ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the epidemiology and outcomes of unplanned extubation (UE), both accidental and self-extubation, in ICU. METHODS: A multicentre prospective cohort study was conducted in 47 French ICUs. The number of mechanical ventilation (MV) days, and planned and unplanned extubation were recorded in each center over a minimum period of three consecutive months to evaluate UE incidence. Patient characteristics, UE environmental factors, and outcomes were compared based on the UE mechanism (accidental or self-extubation). Self-extubation outcomes were compared with planned extubation using a propensity-matched population. Finally, risk factors for extubation failure (re-intubation before day 7) were determined following self-extubation. RESULTS: During the 12-month inclusion period, we found a pooled UE incidence of 1.0 per 100 MV days. UE accounted for 9% of all endotracheal removals. Of the 605 UE, 88% were self-extubation and 12% were accidental-extubations. The latter had a worse prognosis than self-extubation (34%vs. 8% ICU-mortality, p < 0.001). Self-extubation did not increase mortality compared with planned extubation (8 vs. 11%, p = 0.075). Regardless of the type of extubation, planned or unplanned, extubation failure was independently associated with a poor outcome. Cancer, higher respiratory rate, lower PaO2/FiO2 at the time of extubation, weaning process not-ongoing, and immediate post-extubation respiratory failure were independent predictors of failed self-extubation. CONCLUSION: Unplanned extubation, mostly represented by self-extubation, is common in ICU and accounts for 9% of all endotracheal extubations. While accidental extubations are a serious and infrequent adverse event, self-extubation does not increase mortality compared to planned extubation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Critical-illness survivors may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and quality-of-life impairments. Resilience may protect against psychological trauma but has not been adequately studied after critical illness. We assessed resilience and its associations with PTSD and quality of life, and also identified factors associated with greater resilience. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, study in patients recruited at 41 French ICUs was done in parallel with the NUTRIREA-3 trial in patients given mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amines for shock. Three months to one year after intensive-care-unit admission, survivors completed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25), Impact of Event-Revised scale for PTSD symptoms (IES-R), SF-36 quality-of-life scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ). RESULTS: Of the 382 included patients, 203 (53.1%) had normal or high resilience (CD-RISC-25 ≥ 68). Of these resilient patients, 26 (12.8%) had moderate to severe PTSD symptoms (IES-R ≥ 24) vs. 45 (25.4%) patients with low resilience (p = 0.002). Resilient patients had higher SF-36 scores. Factors independently associated with higher CD-RISC-25 scores were higher MSPSS score indicating stronger social support (OR, 1.027; 95%CI 1.008-1.047; p = 0.005) and lower B-IPQ scores indicating a more threatening perception of the illness (OR, 0.973; 95%CI 0.950-0.996; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Resilient patients had a lower prevalence of PTSD symptoms and higher quality of life scores, compared to patients with low resilience. Higher scores for social support and illness perception were independently associated with greater resilience. Thus, our findings suggest that interventions to strengthen social support and improve illness perception may help to improve resilience. Such interventions should be evaluated in trials with PTSD mitigation and quality-of-life improvement as the target outcomes.
Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Quality of Life , Resilience, Psychological , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Humans , Prospective Studies , Male , Female , Critical Illness/psychology , Critical Illness/therapy , Middle Aged , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Aged , Quality of Life/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , France , Adult , Social SupportABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The STROMA-CoV-2 study was a French phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that did not identify a significant efficacy of umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. Safety on day 28 was found to be good. The aim of our extended study was to assess the 6- and 12-month safety of UC-MSCs administration in the STROMA-CoV-2 cohort. METHODS: A detailed multi-domain assessment was conducted at 6 and 12 months following hospital discharge focusing on adverse events, lung computed tomography-scan, pulmonary and muscular functional status, and quality of life in the STROMA-CoV-2 cohort including SARS-CoV-2-related early (< 96 h) mild-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and October 2020, 47 patients were enrolled, of whom 19 completed a 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in any endpoints or adverse effects between the UC-MSCs and placebo groups at the 6- and 12-month assessments. Ground-glass opacities persisted at 1 year in 5 patients (26.3%). Furthermore, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide remained altered over 1 year, although no patient required oxygen or non-invasive ventilatory support. Quality of life revealed declines in mental, emotional and physical health throughout the follow-up period, and the six-minute walking distance remained slightly impaired at the 1-year patient assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a favorable safety profile for the use of intravenous UC-MSCs in the context of the first French wave of SARS-CoV-2-related moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, with no adverse effects observed at 1 year.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mesenchymal Stem Cells , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , Double-Blind Method , Quality of Life , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Umbilical CordSubject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , Dexamethasone , Hematologic Neoplasms , Registries , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Hematologic Neoplasms/mortality , Hematologic Neoplasms/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/complications , Male , Female , Aged , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
Background: SARS-CoV-2 binding to ACE2 is potentially associated with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19. The aim of the study was to test whether Mas-receptor activation by 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101) could restore the Renin-Angiotensin System equilibrium and limit the frequency of respiratory failure and mortality in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Methods: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial. Randomization: 1:1 oral BIO101 (350 mg BID) or placebo, up to 28 days or until an endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint: mortality or respiratory failure requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Key secondary endpoint: hospital discharge following recovery (ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT04472728). Findings: Due to low recruitment the planned sample size of 310 was not reached and 238 patients were randomized between August 26, 2020 and March 8, 2022. In the modified ITT population (233 patients; 126 BIO101 and 107 placebo), respiratory failure or early death by day 28 was 11.4% lower in the BIO101 (13.5%) than in the placebo (24.3%) group, (p = 0.0426). At day 28, proportions of patients discharged following recovery were 80.1%, and 70.9% in the BIO101 and placebo group respectively, (adjusted difference 11.0%, 95% CI [-0.4%, 22.4%], p = 0.0586). Hazard Ratio for time to death over 90 days: 0.554 (95% CI [0.285, 1.077]), a 44.6% mortality reduction in the BIO101 group (not statistically significant). Treatment emergent adverse events of respiratory failure were more frequent in the placebo group. Interpretation: BIO101 significantly reduced the risk of death or respiratory failure supporting its use in adults hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms due to COVID-19. Funding: Biophytis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Due to aging population and increasing part of immunocompromised patients, a raise in life-threatening organ damage related to VZV can be expected. Two retrospective studies were already conducted on VZV in ICU but focused on specific organ injury. Patients with high-risk of VZV disease still must be identified. The objective of this study was to report the clinical features and outcome of all life-threatening VZV manifestations requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 26 French ICUs and included all adult patients with any life-threatening VZV-related event requiring ICU admission or occurring in ICU between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: One-hundred nineteen patients were included with a median SOFA score of 6. One hundred eight patients (90.8%) were admitted in ICU for VZV disease, leaving 11 (9.2%) with VZV disease occurring in ICU. Sixty-one patients (51.3%) were immunocompromised. Encephalitis was the most prominent organ involvement (55.5%), followed by pneumonia (44.5%) and hepatitis (9.2%). Fifty-four patients (45.4%) received norepinephrine, 72 (60.5% of the total cohort) needed invasive mechanical ventilation, and 31 (26.3%) received renal-replacement therapy. In-hospital mortality was 36.1% and was significantly associated with three independent risk factors by multivariable logistic regression: immunosuppression, VZV disease occurring in ICU and alcohol abuse. Hierarchical clustering on principal components revealed five phenotypically distinct clusters of patients: VZV-related pneumonia, mild encephalitis, severe encephalitis in solid organ transplant recipients, encephalitis in other immunocompromised hosts and VZV disease occurring in ICU. In-hospital mortality was highly different across phenotypes, ranging from zero to 75% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, severe VZV manifestations are associated with high mortality in the ICU, which appears to be driven by immunosuppression status rather than any specific organ involvement. Deciphering the clinical phenotypes may help clinicians identify high-risk patients and assess prognosis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The HOME-CoV (Hospitalisation or Outpatient ManagEment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) score is a validated list of uniquely clinical criteria indicating which patients with probable or proven COVID-19 can be treated at home. The aim of this study was to optimise the score to improve its ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not need admission. METHODS: A revised HOME-CoV score was derived using data from a previous prospective multicentre study which evaluated the original Home-CoV score. Patients with proven or probable COVID-19 attending 34 EDs in France, Monaco and Belgium between April and May 2020 were included. The population was split into a derivation and validation sample corresponding to the observational and interventional phases of the original study. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of >0.9 and a specificity of >0.9 to identify low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score was then validated by retrospectively applying it to patients in the same EDs with proven or probable COVID-19 during the interventional phase. The revised HOME-CoV score was also tested against original HOME-CoV, qCSI, qSOFA, CRB65 and SMART-COP in this validation cohort. RESULTS: There were 1696 patients in the derivation cohort, of whom 65 (3.8%) required non-invasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or died within 7 days and 1304 patients in the validation cohort, of whom 22 (1.7%) had a progression of illness. The revised score included seven clinical criteria. The area under the curve (AUC) was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cut-offs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0). A score of <2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.55-0.92) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00). CONCLUSION: The revised HOME-CoV score, which does not require laboratory testing, may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Hospitalization , Predictive Value of TestsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Fever treatment is commonly applied in patients with sepsis but its impact on survival remains undetermined. Patients with respiratory and haemodynamic failure are at the highest risk for not tolerating the metabolic cost of fever. However, fever can help to control infection. Treating fever with paracetamol has been shown to be less effective than cooling. In the SEPSISCOOL pilot study, active fever control by external cooling improved organ failure recovery and early survival. The main objective of this confirmatory trial is to assess whether fever control at normothermia can improve the evolution of organ failure and mortality at day 60 of febrile patients with septic shock. This study will compare two strategies within the first 48 hours of septic shock: treatment of fever with cooling or no treatment of fever. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SEPSISCOOL II is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, adaptive, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, superiority trial in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with febrile septic shock. After stratification based on the acute respiratory distress syndrome status, patients will be randomised between two arms: (1) cooling and (2) no cooling. The primary endpoint is mortality at day 60 after randomisation. The secondary endpoints include the evolution of organ failure, early mortality and tolerance. The target sample size is 820 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is funded by the French health ministry and was approved by the ethics committee CPP Nord Ouest II (Amiens, France). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04494074.
Subject(s)
Sepsis , Shock, Septic , Humans , Shock, Septic/therapy , Shock, Septic/complications , Respiration, Artificial , Pilot Projects , Fever/therapy , Fever/complications , Sepsis/complications , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Multicenter Studies as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Whether preventive inhaled antibiotics may reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia is unclear. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial, we assigned critically ill adults who had been undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours to receive inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of ideal body weight once daily or to receive placebo for 3 days. The primary outcome was a first episode of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients underwent randomization, and 847 were included in the analyses (417 assigned to the amikacin group and 430 to the placebo group). All three daily nebulizations were received by 337 patients (81%) in the amikacin group and 355 patients (83%) in the placebo group. At 28 days, ventilator-associated pneumonia had developed in 62 patients (15%) in the amikacin group and in 95 patients (22%) in the placebo group (difference in restricted mean survival time to ventilator-associated pneumonia, 1.5 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 2.5; P = 0.004). An infection-related ventilator-associated complication occurred in 74 patients (18%) in the amikacin group and in 111 patients (26%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89). Trial-related serious adverse effects were seen in 7 patients (1.7%) in the amikacin group and in 4 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had undergone mechanical ventilation for at least 3 days, a subsequent 3-day course of inhaled amikacin reduced the burden of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; AMIKINHAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03149640; EUDRA Clinical Trials number, 2016-001054-17.).
Subject(s)
Amikacin , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Adult , Humans , Amikacin/administration & dosage , Amikacin/adverse effects , Amikacin/therapeutic use , Double-Blind Method , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/etiology , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/prevention & control , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Administration, Inhalation , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Critical IllnessABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Survivors after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at high risk of developing respiratory sequelae and functional impairment. The healthcare crisis caused by the pandemic hit socially disadvantaged populations. We aimed to evaluate the influence of socio-economic status on respiratory sequelae after COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS: We carried out a prospective multicenter study in 30 French intensive care units (ICUs), where ARDS survivors were pre-enrolled if they fulfilled the Berlin ARDS criteria. For patients receiving high flow oxygen therapy, a flow ≥ 50 l/min and an FiO2 ≥ 50% were required for enrollment. Socio-economic deprivation was defined by an EPICES (Evaluation de la Précarité et des Inégalités de santé dans les Centres d'Examens de Santé - Evaluation of Deprivation and Inequalities in Health Examination Centres) score ≥ 30.17 and patients were included if they performed the 6-month evaluation. The primary outcome was respiratory sequelae 6 months after ICU discharge, defined by at least one of the following criteria: forced vital capacity < 80% of theoretical value, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide < 80% of theoretical value, oxygen desaturation during a 6-min walk test and fibrotic-like findings on chest computed tomography. RESULTS: Among 401 analyzable patients, 160 (40%) were socio-economically deprived and 241 (60%) non-deprived; 319 (80%) patients had respiratory sequelae 6 months after ICU discharge (81% vs 78%, deprived vs non-deprived, respectively). No significant effect of socio-economic status was identified on lung sequelae (odds ratio (OR), 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.97]), even after adjustment for age, sex, most invasive respiratory support, obesity, most severe P/F ratio (adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% CI 0.57-1.83]). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 ARDS survivors, socio-economic status had no significant influence on respiratory sequelae 6 months after ICU discharge.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/complications , Prospective Studies , Economic Status , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , OxygenABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) is a severe evolution of the Sars-Cov-2 infection and necessitates intensive care. COVID-19 may subsequently be associated with long COVID, whose symptoms can include persistent respiratory symptoms up to 1 year later. Rehabilitation is currently recommended by most guidelines for people with this condition. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of exercise training rehabilitation (ETR) on dyspnoea and health-related quality of life measures in people with continuing respiratory discomfort following CARDS. METHODS: In this multicentre, two-arm, parallel, open, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial, we enroled adults previously admitted with CARDS to 3 French intensive care units who had been discharged at least 3 months earlier and who presented with an mMRC dyspnoea scale score > 1. Participants received either ETR or standard physiotherapy (SP) for 90 days. The primary outcome was dyspnoea, as measured by the Multidimensional Dyspnoea Profile (MDP), at day 0 (inclusion) and after 90 days of physiotherapy. Secondary outcomes were the mMRC and 12-item Short-Form Survey scores. RESULTS: Between August 7, 2020, and January 26, 2022, 487 participants with CARDS were screened for inclusion, of whom 60 were randomly assigned to receive either ETR (n = 27) or SP (n = 33). Mean MDP following ETR was 42% lower than after SP (26.15 vs. 44.76); a difference of -18.61 (95% CI -27.78 to -9.44; p<10-4). CONCLUSION: People who were still suffering from breathlessness three months after being discharged from hospital with CARDS had significantly improved dyspnoea scores when treated with ETR therapy for 90 days unlike those who only received SP. Study registered 29/09/2020 on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04569266).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Quality of Life , Dyspnea/therapy , Dyspnea/rehabilitation , Exercise , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To report the prevalence of acute encephalopathy and outcomes in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify determinants of 90-day outcomes. METHODS: Data from adults with severe COVID-19 and acute encephalopathy were prospectively collected for patients requiring intensive care unit management in 31 university or university-affiliated intensive care units in 6 countries (France, United States, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil) between March and September of 2020. Acute encephalopathy was defined, as recently recommended, as subsyndromal delirium or delirium or as a comatose state in case of severely decreased level of consciousness. Logistic multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with 90-day outcomes. A Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score of 1-4 was considered a poor outcome (indicating death, vegetative state, or severe disability). RESULTS: Of 4,060 patients admitted with COVID-19, 374 (9.2%) experienced acute encephalopathy at or before the intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A total of 199/345 (57.7%) patients had a poor outcome at 90-day follow-up as evaluated by the GOS-E (29 patients were lost to follow-up). On multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.01, 95% CI 2.25-7.15), presumed fatal comorbidity (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.68-9.44), Glasgow coma scale score <9 before/at ICU admission (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.22-3.98), vasopressor/inotrope support during ICU stay (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.97-7.76), renal replacement therapy during ICU stay (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.21-4.50), and CNS ischemic or hemorrhagic complications as acute encephalopathy etiology (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41-7.82) were independently associated with higher odds of poor 90-day outcome. Status epilepticus, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome were associated with lower odds of poor 90-day outcome (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.83). DISCUSSION: In this observational study, we found a low prevalence of acute encephalopathy at ICU admission in patients with COVID-19. More than half of patients with COVID-19 presenting with acute encephalopathy had poor outcomes as evaluated by GOS-E. Determinants of poor 90-day outcome were dominated by older age, comorbidities, degree of impairment of consciousness before/at ICU admission, association with other organ failures, and acute encephalopathy etiology. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04320472.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delirium , Posterior Leukoencephalopathy Syndrome , Adult , Humans , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Coma/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Intensive Care UnitsABSTRACT
Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Findings: A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448-4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619-8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093-0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014-0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Interpretation: Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Funding: EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223).
ABSTRACT
Patients with previous CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy have a prolonged vulnerability to viral infections. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a great impact and has previously been shown to cause high mortality in this population. Until now, real-world data on the impact of vaccination and treatment on patients with COVID-19 after CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy are lacking. Therefore, this multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with data from the EPICOVIDEHA survey. Sixty-four patients were identified. The overall mortality caused by COVID-19 was 31%. Patients infected with the Omicron variant had a significantly lower risk of death due to COVID-19 compared with patients infected with previous variants (7% vs 58% [P = .012]). Twenty-six patients were vaccinated at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis. Two vaccinations showed a marked but unsignificant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-caused mortality (33.3% vs 14.2% [P = .379]). In addition, the course of the disease appears milder with less frequent intensive care unit admissions (39% vs 14% [P = .054]) and a shorter duration of hospitalization (7 vs 27.5 days [P = .022]). Of the available treatment options, only monoclonal antibodies seemed to be effective at reducing mortality from 32% to 0% (P = .036). We conclude that survival rates of CAR T-cell recipients with COVID-19 improved over time and that the combination of prior vaccination and monoclonal antibody treatment significantly reduces their risk of death. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04733729.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Immunotherapy, Adoptive , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Antigens, CD19ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Corticosteroids affect variably survival in sepsis trials, suggesting heterogeneity in patients' response to corticosteroids. The RECORDS (Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis) trial aimed at defining endotypes associated with adults with sepsis responsiveness to corticosteroids. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RECORDS, a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial, will randomly assign to a biomarker stratum 1800 adults with community-acquired pneumonia, vasopressor-dependent sepsis, septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome. In each stratum, patients will be randomly assigned to receive a 7-day course of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone or their placebos. Patients with COVID-19 will be treated with a 10-day standard course of dexamethasone and randomised to fludrocortisone or its placebo. Primary outcome will be 90-day death or persistent organ dysfunction. Large simulation study will be performed across a range of plausible scenarios to foresee power to detect a 5%-10% absolute difference with corticosteroids. We will assess subset-by-treatment interaction by estimating in a Bayesian framework two quantities: (1) measure of influence, relying on the value of the estimation of corticosteroids' effect in each subset, and (2) measure of interaction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Dijon, France), on 6 April 2020. Trial results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04280497).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sepsis , Adult , Humans , Fludrocortisone/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Sepsis/drug therapy , Biomarkers , Treatment Outcome , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Multicenter Studies as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Whether the antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of glucocorticoids may decrease mortality among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe community-acquired pneumonia to receive intravenous hydrocortisone (200 mg daily for either 4 or 7 days as determined by clinical improvement, followed by tapering for a total of 8 or 14 days) or to receive placebo. All the patients received standard therapy, including antibiotics and supportive care. The primary outcome was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients had undergone randomization when the trial was stopped after the second planned interim analysis. Data from 795 patients were analyzed. By day 28, death had occurred in 25 of 400 patients (6.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 8.6) in the hydrocortisone group and in 47 of 395 patients (11.9%; 95% CI, 8.7 to 15.1) in the placebo group (absolute difference, -5.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.6 to -1.7; P = 0.006). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, endotracheal intubation was performed in 40 of 222 (18.0%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 65 of 220 (29.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.86). Among the patients who were not receiving vasopressors at baseline, such therapy was initiated by day 28 in 55 of 359 (15.3%) of the hydrocortisone group and in 86 of 344 (25.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.82). The frequencies of hospital-acquired infections and gastrointestinal bleeding were similar in the two groups; patients in the hydrocortisone group received higher daily doses of insulin during the first week of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia being treated in the ICU, those who received hydrocortisone had a lower risk of death by day 28 than those who received placebo. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; CAPE COD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517489.).
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents , Community-Acquired Infections , Hydrocortisone , Pneumonia , Adult , Humans , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Community-Acquired Infections/mortality , Double-Blind Method , Hydrocortisone/adverse effects , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Pneumonia/mortality , Respiration, Artificial , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The optimal calorie and protein intakes at the acute phase of severe critical illness remain unknown. We hypothesised that early calorie and protein restriction improved outcomes in these patients, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS: The pragmatic, randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group NUTRIREA-3 trial was performed in 61 French intensive care units (ICUs). Adults (≥18 years) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support for shock were randomly assigned to early nutrition (started within 24 h after intubation) with either low or standard calorie and protein targets (6 kcal/kg per day and 0·2-0·4 g/kg per day protein vs 25 kcal/kg per day and 1·0-1·3 g/kg per day protein) during the first 7 ICU days. The two primary endpoints were time to readiness for ICU discharge and day 90 all-cause mortality. Key secondary outcomes included secondary infections, gastrointestinal events, and liver dysfunction. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03573739, and is completed. FINDINGS: Of 3044 patients randomly assigned between July 5, 2018, and 8 Dec 8, 2020, eight withdrew consent to participation. By day 90, 628 (41·3%) of 1521 patients in the low group and 648 (42·8%) of 1515 patients in the standard group had died (absolute difference -1·5%, 95% CI -5·0 to 2·0; p=0·41). Median time to readiness for ICU discharge was 8·0 days (IQR 5·0-14·0) in the low group and 9·0 days (5·0-17·0) in the standard group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·12, 95% CI 1·02 to 1·22; p=0·015). Proportions of patients with secondary infections did not differ between the groups (HR 0·85, 0·71 to 1·01; p=0·06). The low group had lower proportions of patients with vomiting (HR 0·77, 0·67 to 0·89; p<0·001), diarrhoea (0·83, 0·73 to 0·94; p=0·004), bowel ischaemia (0·50, 0·26 to 0·95; p=0·030), and liver dysfunction (0·92, 0·86-0·99; p=0·032). INTERPRETATION: Compared with standard calorie and protein targets, early calorie and protein restriction did not decrease mortality but was associated with faster recovery and fewer complications. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.
Subject(s)
Coinfection , Shock , Humans , Adult , Coinfection/etiology , Shock/etiology , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , Energy Intake , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79â years (Part 1) or ≥70â years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90â mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. RESULTS: In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79â years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile.