Search

Background: Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes., Study Design and Methods: Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days., Results: 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19., Conclusions: The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated widespread shortages of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and the creation and sharing of proposed substitutes (novel designs, repurposed materials) with limited testing against regulatory standards. We aimed to categorically test the efficacy and fit of potential N95 respirator substitutes using protocols that can be replicated in university laboratories., Setting: Academic medical centre with occupational health-supervised fit testing along with laboratory studies., Participants: Seven adult volunteers who passed quantitative fit testing for small-sized (n=2) and regular-sized (n=5) commercial N95 respirators., Methods: Five open-source potential N95 respirator substitutes were evaluated and compared with commercial National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved N95 respirators as controls. Fit testing using the 7-minute standardised Occupational Safety and Health Administration fit test was performed. In addition, protocols that can be performed in university laboratories for materials testing (filtration efficiency, air resistance and fluid resistance) were developed to evaluate alternate filtration materials., Results: Among five open-source, improvised substitutes evaluated in this study, only one (which included a commercial elastomeric mask and commercial HEPA filter) passed a standard quantitative fit test. The four alternative materials evaluated for filtration efficiency (67%-89%) failed to meet the 95% threshold at a face velocity (7.6 cm/s) equivalent to that of a NIOSH particle filtration test for the control N95 FFR. In addition, for all but one material, the small surface area of two 3D-printed substitutes resulted in air resistance that was above the maximum in the NIOSH standard., Conclusions: Testing protocols such as those described here are essential to evaluate proposed improvised respiratory protection substitutes, and our testing platform could be replicated by teams with similar cross-disciplinary research capacity. Healthcare professionals should be cautious of claims associated with improvised respirators when suggested as FFR substitutes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Rationale and Objective: Three-dimensional (3D) printing allows innovative solutions for personal protective equipment, particularly in times of crisis. Our goal was to generate an N95-alternative 3D-printed respirator that passed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-certified quantitative fit testing during the COVID-19 pandemic., Materials and Methods: 3D printed prototypes for N95 solutions were created based on the design of commercial N95 respirators. Computed tomography imaging was performed on an anthropomorphic head phantom wearing a commercially available N95 respirator and these facial contour data was used in mask prototyping. Prototypes were generated using rigid and flexible polymers. According to OSHA standards, prototypes underwent subsequent quantitative respirator fit testing on volunteers who passed fit tests on commercial N95 respirators., Results: A total of 10 prototypes were 3D printed using both rigid (n = 5 designs) and flexible materials (n = 5 designs), Prototypes generated with rigid printing materials (n = 5 designs) did not pass quantitative respirator fit testing. Three of the five prototypes with flexible materials failed quantitative fit testing. The final two prototypes designs passed OSHA-certified quantitative fit tests with an overall mean fit factor of 138 (passing is over 100)., Conclusion: Through rapid prototyping, 3D printed N95 alternative masks were designed with topographical facial computed tomography data to create mask facial contour and passed OSHA-certified quantitative respiratory testing when flexible polymer was used. This mask design may provide an alternative to disposable N95 respirators in case of pandemic-related shortages. Furthermore, this approach may allow customization for those that would otherwise fail fit testing on standard commercial respirators., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Based on interim analyses and modeling data, lower doses of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) were investigated to determine optimal dose and expand availability of treatment. Methods This Phase 3 portion of the BLAZE-1 trial characterized the effect of bamlanivimab with etesevimab on overall patient clinical status and virologic outcomes in ambulatory patients ≥12 years old, with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and ≥1 risk factor for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) or placebo were infused intravenously within 3 days of patients' first positive COVID-19 test. Results In total, 769 patients were infused (median age [range]; 56.0 years [12, 93], 30.3% of patients ≥65 years of age and median duration of symptoms; 4 days). By day 29, 4/511 patients (0.8%) in the antibody treatment group had a COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death, as compared with 15/258 patients (5.8%) in the placebo group (Δ[95% confidence interval {CI}] = −5.0 [−8.0, −2.1], P  < .001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with 4 deaths (all COVID-19-related) in the placebo group. Patients receiving antibody treatment had a greater mean reduction in viral load from baseline to Day 7 (Δ[95% CI] = −0.99 [−1.33, −.66], P  < .0001) compared with those receiving placebo. Persistently high viral load at Day 7 correlated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death by Day 29 in all BLAZE-1 cohorts investigated. Conclusions These data support the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab (700/1400 mg) for ambulatory patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants will require continued monitoring to determine the applicability of this treatment. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04427501. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is most frequently mild yet can be severe and life- threatening. Virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are predicted to reduce viral load, ameliorate symptoms, and prevent hospitalization. METHODS In this ongoing phase 2 trial involving outpatients with recently diagnosed mild or moderate Covid-19, we randomly assigned 452 patients to receive a single intravenous infusion of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo and evaluated the quantitative virologic end points and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the viral load at day 11. The results of a preplanned interim analysis as of September 5, 2020, are reported here. RESULTS At the time of the interim analysis, the observed mean decrease from baseline in the log viral load for the entire population was -3.81, for an elimination of more than 99.97% of viral RNA. For patients who received the 2800-mg dose of LY- CoV555, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was -0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98 to -0.08; P=0.02), for a viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Smaller differences from placebo in the change from baseline were observed among the patients who received the 700-mg dose (-0.20; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.25; P=0.38) or the 7000-mg dose (0.09; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.55; P=0.70). On days 2 to 6, the patients who received LY-CoV555 had a slightly lower severity of symptoms than those who received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or visit to an emergency department was 1.6% in the LY-CoV555 group and 6.3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In this interim analysis of a phase 2 trial, one of three doses of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 appeared to accelerate the natural decline in viral load over time, whereas the other doses had not by day 11. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]