International audienceSummaryBackground Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used during the 2009–10 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, but evidence for their effectiveness in reducing mortality is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to investigate the association between use of neuraminidase inhibitors and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. Methods We assembled data for patients (all ages) admitted to hospital worldwide with laboratory confirmed or clinically diagnosed pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. We identified potential data contributors from an earlier systematic review of reported studies addressing the same research question. In our systematic review, eligible studies were done between March 1, 2009 (Mexico), or April 1, 2009 (rest of the world), until the WHO declaration of the end of the pandemic (Aug 10, 2010); however, we continued to receive data up to March 14, 2011, from ongoing studies. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to assess the association between neuraminidase inhibitor treatment and mortality (primary outcome), adjusting for both treatment propensity and potential confounders, using generalised linear mixed modelling. We assessed the association with time to treatment using time-dependent Cox regression shared frailty modelling. Findings We included data for 29 234 patients from 78 studies of patients admitted to hospital between Jan 2, 2009, and March 14, 2011. Compared with no treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment (irrespective of timing) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·81; 95% CI 0·70–0·93; p=0·0024). Compared with later treatment, early treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted OR 0·48; 95% CI 0·41–0·56; p<0·0001). Early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality (adjusted OR 0·50; 95% CI 0·37–0·67; p<0·0001). These associations with reduced mortality risk were less pronounced and not significant in children. There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset (adjusted hazard ratio [HR 1·23] [95% CI 1·18–1·28]; p<0·0001 for the increasing HR with each day's delay). Interpretation We advocate early instigation of neuraminidase inhibitor treatment in adults admitted to hospital with suspected or proven influenza infection. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche

IMPORTANCE Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×10 3 /μL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, −6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48]; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, −ϱ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%]; P = .01).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days...

Vancomycin-induced renal toxicity was reported in 10-20 % and 30-40 % of patients following conventional and high doses of vancomycin therapy, respectively .The most probable mechanism for its nephrotoxicity can be at least partially attributable to an increased production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. There are a number of different risk factors which could accelerate or potentiate the occurrence of vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity, with the most documented risk factors being high trough vancomycin level (especially >20 mg/L) or doses (>4 g/day), concomitant treatment with nephrotoxic agents, prolonged therapy (even more than 7 days), and admittance to an intensive care unit (especially prolonged stay). It is necessary to carry out more studies, especially those focused on the association between nephrotoxicity and high trough levels of vancomycin.

Objectives: To the best of our knowledge, there is no published study regarding use of IFN β-1a in the treatment of severe COVID-19. In this randomized clinical trial efficacy and safety of IFN β-1a has been evaluated in patients with severe COVID-19. Methods: Forty-two patients in the interferon group received IFN β-1a in addition to the national protocol medications (hydroxychloroquine plus lopinavir/ritonavir or atazanavir/ritonavir). Each 44 micrograms/ml (12 million IU/ml) of interferon β-1a was subcutaneously injected three times weekly for two consecutive weeks. The control group consisted 39 patients that received only the national protocol medications. Primary outcome of study was time to reach clinical response. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, 28-day mortality, effect of early or late administration of IFN on mortality, adverse effects and complications during the hospitalization. Results: Between 29th February to 3rd April 2020, 92 patients were recruited that finally 42 patients in the IFN group and 39 patients in the control group completed the study. As primary outcome, time to the clinical response was not significantly different between the IFN and the control groups (9.7 ± 5.8 vs. 8.3 ± 4.9 days respectively, P=0.95). On day 14, 66.7% vs. 43.6% of patients in the IFN group and the control group were discharged, respectively (OR= 2.5; 95% CI: 1.05- 6.37). The 28-day overall mortality was significantly lower in the IFN than the control group (19% vs. 43.6% respectively, p= 0.015). Early administration significantly reduced mortality (OR=13.5; 95% CI: 1.5-118). Conclusion: Although IFN did not change time to reach the clinical response, adding it to the national protocol significantly increased discharge rate on day 14 and decreased 28-day mortality.

Highlights As Add-on therapy, IFN β-1b shortened the time to clinical improvement. IFN β-1b significantly increased the discharge rate at day 14. IFN β-1b reduced overall 28-day mortality. IFN β-1b related adverse effects were mild and did not cause treatment interruptions.

Objective:Effects of ascorbic acid on hemodynamic parameters of septic shock were evaluated in nonsurgical critically ill patients in limited previous studies. In this study, the effect of high-dose ascorbic acid on vasopressor drug requirement was evaluated in surgical critically ill patients with septic shock.Methods:Patients with septic shock who required a vasopressor drug to maintain mean arterial pressure >65 mmHg were assigned to receive either 25 mg/kg intravenous ascorbic acid every 6 h or matching placebo for 72 h. Vasopressor dose and duration were considered as the primary outcomes. Duration of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay and 28-day mortality has been defined as secondary outcomes.Findings:During the study period, 28 patients (14 in each group) completed the trial. Mean dose of norepinephrine during the study period (7.44 ± 3.65 vs. 13.79 ± 6.48 mcg/min, P = 0.004) and duration of norepinephrine administration (49.64 ± 25.67 vs. 71.57 ± 1.60 h, P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the ascorbic acid than the placebo group. No statistically significant difference was detected between the groups regarding the length of ICU stay. However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the ascorbic acid than the placebo group (14.28% vs. 64.28%, respectively; P = 0.009).Conclusion:High-dose ascorbic acid may be considered as an effective and safe adjuvant therapy in surgical critically ill patients with septic shock. The most effective dose of ascorbic acid and the best time for its administration should be determined in future studies.

Aim: Despite the similarities in the pathogenesis of the beta coronaviruses, the precise infective mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 remain unclear. Objective: In this review, we aim to focus on the proposed theories behind the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and highlight the clinical complications related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We conducted a literature search in Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar for the relevant articles regarding clinical complications and pathogenesis of COVID-19. Results: Related articles were included and discussed. Conclusion: Respiratory system and the lungs are the most commonly involved sites of COVID-19 infection. Cardiovascular, liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal and central nervous systems are involved with different frequencies and degrees of severity.

No abstract