In the acute care setting, calculation of dose ratios for opioids, based solely on opioid conversion tables, is an oversimplification of pain management, with a potential for adverse consequences. The calculation of EDRs is one step in an interdisciplinary process that must take into account patient- and institution-specific factors.

BackgroundThe efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.MethodsWe evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours of commencing organ support in an intensive care unit, were randomized to receive either tocilizumab (8mg/kg) or sarilumab (400mg) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned −1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with pre-defined triggers to declare superiority, efficacy, equivalence or futility.ResultsTocilizumab and sarilumab both met the pre-defined triggers for efficacy. At the time of full analysis 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab and 402 to control. Median organ support-free days were 10 (interquartile range [IQR] −1, 16), 11 (IQR 0, 16) and 0 (IQR −1, 15) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and control, respectively. Relative to control, median adjusted odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible intervals [CrI] 1.25, 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95%CrI 1.17, 2.91) for sarilumab, yielding >99.9% and 99.5% posterior probabilities of superiority compared with control. Hospital mortality was 28.0% (98/350) for tocilizumab, 22.2% (10/45) for sarilumab and 35.8% (142/397) for control. All secondary outcomes and analyses supported efficacy of these IL-6 receptor antagonists.ConclusionsIn critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in intensive care, treatment with the IL-6 receptor antagonists, tocilizumab and sarilumab, improved outcome, including survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02735707)

The objective of the study is to compare the efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL) on the first pass intubation success of patients with difficult airway characteristics (DACs) in the emergency department (ED). Over a 6-year period, between July 1 2007 and June 30 2013, all intubations performed in an academic ED were recorded in a continuous quality improvement (CQI) database by the operators. The CQI form included information such as patient demographics, operator level of training, device(s) used, number of attempts and outcome of each attempt. In addition, operators performed a difficult airway assessment and noted the presence or absence of the following difficult airway characteristics (DACs): airway edema, cervical immobility, facial/neck trauma, large tongue, obesity, short neck, small mandible, and blood or vomit in the airway. Patients <18 years of age and those not intubated by an emergency physician (EP) were excluded from the analysis. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the effect of device type (VL or DL) on first pass intubation success as the number of DACs increased. A total of 2,423 intubations were included in this study. First pass success by the number of DACs was as follows in the VL and DL groups, respectively: no DACs [90.8 % (95 % CI 87.5-93.4) vs. 82.0 % (95 % CI 78.0-85.5)]; one DAC [85.1 % (95 % CI 81.2-88.5 %) vs. 69.4 % (95 % CI 63.9-74.5 %)]; two DACs [(80.5 % (95 % CI 74.7-85.6 %) vs. 65.8 % (95 % CI 57.6-73.3 %)]; three or more DACs [68.9 % (95 % CI 63.8-73.7 %) vs. 54.1 % (95 % CI 46.3-61.8 %)]. After adjusting for potential confounders, VL was associated with higher odds of first pass success for patients with no DACs (aOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.3), one DAC (aOR 3.2, 95 % CI 1.9-5.6), two DACs (aOR 2.3, 95 % CI 1.1-4.9), and three or more DACs (aOR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.5-5.5). In patients with DACs, VL was associated with a higher first pass success than DL. VL is recommended as the primary intubating device for patients with predicted difficult airways in the ED.

No abstract