Aims In this work, the survival and mortality data of 54 consecutive patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and suffering from severe respiratory insufficiency imputable to viral SARS - CoV - 2 infection were analyzed and shared, after a critical review of the evidence in order to optimize the most dedicated clinical and treatment strategy, for a future ‘targeted’ management in the care of the possible return flu outbreak. Methods At our Emergency Department of the Crema Hospital, from the beginning of the pandemic until the end of June 2020, 54 consecutive patients admitted to ICU suffering from severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) and severe respiratory distress (ARDS) attributable to viral SARS - CoV - 2 infection were recruited. The recruitment criterion was based on refractory hypoxia, general condition and clinical impairment, comorbidities and CT images. The incoming parameters of the blood chemistry and radiology investigations and the timing of the gold - tracheal intubation were compared. Medical therapy was based on the application of shared protocols. Results The onset of symptoms was varyng, i.e. within the range of 1–14 days. The average time from the admission to the emergency room to the admission to intensive care was approximately 120 h. The average number of days of hospitalization in the ICU was 28 days. With a majority of male patients, the most significant age group was between 60 and 69 years. There were 21 deaths and, compared to the survivors, the deceased ones were older at an average age of about 67 years (vs an average age of the survivors of about 59 years). From the available data entering the ICU, the surviving patients presented average better values of oximetry and blood gas analysis, with a lower average dosage of D-Dimer than the deceased. Ones with a presence of bilateral pneumonia in all patients, the worsening of the ARDS occurred in 31 patients. 9 out of 25 patients early intubated died, while 12 out of 23 patients died when intubation was performed after 24 h of non-invasive ventilation. The presence of multiple comorbidities was shown in 17 of 28 patients and revealed an additional adverse prognostic factor. Also, more than one complication in the same patient were detected; after respiratory worsening, renal failure was more frequently found in 16 patients. Some particular complications such as lesions induced by ventilation with barotrauma mechanism (VILI), ischemic heart disease and the appearance of central and peripheral neurological events were detected too. Considerations SARS - CoV - 2 disease is caused by a new coronavirus that has its main route of transmission through respiratory droplets and close contact, resulting in a sudden onset of the clinical syndrome with acute respiratory infection (SARI) and severe respiratory distress (ARDS). But it can also appear with other symptoms such as gastrointestinal or neurological events, as to be consi...

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Main resultsWe found no additional RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT dating from the 1960s with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy participants, all of whom were included in analyses. This trial compared the e ect of an adenovirus vaccine against placebo. No statistically significant di erence in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. The quality of the evidence was low due to limitations in methodological quality and a wide 95% confidence interval. Authors' conclusionsThis Cochrane Review was based on one study with low-quality evidence. We found no conclusive results to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people compared with placebo. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality related to the vaccine.

Background The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017. Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. Data collection and analysis We used Cochrane’s Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full‐text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full‐text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double‐checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta‐analysis, and w...

No abstract

No abstract