Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 259
Filtrar
1.
Therapie ; 2021 Jan 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33558079

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) dosage required to reach circulating levels that inhibit SARS-Cov-2 are extrapolated from pharmacokinetic data in non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We performed a population-pharmacokinetic analysis from 104 consecutive COVID-19 hospitalized patients (31 in intensive care units, 73 in medical wards, n=149 samples). Plasma HCQ concentration were measured using high performance liquid chromatography with fluorometric detection. Modelling used Monolix-2019R2. RESULTS: HCQ doses ranged from 200 to 800mg/day administered for 1 to 11days and median HCQ plasma concentration was 151ng/mL. Among the tested covariates, only bodyweight influenced elimination oral clearance (CL) and apparent volume of distribution (Vd). CL/F (F for unknown bioavailability) and Vd/F (relative standard-error, %) estimates were 45.9L/h (21.2) and 6690L (16.1). The derived elimination half-life (t1/2) was 102h. These parameters in COVID-19 differed from those reported in patients with lupus, where CL/F, Vd/F and t1/2 are reported to be 68L/h, 2440 L and 19.5h, respectively. Within 72h of HCQ initiation, only 16/104 (15.4%) COVID-19 patients had HCQ plasma levels above the in vitro half maximal effective concentration of HCQ against SARS-CoV-2 (240ng/mL). HCQ did not influence inflammation status (assessed by C-reactive protein) or SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance (assessed by real-time reverse transcription-PCR nasopharyngeal swabs). CONCLUSION: The interindividual variability of HCQ pharmacokinetic parameters in severe COVID-19 patients was important and differed from that previously reported in non-COVID-19 patients. Loading doses of 1600mg HCQ followed by 600mg daily doses are needed to reach concentrations relevant to SARS-CoV-2 inhibition within 72hours in≥60% (95% confidence interval: 49.5-69.0%) of COVID-19 patients.

2.
J Clin Immunol ; 41(3): 536-544, 2021 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33616813

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To report four cases of life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with high blood concentrations of neutralizing autoantibodies against type I interferons (IFNs), who were treated with plasma exchange (PE) as a rescue therapy. METHODS: Prospective case series, which included patients, diagnosed with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and positive autoantibodies against type I IFNs in two French intensive care units (ICUs) between October 8 and November 14, 2020. Six critically ill COVID-19 patients with no anti-IFN antibodies were used as controls. Anti-IFN autoantibodies and IFN concentrations, together with the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, were measured sequentially in serum. Viral load was determined in the upper and lower respiratory tract. Patients were followed during hospital stay. RESULTS: Three men and one woman were included. Three of the patients had four PE sessions each, while another had three PE sessions. PE decreased the concentrations of autoantibodies against type I IFN in all four patients, whereas anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels remained stable. Autoantibodies against type I IFN levels were high in tracheal aspirates of one patient and decreased after three PE sessions. By contrast, anti-IFN autoantibodies were not detected in tracheal aspirates from five control patients without detectable anti-IFN autoantibodies in serum. During PE, serum IFN-α levels slightly increased in three out of four patients, and upper respiratory tract viral load decreased in all patients. All patients were alive at day 28 of ICU admission. Two patients eventually died in the ICU, while the two survivors were discharged from the ICU at days 50 and 66. CONCLUSIONS: PE efficiently removes autoantibodies against type I IFNs, including those detected in tracheal aspirates, without affecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, in patients with life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia. The clinical benefit of PE in patients with autoantibodies against type I IFNs should be tested in a larger study.

3.
J Crit Care ; 63: 45-53, 2021 Feb 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33618281

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is the cornerstone in the management of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent research suggests that decreasing the intensity of MV using lung protective ventilation (LPV) with lower tidal volume (Vt) and driving pressure (∆P) could improve survival. Extra-corporal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) precisely enables LPV by allowing lower Vt, ∆P and mechanical power while maintaining PaCO2 within a physiologic range. This study evaluates the potential cost-effectiveness of ECCO2R-enabled LPV in France. METHODS: We modelled the distribution over time of ventilated ARDS patients across 3 health-states (alive & ventilated, alive & weaned from ventilation, dead). We compared the outcomes of 3 strategies: MV (no ECCO2R), LPV (ECCO2R when PaCO2 > 55 mmHg) and Ultra-LPV (ECCO2R for all). Patients characteristics, ventilation settings, survival and lengths of stay were derived from a large ARDS epidemiology study. Survival benefits associated with lower ∆P were taken from the analysis of more than 3000 patients enrolled in 9 randomized trials. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed with both Day 60 cost and Lifetime cost. RESULTS: Both LPV and ULPV as enabled by ECCO2R provided favorable results at Day 60 as compared to MV. Survival rates were increased with the protective strategies, notably with ULPV that provided even more manifest benefits as compared to MV. LPV and ULPV produced +0.162 and + 0.627 incremental QALYs as compared to MV, respectively. LPV and ULPV costs were augmented because of their survival benefits. Nonetheless, ICERs of LPV and ULPV vs. MV were all well below the €50,000 threshold. ULPV also presented with favorable ICERs as compared to LPV (i.e. less than €25,000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: ECCO2R-enabled LPV strategies might provide cost-effective survival benefit. Additional data from interventional and observational studies are needed to support this preliminary model-based analysis.

9.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 158, 2020 Nov 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33230710

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The data on incidence, clinical presentation, and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) are limited. We performed this retrospective cohort study to assess frequency, clinical characteristics, responsible pathogens, and outcomes of VAP in patients COVID-19 pneumonia requiring MV between March 12th and April 24th, 2020 (all had RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection). Patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring ECMO were compared with an historical cohort of 45 patients with severe influenza-associated ARDS requiring ECMO admitted to the same ICU during the preceding three winter seasons. RESULTS: Among 50 consecutive patients with Covid-19-associated ARDS requiring ECMO included [median (IQR) age 48 (42-56) years; 72% male], 43 (86%) developed VAP [median (IQR) MV duration before the first episode, 10 (8-16) days]. VAP-causative pathogens were predominantly Enterobacteriaceae (70%), particularly inducible AmpC-cephalosporinase producers (40%), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (37%). VAP recurred in 34 (79%) patients and 17 (34%) died. Most recurrences were relapses (i.e., infection with the same pathogen), with a high percentage occurring on adequate antimicrobial treatment. Estimated cumulative incidence of VAP, taking into account death and extubation as competing events, was significantly higher in Covid-19 patients than in influenza patients (p = 0.002). Despite a high P. aeruginosa-VAP rate in patients with influenza-associated ARDS (54%), the pulmonary infection recurrence rate was significantly lower than in Covid-19 patients. Overall mortality was similar for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe Covid-19-associated ARDS requiring ECMO had a very high late-onset VAP rate. Inducible AmpC-cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa frequently caused VAP, with multiple recurrences and difficulties eradicating the pathogen from the lung.

11.
Intensive Care Med ; 2020 Nov 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33180168
13.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(12): 2464-2476, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33140180

RESUMO

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can support gas exchange in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During ECLS, venous blood is drained from a central vein via a cannula, pumped through a semipermeable membrane that permits diffusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide, and returned via a cannula to a central vein. Two related forms of ECLS are used. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), which uses high blood flow rates to both oxygenate the blood and remove carbon dioxide, may be considered in patients with severe ARDS whose oxygenation or ventilation cannot be maintained adequately with best practice conventional mechanical ventilation and adjunctive therapies, including prone positioning. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) uses lower blood flow rates through smaller cannulae and provides substantial CO2 elimination (~ 20-70% of total CO2 production), albeit with marginal improvement in oxygenation. The rationale for using ECCO2R in ARDS is to facilitate lung-protective ventilation by allowing a reduction of tidal volume, respiratory rate, plateau pressure, driving pressure and mechanical power delivered by the mechanical ventilator. This narrative review summarizes physiological concepts related to ECLS, as well as the rationale and evidence supporting ECMO and ECCO2R for the treatment of ARDS. It also reviews complications, limitations, and the ethical dilemmas that can arise in treating patients with ECLS. Finally, it discusses future key research questions and challenges for this technology.

14.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(11): 2048-2057, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33021684

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared to conventional management in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed after Jan 1, 2000 comparing ECMO to conventional management in patients with severe ARDS. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Primary analysis was by intent-to-treat. RESULTS: We identified two RCTs (CESAR and EOLIA) and combined data from 429 patients. On day 90, 77 of the 214 (36%) ECMO-group and 103 of the 215 (48%) control group patients had died (relative risk (RR), 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6-0.94; P = 0.013; I2 = 0%). In the per-protocol and as-treated analyses the RRs were 0.75 (95% CI 0.6-0.94) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.68-1.09), respectively. Rescue ECMO was used for 36 (17%) of the 215 control patients (35 in EOLIA and 1 in CESAR). The RR of 90-day treatment failure, defined as death for the ECMO-group and death or crossover to ECMO for the control group was 0.65 (95% CI 0.52-0.8; I2 = 0%). Patients randomised to ECMO had more days alive out of the ICU and without respiratory, cardiovascular, renal and neurological failure. The only significant treatment-covariate interaction in subgroups was lower mortality with ECMO in patients with two or less organs failing at randomization. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis of individual patient data in severe ARDS, 90-day mortality was significantly lowered by ECMO compared with conventional management.

15.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 202(10): 1388-1398, 2020 11 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32866409

RESUMO

Rationale: Frontline healthcare providers (HCPs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic are at high risk of mental morbidity.Objectives: To assess the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation in HCPs.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in 21 ICUs in France between April 20, 2020, and May 21, 2020. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Peritraumatic Dissociative Experience Questionnaire were used. Factors independently associated with reported symptoms of mental health disorders were identified.Measurements and Main Results: The response rate was 67%, with 1,058 respondents (median age 33 yr; 71% women; 68% nursing staff). The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation was 50.4%, 30.4%, and 32%, respectively, with the highest rates in nurses. By multivariable analysis, male sex was independently associated with lower prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation (odds ratio of 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.79], 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.82], and 0.49 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.72], respectively). HCPs working in non-university-affiliated hospitals and nursing assistants were at high risk of symptoms of anxiety and peritraumatic dissociation. Importantly, we identified the following six modifiable determinants of symptoms of mental health disorders: fear of being infected, inability to rest, inability to care for family, struggling with difficult emotions, regret about the restrictions in visitation policies, and witnessing hasty end-of-life decisions.Conclusions: HCPs experience high levels of psychological burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals, ICU directors, and ICU staff must devise strategies to overcome the modifiable determinants of adverse mental illness symptoms.


Assuntos
Ansiedade/epidemiologia , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Depressão/epidemiologia , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Transtornos de Estresse Traumático/epidemiologia , Adulto , Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Cuidados Críticos/psicologia , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , França , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Prevalência , Estresse Psicológico/epidemiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários
16.
Lancet ; 396(10257): 1071-1078, 2020 10 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32987008

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Multiple major health organisations recommend the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, initial reports of ECMO use in patients with COVID-19 described very high mortality and there have been no large, international cohort studies of ECMO for COVID-19 reported to date. METHODS: We used data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry to characterise the epidemiology, hospital course, and outcomes of patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed COVID-19 who had ECMO support initiated between Jan 16 and May 1, 2020, at 213 hospitals in 36 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital death in a time-to-event analysis assessed at 90 days after ECMO initiation. We applied a multivariable Cox model to examine whether patient and hospital factors were associated with in-hospital mortality. FINDINGS: Data for 1035 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO support were included in this study. Of these, 67 (6%) remained hospitalised, 311 (30%) were discharged home or to an acute rehabilitation centre, 101 (10%) were discharged to a long-term acute care centre or unspecified location, 176 (17%) were discharged to another hospital, and 380 (37%) died. The estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 37·4% (95% CI 34·4-40·4). Mortality was 39% (380 of 968) in patients with a final disposition of death or hospital discharge. The use of ECMO for circulatory support was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1·89, 95% CI 1·20-2·97). In the subset of patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory (venovenous) ECMO and characterised as having acute respiratory distress syndrome, the estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 38·0% (95% CI 34·6-41·5). INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mortality in those with a final disposition of death or discharge were less than 40%. These data from 213 hospitals worldwide provide a generalisable estimate of ECMO mortality in the setting of COVID-19. FUNDING: None.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Cuidados Críticos , Feminino , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Sistema de Registros , Insuficiência Respiratória/mortalidade , Insuficiência Respiratória/virologia , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...