Survival implications vs. complications: unraveling the impact of vitamin D adjunctive use in critically ill patients with COVID-19—A multicenter cohort study

BackgroundDespite insufficient evidence, vitamin D has been used as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.MethodsA multicenter retrospective cohort study that included all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their vitamin D use throughout their ICU stay (control vs. vitamin D). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, and ICU-acquired complications. Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analyses were employed as appropriate.ResultsA total of 1,435 patients were included in the study. Vitamin D was initiated in 177 patients (12.3%), whereas 1,258 patients did not receive it. A total of 288 patients were matched (1:1) using PS. The in-hospital mortality showed no difference between patients who received vitamin D and the control group (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87–1.71; p = 0.26). However, MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in the vitamin D group (beta coefficient 0.24 (95% CI 0.00–0.47), p = 0.05 and beta coefficient 0.16 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.33), p = 0.07, respectively). As an exploratory outcome, patients who received vitamin D were more likely to develop major bleeding than those who did not [OR 3.48 (95% CI 1.10, 10.94), p = 0.03].ConclusionThe use of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with survival benefits but was linked with longer MV duration, ICU LOS, and higher odds of major bleeding

Safety and tolerability of Empagliflozin use during the holy month of Ramadan by fasting patients with type 2 diabetes: A prospective cohort study

Background: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients are exposed to a 7.5 times higher risk of hypoglycemia while fasting during Ramadan. Relevant diabetes guidelines prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors over other classes. There is a great need to enrich data on their safe and effective use by fasting patients at greater risk of hypoglycemia. Therefore, this study aims to assess the safety and tolerability of Empagliflozin in T2DM Muslim patients during Ramadan. Methodology: A prospective cohort study was conducted for adult Muslim T2DM patients. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on Empagliflozin use during Ramadan (Control versus Empagliflozin). The primary outcomes were the incidence of hypoglycemia symptoms and confirmed hypoglycemia. Other outcomes were secondary. All patients were followed up to eight weeks post-Ramadan. A propensity score (PS) matching and Risk Ratio (RR) were used to report the outcomes. Results: Among 1104 patients with T2DM who were screened, 220 patients were included, and Empagliflozin was given to 89 patients as an add-on to OHDs. After matching with PS (1:1 ratio), the two groups were comparable. The use of other OHDs, such as sulfonylurea, DPP4 inhibitors, and Biguanides, was not statistically different between the two groups. The risk of hypoglycemia symptoms during Ramadan was lower in patients who received Empagliflozin than in the control group (RR 0.48 CI 0.26, 0.89; p-value = 0.02). Additionally, the risk of confirmed hypoglycemia was not statistically significant between the two groups (RR 1.09 CI 0.37, 3.22; p-value = 0.89). Conclusion: Empagliflozin use during Ramadan fasting was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia symptoms and higher tolerability. Further randomized control trials are required to confirm these findings

Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Abstract Background Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone’s clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone. Methods A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient’s age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission. Results After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. Conclusion Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality

Additional file 1 of Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Additional file 1. Outcome definition (s)

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P  =   .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P  < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P  < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P  < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings