This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited, distributed under the same license, and used for noncommercial purposes only.

No abstract

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has led to significant global mortality and morbidity. Until now, no treatment has proven to be effective in COVID-19. To explore whether the use of remdesivir, initially an experimental broad-spectrum antiviral, is effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating its use. Methods A rapid search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE medical databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the studies. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was applied to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence reported per study. Results Two RCTs studies were identified (n=1,299). A fixed-effects meta-analysis revealed reductions in mortality (RR=0.69, 0.49 to 0.99), time to clinical improvement (3.95 less days, from 3.86 days less to 4.05 less days ), serious adverse events (RR=0.77, 0.63 to 0.94) and all adverse events (RR=0.87, 0.79 to 0.96). Conclusion In this rapid systematic review, we present pooled evidence from the 2 included RCT studies that reveal that remdesivir has a modest yet significant reduction in mortality and significantly improves the time to recovery, as well as significantly reduced risk in adverse events and serious adverse events. It is more than likely that as an antiviral, remdesivir is not sufficient on its own and may be suitable in combination with other antivirals or treatments such as convalescent plasma. Research is ongoing to clarify and contextual these promising findings.

Background The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is frequently used to measure frailty in critically ill adults. There is wide variation in the approach to analysing the relationship between the CFS score and mortality after admission to the ICU. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of modelling approach on the association between the CFS score and short-term mortality and quantify the prognostic value of frailty in this context. Methods We analysed data from two multicentre prospective cohort studies which enrolled intensive care unit patients ≥ 80 years old in 26 countries. The primary outcome was mortality within 30-days from admission to the ICU. Logistic regression models for both ICU and 30-day mortality included the CFS score as either a categorical, continuous or dichotomous variable and were adjusted for patient’s age, sex, reason for admission to the ICU, and admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Results The median age in the sample of 7487 consecutive patients was 84 years (IQR 81–87). The highest fraction of new prognostic information from frailty in the context of 30-day mortality was observed when the CFS score was treated as either a categorical variable using all original levels of frailty or a nonlinear continuous variable and was equal to 9% using these modelling approaches (p < 0.001). The relationship between the CFS score and mortality was nonlinear (p < 0.01). Conclusion Knowledge about a patient’s frailty status adds a substantial amount of new prognostic information at the moment of admission to the ICU. Arbitrary simplification of the CFS score into fewer groups than originally intended leads to a loss of information and should be avoided. Trial registration NCT03134807 (VIP1), NCT03370692 (VIP2)

Background: The increasing population of very old intensive care patients (VIPs) is a major challenge currently faced by clinicians and policymakers. Reliable indicators of VIPs' prognosis and appropriateness of their admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) are urgently needed. Methods: This is a report from the Polish sample of the VIP1 multicentre cohort study (NCT03134807). Patients ≥ 80 years of age admitted to the ICU were included in the study. Information on the type and reason for admission, demographics, utilisation of ICU procedures, ICU length of stay, organ dysfunction and the decision to apply end-of-life care was collected. The primary objective was to investigate the impact of frailty syndrome on ICU and 30-day survival of VIPs. Frailty was assessed with the Clinical Frailty Scale (≥ 5 points on a scale of 1-9). Results: We enrolled 272 participants with a median age of 84 (81-87) years. Frailty was diagnosed in 170 (62.5%) patients. The ICU and 30-day survival rates were equal to 54.6% and 47.3% respectively. Three variables were found to significantly increase the odds of death in the ICU in a multiple logistic regression model, namely: