-
Current Opinion in Critical Care Feb 2022We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the available evidence regarding the incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the available evidence regarding the incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection (C-ARDS).
RECENT FINDINGS
Sixteen studies (6484 patients) were identified. Bacterial coinfection was uncommon at baseline (<15%) but a high proportion of patients developed positive bacterial cultures thereafter leading to a VAP diagnosis (range 21-64%, weighted average 50%). Diagnostic criteria varied between studies but most signs of VAP have substantial overlap with the signs of C-ARDS making it difficult to differentiate between bacterial colonization versus superinfection. Most episodes of VAP were associated with Gram-negative bacteria. Occasional cases were also attributed to herpes virus reactivations and pulmonary aspergillosis. Potential factors driving high VAP incidence rates include immunoparalysis, prolonged ventilation, exposure to immunosuppressants, understaffing, lapses in prevention processes, and overdiagnosis.
SUMMARY
Covid-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation for ARDS have a high risk (>50%) of developing VAP, most commonly because of Gram-negative bacteria. Further work is needed to elucidate the disease-specific risk factors for VAP, strategies for prevention, and how best to differentiate between bacterial colonization versus superinfection.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Overdiagnosis; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34932525
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000908 -
International Journal of Infectious... Sep 2021To date, there is no effective treatment for the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We aimed to systematically review the literature on the association between the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To date, there is no effective treatment for the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We aimed to systematically review the literature on the association between the combination of tocilizumab (TCZ) and systemic corticosteroid therapy (SCT) on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and preprints, for studies in which health outcomes were compared between adults with severe COVID-19 who received TCZ and SCT and those who received standard of care without TCZ. Record screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes.
RESULTS
Our search identified seventeen studies. The pooled crude mortality rate was lower in the combination arm (relative risk, RR=0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.42 - 0.91; I=60%). The adjusted mortality rates were also lower in the combination arm (RR=0.58, 95% CI=0.42 - 0.81; I=71%). The rate of superinfections did not differ between the two interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study show that combination of TCZ and SCT compared to SOC has lower mortality rates. There is an urgent need for well-designed randomized trials to assess the safety and efficacy of this combination in subjects with severe COVID-19.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34273515
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.021 -
Critical Care Medicine Apr 2024This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone combined with fludrocortisone or hydrocortisone alone,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Do We Need to Administer Fludrocortisone in Addition to Hydrocortisone in Adult Patients With Septic Shock? An Updated Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and an Observational Study With Target Trial Emulation.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone combined with fludrocortisone or hydrocortisone alone, compared with placebo in adult patients with septic shock.
DATA SOURCES
By extending a prior Cochrane review, databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov , along with other relevant websites, were searched until August 31, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using target trial emulation were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
The primary outcome was short-term mortality with an emphasis on 28- or 30-day mortality as the main measure and in-hospital or ICU mortality as the nearest surrogate of this measure. Three of the most common adverse events, namely, gastroduodenal bleeding, superinfection, and hyperglycemia, were also considered.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 19 studies involving 95,841 patients were included. Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone showed the lowest short-term mortality versus placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.79; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.64-0.99; number needed to treat [NNT]: 21, range: 12-500; low certainty of evidence) in terms of informative priors. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve values for hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, hydrocortisone alone, and placebo were 0.9469, 0.4542, and 0.0989, respectively. Consistent results were observed in RCTs alone and those using a daily 200-mg dose of hydrocortisone. Although gastroduodenal bleeding or superinfection showed no clear increase, hyperglycemia risk increased. The ORs were 0.53 for placebo versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 0.64 for placebo versus hydrocortisone alone, with very low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
In adults with septic shock, hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone improved short-term survival with minimal adverse events compared with hydrocortisone alone or placebo. However, these findings are not definitive due to the limited certainty of evidence and wide NNT range. Additional large-scale, placebo-controlled RCTs are needed to provide conclusive evidence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Fludrocortisone; Shock, Septic; Network Meta-Analysis; Superinfection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hyperglycemia; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38156911
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006161 -
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva 2021The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically...
Update of the recommendations of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group for the approach to COVID-19 in Intensive Care Medicine.
INTRODUCTION
The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Due to the evolution of knowledge, the panel of experts was again convened to review the current evidence and issue updated recommendations.
METHODS
A national panel of experts who declared that they had no conflicts of interest regarding the development of the recommendations was assembled. Operational questions were developed based on the PICO methodology, and a rapid systematic review was conducted by consulting different bibliographic sources. The panel determined the direction and strength of the recommendations using two Delphi rounds, conducted in accordance with the principles of the GRADE system. A strong recommendation received the wording "is recommended", and a weak recommendation was written as "is suggested."
RESULTS
A total of 48 recommendations and 30 suggestions were issued, covering the following topics: diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, coinfection and superinfection; criteria for admission, cure and suspension of isolation; organization of services; personal protective equipment; and respiratory support and other specific therapies (antivirals, immunomodulators and anticoagulation).
CONCLUSION
These recommendations, specifically oriented to the Portuguese reality but that may also apply to Portuguese-speaking African countries and East Timor, aim to support health professionals in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. They will be continuously reviewed to reflect the progress of our understanding and the treatment of this pathology.
Topics: COVID-19; Critical Care; Humans; Intensive Care Units; SARS-CoV-2; Sepsis
PubMed: 35081236
DOI: 10.5935/0103-507X.0103-507X-rbti-20210080 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2022A significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is an issue still under debate, due to conflicting evidence that has emerged from different observational studies.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcome in SOT recipients with COVID-19 compared with the general population.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus were independently searched until 13 October 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Prospective or retrospective observational studies comparing clinical outcome in SOT recipients versus general populations affected by COVID-19 were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were patients with confirmed COVID-19.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions reviewed were SOTs.
METHODS
The quality of the included studies was independently assessed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for observational studies. The meta-analysis was performed by pooling ORs retrieved from studies providing adjustment for confounders using a random-effects model with the inverse variance method. Multiple subgroups and sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 3501 articles were screened, and 31 observational studies (N = 590 375; 5759 SOT recipients vs. 584 616 general population) were included in the meta-analyses. No difference in 30-day mortality rate was found in the primary analysis, including studies providing adjustment for confounders (N = 17; 3752 SOT recipients vs. 159 745 general population; OR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.35; I = 33.9%). No evidence of publication bias was reported. A higher risk of intensive care unit admission (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03-2.63) and occurrence of acute kidney injury (OR: 2.50; 95% CI, 1.81-3.45) was found in SOT recipients.
CONCLUSIONS
No increased risk in mortality was found in SOT recipients affected by COVID-19 compared with the general population when adjusted for demographic and clinical features and COVID-19 severity.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Organ Transplantation; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 35289294
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.02.039 -
The Lancet. Microbe Feb 2023HIV-1 infections initiated by multiple founder variants are characterised by a higher viral load and a worse clinical prognosis than those initiated with single founder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
HIV-1 infections initiated by multiple founder variants are characterised by a higher viral load and a worse clinical prognosis than those initiated with single founder variants, yet little is known about the routes of exposure through which transmission of multiple founder variants is most probable. Here we used individual patient data to calculate the probability of multiple founders stratified by route of HIV exposure and study methodology.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that estimated founder variant multiplicity in HIV-1 infection, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases for papers published between Jan 1, 1990, and Sept 14, 2020. Eligible studies must have reported original estimates of founder variant multiplicity in people with acute or early HIV-1 infections, have clearly detailed the methods used, and reported the route of exposure. Studies were excluded if they reported data concerning people living with HIV-1 who had known or suspected superinfection, who were documented as having received pre-exposure prophylaxis, or if the transmitting partner was known to be receiving antiretroviral treatment. Individual patient data were collated from all studies, with authors contacted if these data were not publicly available. We applied logistic meta-regression to these data to estimate the probability that an HIV infection is initiated by multiple founder variants. We calculated a pooled estimate using a random effects model, subsequently stratifying this estimate across exposure routes in a univariable analysis. We then extended our model to adjust for different study methods in a multivariable analysis, recalculating estimates across the exposure routes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020202672.
FINDINGS
We included 70 publications in our analysis, comprising 1657 individual patients. Our pooled estimate of the probability that an infection is initiated by multiple founder variants was 0·25 (95% CI 0·21-0·29), with moderate heterogeneity (Q=132·3, p<0·0001, I=64·2%). Our multivariable analysis uncovered differences in the probability of multiple variant infection by exposure route. Relative to a baseline of male-to-female transmission, the predicted probability for female-to-male multiple variant transmission was significantly lower at 0·13 (95% CI 0·08-0·20), and the probabilities were significantly higher for transmissions in people who inject drugs (0·37 [0·24-0·53]) and men who have sex with men (0·30 [0·33-0·40]). There was no significant difference in the probability of multiple variant transmission between male-to-female transmission (0·21 [0·14-0·31]), post-partum transmission (0·18 [0·03-0·57]), pre-partum transmission (0·17 [0·08-0·33]), and intra-partum transmission (0·27 [0·14-0·45]).
INTERPRETATION
We identified that transmissions in people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men are significantly more likely to result in an infection initiated by multiple founder variants, and female-to-male infections are significantly less probable. Quantifying how the routes of HIV infection affect the transmission of multiple variants allows us to better understand how the evolution and epidemiology of HIV-1 determine clinical outcomes.
FUNDING
Medical Research Council Precision Medicine Doctoral Training Programme and a European Research Council Starting Grant.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Homosexuality, Male; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Anti-HIV Agents; HIV Seropositivity
PubMed: 36642083
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00327-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failure. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Thus, providing corticosteroids may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failure. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Thus, providing corticosteroids may benefit patients. The original review was published in 2004 and was updated in 2010 and 2015 prior to this update.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of corticosteroids on death in children and adults with sepsis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and the WHO Clinical Trials Search Portal, on 25 July 2019. In addition, we conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors, to identify additional studies as needed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care (antimicrobials, fluid replacement, and vasopressor therapy as needed) in children and adults with sepsis. We also included RCTs of continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus of corticosteroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All review authors screened and selected studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data, which was checked by the others, and by the lead author of the primary study when possible. We obtained unpublished data from the authors of some trials. We assessed the methodological quality of trials and applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Review authors did not contribute to assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, nor to data extraction, for trials they had participated in.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 trials (12,192 participants), of which six included only children, two included children and adults, and the remaining trials included only adults. Nine studies are ongoing and will be considered in future versions of this review. We judged 19 trials as being at low risk of bias. Corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care Compared to placebo or usual care, corticosteroids probably slightly reduce 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; 11,233 participants; 50 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in long-term mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03; 6236 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably slightly reduce hospital mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 8183 participants; 26 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids reduced length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for all participants (mean difference (MD) -1.07 days, 95% CI -1.95 to -0.19; 7612 participants; 21 studies; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in a large reduction in length of hospital stay for all participants (MD -1.63 days, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.33; 8795 participants; 22 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44; 6145 participants; 6 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably do not increase the risk of superinfection (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19; 5356 participants; 25 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of hypernatraemia (high-certainty evidence) and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia (moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that there is probably little or no difference in gastroduodenal bleeding, stroke, or cardiac events, and low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in neuropsychiatric events. Continuous infusion of corticosteroids versus intermittent bolus We are uncertain about the effects of continuous infusion of corticosteroids compared with intermittent bolus administration. Three studies reported data for this comparison, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids probably reduce 28-day and hospital mortality among patients with sepsis. Corticosteroids result in large reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of major complications; however, corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness and hypernatraemia, and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia. The effects of continuous versus intermittent bolus administration of corticosteroids are uncertain.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Length of Stay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Sepsis; Time Factors
PubMed: 31808551
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002243.pub4 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and... (Review)
Review
The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and antibiotic administration on the outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted a literature review from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024 to assess the current burden of bacterial infection and the evidence for antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Published articles providing data on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches with the search terms [(antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)] or [(antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)]. PubMed and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024. No attempt was made to obtain information about unpublished studies. English language restriction was applied. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by the tool recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five hundred fifty-one studies were identified, and twenty-nine studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 29 included studies, 18 studies were on the prevalence of bacterial infection and antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients; 4 studies reported on the efficacy of early antibiotic use in COVID-19; 4 studies were on the use of sepsis biomarkers to improve antibiotic use; 3 studies were on the efficacy of antimicrobial stewardship programs and predictive models among COVID-19-hospitalized patients. The quality of included studies was high in 35% and medium in 62%. High rates of hospital-acquired infections were reported among COVID-19 patients, ranging between 7.5 and 37.7%. A high antibiotic resistance rate was reported among COVID-19 patients developing hospital-acquired infections, with a high in-hospital mortality rate. The studies evaluating multi-faceted antimicrobial stewardship interventions reported efficacy in decreasing antibiotic consumption and lower in-hospital mortality.
PubMed: 38927211
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13060545 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Jan 2023Infections with fungi, such as Aspergillus species, have been found as common complications of viral pneumonia. This study aims to determine the risk factors of fungal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infections with fungi, such as Aspergillus species, have been found as common complications of viral pneumonia. This study aims to determine the risk factors of fungal superinfections in viral pneumonia patients using meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to determine the risk factors of fungal infection s in viral pneumonia patients using meta-analysis.
METHODS
We reviewed primary literature about fungal infection in viral pneumonia patients published between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2020, in the Chinese Biomedical Literature, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang (China), Cochrane Central Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. These studies were subjected to an array of statistical analyses, including risk of bias and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
In this study, we found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of fungal infections in viral pneumonia patients that received corticosteroid treatment as compared to those without corticosteroid treatment (p < .00001). Additionally, regarding the severity of fungal infections, we observed significant higher incidence of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in patients with high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores (p < .001), tumors (p = .005), or immunocompromised patients (p < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Our research shows that corticosteroid treatment was an important risk factor for the development of fungal infection in patients with viral pneumonia. High APACHE II scores, tumors, and immunocompromised condition are also important risk factors of developing IPA. The diagnosis of fungal infection in viral pneumonia patients can be facilitated by early serum galactomannan (GM) testing, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid Aspergillus antigen testing, culture, and biopsy.
Topics: Humans; Superinfection; Sensitivity and Specificity; Aspergillus; Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis; Risk Factors; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36705416
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.760 -
Medicine Feb 2020This meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam for empiric therapy febrile neutropenia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam for empiric therapy febrile neutropenia.
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov database were searched through May 10, 2019. Only clinical trials comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam with other antibiotics for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia were included. The primary outcome was treatment success without modification, and the secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 retrospective cohort study were included. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam exhibited a treatment success rate similar to those of comparator drugs for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.24, I = 0%). A similar finding was noted in pooled analysis of 10 RCTs (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30, I = 0%). Subgroup analysis showed that cefoperazone-sulbactam had a treatment success rate similar to the rates of comparators for adults (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.38, I = 0%) and children (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.46, I = 0%). Cefoperazone-sulbactam did not differ significantly from comparators in the risks of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.58, I = 0%) or common AEs, namely rash, nausea/vomiting, and superinfection.
CONCLUSION
The clinical efficacy and tolerability of cefoperazone-sulbactam are comparable to those of comparator drugs in the treatment of febrile neutropenia.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefoperazone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Febrile Neutropenia; Humans; Sulbactam
PubMed: 32080150
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019321