Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection in Bahrain: A report of 5 cases.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: ElSeirafi MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7308754 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection in Bahrain: A report of 5 cases.
ElSeirafi Mohamed M MM Hasan Hasan Msn HM Sridharan Kannan K Zamoori Alaa A Alkhawaja Sana S Pasha Sheikh Abdul Azeez SAA
Respiratory medicine case reports 20200623
Tocilizumab has been recognized as one of the few existing biologic useful for combating COVID-19 infections especially in critically ill patient. We had experience in treating five critically ill patients with severe lung injury who were COVID-19 positive with tocilizumab. In the present case series, we have attempted to summarize their clinical profile, changes in laboratory biomarkers and outcomes. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator
2015-10-24 | E-GEOD-74224 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples
2015-10-24 | GSE74224 | GEO
Project description:Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is increasingly recognized in critically ill immunocompetent patients. Some studies have demonstrated an association between CMV disease and increased mortality rates, prolonged intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and nosocomial infections. However, there is a considerable controversy whether such association represents a causal relationship between CMV disease and unfavorable outcomes or just a marker of the severity of the critical illness. Detection of CMV using polymerase chain reaction and CMV antigenemia is the standard diagnostic approach. CMV may have variety of clinical manifestations reflecting the involvement of different organ systems. Treatment of CMV in critical care is challenging due to diagnostic challenge and drug toxicity, and building predictive model for CMV disease in critical care setting would be promising to identify patients at risk and starting prophylactic therapy. Our objective was to broadly review the current literature on the prevalence and incidence, clinical manifestations, potential limitations of different diagnostic modalities, prognosis, and therapeutic options of CMV disease in critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC5095093 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesBloodstream infection is associated with high mortality rates in critically ill patients but is difficult to identify clinically. This results in frequent blood culture testing, exposing patients to additional costs as well as the potential harms of unnecessary antibiotics. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the analysis of bedside physiologic monitoring data could accurately describe a pathophysiologic signature of bloodstream infection in patients admitted to the ICU.DesignDevelopment of a statistical model using physiologic data from a retrospective observational cohort.SettingUniversity of Virginia Medical Center (Charlottesville, VA), a tertiary-care academic medical center.PatientsCritically ill patients consecutively admitted to either the medical or surgical/trauma ICUs with available physiologic monitoring data between February 2011 and June 2015.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe analyzed 9,954 ICU admissions with 144 patient-years of vital sign and electrocardiography waveform data, totaling 1.3 million hourly measurements. There were 15,577 blood culture instances, with 1,184 instances of bloodstream infection (8%). The multivariate pathophysiologic signature of bloodstream infection was characterized by abnormalities in 15 different physiologic features. The cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85). We also identified distinct signatures of Gram-negative and fungal bloodstream infections, but not Gram-positive bloodstream infection.ConclusionsSignatures of bloodstream infection can be identified in the routine physiologic monitoring data of critically ill adults. This may assist in identifying infected patients, maximizing diagnostic stewardship, and measuring the effect of new therapeutic modalities for sepsis.
| S-EPMC7523775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile vancomycin loading doses may facilitate earlier pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target attainment, the impact of loading doses on clinical outcomes remains understudied. Critically ill patients are at highest risk of morbidity and mortality from methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection and hypothesized to most likely benefit from a loading dose. We sought to determine the association between receipt of a vancomycin loading dose and clinical outcomes in a cohort of critically ill adults.MethodsFour hundred and forty-nine critically ill patients with MRSA cultures isolated from blood or respiratory specimens were eligible for the study. Cohorts were established by receipt of a loading dose (⩾20 mg/kg actual body weight) or not. The primary outcome was clinical failure, a composite outcome of death within 30 days of first MRSA culture, blood cultures positive ⩾7 days, white blood cell count up to 5 days from vancomycin initiation, temperature up to 5 days from vancomycin initiation, or substitution (or addition) of another MRSA agent.ResultsThere was no difference in the percentage of patients experiencing clinical failure between the loading dose and no loading dose groups (74.8% versus 72.8%; p = 0.698). Secondary outcomes were also similar between groups, including mortality and acute kidney injury, as was subgroup analysis based on site of infection. Exploratory analyses, including assessment of loading dose based on quartiles and a multivariable logistic regression model showed no differences.ConclusionUse of vancomycin loading doses was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with MRSA infection.
| S-EPMC8013631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term administration of dexmedetomidine in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Primary endpoint was the incidence of hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia. Secondary endpoints were withdrawal symptoms, rebound effects, the duration of sedation with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) ≤ 0 relative to the total infusion time of dexmedetomidine, and the dose of additional sedatives or analgesics.MethodsDexmedetomidine 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h was continuously infused for maintaining RASS ≤ 0 in patients requiring sedation in the ICU. Safety and efficacy of short-term (≤ 24 h) and long-term (>24 h) dexmedetomidine administration were compared.ResultsSeventy-five surgical and medical ICU patients were administered dexmedetomidine. The incidence of hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia that occurred after 24 h (long-term) was not significantly different from that occurring within 24 h (short-term) (P = 0.546, 0.513, and 0.486, respectively). Regarding withdrawal symptoms, one event each of hypertension and headache occurred after the end of infusion, but both were mild in severity. Increases of mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate after terminating the infusion of dexmedetomidine were not associated with the increasing duration of its infusion. The ratio of duration with RASS ≤ 0 was ≥ 85 % until day 20, except day 9 (70 %) and day 10 (75 %). There was no increase in the dose of additional sedatives or analgesics after the first 24-h treatment period.ConclusionsLong-term safety of dexmedetomidine compared to its use for 24 h was confirmed. Dexmedetomidine was useful to maintain an adequate sedation level (RASS ≤ 0) during long-term infusion.
| S-EPMC3921449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntolerance to gastric feeding tubes is common among critically ill adults and may increase morbidity. Administration of prokinetics in the ICU is common. However, the efficacy and safety of prokinetics are unclear in critically ill adults with gastric feeding tubes. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetics for improving gastric feeding tube tolerance in critically ill adults.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by systematically searching the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases. Two independent reviewers extracted the relevant data and assessed the quality of the studies. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of the evidence.ResultsFifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 10 RCTs involving 846 participants were eligible for the quantitative analysis. Most studies (10 of 13, 76.92%) showed that prokinetics had beneficial effects on feeding intolerance in critically ill adults. In critically ill adults receiving gastric feeding, prokinetic agents may reduce the ICU length of stay (MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.96, -0.10; P = 0.04; low certainty) and the hospital length of stay (MD -3.21, 95% CI -5.35, -1.06; P = 0.003; low certainty). However, prokinetics failed to improve the outcomes of reported adverse events and all-cause mortality.ConclusionAs a class of drugs, prokinetics may improve tolerance to gastric feeding to some extent in critically ill adults. However, the certainty of the evidence suggesting that prokinetics reduce the ICU or hospital length of stay is low. Prokinetics did not significantly decrease the risks of reported adverse events or all-cause mortality among critically ill adults.
| S-EPMC7799841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether saxagliptin is non-inferior to basal-bolus insulin therapy for glycemic control in patients with controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) admitted to hospital with non-critical illnesses.Research design and methodsThis was an open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients received either saxagliptin or basal-bolus insulin, both with correctional insulin doses. The main study outcome was the mean daily blood glucose (BG) after the first day of randomization.ResultsOf 66 patients completing the study, 33 (age 69±10 years, 40% men) were randomized to saxagliptin and 33 (age 67±10 years, 52% men) to basal-bolus insulin therapy. The mean daily BG was 149.8±22.0 mg/dL in the saxagliptin group and 146.9±30.5 mg/dL in the insulin group (p=0.59). With an observed group difference of 2.9 mg/dL and an a priori margin of 20 mg/dL, inferiority of saxagliptin was rejected in favor of non-inferiority (p=0.007). There was no significant difference in the percentage of high or low BG values. The insulin group received a higher number of insulin injections (2.3±1.7/day vs 1.2±1.9/day; p<0.001) as well as a higher daily insulin dose (13.3±12.9 units/day vs 2.4±3.3 units/day; p<0.001) than did the saxagliptin group. Continuous BG monitoring showed that glycemic variability was lower in the saxagliptin group as compared to the insulin group. Patient satisfaction scores were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsWe conclude that saxagliptin use is non-inferior to basal-bolus insulin in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with T2DM controlled on 0-2 oral agents without insulin. Saxagliptin use may decrease glycemic variability in these patients.Trial registration numberNCT02182895.
| S-EPMC5372055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Underfeeding in critical illness is common and associated with poor outcomes. According to large prospective hospital studies, volume-based feeding (VBF) safely and effectively improves energy and protein delivery to critically ill patients compared to traditional rate-based feeding (RBF) and might improve patient outcomes. A before-and-after study was designed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and clinical outcomes associated with VBF compared to RBF in a single intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS:The sample included consecutively admitted critically ill adults, mechanically ventilated for at least 72?h and fed enterally for a minimum of 48?h. The first cohort (n?=?46) was fed using RBF, the second (n?=?46) using VBF, and observed for 7?days, or until extubation or death. Statistical comparison of percentage feed volume, energy and protein delivered, plus indices of feed intolerance, were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary observations included ventilation period, mortality, and length of ICU stay (LOICUS). RESULTS:Groups were comparable in baseline clinical and demographic characteristics and nutrition practices. Volume delivered to the VBF group increased significantly by 11.2% (p ??0.001), energy by 13.4% (p ??0.001) and protein by 8.4% (p?=?0.02), compared to the RBF group. In the VBF group, patients meeting >?90% of energy requirements increased significantly from 47.8 to 84.8% (p ??0.001); those meeting >?90% of protein requirements changed from 56.5 to 73.9% (p?=?0.134). VBF did not increase symptoms of feed intolerance. Adjusted binomial logistic regression found each additional 1% of prescribed feed delivered decreased the odds of vomiting by 0.942 (5.8%), 95% CI [0.900-0.985], p?=?0.010. No differences in mortality or LOICUS were identified. Kaplan-Meier found a significantly increased extubation rate in patients receiving >?90% of protein requirements compared to those meeting <?80%, (p?=?0.006). Adjusted Cox regression found the daily probability of being extubated tripled in patients receiving >?90% of their protein needs compared to the group receiving <?80%, hazard ratio 3.473, p?=?0.021, 95% CI [1.205-10.014]. CONCLUSION:VBF safely and effectively increased the delivery of energy and protein to critically ill patients. Increased protein delivery may improve extubation rate which has positive patient-centred and financial implications, warranting larger confirmatory trials. This investigation adds weight to the ICU literature supporting VBF, and the growing evidence which advocates for enhanced protein delivery to improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6444687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHospitalized patients are often unable to ingest or tolerate oral antipyretics and recently an aqueous formulation of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen was approved by the US-FDA for the reduction of fever in adults.MethodsWe evaluated IV ibuprofen to reduce fever exceeding 101.0 degrees F, measured as the percentage of subjects achieving a temperature <101.0 degrees F at four hours after a single dose of IV ibuprofen vs. placebo. Secondary evaluations included the effect on temperature at 24 hours. Nine sites randomized patients to receive either a placebo or IV ibuprofen (100, 200, or 400 mg), and patients were given four hours for six doses. Subjects were excluded for platelet count <30 k and/or creatinine >3.0 mg/dL.ResultsAt entry, there were no significant baseline differences between the IV ibuprofen group and placebo, n = 120. At four hours, the number (percentage) with T<101.0 degrees F was: Placebo n = 9/28 (32%); 100 mg IV ibuprofen n = 19/31 (61%), P = 0.0264; 200 mg IV ibuprofen n = 21/30 (70%) P = 0.0043; 400 mg IV ibuprofen n = 24/31 (77%) P = 0.0005. A total of 53/120 patients (44%) were prospectively defined as critically ill at baseline and similar temperature reductions were observed in this subgroup. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups or when compared to placebo in transfusion, bleeding, renal failure or mortality.ConclusionsAll doses of IV ibuprofen tested reduced fever at four hours and throughout the first 24 hours of dosing. The 400 mg dose was effective in lowering temperature to normal and maintaining this over the first 24 hours of dosing. IV ibuprofen was effective in reducing fevers in critically ill and non-critically ill groups. Following 24 hours of administration of IV ibuprofen, no clinically significant differences in any safety parameter including renal function or bleeding occurred through the 28-day follow-up period.Trial registrationsClinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01131000.
| S-EPMC2911773 | biostudies-literature