Temporal trends of severity and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 after the emergence of variants of concern: A comparison of two waves.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants led to subsequent waves of COVID-19 worldwide. In many countries, the second wave of COVID-19 was marked by record deaths, raising the concern that variants associated with that wave might be more deadly. Our aim was to compare outcomes of critically-ill patients of the first two waves of COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included critically-ill patients admitted between March-June 2020 and April-July 2021 in the largest academic hospital in Brazil, which has free-access universal health care system. We compared admission characteristics and hospital outcomes. The main outcome was 60-day survival and we built multivariable Cox model based on a conceptual causal diagram in the format of directed acyclic graph (DAG). RESULTS: We included 1583 patients (1315 in the first and 268 in the second wave). Patients in the second wave were younger, had lower severity scores, used prone and non-invasive ventilatory support more often, and fewer patients required mechanical ventilation (70% vs 80%, p<0.001), vasopressors (60 vs 74%, p<0.001), and dialysis (22% vs 37%, p<0.001). Survival was higher in the second wave (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.50-0.76). In the multivariable model, admission during the second wave, adjusted for age, SAPS3 and vaccination, was not associated with survival (aHR 0.85, 95%CI 0.65-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study, patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU in the second wave were younger and had better prognostic scores. Adjusted survival was similar in the two waves, contrasting with record number of hospitalizations, daily deaths and health system collapse seen across the country in the second wave. Our findings suggest that the combination of the burden of severe cases and factors such as resource allocation and health disparities may have had an impact in the excess mortality found in many countries in the second wave.

Data-driven, cross-disciplinary collaboration: lessons learned at the largest academic health center in Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted global research efforts to reduce infection impact, highlighting the potential of cross-disciplinary collaboration to enhance research quality and efficiency. Methods: At the FMUSP-HC academic health system, we implemented innovative flow management routines for collecting, organizing and analyzing demographic data, COVID-related data and biological materials from over 4,500 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized from 2020 to 2022. This strategy was mainly planned in three areas: organizing a database with data from the hospitalizations; setting-up a multidisciplinary taskforce to conduct follow-up assessments after discharge; and organizing a biobank. Additionally, a COVID-19 curated collection was created within the institutional digital library of academic papers to map the research output. Results: Over the course of the experience, the possible benefits and challenges of this type of research support approach were identified and discussed, leading to a set of recommended strategies to enhance collaboration within the research institution. Demographic and clinical data from COVID-19 hospitalizations were compiled in a database including adults and a minority of children and adolescents with laboratory confirmed COVID-19, covering 2020-2022, with approximately 350 fields per patient. To date, this database has been used in 16 published studies. Additionally, we assessed 700 adults 6 to 11 months after hospitalization through comprehensive, multidisciplinary in-person evaluations; this database, comprising around 2000 fields per subject, was used in 15 publications. Furthermore, thousands of blood samples collected during the acute phase and follow-up assessments remain stored for future investigations. To date, more than 3,700 aliquots have been used in ongoing research investigating various aspects of COVID-19. Lastly, the mapping of the overall research output revealed that between 2020 and 2022 our academic system produced 1,394 scientific articles on COVID-19. Discussion: Research is a crucial component of an effective epidemic response, and the preparation process should include a well-defined plan for organizing and sharing resources. The initiatives described in the present paper were successful in our aim to foster large-scale research in our institution. Although a single model may not be appropriate for all contexts, cross-disciplinary collaboration and open data sharing should make health research systems more efficient to generate the best evidence.

Use of elexacaftor+tezacaftor+ivacaftor in individuals with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del allele: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of treatment with the combination of three cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators-elexacaftor+tezacaftor+ivacaftor (ETI)-on important clinical endpoints in individuals with cystic fibrosis. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared the use of ETI in individuals with CF and at least one F508del allele with that of placebo or with an active comparator such as other combinations of CFTR modulators, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations and the Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, Comparison of interventions, and Outcome of interest (PICO) methodology. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to December 26th, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We retrieved 54 studies in the primary search. Of these, 6 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (1,127 patients; 577 and 550 in the intervention and control groups, respectively). The meta-analysis revealed that the use of ETI increased FEV1% [risk difference (RD), +10.47%; 95% CI, 6.88-14.06], reduced the number of acute pulmonary exacerbations (RD, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.04), and improved quality of life (RD, +14.93; 95% CI, 9.98-19.89) and BMI (RD, +1.07 kg/m2; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25). Adverse events did not differ between groups (RD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01), and none of the studies reported deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that ETI treatment substantially improves clinically significant, patient-centered outcomes.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia / II Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

ABSTRACT Objective: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. Conclusion: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

RESUMO Objetivo: Atualizar as recomendações para embasar as decisões para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: A elaboração desta diretriz foi feita por especialistas, incluindo representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas. O método utilizado para o desenvolvimento rápido de diretrizes baseou-se na adoção e/ou adaptação de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) e contou com o apoio da plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Chegaram-se a 21 recomendações, incluindo recomendações fortes quanto ao uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar e recomendações condicionais para o uso de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe, em pacientes com oxigênio suplementar ou ventilação não invasiva, e de anticoagulantes, para prevenção de tromboembolismo. Devido à suspensão da autorização de uso, não foi possível fazer recomendações para o tratamento com casirivimabe + imdevimabe. Foram feitas recomendações fortes contra o uso de azitromicina em pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana, hidroxicloroquina, plasma convalescente, colchicina e lopinavir + ritonavir, além de recomendações condicionais contra o uso de ivermectina e rendesivir. Conclusão: Foram criadas novas recomendações para o tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19, como as recomendações de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe. Ainda são recomendados corticosteroides e profilaxia contra tromboembolismo, esta em caráter condicional. Vários medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes e não devem ser usados, no intuito de proporcionar o melhor tratamento segundo os princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover a economia de recursos.

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API).

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population. METHODS: Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system. RESULTS: Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Impact on the ability of healthcare professionals to correctly identify patient-ventilator asynchronies of the simultaneous visualization of estimated muscle pressure curves on the ventilator display: a randomized study (Pmus study).

BACKGROUND: Patient-ventilator asynchronies are usually detected by visual inspection of ventilator waveforms but with low sensitivity, even when performed by experts in the field. Recently, estimation of the inspiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) waveforms through artificial intelligence algorithm has been proposed (Magnamed®, São Paulo, Brazil). We hypothesized that the display of these waveforms could help healthcare providers identify patient-ventilator asynchronies. METHODS: A prospective single-center randomized study with parallel assignment was conducted to assess whether the display of the estimated Pmus waveform would improve the correct identification of asynchronies in simulated clinical scenarios. The primary outcome was the mean asynchrony detection rate (sensitivity). Physicians and respiratory therapists who work in intensive care units were randomized to control or intervention group. In both groups, participants analyzed pressure and flow waveforms of 49 different scenarios elaborated using the ASL-5000 lung simulator. In the intervention group the estimated Pmus waveform was displayed in addition to pressure and flow waveforms. RESULTS: A total of 98 participants were included, 49 per group. The sensitivity per participant in identifying asynchronies was significantly higher in the Pmus group (65.8 ± 16.2 vs. 52.94 ± 8.42, p < 0.001). This effect remained when stratifying asynchronies by type. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that the display of the Pmus waveform improved the ability of healthcare professionals to recognize patient-ventilator asynchronies by visual inspection of ventilator tracings. These findings require clinical validation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NTC05144607. Retrospectively registered 3 December 2021.

Use of elexacaftor+tezacaftor+ivacaftor in individuals with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del allele: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Uso de elexacaftor + tezacaftor + ivacaftor em indivíduos com fibrose cística com pelo menos um alelo F508del: revisão sistemática e meta-análise

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the effect of treatment with the combination of three cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators-elexacaftor+tezacaftor+ivacaftor (ETI)-on important clinical endpoints in individuals with cystic fibrosis. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared the use of ETI in individuals with CF and at least one F508del allele with that of placebo or with an active comparator such as other combinations of CFTR modulators, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations and the Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, Comparison of interventions, and Outcome of interest (PICO) methodology. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to December 26th, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: We retrieved 54 studies in the primary search. Of these, 6 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (1,127 patients; 577 and 550 in the intervention and control groups, respectively). The meta-analysis revealed that the use of ETI increased FEV1% [risk difference (RD), +10.47%; 95% CI, 6.88-14.06], reduced the number of acute pulmonary exacerbations (RD, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.28 to −0.04), and improved quality of life (RD, +14.93; 95% CI, 9.98-19.89) and BMI (RD, +1.07 kg/m2; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25). Adverse events did not differ between groups (RD, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.01), and none of the studies reported deaths. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that ETI treatment substantially improves clinically significant, patient-centered outcomes.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o efeito do tratamento com a combinação de três moduladores da proteína cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR, reguladora de condutância transmembrana em fibrose cística) - elexacaftor + tezacaftor + ivacaftor (ETI) - sobre desfechos clínicos importantes em indivíduos com fibrose cística. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos randomizados que compararam o uso de ETI em indivíduos com fibrose cística com pelo menos um alelo F508del com o uso de placebo ou de um comparador ativo como outras combinações de moduladores da CFTR. O estudo foi realizado seguindo as recomendações Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) e a metodologia Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, Comparison of interventions, and Outcome of interest (PICO). Foram realizadas buscas nos seguintes bancos de dados: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov, desde a sua criação até 26 de dezembro de 2022. O risco de viés foi avaliado por meio da ferramenta de risco de viés da Cochrane, e a qualidade das evidências foi determinada com base no sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Resultados: Foram identificados 54 estudos na busca primária. Destes, 6 preencheram os critérios de inclusão e foram analisados (1.127 pacientes: 577 pacientes intervenção e 550 pacientes controle). A meta-análise revelou que o uso de ETI aumentou o VEF1 em porcentagem do previsto [diferença de risco (DR): +10,47%; IC95%: 6,88-14,06], reduziu o número de exacerbações pulmonares agudas (DR: −0,16; IC95%: −0,28 a −0,04) e melhorou a qualidade de vida (DR: +14,93; IC95%: 9,98-19,89) e o IMC (DR: +1,07 kg/m2; IC95%: 0,90-1,25). Os eventos adversos não diferiram entre os grupos (DR: −0,03; IC95%: −0,08 a 0,01), e nenhum dos estudos relatou óbitos. Conclusões: Nossos achados demonstram que o tratamento com ETI melhora substancialmente os desfechos clinicamente significativos centrados no paciente.