Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND Vasopressor agents could have certain specific effects in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after myocardial infarction, which may influence outcome. Although norepinephrine and epinephrine are currently the most commonly used agents, no randomized trial has compared their effects, and intervention data are lacking. OBJECTIVES The goal of this paper was to compare in a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized study, the efficacy and safety of epinephrine and norepinephrine in patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS The primary efficacy outcome was cardiac index evolution, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of refractory CS. Refractory CS was defined as CS with sustained hypotension, end-organ hypoperfusion and hyperlactatemia, and high inotrope and vasopressor doses. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients were randomized into 2 study arms, epinephrine and norepinephrine. For the primary efficacy endpoint, cardiac index evolution was similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.43) from baseline (H0) to H72. For the main safety endpoint, the observed higher incidence of refractory shock in the epinephrine group (10 of 27 [37%] vs. norepinephrine 2 of 30 [7%]; p = 0.008) led to early termination of the study. Heart rate increased significantly with epinephrine from H2 to H24 while remaining unchanged with norepinephrine (p <0.0001). Several metabolic changes were unfavorable to epinephrine compared with norepinephrine, including an increase in cardiac double product (p = 0.0002) and lactic acidosis from H2 to H24 (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, the use of epinephrine compared with norepinephrine was associated with similar effects on arterial pressure and cardiac index and a higher incidence of refractory shock. (Study Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Epinephrine and Norepinephrine in Cardiogenic Shock [OptimaCC]; NCT01367743) (J AmColl Cardiol 2018; 72: 173-82) (C) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.Peer reviewe

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

Resilience and Mental-Health Symptoms in ICU Healthcare Professionals Facing Repeated COVID-19 Waves

International audienceRationale: Psychological resilience (the ability to thrive in adversity) may protect against mental-health symptoms in healthcare professionals during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) waves.Objectives: To identify determinants of resilience in ICU staff members.Methods: In this cross-sectional survey in 21 French ICUs, staff members completed the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Impact of Event Scale–Revised (for post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). Factors independently associated with resilience were identified.Measurements and Main Results: The response rate was 73.1% (950 of 1,300). The median 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score was 29 (interquartile range, 25–32). Symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD were present in 61%, 39%, and 36% of staff members, respectively. Distress associated with the COVID-19 infodemic was correlated with symptoms of depression and PTSD. More resilient respondents less often had symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Greater resilience was independently associated with male sex, having provided intensive care during the early waves, having managed more than 50 patients with COVID-19, and, compared with earlier waves, working longer hours, having greater motivation, and more often involving families in end-of-life decisions. Independent risk factors for lower resilience were having managed more than 10 patients who died of COVID-19, having felt frightened or isolated, and greater distress from the COVID-19 infodemic.Conclusions: This study identifies modifiable determinants of resilience among ICU staff members. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether prior resilience decreases the risk of mental ill health during subsequent challenges. Hospital and ICU managers, for whom preserving mental well-being among staff members is a key duty, should pay careful attention to resilience

Auto-antibodies against type I IFNs in > 10% of critically ill COVID-19 patients: a prospective multicentre study

Abstract Background Auto-antibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I interferons (IFN) have been found in about 15% of critical cases COVID-19 pneumonia and less than 1% of mild or asymptomatic cases. Determining whether auto-Abs influence presentation and outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients could lead to specific therapeutic interventions. Our objectives were to compare the severity at admission and the mortality of patients hospitalized for critical COVID-19 in ICU with versus without auto-Abs. Results We conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study including patients admitted in 11 intensive care units (ICUs) from Great Paris area hospitals with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory failure. 925 critically ill COVID-19 patients were included. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFN-α2, β and/or ω were found in 96 patients (10.3%). Demographics and comorbidities did not differ between patients with versus without auto-Abs. At ICU admission, Auto-Abs positive patients required a higher FiO2 (100% (70–100) vs. 90% (60–100), p = 0.01), but were not different in other characteristics. Mortality at day 28 was not different between patients with and without auto-Abs (18.7 vs. 23.7%, p = 0.279). In multivariable analysis, 28-day mortality was associated with age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.06 [1.04–1.08], p < 0.001), SOFA score (aOR = 1.18 [1.12–1.23], p < 0.001) and immunosuppression (aOR = 1.82 [1.1–3.0], p = 0.02), but not with the presence of auto-Abs (aOR = 0.69 [0.38–1.26], p = 0.23). Conclusions In ICU patients, auto-Abs against type I IFNs were found in at least 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 pneumonia. They were not associated with day 28 mortality

Factors associated with coinfections in invasive aspergillosis: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives: To describe the coinfections in invasive aspergillosis (IA), to identify factors associated with coinfections, and to evaluate the impact of coinfection on mortality.Patients and methods: We conducted a monocentric retrospective study of consecutive putative, probable, or proven IA that occurred between 1997 and 2017. All coinfections, with an onset within 7 days before or after the first sign of aspergillosis, were identified. Factors associated with coinfections and mortality were analysed by multivariable analysis.Results: Among the 690 patients with IA included in the study, the median age was 57 years (range 7 days to 90 years). A coinfection was diagnosed in 272/690 patients (39.4%, 95%CI 35.8-43.2). The location of this coinfection was pulmonary only in 131/272 patients (48%), bloodstream only in 66/272 patients (24%) and other/multiple sites in 75/272 patients (28%). Coinfections were bacterial (110/272 patients, 40%), viral (58/272, 21%), fungal (57/272, 21%), parasitic (5/272, 2%) or due to multiple types of pathogens (42/272, 15%). Factors associated with a coinfection in adjusted analysis were: allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (OR 2.3 (1.2-4.4)), other haematological malignancies (OR 2.1 (1.2-3.8)), other underlying diseases (OR 4.3 (1.4-13.6)), lymphopenia (OR 1.7 (1.1-2.5)), C-reactive protein >180 mg/L (OR 1.9 (1.2-3.0)), fever (OR 2.4 (1.5-4.1)), tracheal intubation (OR 2.6 (1.5-4.7)), isolation of two or more different Aspergillus species (OR 2.7 (1.1-6.3)), and the presence of non-nodular lesions on chest computed tomography (OR 2.2 (1.3-3.7) and OR 2.2 (1.2-4.0)). Coinfections were independently associated with a higher mortality at week 12 (adjusted HR 1.5 (1.1-1.9), p < 0.01).Conclusions: Coinfections are frequent in IA patients and are associated with higher mortality

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Severe Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study (Remdeco-19)

International audienceBackground. Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods. We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days. Results. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation. Conclusions. SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Severe Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study (Remdeco-19)

International audienceBackground. Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods. We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days. Results. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation. Conclusions. SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Severe Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study (Remdeco-19)

International audienceBackground. Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods. We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days. Results. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation. Conclusions. SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Severe Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study (Remdeco-19)

International audienceBackground. Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods. We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days. Results. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation. Conclusions. SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients

An open-label randomized controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

International audienceObjectives: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support.Methods: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely.Results: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms.Conclusion: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens