi o maior preditor de insuficiência respiratória e necessidade de ventilação mecânica.

Abstract Objective: This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and predictors of mechanical ventilation of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in a single center. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed and included adult inpatients hospitalized from March 17th to May 3rd, 2020, who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clinical and demographic characteristics were extracted from electronic medical records. Results: Overall, 88 consecutive patients were included in this study. The median age of the patients was 63 years (IQR 49 - 71); 59 (67%) were male, 65 (86%) had a college degree and 67 (76%) had at least one comorbidity. Twenty-nine (33%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, 18 (20%) patients needed mechanical ventilation, and 9 (10.2%) died during hospitalization. The median length of stay in the intensive care unit and the median duration of mechanical ventilation was 23 and 29.5 days, respectively. An age ≥ 65 years was an independent risk factor for mechanical ventilation (OR 8.4 95%CI 1.3 - 55.6 p = 0.02). Conclusion: Our findings describe the first wave of Brazilian patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Age was the strongest predictor of respiratory insufficiency and the need for mechanical ventilation in our population.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology. / Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia.

INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências

Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia / Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

RESUMO Introdução: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Resultados: Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Conclusão: Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Results: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. Conclusion: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.