The successful management of an elderly Covid-19 infected patient by plasmapheresis

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among Emergency Medical Technicians and its Relationship with Occupational Stress and Depression: Post-Corona Screening, Zanjan, 2022

Objective

Emergency medical technicians (EMTs) are at risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of seeing painful events involving suspected COVID-19 patients and being concerned about potentially infecting themselves and their families. Therefore, screening for these disorders is essential in the post-Corona era. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of PTSD among EMTs and its relationship with occupational stress and depression when dealing with patients with suspected COVID-19.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted on EMTs at Zanjan University of Medical Sciences using a convenience sampling method. Data were collected using a demographic information questionnaire, PTSD checklist, occupational stress questionnaire, and the Goldberg depression scale. The data were analyzed using SPSS software. Statistical tests such as Pearson correlation and logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the data.

Result

205 EMTs participated in this cross-sectional study. The mean and standard deviation of PTSD was 37.13±12.93 (17-85), and according to the cut-off (45), the prevalence of PTSD was 30.7%. There was a direct and significant association between the total PTSD and depression scores (r=0.435, p=0.001). Some occupational stress domains, such as demand (r=0.306, p=0.001), colleague support (r=0.149, p=0.033), and communication (r=0.293, p=0.001) had a significant association with PTSD. The domains of sadness in depression (OR=1.074, p=0.027) and demands in occupational stress (OR=1.872, p=0.029) were the most important predictors of PTSD. Among demographic variables, employment status was the most important protective factor for PTSD (OR=0.378, p=0.038).

Conclusion

PTSD affected one-third of EMTs, and it had a significant relationship with various dimensions of depression and occupational stress. Due to the chronic nature of these diseases, policymakers are advised to prioritize psychological screening of EMTs as part of the post-Corona policy.

Therapeutic plasma exchange: A potential therapeutic modality for critically ill adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection can be severe and fatal due to cytokine storm. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) potentially mitigates the harmful effects of such cytokines. We investigated the use of TPE, as rescue therapy, in patients with severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis on COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit and treated with TPE from April 17, 2020 to July 2, 2020. This group was compared with COVID-19 patients who received standard therapy without TPE. The following outcomes were analyzed: changes in laboratory parameters, length of hospital stay (LOS), days on mechanical ventilation, mortality at days 14 and overall mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included, among whom 47% (n = 45) received TPE. Patients who received TPE had reductions in C-reactive protein (P = .002), ferritin (P < .001) and interleukin-6 (P = .013). After employing entropy-balancing matching method, those on TPE were also more likely to discontinue inotropes (72% vs 21%; P < .001). However, they were more likely to be associated with longer LOS (23 vs 14 days; P = .002) and longer days on ventilatory support (14 vs 8 days; P < .001). Despite marginal mortality benefit at 14-days (7.9% vs 24%; P = .071), there was no significant differences in overall mortality (21% vs 31%; P = .315) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TPE was effective in reducing inflammatory markers in patients with severe COVID-19 infection, however, further research is warranted.

Role of therapeutic plasma exchange in the management of COVID-19-induced cytokine storm syndrome

The risk of mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is largely related to an excessive immune response, resulting in a hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulable condition collectively referred to as cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). Management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 has included attempts to abate this process, prevent disease progression, and reduce mortality. In this context, therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) offers an approach to eliminate inflammatory factors and cytokines, offset the pathologic coagulopathy, and reduce the CSS effects. The aim of this review is to analyze available data on the use of TPE for the treatment of CSS in patients with COVID-19. Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus and COVID-19 Research were conducted to identify articles published between March 1, 2020 and May 26, 2021 reporting the use of TPE for the treatment of COVID-19-induced CSS. A total of 34 peer-reviewed articles (1 randomized controlled trial, 4 matched case-control series, 15 single-group case series, and 14 case reports), including 267 patients, were selected. Despite the low evidence level of the available data, TPE appeared to be a safe intervention for critically ill patients with COVID-19-induced CSS. Although inconsistencies exist between studies, they showed a general trend for decreased interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, ferritin, D-dimer, and fibrinogen levels and increased lymphocyte counts following TPE, supporting the immunomodulatory effect of this treatment. Moreover, TPE was associated with improvements in clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. While TPE may offer a valuable option to treat patients with COVID-19-induced CSS, high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm its potential clinical benefits, feasibility, and safety. Moreover, clear criteria should be established to identify patients with CSS who might benefit from TPE.

On Therapeutic Plasma Exchange Against Severe COVID-19-Associated Pneumonia: An Observational Clinical Study

Background

There is a risk of novel mutations of SARS-CoV-2 that may render COVID-19 resistant to most of the therapies, including antiviral drugs and vaccines. The evidence around the application of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 is still provisional, and further investigations are needed to confirm its eventual beneficial effects.

Aims

To assess the effect of TPE on the risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19-associated pneumonia, using three statistical procedures to rule out any threats to validity.

Methods

We therefore carried out a single-centered retrospective observational non-placebo-controlled trial enrolling 73 inpatients from Baqiyatallah Hospital in Tehran (Iran) with the diagnosis of COVID-19-associated pneumonia confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs and high-resolution computerized tomography chest scan. These patients were broken down into two groups: Group 1 (30 patients) receiving standard care (corticosteroids, ceftriaxone, azithromycin, pantoprazole, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir), and Group 2 (43 patients) receiving the above regimen plus TPE (replacing 2 l of patients' plasma by a solution, 50% of normal plasma, and 50% of albumin at 5%) administered according to various time schedules. The follow-up time was 30 days and all-cause mortality was the endpoint.

Results

Deaths were 6 (14%) in Group 2 and 14 (47%) in Group 1. However, different harmful risk factors prevailed among patients not receiving TPE rather than being equally split between the intervention and control group. We used an algorithm of structural equation modeling (of STATA) to summarize a large pool of potential confounders into a single score (called with the descriptive name “severity”). Disease severity was lower (Wilkinson rank-sum test p &lt; 0.001) among patients with COVID-19 undergoing TPE (median: −2.82; range: −5.18; 7.96) as compared to those not receiving TPE (median: −1.35; range: −3.89; 8.84), confirming that treatment assignment involved a selection bias of patients according to the severity of COVID-19 at hospital admission. The adjustment for confounding was carried out using severity as the covariate in Cox regression models. The univariate hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95%CI: 0.26; 1.80; p = 0.441) for TPE turned to 1.19 (95%CI: 0.43; 3.29; p = 0.741) after adjusting for severity.

Conclusions

In this study sample, the lower mortality observed among patients receiving TPE was due to a lower severity of COVID-19 rather than the TPE effects.

"MATH+" Multi-Modal Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 Infection: Clinical and Scientific Rationale

In December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a severe respiratory illness caused by the new coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China. The greatest impact that COVID-19 had was on intensive care units (ICUs), given that approximately 20% of hospitalized cases developed acute respiratory failure (ARF) requiring ICU admission. Based on the assumption that COVID-19 represented a viral pneumonia and no anti-coronaviral therapy existed, nearly all national and international health care societies recommended "supportive care only" avoiding other therapies outside of randomized controlled trials, with a specific prohibition against the use of corticosteroids in treatment. However, early studies of COVID-19-associated ARF reported inexplicably high mortality rates, with frequent prolonged durations of mechanical ventilation (MV), even from centers expert in such supportive care strategies. These reports led the authors to form a clinical expert panel called the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (www.flccc.net). The panel collaboratively reviewed the emerging clinical, radiographic, and pathological reports of COVID-19 while initiating multiple discussions among a wide clinical network of front-line clinical ICU experts from initial outbreak areas in China, Italy, and New York. Based on the shared early impressions of "what was working and what wasn't working", the increasing medical journal publications and the rapidly accumulating personal clinical experiences with COVID-19 patients, a treatment protocol was created for the hospitalized patients based on the core therapies of methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin and non-antiviral co-interventions (MATH+). This manuscript reviews the scientific and clinical rationale behind MATH+ based on published in-vitro, pre-clinical, and clinical data in support of each medicine, with a special emphasis of studies supporting their use in the treatment of patients with viral syndromes and COVID-19 specifically.

Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the "MATH+" Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19

In December 2019, COVID-19, a severe respiratory illness caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China. The greatest impact that COVID-19 had was on intensive care units (ICUs), given that approximately 20% of hospitalized cases developed acute respiratory failure (ARF) requiring ICU admission. Based on the assumption that COVID-19 represented a viral pneumonia and no anti-coronaviral therapy existed, nearly all national and international health care societies' recommended "supportive care only" avoiding other therapies outside of randomized controlled trials, with a specific prohibition against the use of corticosteroids in treatment. However, early studies of COVID-19-associated ARF reported inexplicably high mortality rates, with frequent prolonged durations of mechanical ventilation (MV), even from centers expert in such supportive care strategies. These reports led the authors to form a clinical expert panel called the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (www.flccc.net). The panel collaboratively reviewed the emerging clinical, radiographic, and pathological reports of COVID-19 while initiating multiple discussions among a wide clinical network of front-line clinical ICU experts from initial outbreak areas in China, Italy, and New York. Based on the shared early impressions of "what was working and what wasn't working," the increasing medical journal publications and the rapidly accumulating personal clinical experiences with COVID-19 patients, a treatment protocol was created for the hospitalized patients based on the core therapies of methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin and co-interventions (MATH+). This manuscript reviews the scientific and clinical rationale behind MATH+ based on published in-vitro, pre-clinical, and clinical data in support of each medicine, with a special emphasis of studies supporting their use in the treatment of patients with viral syndromes and COVID-19 specifically. The review concludes with a comparison of published multi-national mortality data with MATH+ center outcomes.