Core outcome measurement set for research and clinical practice in post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID) in children and young people: an international Delphi consensus study "PC-COS Children".

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially impacted different age groups, with children and young people not exempted. Many have experienced enduring health consequences. Presently, there is no consensus on the health outcomes to assess in children and young people with post-COVID-19 condition. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement instruments are appropriate for use in research and clinical management of children and young people with post-COVID-19. To address these unmet needs, we conducted a consensus study, aiming to develop a core outcome set (COS) and an associated core outcome measurement set (COMS) for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people. Our methodology comprised of two phases. In phase 1 (to create a COS), we performed an extensive literature review and categorisation of outcomes, and prioritised those outcomes in a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by a consensus meeting. In phase 2 (to create the COMS), we performed another modified Delphi consensus process to evaluate measurement instruments for previously defined core outcomes from phase 1, followed by an online consensus workshop to finalise recommendations regarding the most appropriate instruments for each core outcome. In phase 1, 214 participants from 37 countries participated, with 154 (72%) contributing to both Delphi rounds. The subsequent online consensus meeting resulted in a final COS which encompassed seven critical outcomes: fatigue; post-exertion symptoms; work/occupational and study changes; as well as functional changes, symptoms, and conditions relating to cardiovascular, neuro-cognitive, gastrointestinal and physical outcomes. In phase 2, 11 international experts were involved in a modified Delphi process, selecting measurement instruments for a subsequent online consensus workshop where 30 voting participants discussed and independently scored the selected instruments. As a result of this consensus process, four instruments met a priori consensus criteria for inclusion: PedsQL multidimensional fatigue scale for "fatigue"; PedsQL gastrointestinal symptom scales for "gastrointestinal"; PedsQL cognitive functioning scale for "neurocognitive" and EQ-5D for "physical functioning". Despite proposing outcome measurement instruments for the remaining three core outcomes ("cardiovascular", "post-exertional malaise", "work/occupational and study changes"), a consensus was not achieved. Our international, consensus-based initiative presents a robust framework for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people in research and clinical practice via a rigorously defined COS and associated COMS. It will aid in the uniform measurement and reporting of relevant health outcomes worldwide.

An introduction to the Marburg virus vaccine consortium, MARVAC.

The emergence of Marburg virus (MARV) in Guinea and Ghana triggered the assembly of the MARV vaccine "MARVAC" consortium representing leaders in the field of vaccine research and development aiming to facilitate a rapid response to this infectious disease threat. Here, we discuss current progress, challenges, and future directions for MARV vaccines.

Association between tocilizumab, sarilumab and all-cause mortality at 28 days in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent prospective meta-analysis demonstrated that interleukin-6 antagonists are associated with lower all-cause mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, compared with usual care or placebo. However, emerging evidence suggests that clinicians are favouring the use of tocilizumab over sarilumab. A new randomised comparison of these agents from the REMAP-CAP trial shows similar effects on in-hospital mortality. Therefore, we initiated a network meta-analysis, to estimate pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo with 28-day mortality, in COVID-19 patients receiving concomitant corticosteroids and ventilation, based on all available direct and indirect evidence. METHODS: Eligible trials randomised hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that compared tocilizumab or sarilumab with usual care or placebo in the prospective meta-analysis or that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab. Data were restricted to patients receiving corticosteroids and either non-invasive or invasive ventilation at randomisation. Pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo for all-cause mortality 28 days after randomisation were estimated using a frequentist contrast-based network meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs), implementing multivariate fixed-effects models that assume consistency between the direct and indirect evidence. FINDINGS: One trial (REMAP-CAP) was identified that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab and supplied results on all-cause mortality at 28-days. This network meta-analysis was based on 898 eligible patients (278 deaths) from REMAP-CAP and 3710 eligible patients from 18 trials (1278 deaths) from the prospective meta-analysis. Summary ORs were similar for tocilizumab [0·82 [0·71-0·95, p = 0·008]] and sarilumab [0·80 [0·61-1·04, p = 0·09]] compared with usual care or placebo. The summary OR for 28-day mortality comparing tocilizumab with sarilumab was 1·03 [95%CI 0·81-1·32, p = 0·80]. The p-value for the global test of inconsistency was 0·28. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of either tocilizumab or sarilumab was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality compared with usual care or placebo. The association is not dependent on the choice of interleukin-6 receptor antagonist.

A core outcome set for post-COVID-19 condition in adults for use in clinical practice and research: an international Delphi consensus study.

Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

A clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus.

People with COVID-19 might have sustained postinfection sequelae. Known by a variety of names, including long COVID or long-haul COVID, and listed in the ICD-10 classification as post-COVID-19 condition since September, 2020, this occurrence is variable in its expression and its impact. The absence of a globally standardised and agreed-upon definition hampers progress in characterisation of its epidemiology and the development of candidate treatments. In a WHO-led Delphi process, we engaged with an international panel of 265 patients, clinicians, researchers, and WHO staff to develop a consensus definition for this condition. 14 domains and 45 items were evaluated in two rounds of the Delphi process to create a final consensus definition for adults: post-COVID-19 condition occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually 3 months from the onset, with symptoms that last for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. Common symptoms include, but are not limited to, fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction, and generally have an impact on everyday functioning. Symptoms might be new onset following initial recovery from an acute COVID-19 episode or persist from the initial illness. Symptoms might also fluctuate or relapse over time. A separate definition might be applicable for children. Although the consensus definition is likely to change as knowledge increases, this common framework provides a foundation for ongoing and future studies of epidemiology, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and therapy.

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

PURPOSE: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE: Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons réalisé deux comptes rendus sur commande de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé pour guider l'utilisation de canules nasales à haut débit (CNHD) chez les patients ayant contracté le coronavirus (COVID-19). Nous avons synthétisé les données probantes concernant leur efficacité et leur innocuité (compte rendu 1), ainsi que les risques de dispersion des gouttelettes, de génération d'aérosols, et de transmission associée d'éléments viraux (compte rendu 2). SOURCE: Des recherches de littérature ont été réalisées dans les bases de données Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ainsi que dans les bases de données chinoises et medRxiv. Compte rendu 1 : nous avons synthétisé les résultats d'études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) comparant les CNHD à une oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez des patients en état critique atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Compte rendu 2 : nous avons résumé sous forme narrative les constatations d'études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes, la génération d'aérosols ou la transmission infectieuse associées aux CNHD. Pour les deux comptes rendus, des réviseurs appariés ont réalisé la sélection des études, l'extraction des données et l'évaluation du risque de biais de manière indépendante. Nous avons évalué la certitude des données probantes en nous fondant sur la méthodologie GRADE. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Aucune étude éligible n'incluait de patients atteints de COVID-19. Compte rendu 1 : 12 ERC (n = 1989 patients) ont fourni des données probantes de certitude faible selon lesquelles les CNHD réduiraient la ventilation invasive (risque relatif [RR], 0,85; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,74 à 0,99) et l'intensification de l'oxygénothérapie (RR, 0,71; IC 95 %, 0,51 à 0,98) chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire. Les résultats n'ont pas démontré de différences en matière de mortalité (certitude modérée), ni de durée du séjour hospitalier ou à l'unité des soins intensifs (certitude modérée et faible, respectivement). Compte rendu 2 : quatre études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes et trois évaluant la génération et la dispersion d'aérosols ont fourni des données probantes de très faible certitude. Deux études de simulation et une étude croisée ont donné des résultats mitigés quant à l'effet des CNHD sur la dispersion des gouttelettes. Bien que deux études de simulation n'aient rapporté aucune augmentation associée concernant la dispersion d'aérosols, l'une a rapporté que des taux de débit plus élevés étaient associés à des régions à densité d'aérosols élevée plus grandes. CONCLUSION: Les canules nasales à haut débit pourraient réduire la nécessité de recourir à la ventilation invasive et l'escalade des traitements par rapport à l'oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 souffrant d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Cet avantage doit être soupesé contre le risque inconnu de transmission atmosphérique.

Global Critical Care: Moving Forward in Resource-Limited Settings.

Caring for critically ill patients is challenging in resource-limited settings, where the burden of disease and mortality from potentially treatable illnesses is higher than in resource-rich areas. Barriers to delivering quality critical care in these settings include lack of epidemiologic data and context-specific evidence for medical decision-making, deficiencies in health systems organization and resources, and institutional obstacles to implementation of life-saving interventions. Potential solutions include the development of common definitions for intensive care unit (ICU), intensivist, and intensive care to create a universal ICU organization framework; development of educational programs for capacity building of health care professionals working in resource-limited settings; global prioritization of epidemiologic and clinical research in resource-limited settings to conduct timely and ethical studies in response to emerging threats; adaptation of international guidelines to promote implementation of evidence-based care; and strengthening of health systems that integrates these interventions. This manuscript reviews the field of global critical care, barriers to safe high-quality care, and potential solutions to existing challenges. We also suggest a roadmap for improving the treatment of critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

Development of a short course on management of critically ill patients with acute respiratory infection and impact on clinician knowledge in resource-limited intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: The 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic caused surges of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in resource-limited settings. Several Ministries of Health requested clinical management guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO), which had not previously developed guidance regarding critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability and impact on knowledge of a short course about the management of critically ill patients with acute respiratory infections complicated by sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome delivered to clinicians in resource-limited ICUs. METHODS: Over 4 years (2009-2013), WHO led the development, piloting, implementation and preliminary evaluation of a 3-day course that emphasized patient management based on evidence-based guidelines and used interactive adult-learner teaching methodology. International content experts (n = 35) and instructional designers contributed to development. We assessed participants' satisfaction and content knowledge before and after the course. RESULTS: The course was piloted among clinicians in Trinidad and Tobago (n = 29), Indonesia (n = 38) and Vietnam (n = 86); feedback from these courses contributed to the final version. In 2013, inaugural national courses were delivered in Tajikistan (n = 28), Uzbekistan (n = 39) and Azerbaijan (n = 30). Participants rated the course highly and demonstrated increased immediate content knowledge after (vs before) course completion (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that it was feasible to create and deliver a focused critical care short course to clinicians in low- and middle-income countries. Collaboration between WHO, clinical experts, instructional designers, Ministries of Health and local clinician-leaders facilitated course delivery. Future work should assess its impact on longer-term knowledge retention and on processes and outcomes of care.

Healthcare infrastructure capacity to respond to severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) and sepsis in Vietnam: A low-middle income country.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the availability of relevant structural and human resources needed for the clinical management of patients with severe acute respiratory infections and sepsis in critical care units in Vietnam. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted by purposive sampling of 128 hospitals (36% of total hospitals in surveyed provinces), including 25 provincial and 103 district level hospitals, from 20 provinces in Vietnam. Data on availability of hospital characteristics, structural resources and health care workers was then analyzed. RESULTS: Most hospitals (>80%) reported having 60% of the relevant structural resources. Significant differences were observed between provincial hospitals when compared to district hospitals in regards to availability of central oxygen piping system (78.3% vs 38.7%, p=0.001) mechanical ventilation (100.0% vs 73.6%, p=0.003), mobile x-rays (80.0% vs 29.8%, p<0.001), carbapenem antibiotic (73.9% vs 17.4%, p<0.001) and norepinephrine (95.8% vs 56.3%, p<0.001). There was a limited availability of arterial blood gas analyzers (13.7%), oseltamivir (42.2%) and N95 respirators (54.6%) across all hospitals surveyed. CONCLUSIONS: The limited availability of relevant structural and human resources in critical care units around Vietnam makes the implementation of quality critical care to patients with SARI and sepsis, according international guidelines, not universally possible.

Current challenges in the management of sepsis in ICUs in resource-poor settings and suggestions for the future.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource-poor settings. ICUs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. AIM: To describe differences between resource-poor and resource-rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. FINDINGS: Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high-income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing both disease-specific and setting-specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost-effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro- and micro-economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource-limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement.

What is an intensive care unit? A report of the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine.

Since their widespread introduction more than half a century ago, intensive care units (ICUs) have become an integral part of the health care system. Although most ICUs are found in high-income countries, they are increasingly a feature of health care systems in low- and middle-income countries. The World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine convened a task force whose objective was to answer the question "What is an ICU?" in an internationally meaningful manner and to develop a system for stratifying ICUs on the basis of the intensity of the care they provide. We undertook a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature to assemble existing models for ICU stratification. Based on these and on discussions among task force members by teleconference and 2 face-to-face meetings, we present a proposed definition and classification of ICUs. An ICU is an organized system for the provision of care to critically ill patients that provides intensive and specialized medical and nursing care, an enhanced capacity for monitoring, and multiple modalities of physiologic organ support to sustain life during a period of life-threatening organ system insufficiency. Although an ICU is based in a defined geographic area of a hospital, its activities often extend beyond the walls of the physical space to include the emergency department, hospital ward, and follow-up clinic. A level 1 ICU is capable of providing oxygen, noninvasive monitoring, and more intensive nursing care than on a ward, whereas a level 2 ICU can provide invasive monitoring and basic life support for a short period. A level 3 ICU provides a full spectrum of monitoring and life support technologies, serves as a regional resource for the care of critically ill patients, and may play an active role in developing the specialty of intensive care through research and education. A formal definition and descriptive framework for ICUs can inform health care decision-makers in planning and measuring capacity and provide clinicians and patients with a benchmark to evaluate the level of resources available for clinical care.

Development of an intensive care unit resource assessment survey for the care of critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

PURPOSE: Capacity to provide critical care in resource-limited settings is poorly understood because of lack of data about resources available to manage critically ill patients. Our objective was to develop a survey to address this issue. METHODS: We developed and piloted a cross-sectional self-administered survey in 9 resource-limited countries. The survey consisted of 8 domains; specific items within domains were modified from previously developed survey tools. We distributed the survey by e-mail to a convenience sample of health care providers responsible for providing care to critically ill patients. We assessed clinical sensibility and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Nine of 15 health care providers responded to the survey on 2 separate occasions, separated by 2 to 4 weeks. Clinical sensibility was high (3.9-4.9/5 on assessment tool). Test-retest reliability for questions related to resource availability was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.99; mean (SD) of weighted κ values = 0.67 [0.19]). The mean (SD) time for survey completion survey was 21 (16) minutes. CONCLUSIONS: A reliable cross-sectional survey of available resources to manage critically ill patients can be feasibly administered to health care providers in resource-limited settings. The survey will inform future research focusing on access to critical care where it is poorly described but urgently needed.

Lung function in woodsmoke-exposed Guatemalan children following a chimney stove intervention.

RATIONALE: Household air pollution (HAP) from solid fuel combustion is a major contributor to the global burden of disease, with considerable impact from respiratory infections in children. The impact of HAP on lung function is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The Childhood Exposure to Respirable Particulate Matter (CRECER) prospective cohort study followed Guatemalan children who participated in the Randomised Exposure Study of Pollution Indoors and Respiratory Effects (RESPIRE) trial of a chimney stove intervention to determine the effect of early childhood HAP exposure on growth of lung function. METHODS: RESPIRE households with pregnant women or infant children were randomised to receive a chimney stove at the beginning or at the end of the 18-month trial. During CRECER, a subset of these children, as well as children from households with newly installed stoves, were followed with spirometry beginning at age 5. Biomass smoke exposure was measured using personal carbon monoxide tubes. Two-stage regression models were employed to analyse associations with lung function growth. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Longitudinal peak expiratory flow (PEF) and FEV1 data were available for 443 and 437 children, respectively, aged 5-8 (mean follow-up 1.3 years). Decreases in PEF growth of 173 mL/min/year (95% CI -341 to -7) and FEV1 of 44 mL/year (95% CI -91 to 4) were observed with stove installation at 18 months compared with stove installation at birth in analyses adjusted for multiple covariates. No statistically significant associations were observed between personal HAP exposure and lung function. CONCLUSIONS: A significant decrease in PEF growth and a large non-significant decrease in FEV1 growth were observed with later stove installation. Additional studies including longer follow-up and cleaner stoves or fuels are needed.

Effects of woodsmoke exposure on airway inflammation in rural Guatemalan women.

BACKGROUND: More than two-fifths of the world's population uses solid fuels, mostly biomass, for cooking. The resulting biomass smoke exposure is a major cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) among women in developing countries. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether lower woodsmoke exposure from use of a stove with a chimney, compared to open fires, is associated with lower markers of airway inflammation in young women. DESIGN: We carried out a cross-sectional analysis on a sub-cohort of participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial in rural Guatemala, RESPIRE. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 45 indigenous women at the end of the 18-month trial; 19 women who had been using the chimney stove for 18-24 months and 26 women still using open fires. MEASUREMENTS: We obtained spirometry and induced sputum for cell counts, gene expression of IL-8, TNF-α, MMP-9 and 12, and protein concentrations of IL-8, myeloperoxidase and fibronectin. Exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) and 48-hr personal CO tubes were measured to assess smoke exposure. RESULTS: MMP-9 gene expression was significantly lower in women using chimney stoves. Higher exhaled CO concentrations were significantly associated with higher gene expression of IL-8, TNF-α, and MMP-9. Higher 48-hr personal CO concentrations were associated with higher gene expression of IL-8, TNF- α, MMP-9 and MMP-12; reaching statistical significance for MMP-9 and MMP-12. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to using an open wood fire for cooking, use of a chimney stove was associated with lower gene expression of MMP-9, a potential mediator of airway remodeling. Among all participants, indoor biomass smoke exposure was associated with higher gene expression of multiple mediators of airway inflammation and remodeling; these mechanisms may explain some of the observed association between prolonged biomass smoke exposure and COPD.

Therapeutic strategies for severe acute lung injury.

OBJECTIVE: In the management of patients with severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome, clinicians are sometimes challenged to maintain acceptable gas exchange while avoiding harmful mechanical ventilation practices. In some of these patients, physicians may consider the use of "rescue therapies" to sustain life. Our goal is to provide a practical, evidence-based review to assist critical care physicians' care for patients with severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. DATA SOURCES: We searched the PubMed database for clinical trials that examined the use of the following therapies in severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: recruitment maneuvers, high positive end-expiratory pressure, prone position, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, glucocorticoids, inhaled nitric oxide, buffer therapy, and extracorporeal life support. STUDY SELECTION: All clinical trials that included patients with severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the review. DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary author reviewed the aforementioned trials in depth and then disputed findings and conclusions with the other authors until consensus was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: This article is designed to provide clinicians with a simple bedside definition for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome; to describe several therapies that can be used for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome with an emphasis on the potential risks and the indications and benefits; and to offer practical guidelines for implementation of these therapies.