Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 16(4): 419-428, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2222444

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The advent of biologic therapies for severe asthma has profoundly changed the management of this pathology. The introduction of home administration is therefore an important innovation to optimize the patients' management, even if there are many aspects that need to be clarified and pointed out. AREAS COVERED: This review summarizes the path that led to the possibility of self-administration of biologics, and what the pandemic has changed in the management of these patients. EXPERT OPINION: The growing understanding of asthma phenotypes and endotypes is enabling the careful selection of patients suitable for biologics. In this context, the availability of reliable and simple self-injection devices is important in implementing self-administration. The transition to self-injection is also possible thanks to the high safety profile of biologics. With attention, most patients may potentially be suitable for self-administration. The transition process from hospital to home administration can therefore be carried out correctly by clinicians with adequate expertise in the field of severe asthma and biologic therapies, with the support of other health professionals, pharmacists, and general practitioners. Home administration is probably the best way to guarantee high adherence and high-level satisfaction of patients, even in the long term.


Subject(s)
Anti-Asthmatic Agents , Asthma , Biological Products , Anti-Asthmatic Agents/adverse effects , Asthma/drug therapy , Biological Products/adverse effects , Humans , Phenotype
2.
J Thorac Dis ; 13(4): 2495-2509, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1224391

ABSTRACT

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, has become increasingly prevalent worldwide, reaching a pandemic stage in March 2020. The organization of health care services had to change because of this new disease, with the need to reallocate staff and materials, besides changing management protocols. A very important challenge is not to expose patients and health care workers to the risk of infection and not to waste personal protective equipment (PPE). In the field of interventional pulmonology, various aspects related to COVID-19 must be taken into great consideration. Although bronchoscopy is not a first-line test for patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, it has a role in selected cases and it can be useful for differential diagnosis. However, bronchoscopy is an aerosol-generating procedure, that's why its unjustified use could contribute to propagate the virus. For this reason, the utility of each procedure must be carefully evaluated, the patient has to be properly investigated before the procedure, which has to be performed with specific precautions, including adequate PPE. In this review, we summarize the knowledge and the principal statements about endoscopic activity in COVID-19 period, in both diagnosis of COVID-19 and management of patients. How to safely perform both bronchoscopic and pleural-related procedures (thoracoscopy, pleural biopsy and drainage of pleural effusions) is described with the aim to help the staff to decide when and how performing a procedure. We also highlight how interventional pulmonology could help in matter of complications related to COVID-19.

3.
Clin Respir J ; 15(7): 779-787, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1150114

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: During this long COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are lacking, and for this reason it is extremely important to accurately determine the outcomes of this strategy. This study aimed to evaluate clinical data and outcomes of NIV in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. MATHERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients with sudden worsening of respiratory failure were evaluated. All patients (71% male) had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and signs, symptoms and radiological findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia and all of them underwent a trial of NIV. Primary outcomes were NIV success and failure defined by intubation and mortality rate. Secondary outcome was the duration of NIV. RESULTS: NIV was successful in 38 (48.1%) patients (Table 1). EOT was necessary in 21 patients (26.6%). Death occurred in 20 patients (25.3%). In the group of patients having failed a trial with NIV and then being intubated, compared to those who continued NIV, there was no higher mortality rate. By evaluating the ICU survival outcome of the subgroup of patients intubated after NIV, 57% of the patients were discharged and 43% died. CONCLUSION: Previous studies conducted on patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher mortality rate than the present study. Our data showed that NIV can avoid intubation in almost half of the patients. Therefore, this data could reassure clinicians who would consider using NIV in COVID-19 ARDS-related treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Int Med Case Rep J ; 13: 563-567, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1076352

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is causing a massive outbreak throughout the world. In this period, diseases other than coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have not disappeared; however, it is hard for doctors to diagnose diseases that can mimic the clinical, radiological, and laboratory features of COVID-19, especially rare lung diseases such as acute eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP). We report the clinical case of a young patient who presented to the Emergency Department with respiratory failure and clinical symptoms, radiological aspects, and blood tests compatible with COVID-19; two swabs and a serology test for SARS-CoV-2 were performed, both resulted negative, but the respiratory failure worsened. Peripheral eosinophilia guided us to consider the possibility of a rare disease such as AEP, even if radiology findings were not pathognomonic. Therefore, we decided to perform a flexible bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) at the lingula, which showed the presence of eosinophilia greater than 40%. As a consequence, we treated the patient with high-dose corticosteroids that completely resolved the respiratory symptoms. This case report highlights the difficulty of making alternative diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for rare lung diseases such as AEP, which may have initial characteristics similar to COVID-19.

5.
Crit Care ; 24(1): 589, 2020 09 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-802272

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is extremely variable, ranging from asymptomatic patients to those who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As for now, there are still no really effective therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some evidences suggest that tocilizumab (TCZ) may avoid the progression of severe COVID-19. The aim of this retrospective case-control study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of TCZ in patients with COVID-19 ARDS undergoing noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV). METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and worsening acute respiratory failure (ARF) were admitted to the Pulmonology Unit of Azienda USL of Reggio Emilia-IRCCS. All patients were inflamed (elevated CRP and IL-6 levels) and received NIV at admission according to the presence of a pO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 200 mmHg. The possibility of being treated with TCZ depended on the drug availability. The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality rate. A secondary composite outcome of worsening was represented by the patients who died in the pulmonology unit or were intubated. RESULTS: Out of 79 patients, 41 were treated with TCZ. Twenty-eight patients received intravenous (IV) TCZ and 13 patients received subcutaneous (SC) TCZ. In-hospital overall mortality rate was 38% (30/79 patients). The probabilities of dying and being intubated during the follow-up using Kaplan-Meier method were significantly lower in total patients treated with TCZ compared to those of patients not treated with TCZ (log-rank p value = 0.006 and 0.036, respectively). However, using Cox multivariate analyses adjusted for age and Charlson comorbidity index only the association with the reduced risk of being intubated or dying maintained the significance (HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.22-0.89, p = 0.022). Two patients treated with TCZ developed cavitating lung lesions during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that TCZ treatment may be effective in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory impairment receiving NIV. More data on safety are required. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Drugs Context ; 92020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-701132

ABSTRACT

At the end of December 2019, a novel coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, caused an outbreak of pneumonia spreading from Wuhan, Hubei province, to the whole country of China and then the entire world, forcing the World Health Organization to make the assessment that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) can be characterized as a pandemic, the first ever caused by a coronavirus. To date, clinical evidence and guidelines based on reliable data and randomized clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 are lacking. In the absence of definitive management protocols, many treatments for COVID-19 are currently being evaluated and tested worldwide. Some of these options were soon abandoned due to ineffectiveness, while others showed promising results. The basic treatments are mainly represented by antiviral drugs, even if the evidence is not satisfactory. Among the antivirals, the most promising appears to be remdesivir. Corticosteroids and tocilizumab seem to guarantee positive results in selected patients so far, although the timing of starting therapy and the most appropriate therapeutic schemes remain to be clarified. Efficacy of the other drugs is still uncertain, and they are currently used as a cocktail of treatments in the absence of definitive guidelines. What will represent the real solution to the enormous problem taking place worldwide is the identification of a safe and effective vaccine, for which enormous efforts and investments are underway.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL