Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
2.
J Hematol Oncol ; 16(1): 39, 2023 04 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2298700

ABSTRACT

Cancer patients, due to their immunocompromised status, are at an increased risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since severe SARS-CoV-2 infection causes multiple organ damage through IL-6-mediated inflammation while stimulating hypoxia, and malignancy promotes hypoxia-induced cellular metabolic alterations leading to cell death, we propose a mechanistic interplay between both conditions that results in an upregulation of IL-6 secretion resulting in enhanced cytokine production and systemic injury. Hypoxia mediated by both conditions results in cell necrosis, dysregulation of oxidative phosphorylation, and mitochondrial dysfunction. This produces free radicals and cytokines that result in systemic inflammatory injury. Hypoxia also catalyzes the breakdown of COX-1 and 2 resulting in bronchoconstriction and pulmonary edema, which further exacerbates tissue hypoxia. Given this disease model, therapeutic options are currently being studied against severe SARS-COV-2. In this study, we review several promising therapies against severe disease supported by clinical trial evidence-including Allocetra, monoclonal antibodies (Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab), peginterferon lambda, Baricitinib, Remdesivir, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab, Anakinra, Bevacizumab, exosomes, and mesenchymal stem cells. Due to the virus's rapid adaptive evolution and diverse symptomatic manifestation, the use of combination therapies offers a promising approach to decrease systemic injury. By investing in such targeted interventions, cases of severe SARS-CoV-2 should decrease along with its associated long-term sequelae and thereby allow cancer patients to resume their treatments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Interleukin-6 , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , Hypoxia
3.
Cancer Invest ; : 1-9, 2023 Apr 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2251108

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has been devastating for patients with cancer. In this commentary, we chronicle the pandemic's downstream impacts on United States hematology/oncology trainees in terms of professional development and career advancement. These include loss of access to clinical electives and protocol workshops, delays in research approval and execution, mentor shortages due to academic burnout, and obstacles with career transitions (most notably the post-fellowship job search). While certain silver linings from the pandemic have undoubtedly emerged, continued progress against COVID-19 will be essential to fully overcome the professional challenges it has created for the future hematology/oncology workforce.

5.
Blood ; 138(19):4936-4936, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1989741

ABSTRACT

With the rise of social media use during the COVID-19 pandemic, impressions from online content can affect behavioral changes resulting in exacerbating disparities in care. Thus, there exists a need to utilize social media platforms, like Twitter, to help augment preparedness, especially at the intersection between oncology and COVID-19, where tweets could help hint at potential biomolecular interactions. To address this, a study was developed to assess relationship and ontologies on the interaction between hematological malignancies and COVID-19 on Twitter. Ontologies are groupings of terms and related identifiers, such as genes, for general search terms, such as “Blood Cancer”, were found utilizing the Human Phenotype Ontology. These were combined with the term “COVID-19” and used as search terms for Twitter's Standard Search API. The resulting tweets were cross-checked to assess if they included any of the other terms or genes related to the starting ontologies to then determine how many terms or genes each tweet was associated with. Once the most associated tweets to the ontologies were found, the genes related to those ontologies were utilized to find biological structures within the AlphaFold EMBL database, before being used in binding using HEX Docking software's shape based binding tool in 3D. Finally, Root Mean Square (RMS) Deviations were performed between the top 2000 conformations for each bound structure to determine if the binding was statistically significant. Results showed strong clustering of top tweets around keyword combinations. In the case of the starting entry, “Blood COVID-19”, the ontologies that were found were linked to 45 terms that each had 100 or more tweets linked to them (Figure 1a). One such term of significance was Acute Myeloid Leukemia, which was linked to the gene BRCA1. The biological significance of the molecular interaction between BRCA1 and SARS CoV-2 was determined using the predicted protein structure from the AlphaFold-EMBL database for BRCA1 and the RCSB Protein Bank structure for the SARS CoV-2 spike (PDB# 6VSB), which can be found in Figure 1b. This interaction was found to be significant based on the average RMS Deviation of 82.97 Angstroms that ranged across the top 2000 conformation. Each model had an average RMS of 85.05 Angstroms between BRCA1 and the COVID-19 spike, with binding occurring on the spike's carbohydrate recognition domain within its S1 segment that is typically used for cell entry. Thus, human phenotype ontology was effective in classifying tweets to specific biomolecular interactions. Therefore, this approach could be utilized to proactively influence treatment designs for blood cancer patients infected with COVID-19, as well as in other areas where medical illnesses are already well defined by ontologies or other literature data. Forward looking, future studies will help to ensure that terms that are not well characterized by ontologies can still be utilized in this type of analysis by employing de  novo ontology production methods. Figure 1 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

6.
Cancer Invest ; 39(6-7): 449-456, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1272896

ABSTRACT

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy. However, observational studies, including non-randomized cohort studies, as well as small RCTs have gained increasing attention especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic where critical evaluation of limited therapeutic options are sought to improve patient care while awaiting results for subsequent RCTs. As the authors have previously discussed, RCTs and observational studies are complementary approaches which often appear synergistic with one another. While not all real-world studies are the same, the results of observational studies are notoriously subject to both known and unknown confounding factors. The utilization of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma is a timely illustration of evaluating the efficacy and safety of a COVID-19 therapy given the dangerous and often lethal effects of the virus and the limited approved therapeutic options for the disease. While awaiting the results of large RCTS of convalescent plasma, serval observational cohorts and small RCTs have attempted to assess the efficacy and safety of this approach with very mixed results. Among the likely reasons for this failure to provide a definitive answer concerning the value of convalescent plasma are the many limitations inherent to addressing treatment efficacy in non-randomized studies. While such studies are often able to capture information on large numbers of individuals rapidly, it is important to understand that although larger numbers may enhance the precision of estimates provided, larger numbers, in and of themselves, do not increase the accuracy of estimates due to patient selection and other biases. At the same time, both observational studies and small RCTS are at risk for publication bias due to investigator, reviewer and editorial bias toward positive studies. In this commentary we discuss the advantages and limitations of these methodologic approaches when addressing urgently needed evidence on the effectiveness and safety of therapies in a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Immunization, Passive/methods , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Publication Bias , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome , COVID-19 Serotherapy
7.
Shock ; 54(4): 438-450, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-639941

ABSTRACT

The world is currently embroiled in a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory illness caused by the novel betacoronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The severity of COVID-19 disease ranges from asymptomatic to fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome. In few patients, the disease undergoes phenotypic differentiation between 7 and 14 days of acute illness, either resulting in full recovery or symptom escalation. However, the mechanism of such variation is not clear, but the facts suggest that patient's immune status, comorbidities, and the systemic effects of the viral infection (potentially depending on the SARS-CoV-2 strain involved) play a key role. Subsequently, patients with the most severe symptoms tend to have poor outcomes, manifest severe hypoxia, and possess elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (including IL-1ß, IL-6, IFN-γ, and TNF-α) along with elevated levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, marked lymphopenia, and elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios. Based on the available evidence, we propose a mechanism wherein SARS-CoV-2 infection induces direct organ damage while also fueling an IL-6-mediated cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and hypoxia, resulting in escalating systemic inflammation, multi-organ damage, and end-organ failure. Elevated IL-6 and hypoxia together predisposes patients to pulmonary hypertension, and the presence of asymptomatic hypoxia in COVID-19 further compounds this problem. Due to the similar downstream mediators, we discuss the potential synergistic effects and systemic ramifications of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus during co-infection, a phenomenon we have termed "COVI-Flu." Additionally, the differences between CRS and cytokine storm are highlighted. Finally, novel management approaches, clinical trials, and therapeutic strategies toward both SARS-CoV-2 and COVI-Flu infection are discussed, highlighting host response optimization and systemic inflammation reduction.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coinfection/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Immunotherapy , Influenza, Human/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , COVID-19 , Coinfection/diagnosis , Coinfection/virology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Humans , Hypoxia/virology , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
8.
J Glob Infect Dis ; 12(2): 47-93, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-592574

ABSTRACT

What started as a cluster of patients with a mysterious respiratory illness in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, was later determined to be coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel Betacoronavirus, was subsequently isolated as the causative agent. SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by respiratory droplets and fomites and presents clinically with fever, fatigue, myalgias, conjunctivitis, anosmia, dysgeusia, sore throat, nasal congestion, cough, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea. In most critical cases, symptoms can escalate into acute respiratory distress syndrome accompanied by a runaway inflammatory cytokine response and multiorgan failure. As of this article's publication date, COVID-19 has spread to approximately 200 countries and territories, with over 4.3 million infections and more than 290,000 deaths as it has escalated into a global pandemic. Public health concerns mount as the situation evolves with an increasing number of infection hotspots around the globe. New information about the virus is emerging just as rapidly. This has led to the prompt development of clinical patient risk stratification tools to aid in determining the need for testing, isolation, monitoring, ventilator support, and disposition. COVID-19 spread is rapid, including imported cases in travelers, cases among close contacts of known infected individuals, and community-acquired cases without a readily identifiable source of infection. Critical shortages of personal protective equipment and ventilators are compounding the stress on overburdened healthcare systems. The continued challenges of social distancing, containment, isolation, and surge capacity in already stressed hospitals, clinics, and emergency departments have led to a swell in technologically-assisted care delivery strategies, such as telemedicine and web-based triage. As the race to develop an effective vaccine intensifies, several clinical trials of antivirals and immune modulators are underway, though no reliable COVID-19-specific therapeutics (inclusive of some potentially effective single and multi-drug regimens) have been identified as of yet. With many nations and regions declaring a state of emergency, unprecedented quarantine, social distancing, and border closing efforts are underway. Implementation of social and physical isolation measures has caused sudden and profound economic hardship, with marked decreases in global trade and local small business activity alike, and full ramifications likely yet to be felt. Current state-of-science, mitigation strategies, possible therapies, ethical considerations for healthcare workers and policymakers, as well as lessons learned for this evolving global threat and the eventual return to a "new normal" are discussed in this article.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL