Search

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (lt; 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of—often contradictory—evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers—and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ2-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources—physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long‐term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The anti‐inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID‐19. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID‐19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID‐19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections. MAIN RESULTS: Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19. People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or mild COVID‐19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID‐19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community‐based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self‐reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co‐morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high‐income countries prior to wide‐scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: – may result in little to no difference in all‐cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low‐certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); – probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence); – probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence); – may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by −4.00 days, 95% CI −6.22 to −1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low‐certainty evidence); – the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low‐certainty evidence); – may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low‐certainty evidence); – may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low‐certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed COVID‐19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate‐certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low‐certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all‐cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low‐certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high‐income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll‐outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347, BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic presented major challenges for critical care facilities worldwide. Infections which develop alongside or subsequent to viral pneumonitis are a challenge under sporadic and pandemic conditions; however, data have suggested that patterns of these differ between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitides. This secondary analysis aimed to explore patterns of co-infection and intensive care unit-acquired infections (ICU-AI) and the relationship to use of corticosteroids in a large, international cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international, observational study, including adult patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to ICUs at the peak of wave one of COVID-19 (February 15th to May 15th, 2020). Data collected included investigator-assessed co-infection at ICU admission, infection acquired in ICU, infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) and antibiotic use. Frequencies were compared by Pearson's Chi-squared and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U test. Propensity score matching for variables associated with ICU-acquired infection was undertaken using R library MatchIT using the "full" matching method. RESULTS: Data were available from 4994 patients. Bacterial co-infection at admission was detected in 716 patients (14%), whilst 85% of patients received antibiotics at that stage. ICU-AI developed in 2715 (54%). The most common ICU-AI was bacterial pneumonia (44% of infections), whilst 9% of patients developed fungal pneumonia; 25% of infections involved MDRO. Patients developing infections in ICU had greater antimicrobial exposure than those without such infections. Incident density (ICU-AI per 1000 ICU days) was in considerable excess of reports from pre-pandemic surveillance. Corticosteroid use was heterogenous between ICUs. In univariate analysis, 58% of patients receiving corticosteroids and 43% of those not receiving steroids developed ICU-AI. Adjusting for potential confounders in the propensity-matched cohort, 71% of patients receiving corticosteroids developed ICU-AI vs 52% of those not receiving corticosteroids. Duration of corticosteroid therapy was also associated with development of ICU-AI and infection with an MDRO. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 in the first wave, co-infection at admission to ICU was relatively rare but antibiotic use was in substantial excess to that indication. ICU-AI were common and were significantly associated with use of corticosteroids. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)., European Society of Intensive Care Medicine ACM is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council (MR/V006118/1)

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Das COVID-19-Evidenz-Ökosystem (CEOsys) identifiziert, bewertet und fasst Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Studien in Evidenzsynthesen im Kontext von COVID-19 zusammen. Diese Evidenzsynthesen werden genutzt, um konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten und Leitlinien zu erstellen. Zielsetzung Vorbereitung der am besten geeigneten Verteilung von Evidenzsynthesen im Rahmen der Aufgaben des CEOsys-Projekts. Methode Für Deutschland wurde eine Befragung hinsichtlich des intensivmedizinischen Personals priorisierter Themenbereiche, Wünschen zu Layout, Plattform der Bekanntmachung von Evidenzsynthesen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Institutionen mit kategorialen Antwortmöglichkeiten durchgeführt. Die Umfrage erfolgte online und wurde per E‑Mail lokal und über die DIVI verteilt. Ergebnisse Von 317 Befragten, die die Umfrage starteten, vervollständigten 200 den Fragebogen. Knappe Zeit und fehlender Zugriff, unzureichende Erfahrung bzw. Unsicherheit im Umgang mit Evidenzsynthesen wurden als Barriere für Wissenserwerb benannt. Das aktive Herantragen von Informationen wird bevorzugt („Push-Strategie“). Als Format werden Kurzversion, Übersichten mit Algorithmen und Webinare prioritär gewünscht. Webseiten öffentlicher Einrichtungen, Fachjournalartikel und E‑Mail-Newsletter sollen auf neue Evidenz aufmerksam machen. Fachgesellschaften und dem Robert Koch Institut werden in der Pandemie mehrheitlich Vertrauen geschenkt. Priorisierte Themen der Befragten sind Langzeitfolgen der Erkrankung, Schutz des medizinischen Personals und Invasivität der Beatmungstherapie. Schlussfolgerung Evidenzsynthesen sollten aktiv an Zielgruppen herangetragen werden. Inhalte sollten übersichtlich, kurz (Algorithmen, Kurzversion, Webinare) und frei verfügbar sein. Webseiten, E‑Mail-Newsletter und medizinische Journale, aber auch Fachgesellschaften und das Robert Koch-Institut sollten auf Evidenzsynthesen hinweisen.

Purpose This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. Results The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5–9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5–6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. Conclusion For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID‐19 (caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID‐19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation‐perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator‐induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID‐19‐ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID‐19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID‐19‐related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before‐after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non‐RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all‐cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full‐text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta‐analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer‐reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients. RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID‐19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced ARDS and people with non‐SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced ARDS.

BACKGROUND: With potential antiviral and anti‐inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in‐hospital) with any severity of COVID‐19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid‐19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID‐19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID‐19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all‐cause mortality (up to day 28), all‐cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in‐hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non‐COVID‐19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non‐pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low‐flow oxygen, about 23% required high‐flow oxygen or non‐invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all‐cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and decrease all‐cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high‐certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID‐19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID‐19, moderate‐certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all‐cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate‐certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate‐certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low‐certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID‐19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non‐hospitalised individuals).

Purpose To accommodate the unprecedented number of critically ill patients with pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) expansion of the capacity of intensive care unit (ICU) to clinical areas not previously used for critical care was necessary. We describe the global burden of COVID-19 admissions and the clinical and organizational characteristics associated with outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods Multicenter, international, point prevalence study, including adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. Results 4994 patients from 280 ICUs in 46 countries were included. Included ICUs increased their total capacity from 4931 to 7630 beds, deploying personnel from other areas. Overall, 1986 (39.8%) patients were admitted to surge capacity beds. Invasive ventilation at admission was present in 2325 (46.5%) patients and was required during ICU stay in 85.8% of patients. 60-day mortality was 33.9% (IQR across units: 20%-50%) and ICU mortality 32.7%. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were associated with increased mortality. These associations were also confirmed specifically in mechanically ventilated patients. Admission to surge capacity beds was not associated with mortality, even after controlling for other factors. Conclusions ICUs responded to the increase in COVID-19 patients by increasing bed availability and staff, admitting up to 40% of patients in surge capacity beds. Although mortality in this population was high, admission to a surge capacity bed was not associated with increased mortality. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and AKI were identified as the strongest predictors of mortality. Correction in: Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 48, issue 8, pages 1130-1131.DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06801-2

Background: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. Results: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65–1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03–1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71–0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51–2.31). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.

Background The mortality of COVID-19 patients who are admitted to a hospital because of the disease remains high. The implementation of evidence-based treatments can improve the quality of care. Methods The new clinical practice guideline is based on publications retrieved by a systematic search in the Medline databases via PubMed and in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, followed by a structured consensus process leading to the adoption of graded recommendations. Results Therapeutic anticoagulation can be considered in patients who do not require intensive care and have an elevated risk of thromboembolism (for example, those with D-dimer levels ≥ 2 mg/L). For patients in intensive care, therapeutic anticoagulation has no benefit. For patients with hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency, prone positioning and an early therapy attempt with CPAP/noninvasive ventilation (CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure) or high-flow oxygen therapy is recommended. Patients with IgG-seronegativity and, at most, low-flow oxygen should be treated with SARS-CoV-2- specific monoclonal antibodies (at present, casirivimab and imdevimab). Patients needing no more than low-flow oxygen should additionally be treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. All patients who need oxygen (low-flow, high-flow, noninvasive ventilation/CPAP, invasive ventilation) should be given systemic corticosteroids. Tocilizumab should be given to patients with a high oxygen requirement and progressively severe COVID-19 disease, but not in combination with JAK inhibitors. Conclusion Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, prone positioning, and invasive ventilation are important elements of the treatment of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. A reduction of mortality has been demonstrated for the administration of monoclonal antibodies, JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and therapeutic anticoagulation to specific groups of patients.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies. All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution. New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics. Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable. We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline. Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics, previous vaccination behavior, trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics, fear of adverse effects, assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19, knowledge about vaccines, and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.

Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.

Introduction Adequate staffing in the intensive care units (ICUs) is the most important factor to provide optimal care and ensure favorable outcomes in critically ill patients. Recently, the need for ICU beds has reached unprecedented levels and the management and treatment of critically ill patients has been in focus. The aim of the study was to assess the targeted and actual nurse-to-patient (NPR) and physician-to-patient ratios (PPR) regarding patients with and without COVID-19. Methods We conducted a nationwide online survey assessing the standard of care in German ICUs treating patients with COVID-19. We asked questions regarding targeted PPR and NPR and their implementation in daily clinical practice to heads of German ICU departments. Results We received 244 responses of which 171 were eligible for final analysis. Targeted median PPR ratio was 8 [interquartile range (IQR) = 4] and targeted NPR was 2 (IQR = 1). For COVID-19 patients, the median targeted PPR was 6 (IQR = 2) and the median targeted NPR was 2 (IQR = 0). Targeted PPRs were rarely met by 15.2% and never met by 3.5% of responding institutions. Targeted NPRs were rarely met in 32.2% and never in 5.3% of responding institutions. Conclusion In contrast to PPR, targeted NPRs were largely unattainable in German ICUs. Our results raise concern in view of studies linking worse outcomes in critically ill patients to suboptimal NPRs. This warrants further health policy efforts regarding optimal staffing in the ICU.

BackgroundVaccination hesitancy is a serious threat to achieve herd immunity in a global and rapidly changing pandemic situation. Health care workers play a key role in the treatment of patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and in promoting vaccination in the general population. The aim of the study was to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and barriers among healthcare workers in Germany to support health policymakers choosing specific vaccination campaign strategies.MethodsAn online survey was conducted among health care workers in Germany in February 2021. The survey included 55 items on demographics, previous vaccination behavior, trust in vaccines, physicians, pharma industry, and health politics as well as fear of adverse effects, assumptions on disease consequences, knowledge about vaccines, information seeking behavior and a short COVID-19 vaccine knowledge test.ResultsA total of 4500 surveys could be analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance of all age groups. Regarding professional groups, residents showed the highest vaccination acceptance. Main factors for vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Personal and professional environment influenced the attitude towards a vaccination too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy were more likely to obtain information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test.ConclusionsIn conclusion, we found a high acceptance rate amongst German health care workers. Furthermore, several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in vaccination campaigns.

In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge.Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks.Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI.Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment.Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.HINTERGRUND: Das COVID-19-Evidenz-Ökosystem (CEOsys) identifiziert, bewertet und fasst Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Studien in Evidenzsynthesen im Kontext von COVID-19 zusammen. Diese Evidenzsynthesen werden genutzt, um konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten und Leitlinien zu erstellen.Vorbereitung der am besten geeigneten Verteilung von Evidenzsynthesen im Rahmen der Aufgaben des CEOsys-Projekts.Für Deutschland wurde eine Befragung hinsichtlich des intensivmedizinischen Personals priorisierter Themenbereiche, Wünschen zu Layout, Plattform der Bekanntmachung von Evidenzsynthesen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Institutionen mit kategorialen Antwortmöglichkeiten durchgeführt. Die Umfrage erfolgte online und wurde per E‑Mail lokal und über die DIVI verteilt.Von 317 Befragten, die die Umfrage starteten, vervollständigten 200 den Fragebogen. Knappe Zeit und fehlender Zugriff, unzureichende Erfahrung bzw. Unsicherheit im Umgang mit Evidenzsynthesen wurden als Barriere für Wissenserwerb benannt. Das aktive Herantragen von Informationen wird bevorzugt („Push-Strategie“). Als Format werden Kurzversion, Übersichten mit Algorithmen und Webinare prioritär gewünscht. Webseiten öffentlicher Einrichtungen, Fachjournalartikel und E‑Mail-Newsletter sollen auf neue Evidenz aufmerksam machen. Fachgesellschaften und dem Robert Koch Institut werden in der Pandemie mehrheitlich Vertrauen geschenkt. Priorisierte Themen der Befragten sind Langzeitfolgen der Erkrankung, Schutz des medizinischen Personals und Invasivität der Beatmungstherapie.Evidenzsynthesen sollten aktiv an Zielgruppen herangetragen werden. Inhalte sollten übersichtlich, kurz (Algorithmen, Kurzversion, Webinare) und frei verfügbar sein. Webseiten, E‑Mail-Newsletter und medizinische Journale, aber auch Fachgesellschaften und das Robert Koch-Institut sollten auf Evidenzsynthesen hinweisen.

Background: The surge in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the looming problem of staff shortage in German ICUs possibly leading to worse outcomes for patients. Methods: Within the German Evidence Ecosystem CEOsys network, we conducted an online national mixed-methods survey assessing the standard of care in German ICUs treating patients with COVID-19. Results: A total of 171 German ICUs reported a median ideal number of patients per intensivist of 8 (interquartile range, IQR = 3rd quartile - 1st quartile = 4.0) and per nurse of 2.0 (IQR = 1.0). For COVID-19 patients, the median target was a maximum of 6.0 (IQR = 2.0) patients per intensivist or 2.0 (IQR = 0.0) patients per nurse. Targets for intensivists were rarely met by 15.2% and never met by 3.5% of responding institutions. Targets for nursing staffing could rarely be met in 32.2% and never in 5.3% of responding institutions.Conclusions: Shortages of staffing in the critical care setting are eminent during the COVID-19 pandemic and might not only negatively affect patient outcomes, but also staff wellbeing and healthcare costs. A joint effort that scrutinizes the demands and structures of our health care system seems fundamental to be prepared for the future.

For patients with acute respiratory insufficiency, mechanical (“invasive”) ventilation is a fundamental therapeutic measure to ensure sufficient gas exchange. Despite decades of strong research efforts, central questions on mechanical ventilation therapy are still answered incompletely. Therefore, many different ventilation modes and settings have been used in daily clinical practice without scientifically sound bases. At the same time, implementation of the few evidence-based therapeutic concepts (e.g., “lung protective ventilation”) into clinical practice is still insufficient. The aim of our guideline project “Mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal gas exchange in acute respiratory insufficiency” was to develop an evidence-based decision aid for treating patients with and on mechanical ventilation. It covers the whole pathway of invasively ventilated patients (including indications of mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, additional and rescue therapies, and liberation from mechanical ventilation). To assess the quality of scientific evidence and subsequently derive recommendations, we applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. For the first time, using this globally accepted methodological standard, our guideline contains recommendations on mechanical ventilation therapy not only for acute respiratory distress syndrome patients but also for all types of acute respiratory insufficiency. This review presents the two main chapters of the guideline on choosing the mode of mechanical ventilation and setting its parameters. The guideline group aimed that – by thorough implementation of the recommendations – critical care teams may further improve the quality of care for patients suffering from acute respiratory insufficiency. By identifying relevant gaps of scientific evidence, the guideline group intended to support the development of important research projects.

Background Mechanical ventilation is life-saving for patients with acute respiratory insufficiency. In a German prevalence study, 13.6% of patients in intensive care units received mechanical ventilation for more than 12 hours; 20% of these patients received mechanical ventilation as treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The new S3 guideline is the first to contain recommendations for the entire process of treatment in these groups of patients (indications, ventilation modes/parameters, ac- companying measures, treatments for refractory impairment of gas exchange, weaning, and follow-up care). Methods This guideline was developed according to the GRADE methods. Pertinent publications were identified by a systematic search of the literature, the quality of the evidence was evaluated, a risk/benefit assessment was conducted, and recommendations were issued by interdisciplinary consensus. Results Mechanical ventilation is recommended as primary treatment for patients with severe ARDS. In other patient groups, non-in- vasive ventilation can lower mortality. If mechanical ventilation is needed, ventilation modes allowing spontaneous breathing seem beneficial (quality of evidence [QoE]: very low). Protective ventilation (high positive end-expiratory pressure, low tidal volume, limited peak pressure) improve the survival of ARDS patients (QoE: high). If a severe impairment of gas exchange is present, prone posi- tioning lessens mortality (QoE: high). Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) has not unequivocally been shown to improve survival. Early mobilization and weaning protocols can shorten the duration of ventilation (QoE: moderate). Conclusion Recommendations for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation include lung-protective ventilation, early sponta- neous breathing and mobilization, weaning protocols, and, for those with severe impairment of gas exchange, prone positioning. It is further recommended that patients with ARDS and refractory impairment of gas exchange should be transferred to an ARDS/ECMO center, where extracorporeal methods should be applied only after application of all other therapeutic options.

Recommendations concerning the management of hemoglobin levels and hematocrit in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) still advise maintenance of a normal hematocrit. In contrast, current transfusion guidelines for critically ill patients support restrictive transfusion practice. We report on a series of patients receiving venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated according to the restrictive transfusion regimen recommended for critically ill patients. We retrospectively analyzed 18 patients receiving vvECMO due to severe ARDS. Hemoglobin concentrations were kept between 7 and 9 g/dL with a transfusion trigger at 7 g/dL or when physiological transfusion triggers were apparent. We assessed baseline data, hospital mortality, time on ECMO, hemoglobin levels, hematocrit, quantities of packed red blood cells received, and lactate concentrations and compared survivors and nonsurvivors. The overall mortality of all patients on vvECMO was 38.9%. Mean hemoglobin concentration over all patients and ECMO days was 8.30 ± 0.51 g/dL, and hematocrit was 0.25 ± 0.01, with no difference between survivors and nonsurvivors. Mean numbers of given PRBCs showed a trend towards higher quantities in the group of nonsurvivors, but the difference was not significant (1.97 ± 1.47 vs. 0.96 ± 0.76 units; P = 0.07). Mean lactate clearance from the first to the third day was 45.4 ± 28.3%, with no significant difference between survivors and nonsurvivors (P = 0.19). In our cohort of patients treated with ECMO due to severe ARDS, the application of a restrictive transfusion protocol did not result in an increased mortality. Safety and feasibility of the application of a restrictive transfusion protocol in patients on ECMO must further be evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

To investigate the pathomechanisms of bleomycin-induced early inflammation of lung parenchyma which is known to result in pulmonary fibrosis, we examined the in vitro effect of bleomycin (BLM) on primary human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HMVEC-L). After incubation of microvascular endothelial cells with BLM we detected an induced phosphorylation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (p38 MAPK) by immunoblotting. Further, after BLM-exposure an increased concentration of interleukin-8 (IL-8) in culture supernatant and an increased expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1, CD54) on the cell surface have been observed. Real-time PCR revealed up-regulated mRNA expression levels of both, IL-8 and ICAM-1 after treatment with BLM. Finally, pre-treatment with a selective p38 MAPK-inhibitor, SB 203580, potently reduced the BLM-induced up-regulation of IL-8 expression but did not show any effect on expression of ICAM-1. These results demonstrate that BLM induces the expression of pro-inflammatory molecules in the pulmonary microvascular endothelium, which thereby may actively contribute to the development of early inflammation and later fibrosis of the lung. Furthermore, investigating the effect of an inhibitor of p38 MAPK the data indicate the involvement of p38 MAPK-dependent as well as p38 MAPK-independent mechanisms in the effects of BLM on the pulmonary microvasculature.

Recommendations concerning the management of hemoglobin levels and hematocrit in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) still advise maintenance of a normal hematocrit. In contrast, current transfusion guidelines for critically ill patients support restrictive transfusion practice. We report on a series of patients receiving venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated according to the restrictive transfusion regimen recommended for critically ill patients. We retrospectively analyzed 18 patients receiving vvECMO due to severe ARDS. Hemoglobin concentrations were kept between 7 and 9 g/dL with a transfusion trigger at 7 g/dL or when physiological transfusion triggers were apparent. We assessed baseline data, hospital mortality, time on ECMO, hemoglobin levels, hematocrit, quantities of packed red blood cells received, and lactate concentrations and compared survivors and nonsurvivors. The overall mortality of all patients on vvECMO was 38.9%. Mean hemoglobin concentration over all patients and ECMO days was 8.30 ± 0.51 g/dL, and hematocrit was 0.25 ± 0.01, with no difference between survivors and nonsurvivors. Mean numbers of given PRBCs showed a trend towards higher quantities in the group of nonsurvivors, but the difference was not significant (1.97 ± 1.47 vs. 0.96 ± 0.76 units; P = 0.07). Mean lactate clearance from the first to the third day was 45.4 ± 28.3%, with no significant difference between survivors and nonsurvivors (P = 0.19). In our cohort of patients treated with ECMO due to severe ARDS, the application of a restrictive transfusion protocol did not result in an increased mortality. Safety and feasibility of the application of a restrictive transfusion protocol in patients on ECMO must further be evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

The aim of the present study was to characterize a murine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) abiding by the Berlin definition of human ARDS and guidelines for animal models of ARDS. To this end, C57BL/6NCrl mice were challenged with lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 15 mg/kg, i.p.) followed 18 h later by injection of oleic acid (OA; 0.12 mL/kg, i.v.). Controls received saline injection at both time points. Haemodynamics were monitored continuously. Arterial blood gas analyses were performed just before and every 30 min after OA challenge. Ninety minutes after OA challenge, the chest of mice was scanned using micro-computed tomography (CT). Cytokine concentrations were measured in plasma samples. Lungs were harvested 90 min after OA challenge for histology, immunohistochemistry, lung weight measurements and tissue cytokine detection. A histological lung injury score was determined. Eighteen hours after LPS challenge, mice exhibited a severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Oxygenation declined significantly after OA injections (Pa o2 /Fi o2 283 ± 73 and 256 ± 71 mmHg at 60 and 90 min, respectively; P0.001). Bilateral patchy infiltrates were present on the micro-CT scans. Histology revealed parenchymal damage with accumulation of polymorphonuclear neutrophils, intra-alveolar proteinacous debris and few hyaline membranes. The lung wet : dry ratio indicated damage to the alveolar capillary membrane. Cytokine patterns evidenced a severe local and systemic inflammatory state in plasma and lung tissue. In conclusion, the described two-hit model of ARDS shows a pathological picture of ARDS closely mimicking human ARDS according to the Berlin definition and may facilitate interpretation of prospective experimental results.