Dataset Information

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients receiving interleukin-6 receptor antagonists and corticosteroid therapy: a preliminary report from a multinational registry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists (IL-6RAs) and steroids are emerging immunomodulatory therapies for severe and critical coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In this preliminary report, we aim to describe the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of adult critically ill COVID-19 patients, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV), and receiving IL-6RA and steroids therapy over the last 11 months.

Materials and methods

International, multicenter, cohort study derived from Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study registry and conducted through Discovery Network, Society of Critical Care Medicine. Data were collected between March 01, 2020, and January 10, 2021.

Results

Of 860 patients who met eligibility criteria, 589 received steroids, 170 IL-6RAs, and 101 combinations. Patients who received IL-6RAs were younger (median age of 57.5 years vs. 61.1 and 61.8 years in the steroids and combination groups, respectively). The median C-reactive protein level was > 75 mg/L, indicating a hyperinflammatory phenotype. The median daily steroid dose was 7.5 mg dexamethasone or equivalent (interquartile range: 6-14 mg); 80.8% and 19.2% received low-dose and high-dose steroids, respectively. Of the patients who received IL-6RAs, the majority received one dose of tocilizumab and sarilumab (dose range of 600-800 mg for tocilizumab and 200-400 mg for sarilumab). Regarding the timing of administration, we observed that steroid and IL-6RA administration on day 0 of ICU admission was only 55.6% and 39.5%, respectively. By day 28, when compared with steroid use alone, IL-6RA use was associated with an adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) of 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88, 1.4) for ventilator-free days, while combination therapy was associated with an aIRR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.6, 1.14). IL-6RA use was associated with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.44, 1.07) for the 28-day mortality rate, while combination therapy was associated with an aOR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.67, 1.70). Liver dysfunction was higher in IL-6RA group (p = 0.04), while the bacteremia rate did not differ among groups.

Conclusions

Discordance was observed between the registry utilization patterns (i.e., timing of steroids and IL-6RA administration) and new evidence from the recent randomized controlled trials and guideline recommendations. These data will help us to identify areas of improvement in prescribing patterns and enhance our understanding of IL-6RA safety with different steroid regimens. Further studies are needed to evaluate the drivers of hospital-level variation and their impact on clinical outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04486521. Registered on July 2020.

SUBMITTER: Amer M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8487342 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiaphragm dysfunction develops frequently in ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Both disuse atrophy (ventilator over-assist) and high respiratory muscle effort (ventilator under-assist) seem to be involved. A strong rationale exists to monitor diaphragm effort and titrate support to maintain respiratory muscle activity within physiological limits. Diaphragm electromyography is used to quantify breathing effort and has been correlated with transdiaphragmatic pressure and esophageal pressure. The neuromuscular efficiency index (NME) can be used to estimate inspiratory effort, however its repeatability has not been investigated yet. Our goal is to evaluate NME repeatability during an end-expiratory occlusion (NMEoccl) and its use to estimate the pressure generated by the inspiratory muscles (Pmus).MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study, performed in a medical-surgical ICU. A total of 31 adult patients were included, all ventilated in neurally adjusted ventilator assist (NAVA) mode with an electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) catheter in situ. At four time points within 72 h five repeated end-expiratory occlusion maneuvers were performed. NMEoccl was calculated by delta airway pressure (?Paw)/?EAdi and was used to estimate Pmus. The repeatability coefficient (RC) was calculated to investigate the NMEoccl variability.ResultsA total number of 459 maneuvers were obtained. At time T?=?0 mean NMEoccl was 1.22?±?0.86 cmH2O/?V with a RC of 82.6%. This implies that when NMEoccl is 1.22 cmH2O/?V, it is expected with a probability of 95% that the subsequent measured NMEoccl will be between 2.22 and 0.22 cmH2O/?V. Additional EAdi waveform analysis to correct for non-physiological appearing waveforms, did not improve NMEoccl variability. Selecting three out of five occlusions with the lowest variability reduced the RC to 29.8%.ConclusionsRepeated measurements of NMEoccl exhibit high variability, limiting the ability of a single NMEoccl maneuver to estimate neuromuscular efficiency and therefore the pressure generated by the inspiratory muscles based on EAdi.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies linked a high intensity of ventilation, measured as mechanical power, to mortality in patients suffering from "classic" ARDS. By contrast, mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 may present with intact pulmonary mechanics while undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time. We investigated whether an association between higher mechanical power and mortality is modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19.MethodsThis retrospective study included critically ill, adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h between March 2020 and December 2021 at a tertiary healthcare facility in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary exposure was median mechanical power during the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation, calculated using a previously validated formula. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. As co-primary analysis, we investigated whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 modified the primary association. We further investigated the association between mechanical power and days being alive and ventilator free and effect modification of this by a diagnosis of COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, effect modification and negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, severity of disease and in-hospital factors, were applied.Results1,737 mechanically ventilated patients were included, 411 (23.7%) suffered from COVID-19. 509 (29.3%) died within 30 days. The median mechanical power during the first 24 h of ventilation was 19.3 [14.6-24.0] J/min in patients with and 13.2 [10.2-18.0] J/min in patients without COVID-19. A higher mechanical power was associated with 30-day mortality (ORadj 1.26 per 1-SD, 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI 1.09-1.46; p = 0.002). Effect modification and interaction analysis did not support that this association was modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.38; p-for-interaction = 0.68). A higher mechanical power was associated with a lower number of days alive and ventilator free until day 28 (IRRadj 0.83 per 7.1 J/min increase; 95% CI 0.75-0.91; p < 0.001, adjusted risk difference - 2.7 days per 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI - 4.1 to - 1.3).ConclusionA higher mechanical power is associated with elevated 30-day mortality. While patients with COVID-19 received mechanical ventilation with higher mechanical power, this association was independent of a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Daily sedative interruption and intermittent sedation are effective in abbreviating the time on mechanical ventilation. Whether one is superior to the other has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare daily interruption and intermittent sedation during the mechanical ventilation period in a low nurse staffing ICU. METHODS:Adult patients expected to need mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were randomly assigned, in a single center, either to daily interruption of continuous sedative and opioid infusion or to intermittent sedation. In both cases, our goal was to maintain a Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) level of 3 or 4; that is patients should be calm, easily arousable or awakened with verbal stimuli or gentle shaking. Primary outcome was ventilator-free days in 28 days. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, incidence of delirium, nurse workload, self-extubation and psychological distress six months after ICU discharge. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients were included. There were no differences in the ventilator-free days in 28 days between daily interruption and intermittent sedation (median: 24 versus 25 days, P?=?0.160). There were also no differences in ICU mortality (40 versus 23.3%, P?=?0.165), hospital mortality (43.3 versus 30%, P?=?0.284), incidence of delirium (30 versus 40%, P?=?0.472), self-extubation (3.3 versus 6.7%, P?=?0.514), and psychological stress six months after ICU discharge. Also, the nurse workload was not different between groups, but it was reduced on day 5 compared to day 1 in both groups (Nurse Activity Score (NAS) in the intermittent sedation group was 54 on day 1 versus 39 on day 5, P?<?0.001; NAS in daily interruption group was 53 on day 1 versus 38 on day 5, P?<?0.001). Fentanyl and midazolam total dosages per patient were higher in the daily interruption group. The tidal volume was higher in the intermittent sedation group during the first five days of ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS:There was no difference in the number of ventilator-free days in 28 days between both groups. Intermittent sedation was associated with lower sedative and opioid doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824239.