Sensory interventions to relieve dyspnoea in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND

In critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, dyspnoea is frequent, severe and associated with an increased risk of neuropsychological sequelae. We evaluated the efficacy of sensory interventions targeting the brain rather than the respiratory system to relieve dyspnoea in mechanically ventilated patients.

METHODS

Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for ≥48 h and reporting dyspnoea (unidimensional dyspnoea visual analogue scale (Dyspnoea-VAS)) first underwent increased pressure support and then, in random order, auditory stimulation (relaxing music versus pink noise) and air flux stimulation (facial versus lower limb). Treatment responses were assessed using Dyspnoea-VAS, the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile and measures of the neural drive to breathe (airway occlusion pressure (P 0.1) and electromyography of inspiratory muscles).

RESULTS

We included 46 patients (tracheotomy or intubation n=37; noninvasive ventilation n=9). Increasing pressure support decreased Dyspnoea-VAS by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to music decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with exposure to pink noise by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to facial air flux decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with limb air flux by median 30 mm (p<0.001). Increasing pressure support, but not music exposure and facial air flux, reduced P 0.1 by median 3.3 cmH2O (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In mechanically ventilated patients, sensory interventions can modulate the processing of respiratory signals by the brain irrespective of the intensity of the neural drive to breathe. It should therefore be possible to alleviate dyspnoea without resorting to pharmacological interventions or having to infringe the constraints of mechanical ventilation lung protection strategies by increasing ventilatory support.

Low dose of morphine to relieve dyspnea in acute respiratory failure (OpiDys): protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled study

Background

Dyspnea is common and severe in intensive care unit (ICU) patients managed for acute respiratory failure. Dyspnea appears to be associated with impaired prognosis and neuropsychological sequels. Pain and dyspnea share many similarities and previous studies have shown the benefit of morphine on dyspnea in patients with end-stage onco-hematological disease and severe heart or respiratory disease. In these populations, morphine administration was safe. Here, we hypothesize that low-dose opioids may help to reduce dyspnea in patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. The primary objective of the trial is to determine whether the administration of low-dose titrated opioids, compared to placebo, in patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure with severe dyspnea decreases the mean 24-h intensity of dyspnea score.

Methods

In this single-center double-blind randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel arms, we plan to include 22 patients (aged 18–75 years) on spontaneous ventilation with either non-invasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy or standard oxygen therapy admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure with severe dyspnea. They will be assigned after randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive in experimental arm administration of low-dose titrated morphine hydrochloride for 24 h consisting in an intravenous titration relayed subcutaneously according to a predefined protocol, or a placebo (0.9% NaCl) administered according to the same protocol in the control arm. The primary endpoint is the mean 24-h dyspnea score assessed by a visual analog scale of dyspnea.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the benefit of opioids on dyspnea in ICU patients admitted for acute respiratory failure.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04358133. Registered on 24 April 2020.

Sarilumab in adults hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia (CORIMUNO-SARI-1): An open-label randomised controlled trial

Background

Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia can have increased inflammation and elevated cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-6, which might be deleterious. Thus, sarilumab, a high-affinity anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, might improve the outcome of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

We did a multicentric, open-label, Bayesian randomised, adaptive, phase 2/3 clinical trial, nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, to test a superiority hypothesis. Patients 18 years or older hospitalised with COVID-19 in six French centres, requiring at least 3L/min of oxygen but without ventilation assistance and a WHO Clinical Progression Scale [CPS] score of 5 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based system, according to a randomisation list stratified on centre and with blocks randomly selected among 2 and 4, to receive usual care plus 400 mg of sarilumab intravenously on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (sarilumab group) or usual care alone (usual care group). Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with WHO-CPS scores greater than 5 on the 10-point scale on day 4 and survival without invasive or non-invasive ventilation at day 14. This completed trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324073.

Findings

165 patients were recruited from March 27 to April 6, 2020, and 148 patients were randomised (68 patients to the sarilumab group and 80 to the usual care group) and followed up for 90 days. Median age was 61·7 years [IQR 53·0–71·1] in the sarilumab group and 62·8 years [56·0–71·7] in the usual care group. In the sarilumab group 49 (72%) of 68 were men and in the usual care group 59 (78%) of 76 were men. Four patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. 18 (26%) of 68 patients in the sarilumab group had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 versus 20 (26%) of 76 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference 0·2%; 90% credible interval [CrI] −11·7 to 12·2), with a posterior probability of absolute risk difference greater than 0 of 48·9%. At day 14, 25 (37%) patients in the sarilumab and 26 (34%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, (median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 1·10; 90% CrI 0·69–1·74) with a posterior probability HR greater than 1 of 37·4%. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (40%) patients in the sarilumab group and 28 (37%) patients in the usual care group (p=0·73).

Interpretation

Sarilumab treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of sarilumab on long-term survival.

Funding

Assistance publique—Hôpitaux de Paris

Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients.

METHODS

The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7.

CONCLUSION

In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.