; for the COALITION COVID-19 Brazil III Investigators IMPORTANCE Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with substantial mortality and use of health care resources. Dexamethasone use might attenuate lung injury in these patients. OBJECTIVE To determine whether intravenous dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days among patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted in 41 intensive care units (ICUs) in Brazil. Patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, according to the Berlin definition, were enrolled from April 17 to June 23, 2020. Final follow-up was completed on July 21, 2020. The trial was stopped early following publication of a related study before reaching the planned sample size of 350 patients. INTERVENTIONS Twenty mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 5 days, 10 mg of dexamethasone daily for 5 days or until ICU discharge, plus standard care (n =151) or standard care alone (n = 148). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 days, clinical status of patients at day 15 using a 6-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1, not hospitalized to 6, death), ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (range, 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater organ dysfunction) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. RESULTS A total of 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 61 [14] years; 37% women) were enrolled and all completed follow-up. Patients randomized to the dexamethasone group had a mean 6.6 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 5.0-8.2) during the first 28 days vs 4.0 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 2.9-5.4) in the standard care group (difference, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.2-4.38; P = .04). At 7 days, patients in the dexamethasone group had a mean SOFA score of 6.1 (95% CI, 5.5-6.7) vs 7.5 (95% CI, 6.9-8.1) in the standard care group (difference, −1.16; 95% CI, −1.94 to −0.38; P = .004). There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at 28 days, ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, or the 6-point ordinal scale at 15 days. Thirty-three patients (21.9%) in the dexamethasone group vs 43 (29.1%) in the standard care group experienced secondary infections, 47 (31.1%) vs 42 (28.3%) needed insulin for glucose control, and 5 (3.3%) vs 9 (6.1%) experienced other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS, use of intravenous dexamethasone plus standard care compared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free of mechanical ventilation) over 28 days.

Background COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. MethodsWe did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0•3-0•7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34•8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41•3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0•86 [95% CI 0•59-1•22], p=0•40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3•64 [95% CI 1•61-8•27], p=0•0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagul...

Table of contentsP001 - Sepsis impairs the capillary response within hypoxic capillaries and decreases erythrocyte oxygen-dependent ATP effluxR. M. Bateman, M. D. Sharpe, J. E. Jagger, C. G. EllisP002 - Lower serum immunoglobulin G2 level does not predispose to severe flu.J. Solé-Violán, M. López-Rodríguez, E. Herrera-Ramos, J. Ruíz-Hernández, L. Borderías, J. Horcajada, N. González-Quevedo, O. Rajas, M. Briones, F. Rodríguez de Castro, C. Rodríguez GallegoP003 - Brain protective effects of intravenous immunoglobulin through inhibition of complement activation and apoptosis in a rat model of sepsisF. Esen, G. Orhun, P. Ergin Ozcan, E. Senturk, C. Ugur Yilmaz, N. Orhan, N. Arican, M. Kaya, M. Kucukerden, M. Giris, U. Akcan, S. Bilgic Gazioglu, E. TuzunP004 - Adenosine a1 receptor dysfunction is associated with leukopenia: A possible mechanism for sepsis-induced leukopeniaR. Riff, O. Naamani, A. DouvdevaniP005 - Analysis of neutrophil by hyper spectral imaging - A preliminary reportR. Takegawa, H. Yoshida, T. Hirose, N. Yamamoto, H. Hagiya, M. Ojima, Y. Akeda, O. Tasaki, K. Tomono, T. ShimazuP006 - Chemiluminescent intensity assessed by eaa predicts the incidence of postoperative infectious complications following gastrointestinal surgeryS. Ono, T. Kubo, S. Suda, T. Ueno, T. IkedaP007 - Serial change of c1 inhibitor in patients with sepsis – A prospective observational studyT. Hirose, H. Ogura, H. Takahashi, M. Ojima, J. Kang, Y. Nakamura, T. Kojima, T. ShimazuP008 - Comparison of bacteremia and sepsis on sepsis related biomarkersT. Ikeda, S. Suda, Y. Izutani, T. Ueno, S. OnoP009 - The changes of procalcitonin levels in critical patients with abdominal septic shock during blood purificationT. Taniguchi, M. OP010 - Validation of a new sensitive point of care device for rapid measurement of procalcitoninC. Dinter, J. Lotz, B. Eilers, C. Wissmann, R. LottP011 - Infection biomarkers in primary care patients with acute respiratory tract infections – Comparison of procalcitonin and C-reactive proteinM. M. Meili, P. S. SchuetzP012 - Do we need a lower procalcitonin cut off?H. Hawa, M. Sharshir, M. Aburageila, N. SalahuddinP013 - The predictive role of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin biomarkers in central nervous system infections with extensively drug resistant bacteriaV. Chantziara, S. Georgiou, A. Tsimogianni, P. Alexandropoulos, A. Vassi, F. Lagiou, M. Valta, G. Micha, E. Chinou, G. MichaloudisP014 - Changes in endotoxin activity assay and procalcitonin levels after direct hemoperfusion with polymyxin-b immobilized fiberA. Kodaira, T. Ikeda, S. Ono, T. Ueno, S. Suda, Y. Izutani, H. ImaizumiP015 - Diagnostic usefullness of combination biomarkers on ICU admissionM. V. De la Torre-Prados, A. Garcia-De la Torre, A. Enguix-Armada, A. Puerto-Morlan, V. Perez-Valero, A. Garcia-AlcantaraP016 - Platelet function analysis utilising the PFA-100 does not predict infection, bacteraemia, sepsis or outcome in critically ill patientsN. Bolton, J. Dudziak, S. Bonney, A. Tridente, P. NeeP017 - Extracellular histone H3 levels are in...

Ultrasound-guided PDT is noninferior to bronchoscopy-guided PDT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

No abstract