Convalescent plasma therapy in patients with COVID-19

IntroductionPassive antibody therapy has been used to immunize vulnerable people against infectious agents. In this study, we aim to investigate the efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) in the treatment of severe and critically ill patients diagnosed with COVID-19.MethodThe data of severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing CP along with the antiviral treatment (n = 888) and an age-gender, comorbidity, and other COVID-19 treatments matched severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients at 1:1 ratio (n = 888) were analyzed retrospectively.ResultsDuration in the intensive care unit (ICU), the rate of mechanical ventilation (MV) support and vasopressor support were lower in CP group compared with the control group (p = 0.001, p = 0.02, p = 0.001, respectively). The case fatality rate (CFR) was 24.7 % in the CP group, and it was 27.7 % in the control group. Administration of CP 20 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis or COVID-19 related symptoms were associated with a higher rate of MV support compared with the first 3 interval groups (≤5 days, 6?10 days, 11?15 days) (p=0.001).ConclusionCP therapy seems to be effective for a better course of COVID-19 in severe and critically ill patients.     

The usefulness of a combination of age,body mass index,and blood urea nitrogen as prognostic factors in predicting oxygen requirements in patients with coronavirus disease 2019

IntroductionRisk factors for seriously ill coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients have been reported in several studies. However, to date, few studies have reported simple risk assessment tools for distinguishing patients becoming severely ill after initial diagnosis. Hence, this study aimed to develop a simple clinical risk nomogram predicting oxygenation risk in patients with COVID-19 at the first triage.MethodsThis retrospective study involved a chart review of the medical records of 84 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 at ten medical facilities. The patients were divided into requiring no oxygen therapy (non-severe group) and requiring oxygen therapy (severe group). Patient characteristics were compared between the two groups.We utilized univariate logistic regression analysis to confirm determinants of high risks of requiring oxygen therapy in patients with moderate COVID-19.ResultsThirty-five patients ware in severe group and forty-nine patients were in non-severe group. In comparison with patients in the non-severe group, patients in the severe group were significantly older with higher body mass index (BMI), and had a history of hypertension and diabetes. Serum blood urea nitrogen (BUN), lactic acid dehydrogenase (LDH), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were significantly higher in the severe group. Multivariate analysis showed that older age, higher BMI, and higher BUN levels were significantly associated with oxygen requirements.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that age, BMI, and BUN were independent risk factors in the moderate-to-severe COVID-19 group. Elderly patients with higher BMI and BUN require close monitoring and early treatment initiation.     

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 65 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Liaoning,China

BACKGROUNDCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly to multiple countries through its infectious agent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The severity, atypical clinical presentation, and lack of specific anti-viral treatments have posed a challenge for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. Understanding the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases in different geographical areas is essential to improve the prognosis of COVID-19 patients and slow the spread of the disease.AIMTo investigate the epidemiological and clinical characteristics and main therapeutic strategy for confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Liaoning Province, China.METHODSAdult patients (n = 65) with confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled in this retrospective study from January 20 to February 29, 2020 in Liaoning Province, China. Pharyngeal swabs and sputum specimens were collected from the patients for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleic acid. Patient demographic information and clinical data were collected from the medical records. Based on the severity of COVID-19, the patients were divided into nonsevere and severe groups. All patients were followed until March 20, 2020.RESULTSThe mean age of 65 COVID-19 patients was 45.5 ± 14.4 years, 56.9% were men, and 24.6% were severe cases. During the 14 d before symptom onset, 25 (38.5%) patients lived or stayed in Wuhan, whereas 8 (12.3%) had no clear history of exposure. Twenty-nine (44.6%) patients had at least one comorbidity; hypertension and diabetes were the most common comorbidities. Compared with nonsevere patients, severe patients had significantly lower lymphocyte counts [median value 1.3 × 10⁹/L (interquartile range 0.9-1.95) vs 0.82 × 10⁹/L (0.44-1.08), P < 0.001], elevated levels of lactate dehydrogenase [450 U/L (386-476) vs 707 U/L (592-980), P < 0.001] and C-reactive protein [6.1 mg/L (1.5-7.2) vs 52 mg/L (12.7-100.8), P < 0.001], and a prolonged median duration of viral shedding [19.5 d (16-21) vs 23.5 d (19.6-30.3), P = 0.001]. The overall median viral shedding time was 19.5 d, and the longest was 53 d. Severe patients were more frequently treated with lopinavir/ritonavir, antibiotics, glucocorticoid therapy, immunoglobulin, thymosin, and oxygen support. All patients were discharged following treatment in quarantine.CONCLUSIONOur findings may facilitate the identification of severe cases and inform clinical treatment and quarantine decisions regarding COVID-19.     

Efficacy of arbidol in COVID-19 patients: A retrospective study

BACKGROUNDTo date, no treatment has proven to be absolutely effective for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, and further research is necessary. As a traditional antiviral drug, arbidol was widely used in Wuhan at the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic and is of increasing interest for treating COVID-19 based on in vitro data suggesting activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Although arbidol has been widely used in China to treat COVID-19 patients, clinical trials to date have not clearly substantiated this approach.AIMTo evaluate the efficacy of arbidol for COVID-19.METHODSA retrospective study was conducted on 132 moderate and severe COVID-19 patients admitted to Jinyintan Hospital and Huoshenshan Hospital (officially designated for COVID-19 treatment) from February to March 2020 in Wuhan, China. This study mainly evaluated the efficacy of arbidol in patients with COVID-19 in the early stage of the SARS coronavirus 2 epidemic. Arbidol was administered at a dose of 200 mg, three times a day, with a 10-d course to adults not receiving any other drugs. Due to the shortage of beds at the time, not every patient could be admitted immediately. We looked for the early stages of the sudden outbreak, places of limited medical resources, limited ward beds, and delayed admission; thus, some patients naturally fit into the control group who did not receive any antiviral drugs. Out of the 132 patients, 72 received arbidol treatment, and 60 did not. We compared the disease course of the two groups and explored the predictors of extended disease duration.RESULTSSeventy-two patients commenced arbidol, and 60 patients did not receive arbidol treatment. The disease duration in the former group was shorter (23.42 ± 6.92 vs 29.60 ± 6.49, P < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that the risk of a prolonged course of disease increased by 7.158 times in the non-arbidol treatment group. Ferritin > 483.0 ng/mL and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) > 237.5 U/L were found to be independent risk factors for protracted cases, with the risk of an extended disease duration increasing to 2.852 times and 5.946 times, respectively.CONCLUSIONThe duration course of moderate and severe COVID-19 patients is reduced by 6.183 d when arbidol is administered. Ferritin > 486.5 ng/mL and LDH > 239.5 U/L are independent risk factors for delayed recovery from COVID-19. Early oral administration of arbidol 200 mg t.i.d. with a 10-d course of treatment may be an effective management strategy in COVID-19 patients, particularly those with increased serum ferritin or elevated LDH.     

Comparison of methylprednisolone pulse vs conventional dexamethasone for adult cases of COVID-19 requiring oxygen; a Japanese retrospective cohort study

BackgroundAlthough dexamethasone is an effective treatment in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring oxygen, the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulse is unclear. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of methylprednisolone pulse to those of dexamethasone.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on adult COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen and no invasive mechanical ventilation treated with methylprednisolone pulse (1 g/day for 3 days) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day orally or 6.6 mg/day intravenously for ≥5 days). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LoS), duration of oxygen requirement, and requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).ResultsTwenty two cases of methylprednisolone pulse and 77 cases of dexamethasone were included. Mask ventilation was more common in the methylprednisolone pulse group (P < 0.001). The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between both groups (P = 0.635). The secondary outcomes of hospital mortality and the requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, and CRRT were similar between groups. No cases received ECMO. Median LoS (P = 0.006) and duration of oxygen requirement (P = 0.004) were longer in the methylprednisolone pulse group.ConclusionsThe proportion of ICU admissions was similar between the methylprednisolone pulse and the dexamethasone group. However, more cases in the methylprednisolone pulse group required mask ventilation than in the dexamethasone group, suggesting that some cases benefited from methylprednisolone pulse.     

Secondary bloodstream infection in critically ill patients with COVID-19

ObjectiveSecondary infection, especially bloodstream infection, is an important cause of death in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe secondary bloodstream infection (SBI) in critically ill adults with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to explore risk factors related to SBI.MethodsWe reviewed all SBI cases among critically ill patients with COVID-19 from 12 February 2020 to 24 March 2020 in the COVID-19 ICU of Jingmen First People''s Hospital. We compared risk factors associated with bloodstream infection in this study. All SBIs were confirmed by blood culture.ResultsWe identified five cases of SBI among the 32 patients: three with Enterococcus faecium, one mixed septicemia (E. faecium and Candida albicans), and one C. parapsilosis. There were no significant differences between the SBI group and non-SBI group. Significant risk factors for SBI were extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, central venous catheter, indwelling urethral catheter, and nasogastric tube.ConclusionsOur findings confirmed that the incidence of secondary infection, particularly SBI, and mortality are high among critically ill patients with COVID-19. We showed that long-term hospitalization and invasive procedures such as tracheotomy, central venous catheter, indwelling urethral catheter, and nasogastric tube are risk factors for SBI and other complications.     

Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter,Double-blind,Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

PurposeGiven the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is a global urgency to discover an effective treatment for patients withthis disease. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the widely used antiparasitic drug ivermectin on outcomes in patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, patients with COVID-19 admitted to 2 referral tertiary hospitals in Mazandaran, Iran, were randomly divided into 2 groups: intervention and control. In addition to standard treatment for COVID-19, the intervention group received a single weight-based dose (0.2 mg/kg) of ivermectin; the control group received the standard of care. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging data from participants were recorded at baseline. Patients were assessed daily for symptoms and disease progression. The primary clinical outcome measures were the durations of hospital stay, fever, dyspnea, and cough; and overall clinical improvement.FindingsSixty-nine patients were enrolled (mean [SD] ages: ivermectin, 47.63 [22.20] years; control, 45.18 [23.11] years; P = 0.65). Eighteen patients (51.4%) in the ivermectin group and 18 (52.9%) in control group were male (P = 0.90). The mean durations of dyspnea were 2.6 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group and 3.8 (0.4) days in the control group (P = 0.048). Also, persistent cough lasted for 3.1 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group compared to 4.8 (0.4) days in control group (PP = 0.019). The mean durations of hospital stay were 7.1 (0.5) days versus 8.4 (0.6) days in the ivermectin and control groups, respectively (P = 0.016). Also, the frequency of lymphopenia decreased to 14.3% in the ivermectin group and did not change in the control group (P = 0.007).ImplicationsA single dose of ivermectin was well-tolerated in symptomatic patients with COVID-19, and important clinical features of COVID-19 were improved with ivermectin use, including dyspnea, cough, and lymphopenia. Further studies with larger sample sizes, different drug dosages, dosing intervals and durations, especially in different stages of the disease, may be useful in understanding the potential clinical benefits ivermectin. Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: IRCT20111224008507N3.     

Nigella sativa for the treatment of COVID-19: An open-label randomized controlled clinical trial

BackgroundEffective treatment for Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) is under intensive research. Nigella sativa oil (NSO) is a herbal medicine with antiviral and immunomodulatory activities, and has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NSO treatment in patients with COVID-19.MethodsAll adult patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms presented to King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, were recruited for an open label randomized clinical trial (RCT). They were randomly divided into control or treatment groups, with the latter receiving 500 mg NSO (MARNYS® Cuminmar) twice daily for 10 days. Symptoms were daily monitored via telecommunication. The primary outcome focused on the percentage of patients who recovered (symptom-free for 3 days) within 14-days. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04401202).ResultsA total of 173 patients were enrolled for RCT. The average age was 36(±11) years, and 53 % of patients were males. The control and NSO groups included 87 and 86 patients respectively. The percentage of recovered patients in NSO group (54[62 %]) was significantly higher than that in the control group (31[36 %]; p = 0.001). The mean duration to recovery was also shorter for patients receiving NSO (10.7 ± 3.2 days) compared with the control group (12.3 ± 2.8 days); p = 0.001.ConclusionsNSO supplementation was associated with faster recovery of symptoms than usual care alone for patients with mild COVID-19 infection. These potential therapeutic benefits require further exploration with placebo-controlled, double-blinded studies.     

Utility of Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound for Clinical Classification of COVID-19

In this study, the utility of point-of-care lung ultrasound for clinical classification of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was prospectively assessed. Twenty-seven adult patients with COVID-19 underwent bedside lung ultrasonography (LUS) examinations three times each within the first 2 wk of admission to the isolation ward. We divided the 81 exams into three groups (moderate, severe and critically ill). Lung scores were calculated as the sum of points. A rank sum test and bivariate correlation analysis were carried out to determine the correlation between LUS on admission and clinical classification of COVID-19. There were dramatic differences in LUS (p < 0.001) among the three groups, and LUS scores (r = 0.754) correlated positively with clinical severity (p < 0.01). In addition, moderate, severe and critically ill patients were more likely to have low (≤9), medium (9–15) and high scores (≥15), respectively. This study provides stratification criteria of LUS scores to assist in quantitatively evaluating COVID-19 patients.     

A retrospective analysis of clinical efficacy of ribavirin in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19

IntroductionCoronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swept rapidly throughout the world. So far, no therapeutics have yet proven to be effective. Ribavirin was recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in China because of its in vitro activity. However, evidence supporting its clinical use with good efficacy is still lacking.MethodsA total of 208 confirmed severe COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in Wuhan Union West Campus between 1 February 2020 and 10 March 2020 were enrolled in the retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of ribavirin. The primary endpoint was the time to clinical improvement. The secondary endpoints included mortality, survival time, time to throat swab SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negative conversion, and the length of hospital stay.Results68 patients were treated with ribavirin while 140 not. There were no significant between-group differences in demographic characteristics, baseline laboratory test results, treatment, and distribution of ordinal scale scores at enrollment, except for coexisting diseases especially cancer (ribavirin group vs no ribavirin group, P = 0.01). Treatment with ribavirin was not associated with a difference in the time to clinical improvement (P = 0.48, HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.63–1.25). There were also no significant differences between-group in SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid negative conversion, mortality, survival time, and the length of hospital stay.ConclusionsIn hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19, no significant benefit was observed with ribavirin treatment.     

The Impact of COVID-19 Surge on Clinical Palliative Care: A Descriptive Study From a New York Hospital System

ContextIn spring 2020, New York experienced a surge of patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) disease, as part of a global pandemic. There are limited data on populations of COVID-19–infected patients seen by palliative care services.ObjectiveTo describe a palliative care population at one New York hospital system during the initial pandemic surge.MethodsThis repeated cross-sectional, observational study collected data on palliative care patients in a large health system seen during the COVID-19 outbreak and compared it with pre-COVID data.ResultsPalliative service volume surged from 678 (4% of total admissions) before COVID-19 to 1071 (10% of total admissions) during the COVID-19 outbreak. During the outbreak, 695 (64.9%) of the total palliative patients tested positive for the virus. Compared with a preoutbreak group, this COVID-19–positive group had higher rates of male (60.7% vs. 48.6%, P < 0.01) and Latino (21.3% vs. 13.3%; P < 0.01) patients and less white patients (21.3% vs. 13.3%; P < 0.01). Our patients with COVID-19 also had greater prevalence of obesity and diabetes and lower rates of end-stage organ disease and cancers. The COVID-19–positive group had a higher rate of intensive care unit admissions (58.9% vs. 33.9%; P < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality rate (57.4% vs. 13.1%; P < 0.01) than the preoutbreak group. There was increased odds of mortality in palliative care patients who were COVID-19 positive (odds ratio = 3.21; 95% confidence interval = 2.43–4.24) and those admitted to the intensive care unit (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval = 1.11–1.9).ConclusionDuring the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York, palliative care services experienced a large surge of patients who tended to be healthier at baseline and more acutely ill at the time of admission than pre–COVID-19 palliative patients.     

Effect of COVID-19 outbreak on the treatment time of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

ObjectiveTo explore the effect of COVID-19 outbreak on the treatment time of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in Hangzhou, China.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the data of STEMI patients admitted to the Hangzhou Chest Pain Center (CPC) during a COVID-19 epidemic period in 2020 (24 cases) and the same period in 2019 (29 cases). General characteristics of the patients were recorded, analyzed, and compared. Moreover, we compared the groups for the time from symptom onset to the first medical contact (SO-to-FMC), time from first medical contact to balloon expansion (FMC-to-B), time from hospital door entry to first balloon expansion (D-to-B), and catheter room activation time. The groups were also compared for postoperative cardiac color Doppler ultrasonographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF),the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE),Kaplan-Meier survival curves during the 28 days after the operation.ResultsThe times of SO-to-FMC, D-to-B, and catheter room activation in the 2020 group were significantly longer than those in the 2019 group (P < 0.05). The cumulative mortality after the surgery in the 2020 group was significantly higher than the 2019 group (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe pre-hospital and in-hospital treatment times of STEMI patients during the COVID-19 epidemic were longer than those before the epidemic. Cumulative mortality was showed in Kaplan-Meier survival curves after the surgery in the 2020 group was significantly different higher than the 2019 group during the 28 days.The diagnosis and treatment process of STEMI patients during an epidemic should be optimized to improve their prognosis.     

Enterococcal bloodstream infections in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a case series

BackgroundAn unexpected high prevalence of enterococcal bloodstream infection (BSI) has been observed in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU).Materials and methodsThe primary objective was to describe the characteristics of ICU-acquired enterococcal BSI in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A secondary objective was to exploratorily assess the predictors of 30-day mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients with ICU-acquired enterococcal BSI.ResultsDuring the study period, 223 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to COVID-19-dedicated ICUs in our centre. Overall, 51 episodes of enterococcal BSI, occurring in 43 patients, were registered. 29 (56.9%) and 22 (43.1%) BSI were caused by Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium, respectively. The cumulative incidence of ICU-acquired enterococcal BSI was of 229 episodes per 1000 ICU admissions (95% mid-p confidence interval [CI] 172–298). Most patients received an empirical therapy with at least one agent showing in vitro activity against the blood isolate (38/43, 88%). The crude 30-day mortality was 42% (18/43) and 57% (4/7) in the entire series and in patients with vancomycin-resistant E. faecium BSI, respectively. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score showed an independent association with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.32 per one-point increase, with 95% confidence interval 1.04–1.66, p = .021).ConclusionsThe cumulative incidence of enterococcal BSI is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Our results suggest a crucial role of the severity of the acute clinical conditions, to which both the underlying viral pneumonia and the enterococcal BSI may contribute, in majorly influencing the outcome.

KEY MESSAGES

• The cumulative incidence of enterococcal BSI is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19.
• The crude 30-day mortality of enterococcal BSI in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may be higher than 40%.
• There could be a crucial role of the severity of the acute clinical conditions, to which both the underlying viral pneumonia and the enterococcal BSI may contribute, in majorly influencing the outcome.

     

Effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in patients with severe COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUNDThe effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroid use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains inconclusive.AIMTo investigate the effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in patients with severe COVID-19.METHODSWe conducted a retrospective analysis of the difference in several outcomes between patients with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroid therapy (the corticosteroid group) and patients with severe COVID-19 who did not receive corticosteroid therapy (the non-corticosteroid group).RESULTSSeventy-five patients were included in this study. Of these, 47 patients were in the corticosteroid group and 28 patients were in the non-corticosteroid group. There were no differences between the two groups in the total length of hospital stay, the length of intensive care unit stay, high-flow oxygen days, non-invasive ventilator days, invasive ventilation days, and mortality rate. Total lesion volume ratio, consolidation volume ratio and ground-glass opacity volume ratio in the corticosteroid group decreased significantly on day 14, while those in the non-corticosteroid group did not show a significant decrease.CONCLUSIONOur results show that adjunctive corticosteroid use did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients, but might promote the absorption of pulmonary lesions. Larger multicenter randomized controlled studies may be needed to confirm this.     

Evaluating the effect of SARS-Cov-2 infection on prognosis and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis

IntroductionAcute pancreatitis (AP) is the leading cause of hospitalization among gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of our study is to compare the results between AP patients with and without COVID−19, and to reveal the effects of COVID−19 on the course, intensive care needs and mortality of AP patients.Material methodsThis was a single-center, retrospective and observational study. Patients over 18 years of age, who were diagnosed with AP during the current pandemic. According to the RT-PCR test result, patients were divided into two groups: COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative. Gender, age, laboratory parameters, intensive care unit admission, length of hospital stay, severity and mortality of AP were compared between these two groups.ResultsWe reviewed 562 patients presenting to the emergency department who were diagnosed with acute pancreatitis between 10.03.2020 and 31.12.2020 and included 189 patients in our study. Positive patients need for intensive care (7.23%) were higher compared to negative patients (0.94%). 32.53% of positive patients and 14.15% of negative patients had severe AP (p < 0.03). We established that being COVID-19 positive, CCI scores of ≥5, presence of COVID-19 compatible pneumonia on CT and BISAP scores had an effect on mortality (p < 0,05).ConclusionThe severity and mortality of AP increase in patients with both AP and COVID-19. This rate increases even more in the presence of COVID-19-associated pneumonia. We believe that new strategies should be developed for the follow-up and treatment of patients with both these conditions.     

Results of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option for COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of a neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment.METHODSPatients (n = 105) were randomized 1:1 to either receive standard treatment and 3 units of CCP or standard treatment alone. Control group patients with progress on day 14 could cross over to the CCP group. The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP group and 32.7% in the control group (P = 0.32). The median time to clinical improvement was 26 days in the CCP group and 66 days in the control group (P = 0.27). The median time to discharge from the hospital was 31 days in the CCP group and 51 days in the control group (P = 0.24). In the subgroup that received a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies, the primary outcome occurred in 56.0% of the patients (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days, P < 0.05) and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days, P = 0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%, P = 0.02) in comparison with the control group.ConclusionCCP added to standard treatment was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of CCP among patients who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT04433910","term_id":"NCT04433910"}}NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802.     

Mechanical ventilation and mortality among 223 critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A multicentric study in Germany

BackgroundThere are large uncertainties with regard to the outcome of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mechanical ventilation (MV). High mortality (50–97%) was proposed by some groups, leading to considerable uncertainties with regard to outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19.ObjectivesThe aim was to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission and MV.MethodsA multicentre retrospective observational cohort study at 15 hospitals in Hamburg, Germany, was performed. Critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who completed their ICU stay between February and June 2020 were included. Patient demographics, severity of illness, and ICU course were retrospectively evaluated.ResultsA total of 223 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included. The majority, 73% (n = 163), were men; the median age was 69 (interquartile range = 58–77.5) years, with 68% (n = 151) patients having at least one chronic medical condition. Their Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was a median of 5 (3–9) points on admission. Overall, 167 (75%) patients needed MV. Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula were used in 31 (14%) and 26 (12%) patients, respectively. Subsequent MV, due to noninvasive ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula therapy failure, was necessary in 46 (81%) patients. Renal replacement therapy was initiated in 33% (n = 72) of patients, and owing to severe respiratory failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was necessary in 9% (n = 20) of patients. Experimental antiviral therapy was used in 9% (n = 21) of patients. Complications during the ICU stay were as follows: septic shock (40%, n = 90), heart failure (8%, n = 17), and pulmonary embolism (6%, n = 14). The length of ICU stay was a median of 13 days (5–24), and the duration of MV was 15 days (8–25). The ICU mortality was 35% (n = 78) and 44% (n = 74) among mechanically ventilated patients.ConclusionIn this multicentre observational study of 223 critically ill patients with COVID-19, the survival to ICU discharge was 65%, and it was 56% among patients requiring MV. Patients showed high rate of septic complications during their ICU stay.     

The combined therapy of a traditional Chinese medicine formula and Western medicine for a critically ill case infected with COVID-19

ObjectivePresentation of a case illustrating the benefits of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in critically ill patients.Clinical features and outcomeA 58-year-old woman presented with cough, fever, dizziness, chest tightness, polypnea and poor appetite. She was admitted to Guizhou Provincial People’s hospital, and diagnosed with critically ill type of COVID-19 in February 2020. According to the patient's symptoms and signs, the TCM syndrome differentiation was qi deficiency, dampness-stasis and toxin accumulation. Then she received the combined therapy of a modified Chinese herbal formula and Western medicine. During a twelve-day period of treatment, her respiratory distress and appetite quickly improved. Abnormal laboratory indicators were resumed in time and lung lesions in CT scan largely absorbed. No side effects associated with this Chinese herbal formula were found. Before discharge, two consecutive nasopharyngeal swabs were shown to be negative for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).ConclusionsOur case report suggests that collaborative treatments with traditional Chinese medicine prove beneficial in the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients. In order to give optimal care for this COVID-19 crisis for the whole world, Chinese medicine practitioners and Western medical doctors should work together in frontline.