Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
2.
ERJ Open Res ; 8(2)2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2309195

ABSTRACT

Patients with #IPF do not mount appreciable anti-spike antibody responses to two doses of #SARSCoV2 mRNA vaccine compared to the general population. National authorities should prioritise patients with IPF for booster doses. https://bit.ly/3K2KXQ0.

4.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 1083264, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2297526

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 seem to be an emerging global crisis. Machine learning radiographic models have great potential for meticulous evaluation of post-COVID-19 interstitial lung disease (ILD). Methods: In this multicenter, retrospective study, we included consecutive patients that had been evaluated 3 months following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between 01/02/2021 and 12/5/2022. High-resolution computed tomography was evaluated through Imbio Lung Texture Analysis 2.1. Results: Two hundred thirty-two (n = 232) patients were analyzed. FVC% predicted was ≥80, between 60 and 79 and <60 in 74.2% (n = 172), 21.1% (n = 49), and 4.7% (n = 11) of the cohort, respectively. DLCO% predicted was ≥80, between 60 and 79 and <60 in 69.4% (n = 161), 15.5% (n = 36), and 15.1% (n = 35), respectively. Extent of ground glass opacities was ≥30% in 4.3% of patients (n = 10), between 5 and 29% in 48.7% of patients (n = 113) and <5% in 47.0% of patients (n = 109). The extent of reticulation was ≥30%, 5-29% and <5% in 1.3% (n = 3), 24.1% (n = 56), and 74.6% (n = 173) of the cohort, respectively. Patients (n = 13, 5.6%) with fibrotic lung disease and persistent functional impairment at the 6-month follow-up received antifibrotics and presented with an absolute change of +10.3 (p = 0.01) and +14.6 (p = 0.01) in FVC% predicted at 3 and 6 months after the initiation of antifibrotic. Conclusion: Post-COVID-19-ILD represents an emerging entity. A substantial minority of patients presents with fibrotic lung disease and might experience benefit from antifibrotic initiation at the time point that fibrotic-like changes are "immature." Machine learning radiographic models could be of major significance for accurate radiographic evaluation and subsequently for the guidance of therapeutic approaches.

5.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2022 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2265551

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials comparing tocilizumab and baricitinib in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial aiming to address this unmet need. METHODS: To determine whether baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab, we assessed whether the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1.50. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to hospital discharge by day 28 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10. RESULTS: We assigned 251 patients with COVID-19 and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of <200 to receive either tocilizumab (n = 126) or baricitinib (n = 125) plus standard of care. Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 (mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received baricitinib, 39.2% [n = 49/125]; mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received tocilizumab, 44.4% [n = 56/126]; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.21; p 0.001 for non-inferiority). Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the time to hospital discharge within 28 days (patients who received baricitinib- discharged alive: 58.4% [n = 73/125] vs. patients who received tocilizumab- discharged alive: 52.4% [n = 66/126]; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61-1.18; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and tocilizumab arms in the change in WHO scale at day 10 (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-1.0]; p 0.83). DISCUSSION: In the setting of this trial, baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab with regards to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 and the time to discharge by day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19.

6.
Frontiers in medicine ; 9, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2218728

ABSTRACT

Introduction Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 seem to be an emerging global crisis. Machine learning radiographic models have great potential for meticulous evaluation of post-COVID-19 interstitial lung disease (ILD). Methods In this multicenter, retrospective study, we included consecutive patients that had been evaluated 3 months following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between 01/02/2021 and 12/5/2022. High-resolution computed tomography was evaluated through Imbio Lung Texture Analysis 2.1. Results Two hundred thirty-two (n = 232) patients were analyzed. FVC% predicted was ≥80, between 60 and 79 and <60 in 74.2% (n = 172), 21.1% (n = 49), and 4.7% (n = 11) of the cohort, respectively. DLCO% predicted was ≥80, between 60 and 79 and <60 in 69.4% (n = 161), 15.5% (n = 36), and 15.1% (n = 35), respectively. Extent of ground glass opacities was ≥30% in 4.3% of patients (n = 10), between 5 and 29% in 48.7% of patients (n = 113) and <5% in 47.0% of patients (n = 109). The extent of reticulation was ≥30%, 5–29% and <5% in 1.3% (n = 3), 24.1% (n = 56), and 74.6% (n = 173) of the cohort, respectively. Patients (n = 13, 5.6%) with fibrotic lung disease and persistent functional impairment at the 6-month follow-up received antifibrotics and presented with an absolute change of +10.3 (p = 0.01) and +14.6 (p = 0.01) in FVC% predicted at 3 and 6 months after the initiation of antifibrotic. Conclusion Post-COVID-19-ILD represents an emerging entity. A substantial minority of patients presents with fibrotic lung disease and might experience benefit from antifibrotic initiation at the time point that fibrotic-like changes are "immature.” Machine learning radiographic models could be of major significance for accurate radiographic evaluation and subsequently for the guidance of therapeutic approaches.

7.
ERJ open research ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1782002

ABSTRACT

The emergence and spread of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are causing a growing global public health crisis. Despite advances in treatment, vaccination remains the best way to contain the pandemic [1]. Vaccines are currently available by means of conditional marketing approval, full approval and emergency use authorization pathways [2]. Evidence suggest that immunocompromised individuals including solid organ transplants recipients and patients under immunosuppressive treatment may have increased mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection despite double dose messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine regimens [3]. This is partially attributed to blunted immune responses to vaccination since only 38–54% of kidney and liver transplant recipients developed detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies following the second dose of mRNA vaccines [3, 4].

8.
Respir Res ; 22(1): 317, 2021 Dec 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1633846

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on the safety and efficacy profile of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 needs to be enriched. METHODS: In this open label, prospective study, we evaluated clinical outcomes in consecutive patients with COVID-19 and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 receiving tocilizumab plus usual care versus usual care alone. Tocilizumab was administered at the time point that PaO2/FiO2 < 200 was observed. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to discharge, change in PaO2/FiO2 at day 5 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10. FINDINGS: Overall, 114 patients were included in the analysis (tocilizumab plus usual care: 56, usual care: 58). Allocation to usual care was associated with significant increase in 28-day mortality compared to tocilizumab plus usual care [Cox proportional-hazards model: HR: 3.34, (95% CI: 1.21-9.30), (p = 0.02)]. There was not a statistically significant difference with regards to hospital discharge over the 28 day period for patients receiving tocilizumab compared to usual care [11.0 days (95% CI: 9.0 to 16.0) vs 14.0 days (95% CI: 10.0-24.0), HR: 1.32 (95% CI: 0.84-2.08), p = 0.21]. ΔPaO2/FiO2 at day 5 was significantly higher in the tocilizumab group compared to the usual care group [42.0 (95% CI: 23.0-84.7) vs 15.8 (95% CI: - 19.4-50.3), p = 0.03]. ΔWHO scale at day 10 was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group compared to the usual care group (-0.5 ± 2.1 vs 0.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Administration of tocilizumab, at the time point that PaO2/FiO2 < 200 was observed, improved survival and other clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 irrespective of systemic inflammatory markers levels.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization/trends , Patient Acuity , Administration, Intravenous , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Survival Rate/trends
9.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 15(6): 773-779, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1165209

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Bronchoscopy and related procedures have unambiguously been affected during the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Corona Virus-2 (SARS COV-2). Ordinary bronchoscopy practices and lung cancer services might have changed over this pandemic and for the years to come.Areas covered: This manuscript summarizes the utility of bronchoscopy in COVID-19 patients, and the impact of the pandemic in lung cancer diagnostic services, in view of possible viral spread during these We conducted a literature review of articles published in PubMed/Medline from inception to November 5th, 2020 using relevant terms.Expert opinion: Without doubt this pandemic has changed the way bronchoscopy and related procedures are being performed. Mandatory universal personal protective equipment, pre-bronchoscopy PCR tests, dedicated protective barriers and disposable bronchoscopes might be the safest and simpler way to perform even the most complicated procedures.


Subject(s)
Bronchoscopy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Bronchoscopes/microbiology , Bronchoscopes/standards , Bronchoscopes/virology , Bronchoscopy/instrumentation , Bronchoscopy/methods , Bronchoscopy/standards , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Equipment Contamination/prevention & control , History, 21st Century , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Medical Oncology/instrumentation , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/standards , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL