BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 is uncertain. We sought to evaluate outcomes of delayed intubation and examine the ROX index (ie, [S pO 2 =F IO 2 ]/breathing frequency) to predict weaning from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of subjects with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and managed with HFNC. The ROX index was applied to predict HFNC success. Subjects that failed HFNC were divided into early HFNC failure (^48 h of HFNC therapy prior to mechanical ventilation) and late failure (> 48 h). Standard statistical comparisons and regression analyses were used to compare overall hospital mortality and secondary end points, including time-specific mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and ICU length of stay between early and late failure groups. RESULTS: 272 subjects with COVID-19 were managed with HFNC. One hundred sixty-four (60.3%) were successfully weaned from HFNC, and 111 (67.7%) of those weaned were managed solely in non-ICU settings. ROX index >3.0 at 2, 6, and 12 hours after initiation of HFNC was 85.3% sensitive for identifying subsequent HFNC success. One hundred eight subjects were intubated for failure of HFNC (61 early failures and 47 late failures). Mortality after HFNC failure was high (45.4%). There was no statistical difference in hospital mortality (39.3% vs 53.2%, P 5 .18) or any of the secondary end points between early and late HFNC failure groups. This remained true even when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, HFNC was a viable strategy and mechanical ventilation was unecessary in the majority of subjects. In the minority that progressed to mechanical ventilation, duration of HFNC did not differentiate subjects with worse clinical outcomes. The ROX index was sensitive for the identification of subjects successfully weaned from HFNC. Prospective studies in COVID-19 are warranted to confirm these findings and to optimize patient selection for use of HFNC in this disease.
Relative effectiveness of insulin pump treatment over multiple daily injections and structured education during flexible intensive insulin treatment for type 1 diabetes: cluster randomised trial (REPOSE) ABSTRACT ObjeCtive To compare the effectiveness of insulin pumps with multiple daily injections for adults with type 1 diabetes, with both groups receiving equivalent training in flexible insulin treatment. PartiCiPantsAdults with type 1 diabetes who were willing to undertake intensive insulin treatment, with no preference for pumps or multiple daily injections. Participants were allocated a place on established group training courses that taught flexible intensive insulin treatment ("dose adjustment for normal eating," DAFNE). The course groups (the clusters) were then randomly allocated in pairs to either pump or multiple daily injections.interventiOns Participants attended training in flexible insulin treatment (using insulin analogues) structured around the use of pump or injections, followed for two years. Main OutCOMe MeasuresThe primary outcomes were a change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values (%) at two years in participants with baseline HbA1c value of ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and the proportion of participants achieving an HbA1c value of <7.5%. Secondary outcomes included body weight, insulin dose, and episodes of moderate and severe hypoglycaemia. Ancillary outcomes included quality of life and treatment satisfaction. results 317 participants (46 courses) were randomised (156 pump and 161 injections). 267 attended courses and 260 were included in the intention to treat analysis, of which 235 (119 pump and 116 injection) had baseline HbA1c values of ≥7.5%. Glycaemic control and rates of severe hypoglycaemia improved in both groups. The mean change in HbA1c at two years was −0.85% with pump treatment and −0.42% with multiple daily injections. Adjusting for course, centre, age, sex, and accounting for missing values, the difference was −0.24% (−2.7 mmol/mol) in favour of pump users (95% confidence interval −0.53 to 0.05, P=0.10). Most psychosocial measures showed no difference, but pump users showed greater improvement in treatment satisfaction and some quality of life domains (dietary freedom and daily hassle) at 12 and 24 months. COnClusiOnsBoth groups showed clinically relevant and long lasting decreases in HbA1c, rates of severe hypoglycaemia, and improved psychological measures, although few participants achieved glucose levels currently recommended by national and international guidelines. Adding pump treatment to structured training in flexible intensive insulin treatment did not substantially enhance educational benefits on glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, or psychosocial outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes. These results do not support a policy of providing insulin pumps to adults with poor glycaemic control until the effects of training on participants' level of engagement in intensive self management have been determined. trial registratiOn Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61215213.
Purpose The outcomes of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 remain poorly defined. We sought to determine clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 managed with invasive mechanical ventilation in an appropriately resourced US health care system. Methods Outcomes of COVID-19 infected patients requiring mechanical ventilation treated within the Inova Health System between March 5, 2020 and April 26, 2020 were evaluated through an electronic medical record review. Results 1023 COVID-19 positive patients were admitted to the Inova Health System during the study period. Of these, 164 (16.0%) were managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed to definitive disposition. 70/164 patients (42.7%) had died and 94/164 (57.3%) were still alive. Deceased patients were older (median age of 66 vs. 55, p <0.0001) and had a higher initial d-dimer (2.22 vs. 1.31, p = 0.005) and peak ferritin levels (2998 vs. 2077, p = 0.016) compared to survivors. 84.3% of patients over 70 years old died in the hospital. Conversely, 67.4% of patients age 70 or younger survived to hospital discharge. Younger age, non-Caucasian race and treatment at a tertiary care center were all associated with survivor status. Conclusion Mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is high, with particularly daunting mortality seen in patients of advanced age, even in a well-resourced health care system. A substantial proportion of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were not of advanced age, and this group had a reasonable chance for recovery.
Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) requiring hospitalization is characterized by robust antibody production, dysregulated immune response and immunothrombosis. Fostamatinib, is a novel spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor we hypothesize will ameliorate Fc activation and attenuate harmful effects of the anti-COVID-19 immune response. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in hospitalized adults requiring oxygen with Covid-19 where patients receiving standard of care were randomized to receive fostamatinib or placebo. The primary outcome was serious adverse events by day 29. Results A total of 59 patients underwent randomization (30 to fostamatinib and 29 to placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in 10.5% of patients in the fostamatinib group compared to 22% in placebo (P = .2). Three deaths occurred by day 29, all receiving placebo. The mean change in ordinal score at day 15 was greater in the fostamatinib group (-3.6 ± 0.3 vs. -2.6 ± 0.4, P = .035) and the median length in the ICU was 3 days in the fostamatinib group vs. 7 days in placebo (P = .07). Differences in clinical improvement were most evident in patients with severe or critical disease (median days on oxygen, 10 vs. 28, P = .027). There were trends towards more rapid reductions in C-reactive protein, D-dimer, fibrinogen and ferritin levels in the fostamatinib group. Conclusion For COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the addition of fostamatinib to standard of care was safe and patients were observed to have improved clinical outcomes compared to placebo. These results warrant further validation in larger confirmatory trials.
We assessed the quality of overnight glycemic control and the frequency of the "dawn phenomenon" (nadir-0800 h glycemic increase) in 41 insulin-dependent diabetic patients treated by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Mean plasma glucose levels were near-normal during the 24 h and, in particular, constant throughout the night. In a subset of six patients overnight plasma free insulin concentrations were also constant during CSII. The majority of profiles (88%) showed a glucose nadir from 2.0 to 5.9 mmol/L (most frequently at 0600 h) and had an 0800 h value from 2.0 to 6.9 mmol/L (92%). A large proportion (46%) of profiles showed a zero or negative nadir-0800 h glycemic increase. In 22 patients with three or more profiles recorded at the same basal insulin infusion rate, only one of 103 profiles had a fasting glycemic increase greater than an arbitrary value of 5.0 mmol/L (5.3), although many patients exhibited small dawn glycemic increases (e.g., 14 of 22 had a mean increase of from 0 to 2 mmol/L). In 12 subjects a 15% reduction in basal insulin infusion rate increased the mean +/- SEM dawn glycemic increase from 0.58 +/- 0.25 mmol/L to 2.7 +/- 0.76 mmol/L (P less than 0.025) as well as significantly increasing the nocturnal nadir and 0800 h plasma glucose concentrations. Thus, a marked dawn phenomenon is rare when a single but adequate basal infusion rate is used for CSII, and this questions the need in the majority of patients for preprogrammable pumps with nocturnal infusion rate changes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.