Domecq Graces, Juan Pablo

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of “guideline-based care” for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of “guideline-based care” for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in “guideline-based care.” A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.4) for receipt of “guideline-based care” compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47–62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use “guideline-based care” quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3–1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received “guideline-based care” for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

AbstractIntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Primary hypothyroidism is a common comorbid condition, but little is known about its association with COVID‐19 severity and outcomes. This study aims to identify the frequency of hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 as well as describe the differences in outcomes between patients with and without pre‐existing hypothyroidism using an observational, multinational registry.MethodsIn an observational cohort study we enrolled patients 18 years or older, with laboratory‐confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 infection between March 2020 and February 2021. The primary outcomes were (1) the disease severity defined as per the World Health Organization Scale for Clinical Improvement, which is an ordinal outcome corresponding with the highest severity level recorded during a patient's index COVID‐19 hospitalization, (2) in‐hospital mortality and (3) hospital‐free days. Secondary outcomes were the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU mortality.ResultsAmong the 20,366 adult patients included in the study, pre‐existing hypothyroidism was identified in 1616 (7.9%). The median age for the Hypothyroidism group was 70 (interquartile range: 59–80) years, and 65% were female and 67% were White. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (68%), diabetes (42%), dyslipidemia (37%) and obesity (28%). After adjusting for age, body mass index, sex, admission date in the quarter year since March 2020, race, smoking history and other comorbid conditions (coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia), pre‐existing hypothyroidism was not associated with higher odds of severe disease using the World Health Organization disease severity index (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 1.13; p = .69), in‐hospital mortality (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.15; p = .58) or differences in hospital‐free days (estimated difference 0.01 days; 95% CI: −0.45, 0.47; p = .97). Pre‐existing hypothyroidism was not associated with ICU admission or ICU mortality in unadjusted as well as in adjusted analysis.ConclusionsIn an international registry, hypothyroidism was identified in around 1 of every 12 adult hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Pre‐existing hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 was not associated with higher disease severity or increased risk of mortality or ICU admissions. However, more research on the possible effects of COVID‐19 on the thyroid gland and its function is needed in the future.

IMPORTANCE: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40–4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23–6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01–0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01–1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of the simultaneous hypertonic saline solution and IV furosemide (HSS+Fx) for patients with fluid overload compared with IV furosemide alone (Fx). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Scopus, and WOS) were searched from inception to March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials on the use of HSS+Fx in adult patients with fluid overload versus Fx were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were collected on all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, heart failure–related readmission, along with inpatient weight loss, change of daily diuresis, serum creatinine, and 24-hour urine sodium excretion from prior to post intervention. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk or mean difference with 95% CIs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven randomized controlled trials comprising 2,987 acute decompensated heart failure patients were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that HSS+Fx was associated with lower all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.46–0.67; p < 0.05; I2 = 12%) and heart failure–related readmissions (relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33–0.76; p < 0.05; I2 = 61%), shorter hospital length of stay (mean difference, –3.28 d; 95% CI, –4.14 to –2.43; p < 0.05; I2 = 93%), increased daily diuresis (mean difference, 583.87 mL; 95% CI, 504.92–662.81; p < 0.05; I2 = 76%), weight loss (mean difference, –1.76 kg; 95% CI, –2.52 to –1.00; p < 0.05; I2 = 57%), serum sodium change (mean difference, 6.89 mEq/L; 95% CI, 4.98–8.79; p < 0.05; I2 = 95%), and higher 24-hour urine sodium excretion (mean difference, 61.10 mEq; 95% CI, 51.47–70.73; p < 0.05; I2 = 95%), along with decreased serum creatinine (mean difference, –0.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, –0.51 to –0.41; p < 0.05; I2 = 89%) when compared with Fx. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of the HSS+Fx over Fx were observed across all examined outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure patients with fluid overload. There is at least moderate certainty that HSS+Fx is associated with a reduction in mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Factors associated with a successful HSS+Fx utilization are still unknown. Current evidence cannot be extrapolated to other than fluid overload states in acute decompensated heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd ) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support ( n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation ( n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation ( n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy ( n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

Abstract Context The extent to which some pharmacological interventions reduce or increase the risk of biochemical conversion to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in at-risk individuals is unclear. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through 24 August 2017 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of drugs suspected to modify the risk of biochemical conversion to T2DM. Results We included 43 trials with 192,156 subjects (mean age, 60 years; 56% men; mean body mass index, 30.4 kg/m2). α-Glucosidase inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, metformin, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, and pioglitazone significantly reduced the risk of biochemical conversion to T2DM, whereas statins and nateglinide increased the risk. There was insufficient direct evidence regarding the effects of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Most trials were brief and evaluated this outcome during treatment without a withdrawal or washout period. Conclusions Several drugs modify the risk of biochemical conversation to T2DM, although whether this effect is persistent and clinically relevant is unclear. Future studies need to focus on cardiovascular disease prevention, mortality, and patient-important outcomes instead of biochemical conversion to T2DM.