Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Neurological immunotherapy in the era of COVID-19 - looking for consensus in the literature

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is concerning for patients with neuroimmunological diseases who are receiving immunotherapy. Uncertainty remains about whether immunotherapies increase the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or increase the risk of severe disease and death upon infection. National and international societies have developed guidelines and statements, but consensus does not exist in several areas. In this Review, we attempt to clarify where consensus exists and where uncertainty remains to inform management approaches based on the first principles of neuroimmunology. We identified key questions that have been addressed in the literature and collated the recommendations to generate a consensus calculation in a Delphi-like approach to summarize the information. We summarize the international recommendations, discuss them in light of the first available data from patients with COVID-19 receiving immunotherapy and provide an overview of management approaches in the COVID-19 era. We stress the principles of medicine in general and neuroimmunology in particular because, although the risk of viral infection has become more relevant, most of the considerations apply to the general management of neurological immunotherapy. We also give special consideration to immunosuppressive treatment and cell-depleting therapies that might increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection but reduce the risk of severe COVID-19.

COVID-19 and Headache Medicine: A Narrative Review of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) and Corticosteroid Use

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current literature on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine.

BACKGROUND

The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed.

RESULTS

There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID-19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Scientific information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Post-exposure prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): study protocol for a pragmatic randomized-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based therapies to prevent COVID-19 following exposure to the virus, or to prevent worsening of symptoms following confirmed infection. We describe the design of a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-emptive therapy (PET) for COVID-19.

METHODS

We will conduct two nested multicentre international double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for: 1) PEP of asymptomatic household contacts or healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 within the past four days, and 2) PET for symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 showing symptoms for less than four days. We will recruit 1,500 patients each for the PEP and PET trials. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive five days of hydroxychloroquine or placebo. The primary PEP trial outcome will be the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. The primary PET trial outcome will be an ordinal scale of disease severity (not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care, hospitalization with intensive care, or death). Participant screening, informed consent, and follow-up will be exclusively internet-based with appropriate regulatory and research ethics board approvals in Canada and the United States.

DISCUSSION

These complementary randomized-controlled trials are innovatively designed and adequately powered to rapidly answer urgent questions regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to reduce virus transmission and disease severity of COVID-19 during a pandemic. In-person participant follow-up will not be conducted to facilitate social distancing strategies and reduce risks of exposure to study personnel. Innovative trial approaches are needed to urgently assess therapeutic options to mitigate the global impact of this pandemic.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); registered 16 March, 2020.

Pathogenesis, clinical manifestations and complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Aim: Despite the similarities in the pathogenesis of the beta coronaviruses, the precise infective mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 remain unclear. Objective: In this review, we aim to focus on the proposed theories behind the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and highlight the clinical complications related to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a literature search in Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar for the relevant articles regarding clinical complications and pathogenesis of COVID-19. Results: Related articles were included and discussed. Conclusion: Respiratory system and the lungs are the most commonly involved sites of COVID-19 infection. Cardiovascular, liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal and central nervous systems are involved with different frequencies and degrees of severity.

Providing high-quality care remotely to patients with rare bone diseases during COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 outbreak, the European Reference Network on Rare Bone Diseases (ERN BOND) coordination team and Italian rare bone diseases healthcare professionals created the "COVID-19 Helpline for Rare Bone Diseases" in an attempt to provide high-quality information and expertise on rare bone diseases remotely to patients and healthcare professionals. The present position statement describes the key characteristics of the Helpline initiative, along with the main aspects and topics that recurrently emerged as central for rare bone diseases patients and professionals. The main topics highlighted are general recommendations, pulmonary complications, drug treatment, trauma, pregnancy, children and elderly people, and patient associations role. The successful experience of the "COVID-19 Helpline for Rare Bone Diseases" launched in Italy could serve as a primer of gold-standard remote care for rare bone diseases for the other European countries and globally. Furthermore, similar COVID-19 helplines could be considered and applied for other rare diseases in order to implement remote patients' care.

In-Ear SpO2: A Tool for Wearable, Unobtrusive Monitoring of Core Blood Oxygen Saturation

The non-invasive estimation of blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) by pulse oximetry is of vital importance clinically, from the detection of sleep apnea to the recent ambulatory monitoring of hypoxemia in the delayed post-infective phase of COVID-19. In this proof of concept study, we set out to establish the feasibility of SpO2 measurement from the ear canal as a convenient site for long term monitoring, and perform a comprehensive comparison with the right index finger-the conventional clinical measurement site. During resting blood oxygen saturation estimation, we found a root mean square difference of 1.47% between the two measurement sites, with a mean difference of 0.23% higher SpO2 in the right ear canal. Using breath holds, we observe the known phenomena of time delay between central circulation and peripheral circulation with a mean delay between the ear and finger of 12.4 s across all subjects. Furthermore, we document the lower photoplethysmogram amplitude from the ear canal and suggest ways to mitigate this issue. In conjunction with the well-known robustness to temperature induced vasoconstriction, this makes conclusive evidence for in-ear SpO2 monitoring being both convenient and superior to conventional finger measurement for continuous non-intrusive monitoring in both clinical and everyday-life settings.

Transthoracic echocardiography during prone position ventilation: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19 outbreak) demands an increased need for hospitalizations in emergency departments (EDs) and critical care units. Owing to refractory hypoxemia, prone position ventilation has been used more frequently and patients will need repeated hemodynamic assessments. Our main objective was to show the feasibility of obtaining images to measure multiple parameters with transthoracic echocardiography during the prone position ventilation.

Methods

We enrolled 15 consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection that required prone position ventilation as a rescue maneuver for refractory hypoxemia. The studies were performed by 2 operators with training in critical care echocardiography. Measurements were done outside the patient's room and the analysis of the images was performed by 3 cardiologists with training in echocardiography.

Results

Adequate image acquisition of the left ventricle was possible in all cases; we were not able to visualize the right ventricular free wall only in 1 patient. The mean tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion was 17.8 mm, tricuspid peak systolic S wave tissue Doppler velocity 11.5 cm/s, and the right ventricular basal diameter 36.6 mm; left ventricle qualitative function was reduced in 6 patients; pericardial effusion or valvular abnormalities were not observed.

Conclusion

We showed that echocardiographic images can be obtained to measure multiple parameters during the prone position ventilation. This technique has special value in situations where there is sudden hemodynamic deterioration and it is not possible to return the patient in the supine position.

Building the house of CARDS by phenotyping on the fly

Some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), fulfilling the Berlin criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), do not respond well to the current treatment paradigm [1]. The perspective by Relloet al. [2] on phenotypes of COVID-19, and the editorial by Boset al. [3], are therefore of great interest. The “responsible” phenotyping of COVID-19 ARDS (CARDS) recommended by Boset al. [3] may be expedited by re-evaluating the existing literature on refractory hypoxia.

Using clinical, pathophysiological and immunological phenotyping of ARDS to refine management of COVID-19 is urgently required to improve outcomes from refractory hypoxiahttps://bit.ly/2VvZe1p

COVID-19: Biosafety in the Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 is a new, highly transmissible disease to which healthcare workers (HCWs) are exposed, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). Information related to protection mechanisms is heterogeneous, and the infected HCWs' number is increasing. This review intends to summarize the current knowledge and practices to protect ICU personnel during the patient management process in the context of the current pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

The transmission mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 are mainly respiratory droplets, aerosols, and contact. The virus can last for a few hours suspended in the air and be viable on surfaces for several days. Some procedures carried out in the ICU can generate aerosols. The shortage of respirators, such as the N95, has generated an increase in the demand for other protective equipment in critical care settings.

SUMMARY

The probability of transmission depends on the characteristics of the pathogen, the availability of quality personal protective equipment, and the human factors associated with the performance of health workers. It is necessary to have knowledge of the virus and availability of the best possible personal protection equipment, develop skills for handling equipment, and develop non-technical skills during all intensive care process; this can be achieved through structured training.

Response to COVID-19 phenotyping correspondence

In their letter, R. Cherian and co-workers take issue with our interpretation of the respiratory physiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), arguing that it is based merely on “small cohort studies”, and instead declaring that “a high proportion of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients exhibit near-normal lung compliance”. Yet the low respiratory compliance of COVID-19 patients has now been extensively demonstrated by studies totalling more than 800 COVID-19 patients [1–7], including a direct comparison with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients that revealed no difference in respiratory compliance [7]. In contrast, the three case series cited by R. Cherian and co-workers in support of their claim comprise cohorts of, respectively, 16, 10 and 26 patients [8–10]. Furthermore, even these case series report average respiratory compliance in COVID-19 of 40–45 mL·cmH₂O⁻¹, which is in fact abnormal and far from “near-normal compliance” [11, 12].

Phenotyping of COVID-19-related ARDS should be done using careful, data-driven approacheshttps://bit.ly/3eX65Yu

Optimizing Supportive Care in COVID-19 Patients: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Within just a few months, SARS-CoV-2 has evolved from a virtually unknown pathogen to a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. As COVID-19 infection can affect multiple organ systems, treating many manifestations and complications requires clinical expertise across the healthcare professional spectrum. Therefore, interprofessional and multidisciplinary collaboration should form the cornerstone of every hospital's COVID-19 management approach. In this manuscript, we discuss the non-microbial management strategies for our COVID-19 inpatient population. Specifically, through an inter-professional and collaborative approach to care delivery, we provide rationale and guidance on prone positioning, oxygen strategies, early mobilization, identifying and treating co-infections, anticoagulation and ensuring appropriate psychological support for patients and their families. It is our hope that these recommendations help supporting clinician management decisions to best care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the region and worldwide.

COVID-19 Infection Among Healthcare Workers: Serological Findings Supporting Routine Testing

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is a major contributor to the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontline healthcare workers in COVID-19 hotspots have faced numerous challenges, including shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and difficulties acquiring clinical testing. The magnitude of the exposure of healthcare workers and the potential for asymptomatic transmission makes it critical to understand the incidence of infection in this population. To determine the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst healthcare workers, we studied frontline staff working in the Montefiore Health System in New York City. All participants were asymptomatic at the time of testing and were tested by RT-qPCR and for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The medical, occupational, and COVID-19 exposure histories of participants were recorded via questionnaires. Of the 98 asymptomatic healthcare workers tested, 19 (19.4%) tested positive by RT-qPCR and/or ELISA. Within this group, four (4.1%) were RT-qPCR positive, and four (4.1%) were PCR and IgG positive. Notably, an additional 11 (11.2%) individuals were IgG positive without a positive PCR. Two PCR positive individuals subsequently developed COVID-19 symptoms, while all others remained asymptomatic at 2-week follow-up. These results indicate that there is considerable asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 within the healthcare workforce, despite current mitigation policies. Furthermore, presuming that asymptomatic staff are not carrying SARS-CoV-2 is inconsistent with our results, and this could result in amplified transmission within healthcare settings. Consequently, aggressive testing regiments, such as testing frontline healthcare workers on a regular, multi-modal basis, may be required to prevent further spread within the workforce and to patients.

A Single Large Dose of Vitamin D Could be Used as a Means of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Prevention and Treatment

There is no specific and effective medication for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and avaccine is not available in recent months. Here, we hypothesize that a single large dose of vitamin D (Vit D) could be an option for trial in COVID-19. Vit D deficiency or insufficiency is very common in the general population as well as in patients with COVID-19. It has been shown that low Vit D level is associated with viral infection, and Vit D supplementation is beneficial for people infected with viruses, such as HIV and hepatitis C virus. Although COVID-19 is a respiratory disease, the morbidity and mortality of this disease are driven by coagulopathy. Clinical studies have shown that Vit D can exert anticoagulant effects. Vit D, a lipid-soluble vitamin, can be administered as a draught. Vit D supplementation is safe and has rare toxic events. In addition, the cost of Vit D is fairly low. Based on these observations, we speculate that a single dose of 300,000 IU Vit D may have a role in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

A Retrospective Controlled Cohort Study of the Impact of Glucocorticoid Treatment in SARS-CoV-2 Infection Mortality

Evidence to support the use of steroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use for COVID-19 pneumonia on hospital mortality. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a university hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March of 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, and we adjusted with a propensity score for patients on steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using the log rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared and adjusted with a second propensity score. During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. The median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8 to 13 days). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.96]; P = 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to the mortality with no steroid treatment (relative risk reduction, 0.42 [95% confidence interval, 0.048 to 0.65]). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg of body weight/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86]; odds ratio [OR], 0.880 [95% confidence interval, 0.449 to 1.726]; P = 0.710). Our results show that the survival of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. Rates of in-hospital mortality were not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.

A systematic review of trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 medical prevention and treatment

AIM

To identify investigated interventions for COVID-19 prevention or treatment via trial registry entries on planned or ongoing randomised clinical trials. To assess these registry entries for recruitment status, planned trial size, blinding and reporting of mortality.

METHODS

We identified trial registry entries systematically via the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and 33 trial registries up to June 23, 2020. We included relevant trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating medical preventive, adjunct or supportive therapies and therapeutics for treatment of COVID-19. Studies with non-random and single-arm design were excluded. Trial registry entries were screened by two authors independently and data were systematically extracted.

RESULTS

We included 1303 trial registry entries from 71 countries investigating 381 different single interventions. Blinding was planned in 47% of trials. Sample size was >200 participants in 40% of trials and a total of 611,364 participants were planned for inclusion. Mortality was listed as an outcome in 57% of trials. Recruitment was ongoing in 54% of trials and completed in 8%. Thirty-five percent were multicenter trials. The five most frequent investigational categories were immune modulating drugs (266 trials (20%)), unconventional medicine (167 trials (13%)), antimalarial drugs (118 trials (9%)), antiviral drugs (100 trials (8%)) and respiratory adjuncts (78 trials (6%)). The five most frequently tested uni-modal interventions were: chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (113 trials with 199,841 participants); convalescent plasma (64 trials with 11,840 participants); stem cells (51 trials with 3,370 participants); tocilizumab (19 trials with 4,139 participants) and favipiravir (19 trials with 3,210 participants).

CONCLUSION

An extraordinary number of randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 management have been initiated with a multitude of medical preventive, adjunctive and treatment modalities. Blinding will be used in only 47% of trials, which may have influence on future reported treatment effects. Fifty-seven percent of all trials will assess mortality as an outcome facilitating future meta-analyses.

Sex Hormones and Hormone Therapy during COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Patients with Cancer

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows a wide spectrum of clinical presentations, severity, and fatality rates. The reason older patients and males show increased risk of severe disease and death remains uncertain. Sex hormones, such as estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone, might be implicated in the age-dependent and sex-specific severity of COVID-19. High testosterone levels could upregulate transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), facilitating the entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into host cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Data from patients with prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy seem to confirm this hypothesis. Clinical studies on TMPRSS2 inhibitors, such as camostat, nafamostat, and bromhexine, are ongoing. Antiandrogens, such as bicalutamide and enzalutamide, are also under investigation. Conversely, other studies suggest that the immune modulating properties of androgens could protect from the unfavorable cytokine storm, and that low testosterone levels might be associated with a worse prognosis in patients with COVID-19. Some evidence also supports the notion that estrogens and progesterone might exert a protective effect on females, through direct antiviral activity or immune-mediated mechanisms, thus explaining the higher COVID-19 severity in post-menopausal women. In this perspective, we discuss the available evidence on sex hormones and hormone therapy in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and we highlight the possible implications for cancer patients, who can receive hormonal therapies during their treatment plans.

Pathways in the Pathophysiology of Coronavirus 19 Lung Disease Accessible to Prevention and Treatment

Background: In COVID 19 related lung disease, which is a leading cause of death from this disease, cytokines like tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF alpha) may be pivotal in the pathogenesis. TNF alpha reduces fluid absorption due to impairment of sodium and chloride transport required for building an osmotic gradient across epithelial cells, which in the airways maintains airway surface liquid helping to keep airways open and enabling bacterial clearance and aids water absorption from the alveolar spaces. TNF alpha can, through Rho-kinase, disintegrate the endothelial and epithelial cytoskeleton, and thus break up intercellular tight junctional proteins, breaching the intercellular barrier, which prevents flooding of the interstitial and alveolar spaces with fluid. Hypotheses: (1) Preservation and restoration of airway and alveolar epithelial sodium and chloride transport and the cytoskeleton dependent integrity of the cell barriers within the lung can prevent and treat COVID 19 lung disease. (2) TNF alpha is the key mediator of pulmonary edema in COVID 19 lung disease. Confirmation of hypothesis and implications: The role of a reduction in the function of epithelial sodium and chloride transport could with regards to chloride transport be tested by analysis of chloride levels in exhaled breath condensate and levels correlated with TNF alpha concentrations. Reduced levels would indicate a reduction of the function of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) chloride channel and a correlation with TNF alpha levels indicative of its involvement. Anti-TNF alpha treatment with antibodies is already available and needs to be tested in randomized controlled trials of COVID 19 lung disease. TNF alpha levels could also be reduced by statins, aspirin, and curcumin. Chloride transport could be facilitated by CFTR activators, including curcumin and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Sodium and chloride transport could be further regulated to prevent accumulation of alveolar fluid by use of Na(+)/K(+)/2Cl(-) cotransporter type 1 inhibitors, which have been associated with improved outcome in adults ventilated for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in randomized controlled trials. Primary prevention of coronavirus infection and TNF alpha release in response to it could be improved by induction of antimicrobial peptides LL-37 and human beta defensin-2 and reduction of TNF alpha production by vitamin D prophylaxis for the population as a whole.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Patients with COVID-19 who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can have symptoms that rapidly evolve to profound hypoxaemia and death. The efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe ARDS in the context of COVID-19 is unclear. We aimed to establish the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with respiratory failure and COVID-19 treated with ECMO.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was done in the Paris–Sorbonne University Hospital Network, comprising five intensive care units (ICUs) and included patients who received ECMO for COVID-19 associated ARDS. Patient demographics and daily pre-ECMO and on-ECMO data and outcomes were collected. Possible outcomes over time were categorised into four different states (states 1–4): on ECMO, in the ICU and weaned off ECMO, alive and out of ICU, or death. Daily probabilities of occupation in each state and of transitions between these states until day 90 post-ECMO onset were estimated with use of a multi-state Cox model stratified for each possible transition. Follow-up was right-censored on July 10, 2020.

Findings

From March 8 to May 2, 2020, 492 patients with COVID-19 were treated in our ICUs. Complete day-60 follow-up was available for 83 patients (median age 49 [IQR 41–56] years and 61 [73%] men) who received ECMO. Pre-ECMO, 78 (94%) patients had been prone-positioned; their median driving pressure was 18 (IQR 16–21) cm H₂O and PaO₂/FiO₂ was 60 (54–68) mm Hg. At 60 days post-ECMO initiation, the estimated probabilities of occupation in each state were 6% (95% CI 3–14) for state 1, 18% (11–28) for state 2, 45% (35–56) for state 3, and 31% (22–42) for state 4. 35 (42%) patients had major bleeding and four (5%) had a haemorrhagic stroke. 30 patients died.

Interpretation

The estimated 60-day survival of ECMO-rescued patients with COVID-19 was similar to that of studies published in the past 2 years on ECMO for severe ARDS. If another COVID-19 outbreak occurs, ECMO should be considered for patients developing refractory respiratory failure despite optimised care.

Funding

None.

Feasibility of using alternative swabs and storage solutions for paired SARS-CoV-2 detection and microbiome analysis in the hospital environment

Background Determining the role of fomites in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential in the hospital setting and will likely be important outside of medical facilities as governments around the world make plans to ease COVID-19 public health restrictions and attempt to safely reopen economies. Expanding COVID-19 testing to include environmental surfaces would ideally be performed with inexpensive swabs that could be transported safely without concern of being a source of new infections. However, CDC-approved clinical-grade sampling supplies and techniques using a synthetic swab are expensive, potentially expose laboratory workers to viable virus and prohibit analysis of the microbiome due to the presence of antibiotics in viral transport media (VTM). To this end, we performed a series of experiments comparing the diagnostic yield using five consumer-grade swabs (including plastic and wood shafts and various head materials including cotton, synthetic, and foam) and one clinical grade swab for inhibition to RNA. For three of these swabs, we evaluated performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 in twenty intensive care unit (ICU) hospital rooms of patients with 16 COVID-19+. All swabs were placed in 95% ethanol and further evaluated in terms of RNase activity. SARS-CoV-2 was measured both directly from the swab and from the swab eluent. Results Compared to samples collected in VTM, 95% ethanol demonstrated significant inhibition properties against RNases. When extracting directly from the swab head as opposed to the eluent, RNA recovery was approximately 2-4x higher from all six swab types tested as compared to the clinical standard of testing the eluent from a CDC-approved synthetic swab. The limit of detection (LoD) of SARs-CoV-2 from floor samples collected using the CGp or TMI swabs was similar or better than the CDC standard, further suggesting that swab type does not impact RNA recovery as measured by SARs-CoV-2. The LoD for TMI was between 0-362.5 viral particles while SYN and CGp were both between 725-1450 particles. Lastly microbiome analyses (16S rRNA) of paired samples (e.g., environment to host) collected using different swab types in triplicate indicated that microbial communities were not impacted by swab type but instead driven by the patient and sample type (floor or nasal). Conclusions Compared to using a clinical-grade synthetic swab, detection of SARS-CoV-2 from environmental samples collected from ICU rooms of patients with COVID was similar using consumer grade swabs, stored in 95% ethanol. The yield was best from the swab head rather than the eluent and the low level of RNase activity in these samples makes it possible to perform concomitant microbiome analysis. Keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, RT-qPCR, swab, global health.

Neurological Manifestations of Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Potential Mechanisms and Implications of Individualized Mechanical Ventilation Settings

In December 2019, an outbreak of illness caused by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV, subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quickly spread worldwide to become a pandemic. Typical manifestations of COVID-19 include fever, dry cough, fatigue, and respiratory distress. In addition, both the central and peripheral nervous system can be affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. These neurological changes may be caused by viral neurotropism, by a hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulative state, or even by mechanical ventilation-associated impairment. Hypoxia, endothelial cell damage, and the different impacts of different ventilatory strategies may all lead to increased stress and strain, potentially exacerbating the inflammatory response and leading to a complex interaction between the lungs and the brain. To date, no studies have taken into consideration the possible secondary effect of mechanical ventilation on brain recovery and outcomes. The aim of our review is to provide an updated overview of the potential pathogenic mechanisms of neurological manifestations in COVID-19, discuss the physiological issues related to brain-lung interactions, and propose strategies for optimization of respiratory support in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Rethinking the Drug Distribution and Medication Management Model: How a New York City Hospital Pharmacy Department Responded to COVID-19

Beginning in March 2020, New York City began the fight against coronavirus disease 2019. Health care workers were faced with a disease that led to significant morbidity and mortality with no proven therapies. As hospitals became inundated with patients and underwent rapid expansion of capacity, resources such as drugs, protective and medical equipment, and hospital staff became limited. Pharmacists played a critical role in the management of clinical care and drug delivery during the pandemic. As members of the department of pharmacy within NewYork‐Presbyterian Hospital, we describe our experiences and processes to overcome challenges faced during the pandemic. Strict inventory management through the use of daily usage reports, frequent communication, and minimization of waste was critical for the management of drug shortages. The creation of guidelines, protocols, and restrictions were not only used to mitigate drug shortages, but also helped educate health care providers and guided medication use. Managing technology through setting up new automatic dispensing cabinets to address hospital expansions and modifying the electronic order entry system to include new protocols and drug shortage information were also vital. Additional key pharmacist functions included provision of investigational drug service support and training of pharmacists, prescribers, nurses, and respiratory therapists to educate and standardize medication use. Through implementation of operational and clinical processes, pharmacists managed critical drug inventory and guided patient treatment. As the pandemic continues, pharmacists will remain vital members of the multidisciplinary team dedicated to the fight against the virus.

Delirium and encephalopathy in severe COVID-19: a cohort analysis of ICU patients

BACKGROUND

Neurotropism of SARS-CoV-2 and its neurological manifestations have now been confirmed. We aimed at describing delirium and neurological symptoms of COVID-19 in ICU patients.

METHODS

We conducted a bicentric cohort study in two French ICUs of Strasbourg University Hospital. All the 150 patients referred for acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 between March 3 and May 5, 2020, were included at their admission. Ten patients (6.7%) were excluded because they remained under neuromuscular blockers during their entire ICU stay. Neurological examination, including CAM-ICU, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis, electroencephalography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed in some of the patients with delirium and/or abnormal neurological examination. The primary endpoint was to describe the incidence of delirium and/or abnormal neurological examination. The secondary endpoints were to describe the characteristics of delirium, to compare the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay in patients with and without delirium and/or abnormal neurological symptoms.

RESULTS

The 140 patients were aged in median of 62 [IQR 52; 70] years old, with a median SAPSII of 49 [IQR 37; 64] points. Neurological examination was normal in 22 patients (15.7%). One hundred eighteen patients (84.3%) developed a delirium with a combination of acute attention, awareness, and cognition disturbances. Eighty-eight patients (69.3%) presented an unexpected state of agitation despite high infusion rates of sedative treatments and neuroleptics, and 89 (63.6%) patients had corticospinal tract signs. Brain MRI performed in 28 patients demonstrated enhancement of subarachnoid spaces in 17/28 patients (60.7%), intraparenchymal, predominantly white matter abnormalities in 8 patients, and perfusion abnormalities in 17/26 patients (65.4%). The 42 electroencephalograms mostly revealed unspecific abnormalities or diffuse, especially bifrontal, slow activity. Cerebrospinal fluid examination revealed inflammatory disturbances in 18/28 patients, including oligoclonal bands with mirror pattern and elevated IL-6. The CSF RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 was positive in one patient. The delirium/neurological symptoms in COVID-19 patients were responsible for longer mechanical ventilation compared to the patients without delirium/neurological symptoms. Delirium/neurological symptoms could be secondary to systemic inflammatory reaction to SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Delirium/neurological symptoms in COVID-19 patients are a major issue in ICUs, especially in the context of insufficient human and material resources.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NA.

Second Update for Anaesthetists on Clinical Features of COVID-19 Patients and Relevant Management

The COVID-19 pandemic poses great challenges for healthcare workers around the world, including perioperative specialists. Previously, we provided a first overview of available literature on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, relevant for anaesthetists and intensivists. In the current review, we provide an update of this topic, after a literature search current through May 2020. We discuss the evidence on perioperative risk for COVID-19 patients presenting for surgery, the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the operating room, and the current literature on laboratory diagnostics. Furthermore, cardiovascular and nervous system involvement in COVID-19 are discussed, as well as considerations in diabetic patients. Lastly, the latest evidence on pharmacological treatment is summarised.

Speech-Language Pathology Guidance for Tracheostomy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Multidisciplinary Perspective

Purpose As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded, there has been growing recognition of risks to frontline health care workers. When caring for patients with tracheostomy, speech-language pathologists have significant exposure to mucosal surfaces, secretions, and aerosols that may harbor the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This tutorial provides guidance on practices for safely performing patient evaluation and procedures, thereby reducing risk of infection. Method Data were collated through review of literature, guidelines, and consensus statements relating to COVID-19 and similar high-consequent infections, with a focus on mitigating risk of transmission to health care workers. Particular emphasis was placed on speech-language pathologists, nurses, and other allied health professionals. A multinational interdisciplinary team then analyzed findings, arriving at recommendations through consensus via electronic communications and video conference. Results Reports of transmission of infection to health care workers in the current COVID-19 pandemic and previous outbreaks substantiate the need for safe practices. Many procedures routinely performed by speech-language pathologists have a significant risk of infection due to aerosol generation. COVID-19 testing can inform level of protective equipment, and meticulous hygiene can stem spread of nosocomial infection. Modifications to standard clinical practice in tracheostomy are often required. Personal protective equipment, including either powered air-purifying respirator or N95 mask, gloves, goggles, and gown, are needed when performing aerosol-generating procedures in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 infection. Conclusions Speech-language pathologists are often called on to assist in the care of patients with tracheostomy and known or suspected COVID-19 infection. Appropriate care of these patients is predicated on maintaining the health and safety of the health care team. Careful adherence to best practices can significantly reduce risk of infectious transmission.

The Significance of Natural Product Derivatives and Traditional Medicine for COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). To date, there have been more than 10 million reported cases, more than 517,000 deaths in 215 countries, areas or territories. There is no effective antiviral medicine to prevent or treat COVID-19. Natural products and traditional medicine products with known safety profiles are a promising source for the discovery of new drug leads. There is increasing number of publications reporting the effect of natural products and traditional medicine products on COVID-19. In our review, we provide an overview of natural products and their derivatives or mimics, as well as traditional medicine products, which were reported to exhibit potential to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro, and to manage COVID-19 in vivo, or in clinical reports or trials. These natural products and traditional medicine products are categorized in several classes: (1) anti-malaria drugs including chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, (2) antivirals including nucleoside analogs (remdesivir, favipiravir, β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, ribavirin and among others), lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol, (3) antibiotics including azithromycin, ivermectin and teicoplanin, (4) anti-protozoal drug, emetine, anti-cancer drug, homoharringtonine, and others, as well as (5) traditional medicine (Lian Hua Qing Wen Capsule, Shuang Huang Lian Oral Liquid, Qingfei Paidu Decoction and Scutellariae Radix). Randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled large clinical trials are needed to provide solid evidence for the potential effective treatment. Currently, drug repurposing is a promising strategy to quickly find an effective treatment for COVID-19. In addition, carefully combined cocktails need to be examined for preventing a COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting global health concerns.

Ruxolitinib Rapidly Reduces Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in COVID-19 Disease. Analysis of Data Collection From RESPIRE Protocol

Background: The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is causing millions of infections and hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide. Cumulative clinical and laboratory evidence suggest that a subset of patients with severe COVID-19 may develop a cytokine storm syndrome during the course of the disease, with severe respiratory impairment requiring ventilatory support. One field of research nowadays is to identify and treat viral-induced hyperinflammation with drugs used in other clinical conditions characterized by an hyperinflammation status. These drugs might help to reduce COVID19 mortality.

Methods: Ruxolitinib, a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, has been successfully used to treat severe immune-mediated diseases, such as graft vs. host disease and Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. We used ruxolitinib in 18 patients with clinically progressive COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome, with a primary endpoint to rapidly reduce the degree of respiratory impairment and as a secondary endpoint to rapidly restore the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, as an evaluation of clinical status, and monitoring of drug related Adverse Events. Parameters of inflammation responses and organ functions were assessed and monitored. The treatment plan was ruxolitinib 20 mg bid for the first 48 h and subsequent two-step de-escalation at 10 mg bid and 5 mg bid for a maximum of 14 days of treatment.

Results: Our data collection shows a rapid clinical response with no evolution from non-invasive ventilation to mechanical ventilation in 16/18 patients and no response in two patients (overall response rate—ORR 89%). Already after 48 h of ruxolitinib treatment 16/18 patients showed evident clinical improvement, and after 7 days of treatment 11/18 patients showed fully recovered respiratory function (pO₂ > 98% in spontaneous breathing), 4/18 patients had minimal oxygen requirement (2–4 L/m), 1/18 patient showed stable disease, and 2/18 patient showed progressive disease. After 14 days, 16/18 patients showed complete recovery of respiratory function (ORR 89%). Compliance to ruxolitinib planned treatment was 100% and no serious adverse event was recorded. In our case series of 18 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, administration of ruxolitinib resulted in a clinical improvement that concurred to modify the standard course of disease. Ruxolitinib can be a therapeutic option for patients with respiratory insufficiency in COVID-19 related ARDS. RESPIRE Study (Ruxolitinib for the treatment of acute rESPIratory distREss syndrome, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04361903).

Emerging Human Coronavirus Infections (SARS, MERS, and COVID-19): Where They Are Leading Us

Coronavirus infections are responsible for mild, moderate, and severe infections in birds and mammals. These were first isolated in humans as causal microorganisms responsible for common cold. The 2002-2003 SARS epidemic caused by SARS-CoV and 2012 MERS epidemic (64 countries affected) caused by MERS-CoV showed their acute and fatal side. These two CoV infections killed thousands of patients infected worldwide. However, WHO has still reported the MERS case in December 2019 in middle-eastern country (Saudi Arabia), indicating the MERS epidemic has not ended completely yet. Although we have not yet understood completely these two CoV epidemics, a third most dangerous and severe CoV infection has been originated in the Wuhan city, Hubei district of China in December 2019. This CoV infection called COVID-19 or SARS-CoV2 infection has now spread to 210 countries and territories around the world. COVID-19 has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). It has infected more than 16.69 million people with more than 663,540 deaths across the world. Thus the current manuscript aims to describe all three (SARS, MERS, and COVID-19) in terms of their causal organisms (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV2), similarities and differences in their clinical symptoms, outcomes, immunology, and immunopathogenesis, and possible future therapeutic approaches.

Putting It All Together: Clinical Considerations in the Care of Critically Ill Obstetric Patients with COVID-19

Pregnant patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus responsible for the clinical condition newly described in 2019 as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and illness severity to warrant intensive care have a complex disease process that must involve multiple disciplines. Guidelines from various clinical societies, along with direction from local health authorities, must be considered when approaching the care of an obstetric patient with known or suspected COVID-19. With a rapidly changing landscape, a simplified and cohesive perspective using guidance from different clinical society recommendations regarding the critically-ill obstetric patient with COVID-19 is needed. In this article, we synthesize various high-level guidelines of clinical relevance in the management of pregnant patients with severe disease or critical illness due to COVID-19. KEY POINTS: · When caring for severely ill obstetric patients with COVID-19, one must be well versed in the complications that may need to be managed including, but not limited to adult respiratory distress syndrome with need for mechanical ventilation, approach to refractory hypoxemia, hemodynamic shock, and multiorgan system failure.. · Prone positioning can be done safely in gravid patients but requires key areas of support to avoid abdominal compression.. · For the critically ill obstetric patient with COVID-19, the focus should be on supportive care as a bridge to recovery rather than delivery as a solution to recovery..

COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system: A review of current data, summary of best practices, outline of controversies, and illustrative case reports

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus pandemic continues to grow globally, an association is apparent between patients with underlying cardiovascular disease comorbidities and the risk of developing severe COVID-19. Furthermore, there are potential cardiac manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 including myocyte injury, ventricular dysfunction, coagulopathy, and electrophysiologic abnormalities. Balancing management of the infection and treatment of underlying cardiovascular disease requires further study. Addressing the increasing reports of health care worker exposure and deaths remains paramount. This review summarizes the most contemporary literature on the relationship of the cardiovascular system and COVID-19 and society statements with relevance to protection of health care workers, and provides illustrative case reports in this context.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Spine Surgeons Worldwide

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional, international survey.

OBJECTIVES

The current study addressed the multi-dimensional impact of COVID-19 upon healthcare professionals, particularly spine surgeons, worldwide. Secondly, it aimed to identify geographical variations and similarities.

METHODS

A multi-dimensional survey was distributed to surgeons worldwide. Questions were categorized into domains: demographics, COVID-19 observations, preparedness, personal impact, patient care, and future perceptions.

RESULTS

902 spine surgeons representing 7 global regions completed the survey. 36.8% reported co-morbidities. Of those that underwent viral testing, 15.8% tested positive for COVID-19, and testing likelihood was region-dependent; however, 7.2% would not disclose their infection to their patients. Family health concerns were greatest stressor globally (76.0%), with anxiety levels moderately high. Loss of income, clinical practice and current surgical management were region-dependent, whereby 50.4% indicated personal-protective-equipment were not adequate. 82.3% envisioned a change in their clinical practice as a result of COVID-19. More than 33% of clinical practice was via telemedicine. Research output and teaching/training impact was similar globally. 96.9% were interested in online medical education. 94.7% expressed a need for formal, international guidelines to manage COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first, international study to assess the impact of COVID-19 on surgeons worldwide, we identified overall/regional variations and infection rate. The study raises awareness of the needs and challenges of surgeons that will serve as the foundation to establish interventions and guidelines to face future public health crises.

Anticoagulation practice patterns in COVID-19: A global survey

Background

Best practice for prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown due to limited published data in this population.

Objectives

We aimed to assess current global practice and experience in management of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy to identify information to guide prospective and randomized studies.

Methods

Physicians were queried about their current approach to prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19 using an online survey tool distributed through multiple international organizations between April 10 and 14, 2020.

Results

Five hundred fifteen physicians from 41 countries responded. The majority of respondents (78%) recommended prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with most recommending use of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. Significant practice variation was found regarding the need for dose escalation of anticoagulation outside the setting of confirmed or suspected VTE. Respondents reported the use of bedside testing when unable to perform standard diagnostic imaging for diagnosis of VTE. Two hundred ninety-one respondents reported observing thrombotic complications in their patients, with 64% noting that the complication was pulmonary embolism. Of the 44% of respondents who estimated incidence of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 in their hospital, estimates ranged widely from 1% to 50%. One hundred seventy-four respondents noted bleeding complications (34% minor bleeding, 14% clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and 12% major bleeding).

Conclusion

Well-designed epidemiologic studies are urgently needed to understand the incidence and risk factors of VTE and bleeding complications in patients with COVID-19. Randomized clinical trials addressing use of anticoagulation are also needed.

Co-infections among patients with COVID-19: The need for combination therapy with non-anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents?

Co-infection has been reported in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome, but there is limited knowledge on co-infection among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The prevalence of co-infection was variable among COVID-19 patients in different studies, however, it could be up to 50% among non-survivors. Co-pathogens included bacteria, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia pneumonia, Legionella pneumophila and Acinetobacter baumannii; Candida species and Aspergillus flavus; and viruses such as influenza, coronavirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus, parainfluenza, metapneumovirus, influenza B virus, and human immunodeficiency virus. Influenza A was one of the most common co-infective viruses, which may have caused initial false-negative results of real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory and imaging findings alone cannot help distinguish co-infection from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Newly developed syndromic multiplex panels that incorporate SARS-CoV-2 may facilitate the early detection of co-infection among COVID-19 patients. By contrast, clinicians cannot rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection by ruling in other respiratory pathogens through old syndromic multiplex panels at this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, clinicians must have a high index of suspicion for coinfection among COVID-19 patients. Clinicians can neither rule out other co-infections caused by respiratory pathogens by diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection nor rule out COVID-19 by detection of non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory pathogens. After recognizing the possible pathogens causing co-infection among COVID-19 patients, appropriate antimicrobial agents can be recommended.

Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure in COVID-19 Patients: Early Experience From a Major Academic Medical Center in North America

AND BACKGROUND DATA

VV ECMO can be utilized as an advanced therapy in select patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure refractory to traditional critical care management and optimal mechanical ventilation. Anticipating a need for such therapies during the pandemic, our center created a targeted protocol for ECMO therapy in COVID-19 patients that allows us to provide this life-saving therapy to our sickest patients without overburdening already stretched resources or excessively exposing healthcare staff to infection risk.

METHODS

As a major regional referral program, we used the framework of our well-established ECMO service-line to outline specific team structures, modified patient eligibility criteria, cannulation strategies, and management protocols for the COVID-19 ECMO program.

RESULTS

During the first month of the COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts, 6 patients were placed on VV ECMO for refractory hypoxemic respiratory failure. The median (interquartile range) age was 47 years (43-53) with most patients being male (83%) and obese (67%). All cannulations were performed at the bedside in the intensive care unit in patients who had undergone a trial of rescue therapies for acute respiratory distress syndrome including lung protective ventilation, paralysis, prone positioning, and inhaled nitric oxide. At the time of this report, 83% (5/6) of the patients are still alive with 1 death on ECMO, attributed to hemorrhagic stroke. 67% of patients (4/6) have been successfully decannulated, including 2 that have been successfully extubated and one who was discharged from the hospital. The median duration of VV ECMO therapy for patients who have been decannulated is 12 days (4-18 days).

CONCLUSIONS

This is 1 the first case series describing VV ECMO outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Our initial data suggest that VV ECMO can be successfully utilized in appropriately selected COVID-19 patients with advanced respiratory failure.

How We Manage Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These can be exacerbated by anti-leukemic treatments. In addition, the typical patients with CLL already have fragilities and background risk factors that apply to the general population for severe COVID-19. On these bases, patients with CLL may experience COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Recurrent seasonal epidemics of SARS-CoV-2 are expected, and doctors taking care of patients with CLL must be prepared for the possibility of substantial resurgences of infection and adapt their approach to CLL management accordingly. In this Guideline Article, we aim at providing clinicians with a literature-informed expert opinion on the management of patients with CLL during SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.

Retrospective analysis of high flow nasal therapy in COVID-19-related moderate-to-severe hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Invasive mechanical has been associated with high mortality in COVID-19. Alternative therapy of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has been greatly debated around the world for use in COVID-19 pandemic due to concern for increased healthcare worker transmission.This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients admitted to Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 10 March 2020 to 24 April 2020 with moderate-to-severe respiratory failure treated with HFNT. Primary outcome was prevention of intubation. Of the 445 patients with COVID-19, 104 met our inclusion criteria. The average age was 60.66 (+13.50) years, 49 (47.12 %) were female, 53 (50.96%) were African-American, 23 (22.12%) Hispanic. Forty-three patients (43.43%) were smokers. Saturation to fraction ratio and chest X-ray scores had a statistically significant improvement from day 1 to day 7. 67 of 104 (64.42%) were able to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation in our cohort. Incidence of hospital-associated/ventilator-associated pneumonia was 2.9%. Overall, mortality was 14.44% (n=15) in our cohort with 13 (34.4%) in the progressed to intubation group and 2 (2.9%) in the non-intubation group. Mortality and incidence of pneumonia was statistically higher in the progressed to intubation group. CONCLUSION: HFNT use is associated with a reduction in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and overall mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection.

Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems.

THE EVIDENCE

The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.

Multi-factorial barriers and facilitators to high adherence to lung-protective ventilation using a computerized protocol: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) through the administration of low tidal volumes (≤ 6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) with co-titration of positive end-expiratory pressure and fraction of inspired oxygen. Many patients with ARDS, however, are not managed with LPV. The purpose of this study was to understand the implementation barriers and facilitators to the use of LPV and a computerized LPV clinical decision support (CDS) tool in intensive care units (ICUs) in preparation for a pilot hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial.

METHODS

We performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study from June 2018 to March 2019 to evaluate the variation in LPV adherence across 17 ICUs in an integrated healthcare system with > 4000 mechanically ventilated patients annually. We analyzed 47 key informant interviews of ICU physicians, respiratory therapists (RTs), and nurses in 3 of the ICUs using a qualitative content analysis paradigm to investigate site variation as defined by adherence level (low, medium, high) and to identify barriers and facilitators to LPV and LPV CDS tool use.

RESULTS

Forty-two percent of patients had an initial set tidal volume of ≤ 6.5 ml/kg PBW during the measurement period (site range 21-80%). LPV CDS tool use was 28% (site range 6-91%). This study's main findings revealed multi-factorial facilitators and barriers to use that varied by ICU site adherence level. The primary facilitator was that LPV and the LPV CDS tool could be used on all mechanically ventilated patients. Barriers included a persistent gap between clinician attitudes regarding the use of LPV and actual use, the perceived loss of autonomy associated with using a computerized protocol, the nature of physician-RT interaction in ventilation management, and the lack of clear organization measures of success.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in adherence to LPV persists in ICUs within a healthcare delivery system that was an early adopter of LPV. Potentially promising strategies to increase adherence to LPV and the LPV CDS tool for ARDS patients include initiating low tidal ventilation on all mechanically ventilated patients, establishing and measuring adherence measures, and focused education addressing the physician-RT interaction. These strategies represent a blueprint for a future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and prone ventilation for therapeutic management of COVID-19

Background

The efficacy and safety of the combined use of veno‐venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and prone ventilation are currently not known for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).

Case presentation

We report two cases in which the combination of veno‐venous ECMO and prone ventilation for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) pneumonia were successfully carried out. Both patients had developed severe respiratory failure due to SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia, thus requiring veno‐venous ECMO. Prone ventilation was also administered safely.

Conclusion

Oxygenation and lung compliance gradually improved during prone ventilation, and both patients were successfully extubated. For patients with severe SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia who require veno‐venous ECMO, the use of prone ventilation could be beneficial, and should be considered.

Role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the literature evidence behind using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 patients in a systematic review manner.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on Global Health Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases using keywords and MeSH terms to identify articles pertaining to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A narrative synthesis was then undertaken to identify the key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Three main themes were identified following the data extraction: (a) evidence against/inconclusive regarding ECMO for COVID-19, (b) evidence supporting ECMO for COVID-19, and finally (c) VV-ECMO and VA-ECMO. After combining the data, there were 3428 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and 95 ECMO-associated deaths (19.83%).

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the paucity of evidence and the need for further data to consolidate the efficacy of ECMO in improving patient outcomes. Although ECMO has been shown to be beneficial in a selected group of patients, the recuperative effects of ECMO remain inconclusive. We must ensure that risk-benefit analysis for each candidate is conducted thoroughly so that patients that have increased probability of survival can benefit from this scarce resource.

The Basics of ARDS Mechanical Ventilatory Care for Cardiovascular Specialists

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has placed pressure on health care systems and intensive care unit capacity worldwide. Respiratory insufficiency is the most common reason for hospital admission in patients with COVID-19. The most severe form of respiratory failure is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with ARDS are often treated with invasive mechanical ventilation according to established evidence-based and guideline recommended management strategies. With growing strain on critical care capacity, clinicians from diverse backgrounds, including cardiovascular specialists, might be required to help care for the growing number of patients with severe respiratory failure and ARDS. The aim of this article is to outline the fundamentals of ARDS diagnosis and management, including mechanical ventilation, for the nonintensivist. In the absence of mechanical ventilation trials specifically in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, the information presented is on the basis of general ARDS trials.