Survival implications vs. complications: unraveling the impact of vitamin D adjunctive use in critically ill patients with COVID-19-A multicenter cohort study.

Background: Despite insufficient evidence, vitamin D has been used as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study that included all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their vitamin D use throughout their ICU stay (control vs. vitamin D). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, and ICU-acquired complications. Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analyses were employed as appropriate. Results: A total of 1,435 patients were included in the study. Vitamin D was initiated in 177 patients (12.3%), whereas 1,258 patients did not receive it. A total of 288 patients were matched (1:1) using PS. The in-hospital mortality showed no difference between patients who received vitamin D and the control group (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87-1.71; p = 0.26). However, MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in the vitamin D group (beta coefficient 0.24 (95% CI 0.00-0.47), p = 0.05 and beta coefficient 0.16 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.33), p = 0.07, respectively). As an exploratory outcome, patients who received vitamin D were more likely to develop major bleeding than those who did not [OR 3.48 (95% CI 1.10, 10.94), p = 0.03]. Conclusion: The use of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with survival benefits but was linked with longer MV duration, ICU LOS, and higher odds of major bleeding.

Evaluation of the use of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in asthma critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown mortality benefits with corticosteroids in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, there is inconsistency regarding the use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone in COVID-19, and this has not been extensively evaluated in patients with a history of asthma. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in critically ill patients with asthma and COVID-19. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the in-hospital mortality. Other endpoints include 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver injury, length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFDs), and hospital-acquired infections. Propensity score (PS) matching, and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: A total of one hundred-five patients were included. Thirty patients received methylprednisolone, whereas seventy-five patients received dexamethasone. After PS matching (1:1 ratio), patients who received methylprednisolone had higher but insignificant in-hospital mortality in both crude and logistic regression analysis, [(35.0% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.22) and (OR 2.31; CI: 0.56 - 9.59; P = 0.25), respectively]. There were no statistically significant differences in the 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring MV, AKI, acute liver injury, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and hospital-acquired infections. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients with asthma may lead to increased in-hospital mortality and shorter VFDs compared to dexamethasone; however, it failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret these data cautiously, and further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to establish more conclusive evidence and support these conclusions.

When antivirals backfire: An evaluation of favipiravir's clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Favipiravir is an oral antiviral, that might treat COVID-19 by enhancing viral eradication, particularly in patients with mild-to-moderate disease. Yet, the findings on the use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHOD: A multicenter retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) was conducted from March 2020 to July 2021. Patients were categorized based on favipiravir use (control vs. favipiravir). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during the stay. RESULTS: After propensity score (PS) matching (1:1 ratio), 146 patients were included in the final analysis. A higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality were observed in patients receiving favipiravir compared to the control group at crude analysis (65.3% vs. 43.8%; P-value=0.009 and 56.3% vs. 40.3; P-value=0.06, respectively); however, no differences were observed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.73, 1.87; P-value =0.51 and HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53, 1.39; P-value=0.53, respectively). Conversely, the MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in patients who received favipiravir than the control group (ß coefficient 0.51; CI 0.09, 0.92; P-value = 0.02, ß coefficient 0.41; CI 0.17, 0.64; P-value = 0.0006, respectively). Complications during the stay were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate a reduction in mortality; instead, it was linked with longer MV duration and ICU stay. This finding suggests limiting favipiravir use to infections where it is more effective, other than COVID-19. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Percent fluid overload for prediction of fluid de-escalation in critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Percent fluid overload greater than 5% is associated with increased mortality. The appropriate time for fluid deresuscitation depends on the patient's radiological and clinical findings. This study aimed to assess the applicability of percent fluid overload calculations for evaluating the need for fluid deresuscitation in critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, observational study of critically ill adult patients requiring intravenous fluid administration. The study's primary outcome was median percent fluid accumulation on the day of fluid deresuscitation or intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients was screened between August 1, 2021, and April 30, 2022. Of these, 100 with a mean age of 59.8±16.2 years were included for analysis. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 15.4±8.0. Sixty-one patients (61.0%) required fluid deresuscitation during their ICU stay, while 39 (39.0%) did not. Median percent fluid accumulation on the day of deresuscitation or ICU discharge was 4.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.7%-9.1%) and 5.2% (IQR, 2.9%-7.7%) in patients requiring deresuscitation and those who did not, respectively. Hospital mortality occurred in 25 (40.9%) of patients with deresuscitation and six (15.3%) patients who did not require it (P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The percent fluid accumulation on the day of fluid deresuscitation or ICU discharge was not statistically different between patients who required fluid deresuscitation and those who did not. A larger sample size is needed to confirm these findings.

Formulation and Evaluation of Amikacin Sulfate Loaded Dextran Nanoparticles against Human Pathogenic Bacteria.

Amikacin sulfate-loaded dextran sulfate sodium nanoparticles were formulated, lyophilized (LADNP), and then analyzed. The LADNP had a -20.9 ± 8.35 mV zeta potential, PDI of 0.256, and % PDI of 67.7. The zeta average nano size of LADNP was 317.9 z. d.nm, while the dimension of an individual particle was 259.3 ± 73.52 nm, and nanoparticle conductivity in colloidal solution was 2.36 mS/cm. LADNP has distinct endothermic peaks at temperatures at 165.77 °C, according to differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) showed the weight loss of LADNP, which was observed as 95% at 210.78 °C. XRD investigation on LADNP exhibited distinct peaks at 2θ as 9.6°, 10.4°, 11.4°, 18.9°, 20.3°, 24.4°, 28.2°, 33.2°, 38.9°, and 40.4° confirming crystalline structure. The amikacin release kinetics from LADNP revealed zero order kinetics with a linear release showed zero order kinetics with 37% of drug release in 7 h and had an R2 value of 0.99. The antibacterial effect of LADNP showed broad-spectrum activity against tested human pathogenic bacteria. The preset study demonstrated that LADNP is a promising antibacterial agent.

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section.

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.