Search

Purpose To determine clinical predictors associated with corticosteroid administration and its association with ICU mortality in critically ill patients with severe influenza pneumonia. Methods Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of critically ill patients with confirmed influenza pneumonia admitted to 148 ICUs in Spain between June 2009 and April 2014. Patients who received corticosteroid treatment for causes other than viral pneumonia (e.g., refractory septic shock and asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbation) were excluded. Patients with corticosteroid therapy were compared with those without corticosteroid therapy. We use a propensity score (PS) matching analysis to reduce confounding factors. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Cox proportional hazards and competing risks analysis was performed to assess the impact of corticosteroids on ICU mortality. Results A total of 1846 patients with primary influenza pneumonia were enrolled. Corticosteroids were administered in 604 (32.7%) patients, with methylprednisolone the most frequently used corticosteroid (578/604 [95.7%]). The median daily dose was equivalent to 80 mg of methylprednisolone (IQR 60-120) for a median duration of 7 days (IQR 5-10). Asthma, COPD, hematological disease, and the need for mechanical ventilation were independently associated with corticosteroid use. Crude ICU mortality was higher in patients who received corticosteroids (27.5%) than in patients who did not receive corticosteroids (18.8%, p < 0.001). After PS matching, corticosteroid use was associated with ICU mortality in the Cox (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.08-1.60], p < 0.006) and competing risks analysis (SHR = 1.37 [95% CI 1.12-1.68], p = 0.001). Conclusion Administration of corticosteroids in patients with severe influenza pneumonia is associated with increased ICU mortality, and these agents should not be used as co-adjuvant therapy., Author(s): Gerard Moreno [sup.1], Alejandro Rodríguez [sup.1], Luis F. Reyes [sup.2] [sup.17], Josep Gomez [sup.1], Jordi Sole-Violan [sup.3], Emili Díaz [sup.4], María Bodí [sup.1], Sandra Trefler [sup.1], Juan Guardiola [sup.5], [...]

The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of prolonged versus standard course oseltamivir treatment among critically ill patients with severe influenza. A retrospective study of a prospectively collected database including adults with influenza infection admitted to 184 intensive care units (ICUs) in Spain from 2009 to 2018. Prolonged oseltamivir was defined if patients received the treatment beyond 5 days, whereas the standard‐course group received oseltamivir for 5 days. The primary outcome was all‐cause ICU mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was constructed, and the outcome was investigated through Cox regression and RCSs. Two thousand three hundred and ninety‐seven subjects were included, of whom 1943 (81.1%) received prolonged oseltamivir and 454 (18.9%) received standard treatment. An optimal full matching algorithm was performed by matching 2171 patients, 1750 treated in the prolonged oseltamivir group and 421 controls in the standard oseltamivir group. After PSM, 387 (22.1%) patients in the prolonged oseltamivir and 119 (28.3%) patients in the standard group died (p = 0.009). After adjusting confounding factors, prolonged oseltamivir significantly reduced ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40–0.69). Prolonged oseltamivir may have protective effects on survival at Day 10 compared with a standard treatment course. Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings. Compared with standard treatment, prolonged oseltamivir was associated with reduced ICU mortality in critically ill patients with severe influenza. Clinicians should consider extending the oseltamivir treatment duration to 10 days, particularly in higher‐risk groups of prolonged viral shedding. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some unanswered questions persist regarding the effectiveness of corticosteroids for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. We aimed to assess the clinical effect of corticosteroids on intensive care unit (ICU) mortality among mechanically ventilated COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data conducted in 70 ICUs (68 Spanish, one Andorran, one Irish), including mechanically ventilated COVID-19-associated ARDS patients admitted between February 6 and September 20, 2020. Individuals who received corticosteroids for refractory shock were excluded. Patients exposed to corticosteroids at admission were matched with patients without corticosteroids through propensity score matching. Primary outcome was all-cause ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes were to compare in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at 28 days, respiratory superinfection and length of stay between patients with corticosteroids and those without corticosteroids. We performed survival analysis accounting for competing risks and subgroup sensitivity analysis. Results: We included 1835 mechanically ventilated COVID-19-associated ARDS, of whom 1117 (60.9%) received corticosteroids. After propensity score matching, ICU mortality did not differ between patients treated with corticosteroids and untreated patients (33.8% vs. 30.9%; p = 0.28). In survival analysis, corticosteroid treatment at ICU admission was associated with short-term survival benefit (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39–0.72), although beyond the 17th day of admission, this effect switched and there was an increased ICU mortality (long-term HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.16–2.45). The sensitivity analysis reinforced the results. Subgroups of age < 60 years, severe ARDS and corticosteroids plus tocilizumab could have greatest benefit from corticosteroids as short-term decreased ICU mortality without long-term negative effects were observed. Larger length of stay was observed with corticosteroids among non-survivors both in the ICU and in hospital. There were no significant differences for the remaining secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Our results suggest that corticosteroid treatment for mechanically ventilated COVID-19-associated ARDS had a biphasic time-dependent effect on ICU mortality. Specific subgroups showed clear effect on improving survival with corticosteroid use. Therefore, further research is required to identify treatment-responsive subgroups among the mechanically ventilated COVID-19-associated ARDS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Despite wide use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in several clinical settings, the beneficial effects of NIV in patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to influenza infection remain controversial. The aim of this study was to identify the profile of patients with risk factors for NIV failure using chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) analysis and to determine whether NIV failure is associated with ICU mortality. METHODS: This work was a secondary analysis from prospective and observational multi-center analysis in critically ill subjects admitted to the ICU with ARF due to influenza infection requiring mechanical ventilation. Three groups of subjects were compared: (1) subjects who received NIV immediately after ICU admission for ARF and then failed (NIV failure group); (2) subjects who received NIV immediately after ICU admission for ARF and then succeeded (NIV success group); and (3) subjects who received invasive mechanical ventilation immediately after ICU admission for ARF (invasive mechanical ventilation group). Profiles of subjects with risk factors for NIV failure were obtained using CHAID analysis. RESULTS: Of 1,898 subjects, 806 underwent NIV, and 56.8% of them failed. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, infiltrates in chest radiograph, and ICU mortality (38.4% vs 6.3%) were higher (P < .001) in the NIV failure than in the NIV success group. SOFA score was the variable most associated with NIV failure, and 2 cutoffs were determined. Subjects with SOFA ≥ 5 had a higher risk of NIV failure (odds ratio = 3.3, 95% CI 2.4-4.5). ICU mortality was higher in subjects with NIV failure (38.4%) compared with invasive mechanical ventilation subjects (31.3%, P = .018), and NIV failure was associated with increased ICU mortality (odds ratio = 11.4, 95% CI 6.5-20.1). CONCLUSIONS: An automatic and non-subjective algorithm based on CHAID decision-tree analysis can help to define the profile of patients with different risks of NIV failure, which might be a promising tool to assist in clinical decision making to avoid the possible complications associated with NIV failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the implementation of internet patient portals into the safety net after the introduction of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, little attention has been paid to the process of engaging vulnerable patients into these portals. The portal is a health technology tool that was developed with a mainstream, English-speaking audience in mind. Thus, there are valid concerns that such technologies will actually exacerbate health care disparities, conferring further advantages to the already advantaged. In this paper, we describe a framework for portal engagement (awareness, registration, and use) among safety net patients. We incorporate the experiences in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services to illustrate important contextual factors for portal outreach in our safety net. Finally, we discuss considerations for moving forward with health technology in the safety net as the next version of patient portals are being developed.

BackgroundUniversity of California at Los Angeles Health implemented a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) alert for the initiation of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) for individuals with diabetes. The BPA alert was configured with a “chart closure” hard stop, which demanded a response before closing the chart. ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate whether the implementation of the BPA was associated with changes in ACEI and ARB prescribing during primary care encounters for patients with diabetes. MethodsWe defined ACEI and ARB prescribing opportunities as primary care encounters in which the patient had a diabetes diagnosis, elevated blood pressure in recent encounters, no active ACEI or ARB prescription, and no contraindications. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to compare the change in the probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription during opportunity encounters before and after BPA implementation in primary care sites that did (n=30) and did not (n=31) implement the BPA. In an additional subgroup analysis, we compared ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented a pharmacist-led medication management program. ResultsWe identified a total of 2438 opportunity encounters across 61 primary care sites. The predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription increased significantly from 11.46% to 22.17% during opportunity encounters in BPA implementation sites after BPA implementation. However, in the subgroup analysis, we only observed a significant improvement in ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented the pharmacist-led program. Overall, the change in the predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription from before to after BPA implementation was significantly greater in BPA implementation sites compared with nonimplementation sites (difference-in-differences of 11.82; P

Background: The relationship between early oseltamivir treatment (within 48 h of symptom onset) and mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with severe influenza is disputed. This study aimed to investigate the association between early oseltamivir treatment and ICU mortality in critically ill patients with influenza pneumonia., Methods: This was an observational study of patients with influenza pneumonia admitted to 184 ICUs in Spain during 2009-2018. The primary outcome was to evaluate the association between early oseltamivir treatment and ICU mortality compared with later treatment. Secondary outcomes were to compare the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay between the early and later oseltamivir treatment groups. To reduce biases related to observational studies, propensity score matching and a competing risk analysis were performed., Results: During the study period, 2124 patients met the inclusion criteria. All patients had influenza pneumonia and received oseltamivir before ICU admission. Of these, 529 (24.9%) received early oseltamivir treatment. In the multivariate analysis, early treatment was associated with reduced ICU mortality (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.95). After propensity score matching, early oseltamivir treatment was associated with improved survival rates in the Cox regression (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.99) and competing risk (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85) analyses. The ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation were shorter in patients receiving early treatment., Conclusions: Early oseltamivir treatment is associated with improved survival rates in critically ill patients with influenza pneumonia, and may decrease ICU length of stay and mechanical ventilation duration., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: G. Moreno has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Rodríguez has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Sole-Violán has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Martín-Loeches has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Díaz has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Bodí has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L.F. Reyes has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Gómez has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Guardiola has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Trefler has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Vidaur has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Papiol has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Socias has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. García-Vidal reports grants and other support from Gilead Science and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and other support from Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen and Lilly, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E. Correig has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Marín-Corral has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.I. Restrepo has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.S. Nguyen-Van-Tam reports grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, outside the submitted work. He was seconded to the Dept of Health and Social Care (DHSC) England in 2017; the views in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the DHSC. Conflict of interest: A. Torres has nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©ERS 2021.)