Antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure: the DIANA study

Purpose: The DIANA study aimed to evaluate how often antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of empirical treatment is performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to estimate the effect of ADE on clinical cure on day 7 following treatment initiation. Methods: Adult ICU patients receiving empirical antimicrobial therapy for bacterial infection were studied in a prospective observational study from October 2016 until May 2018. ADE was defined as (1) discontinuation of an antimicrobial in case of empirical combination therapy or (2) replacement of an antimicrobial with the intention to narrow the antimicrobial spectrum, within the first 3 days of therapy. Inverse probability (IP) weighting was used to account for time-varying confounding when estimating the effect of ADE on clinical cure. Results: Overall, 1495 patients from 152 ICUs in 28 countries were studied. Combination therapy was prescribed in 50%, and carbapenems were prescribed in 26% of patients. Empirical therapy underwent ADE, no change and change other than ADE within the first 3 days in 16%, 63% and 22%, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at day 28 was 15.8% in the ADE cohort and 19.4% in patients with no change [p = 0.27; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.60\u20131.14)]. The IP-weighted relative risk estimate for clinical cure comparing ADE with no-ADE patients (no change or change other than ADE) was 1.37 (95% CI 1.14\u20131.64). Conclusion: ADE was infrequently applied in critically ill-infected patients. The observational effect estimate on clinical cure suggested no deleterious impact of ADE compared to no-ADE. However, residual confounding is likely

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Real-World Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccine and Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Variants among People Living with HIV on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in Central Kerala of India—An Ambi-Directional Cohort Study

Background: Vaccine effectiveness for first-generation coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines among People Living with HIV (PLHIV) in India remains unexplored. This study entails the estimation of the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222/Covishield, BBV152/Covaxin) among PLHIV and the identification of variants of SARS-CoV-2 among those infected with COVID-19. Methods: An ambi-directional cohort study was conducted among 925 PLHIV above 18 years of age in two districts of central Kerala, India, from February 2022 to March 2023. Selected PLHIV were recruited as Participant Liaison Officers (PLOs) for the follow-up on the study participants. At enrolment, basic details, baseline CD4 count, and a Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for RT-PCR were collected. In the follow-up phase, NP swabs were collected from subjects with COVID-19 symptoms. Positive subjects had a CD4 count and genomic sequencing performed. Results: The mean age of the participants was 46.93 ± 11.00 years. The majority, 819 (93.6%), of participants had received at least one dose of any vaccine, while 56 (6.4%) were unvaccinated. A total of 649 (79.24%) participants were vaccinated with Covishield and 169 (20.63%) with Covaxin. In the vaccinated group, 158 (19.3%) reported COVID-19 infection. Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) for one dose of any vaccine was 43.2% (95% CI: 11.8–64.5), p = 0.015. The effectiveness of full vaccination with Covishied was 63.8% (95% CI: 39.3–79.2), p 350 had greater protection from COVID-19, at 53.4% (95% CI: 19.6–75.3) p = 0.004. The incident cases were sub-variants of Omicron (BA.2, BA.2.38, BA.2.10). Conclusions: Full vaccination with Covishield and Covaxin was effective against COVID-19 infection among PLHIV on treatment; albeit, that of Covaxin was higher. A gap of 4 to 6 weeks between the two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was found to have higher VE among PLHIV

Correction: Epidemiology and outcomes of early-onset AKI in COVID-19-related ARDS in comparison with non-COVID-19-related ARDS: insights from two prospective global cohort studies (Critical Care, (2023), 27, 1, (3), 10.1186/s13054-022-04294-5)

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified that the collaborating authors part of the collaborating author group CCCC Consortium was missing. The collaborating author group is available and included as Additional file 1 in this article

Early short course of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: a propensity score analysis

Background: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. Methods: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. Results: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0–25) and 25 (IQR 7–26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0–87) and 87 (IQR 0–88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting