Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Biomedicines ; 11(5)2023 May 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20242114

ABSTRACT

The clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection vary widely, from asymptomatic infection to the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and death. The host response elicited by SARS-CoV-2 plays a key role in determining the clinical outcome. We hypothesized that determining the dynamic whole blood transcriptomic profile of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients and characterizing the subgroup that develops severe disease and ARDS would broaden our understanding of the heterogeneity in clinical outcomes. We recruited 60 hospitalized patients with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, among whom 19 developed ARDS. Peripheral blood was collected using PAXGene RNA tubes within 24 h of admission and on day 7. There were 2572 differently expressed genes in patients with ARDS at baseline and 1149 at day 7. We found a dysregulated inflammatory response in COVID-19 ARDS patients, with an increased expression of genes related to pro-inflammatory molecules and neutrophil and macrophage activation at admission, in addition to an immune regulation loss. This led, in turn, to a higher expression of genes related to reactive oxygen species, protein polyubiquitination, and metalloproteinases in the latter stages. Some of the most significant differences in gene expression found between patients with and without ARDS corresponded to long non-coding RNA involved in epigenetic control.

2.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 12(5)2023 Apr 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20230708

ABSTRACT

AIM: To analyze trends in the prescription of COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients during the pandemic. METHODS: Multicenter, ecological, time-series study of aggregate data for all adult patients with COVID-19 treated in five acute-care hospitals in Barcelona, Spain, between March 2020 and May 2021. Trends in the monthly prevalence of drugs used against COVID-19 were analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: The participating hospitals admitted 22,277 patients with COVID-19 during the study period, reporting an overall mortality of 10.8%. In the first months of the pandemic, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine were the most frequently used antivirals, but these fell into disuse and were replaced by remdesivir in July 2020. By contrast, the trend in tocilizumab use varied, first peaking in April and May 2020, declining until January 2021, and showing a discrete upward trend thereafter. Regarding corticosteroid use, we observed a notable upward trend in the use of dexamethasone 6 mg per day from July 2020. Finally, there was a high prevalence of antibiotics use, especially azithromycin, in the first three months, but this decreased thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 evolved with the changing scientific evidence during the pandemic. Initially, multiple drugs were empirically used that subsequently could not demonstrate clinical benefit. In future pandemics, stakeholders should strive to promote the early implementation of adaptive randomized clinical trials.

3.
Infect Dis Ther ; 12(1): 273-289, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2158223

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The profiles of patients with COVID-19 have been widely studied, but little is known about differences in baseline characteristics and in outcomes between subjects with a ceiling of care assigned at hospital admission and subjects without a ceiling of care. The aim of this study is to compare, by ceiling of care, clinical features and outcomes of hospitalized subjects during four waves of COVID-19 in a metropolitan area in Catalonia. METHODS: Observational study conducted during the first (March-April 2020), second (October-November 2020), third (January-February 2021), and fourth wave (July-August 2021) of COVID-19 in five centers of Catalonia. All subjects were adults (> 18 years old) hospitalized with a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and with therapeutic ceiling of care assessed by the attending physician at hospital admission. RESULTS: A total of 5813 subjects were analyzed. Subjects with a ceiling of care were mainly older (difference in median age of 20 years), with more comorbidities (Charlson index 3 points higher) and with fewer clinical signs at baseline than patients without a ceiling of care. Some features of their clinical profiles changed among waves. There were differences in treatments received during hospital admission across waves, but not between subjects with and without a ceiling of care. Subjects with a ceiling of care had a death incidence more than four times the death incidence of subjects a without a ceiling of care (risk ratio (RR) ranging from 3.5 in the first wave to almost 6 in the third and fourth). Incidence of severe pneumonia and complications for subjects with a ceiling of care was around 1.5 times the incidence in subjects without a ceiling of care. DISCUSSION: Analysis of hospitalized subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection should be stratified according to therapeutic ceiling of care to avoid bias and outcome misestimation.

4.
PLoS One ; 17(10): e0275615, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2065140

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the health status and exercise capacity of COVID-19 survivors one year after hospital discharge. METHODS: This multicenter prospective study included COVID-19 survivors 12 months after hospital discharge. Participants were randomly selected from a large cohort of COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalized until 15th April 2020. They were interviewed about persistent symptoms, underwent a physical examination, chest X-ray, and a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the risk factors for persistent dyspnea. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients included, 58% were male and the median age was 63 (IQR 54-72) years. About 82% reported ≥1 symptoms and 45% had not recovered their physical health. The multivariate regression analysis revealed that the female sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking were independent risk factors for persistent dyspnea. Approximately 50% completed less than 80% of the theoretical distance on the 6MWT. Only 14% had an abnormal X-ray, showing mainly interstitial infiltrates. A third of them had been followed up in outpatient clinics and 6% had undergone physical rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Despite the high rate of survivors of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with persistent symptomatology at 12 months, the follow-up and rehabilitation of these patients has been really poor. Studies focusing on the role of smoking in the persistence of COVID-19 symptoms are lacking.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Dyspnea/epidemiology , Dyspnea/etiology , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Prospective Studies
5.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 807981, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1798932

ABSTRACT

Background: Corticosteroids are the cornerstone of the treatment of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. However, whether corticosteroids can prevent respiratory worsening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without oxygen requirements is currently unknown. Aims: To assess the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulses (MPP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with increased levels of inflammatory markers not requiring oxygen at baseline. Methods: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Spain. Patients admitted for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with raised inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein >60 mg/L, interleukin-6 >40 pg/ml, or ferritin >1,000 µg/L) but without respiratory failure after the first week of symptom onset were randomized to receive a 3-day course of intravenous MPP (120 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days, a composite variable including mortality, the need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation, and clinical worsening, this last parameter defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio below 300; or a 15% decrease in the PaO2 from baseline, together with an increase in inflammatory markers or radiological progression. If clinical worsening occurred, patients received tocilizumab and unmasked corticosteroids. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, adverse events, need for ICU admission or high-flow oxygen, length of hospital stay, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and changes in laboratory parameters. Results: A total of 72 patients were randomized and 71 patients were analyzed (34 in the MPP group and 37 in the placebo group). Twenty patients presented with treatment failure (29.4 in the MPP group vs. 27.0% in the placebo group, p = 0.82), with no differences regarding the time to treatment failure between groups. There were no cases of death or mechanical ventilation requirements at 14 days post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were similar in MPP and placebo groups. Conclusions: A 3-day course of MPP after the first week of disease onset did not prevent respiratory deterioration in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an inflammatory phenotype who did not require oxygen.

6.
Frontiers in medicine ; 9, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1738248

ABSTRACT

Background Corticosteroids are the cornerstone of the treatment of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. However, whether corticosteroids can prevent respiratory worsening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without oxygen requirements is currently unknown. Aims To assess the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulses (MPP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with increased levels of inflammatory markers not requiring oxygen at baseline. Methods Multicenter, parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Spain. Patients admitted for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with raised inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein >60 mg/L, interleukin-6 >40 pg/ml, or ferritin >1,000 μg/L) but without respiratory failure after the first week of symptom onset were randomized to receive a 3-day course of intravenous MPP (120 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days, a composite variable including mortality, the need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation, and clinical worsening, this last parameter defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio below 300;or a 15% decrease in the PaO2 from baseline, together with an increase in inflammatory markers or radiological progression. If clinical worsening occurred, patients received tocilizumab and unmasked corticosteroids. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, adverse events, need for ICU admission or high-flow oxygen, length of hospital stay, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and changes in laboratory parameters. Results A total of 72 patients were randomized and 71 patients were analyzed (34 in the MPP group and 37 in the placebo group). Twenty patients presented with treatment failure (29.4 in the MPP group vs. 27.0% in the placebo group, p = 0.82), with no differences regarding the time to treatment failure between groups. There were no cases of death or mechanical ventilation requirements at 14 days post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were similar in MPP and placebo groups. Conclusions A 3-day course of MPP after the first week of disease onset did not prevent respiratory deterioration in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an inflammatory phenotype who did not require oxygen.

7.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(1): 168-175, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1474092

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The inflammatory cascade is the main cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids (CS) and tocilizumab (TCZ) are available to treat this escalation but which patients to administer it remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapy in COVID-19, based on the degree of inflammation. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with data on patients collected and followed up from March 1st, 2020, to May 1st, 2021, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Patients under treatment with CS vs. those under CS plus TCZ were compared. Effectiveness was explored in 3 risk categories (low, intermediate, high) based on lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and D-dimer values. PATIENTS: A total of 21,962 patients were included in the Registry by May 2021. Of these, 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the composite variable of in-hospital mortality, requirement for high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. KEY RESULTS: A total of 5940 met the inclusion criteria for the present study (5332 were treated with CS and 608 with CS plus TCZ). No significant differences were observed in either the low/intermediate-risk category (1.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.175) or the high-risk category (23.1% vs. 20%, p=0.223) after propensity score matching. A statistically significant lower mortality was observed in the very high-risk category (31.9% vs. 23.9%, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The prescription of CS alone or in combination with TCZ should be based on the degrees of inflammation and reserve the CS plus TCZ combination for patients at high and especially very high risk.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Biomarkers , Humans , Inflammation , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
8.
J Infect ; 83(5): 581-588, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356312

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the health status, exercise capacity, and health related quality of life (HRQoL) of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) survivors, 8 months after diagnosis. METHODS: All eligible patients were interviewed and underwent a physical examination, chest X-ray, and 6 min walk test (6MWT). Scales to evaluate post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and HRQoL were applied. RESULTS: Of 1295 patients, 365 suffered ARDS and 166 survived to hospital discharge. Five died after discharge and 48 were lost to follow-up. Of the 113 remaining patients, 81% had persistent symptoms. More than 50% of patients completed less than 80% of the theoretical distance on the 6MWT, 50% had an abnormal X-ray and 93% of patients developed psychiatric disorders. Mean SF-36 scores were worse than in the general population. After multivariate regression analysis, female sex, non-Caucasian race, and Charlson index>2 were independent risk factors for a worse mental health component summary score on the SF-36, and age was associated with a better prognosis. Female sex and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were independently associated with a worse physical component summary score. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 associated ARDS survivors have long-term consequences in health status, exercise capacity, and HRQoL. Strategies addressed to prevent these sequelae are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Female , Humans , Quality of Life , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Survivors
9.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e051208, 2021 08 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1346066

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia is a frequent condition, with high mortality rates. There is a growing interest in identifying new therapeutic regimens able to reduce therapeutic failure and mortality observed with the standard of care of beta-lactam monotherapy. In vitro and small-scale studies have found synergy between cloxacillin and fosfomycin against S. aureus. Our aim is to test the hypothesis that cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves higher treatment success than cloxacillin alone in patients with MSSA bacteraemia. METHODS: We will perform a superiority, randomised, open-label, phase IV-III, two-armed parallel group (1:1) clinical trial at 20 Spanish tertiary hospitals. Adults (≥18 years) with isolation of MSSA from at least one blood culture ≤72 hours before inclusion with evidence of infection, will be randomly allocated to receive either cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous plus fosfomycin 3 g/6-hour intravenous or cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous alone for 7 days. After the first week, sequential treatment and total duration of antibiotic therapy will be determined according to clinical criteria by the attending physician.Primary endpoints: (1) Treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint comprising all the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA at day 7. (2) Treatment success at test of cure (TOC) visit: patient alive and no isolation of MSSA in blood culture or at another sterile site from day 8 until TOC (12 weeks after randomisation).We assume a rate of treatment success of 74% in the cloxacillin group. Accepting alpha risk of 0.05 and beta risk of 0.2 in a two-sided test, 183 subjects will be required in each of the control and experimental groups to obtain statistically significant difference of 12% (considered clinically significant). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge University Hospital (AC069/18) and from the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (AEMPS, AC069/18), and is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. The results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients and funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol has been approved by AEMPS with the Trial Registration Number EudraCT 2018-001207-37. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959345; Pre-results.


Subject(s)
Bacteremia , Fosfomycin , Staphylococcal Infections , Adult , Bacteremia/drug therapy , Cloxacillin/therapeutic use , Fosfomycin/therapeutic use , Humans , Methicillin , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Safrole/analogs & derivatives , Staphylococcal Infections/drug therapy , Staphylococcus aureus , Treatment Outcome
10.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(11): 1685-1692, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1345291

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The effect of the use of immunomodulatory drugs on the risk of developing hospital-acquired bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients with COVID-19 has not been specifically assessed. We aim to identify risk factors for, and outcomes of, BSI among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a severity matched case-control study (1:1 ratio) nested in a large multicentre prospective cohort of hospitalized adults with COVID-19. Cases with BSI were identified from the cohort database. Controls were matched for age, sex and acute respiratory distress syndrome. A Cox proportional hazard ratio model was performed. RESULTS: Of 2005 patients, 100 (4.98%) presented 142 episodes of BSI, mainly caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Polymicrobial infection accounted for 23 episodes. The median time from admission to the first episode of BSI was 15 days (IQR 9-20), and the most frequent source was catheter-related infection. The characteristics of patients with and without BSI were similar, including the use of tocilizumab, corticosteroids, and combinations. In the multivariate analysis, the use of these immunomodulatory drugs was not associated with an increased risk of BSI. A Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) model showed that after adjusting for the time factor, BSI was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality risk (HR 2.59; 1.65-4.07; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Hospital-acquired BSI in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia was uncommon and the use of immunomodulatory drugs was not associated with its development. When adjusting for the time factor, BSI was associated with a higher mortality risk.


Subject(s)
Bacteremia , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Immunomodulation , Adult , Bacteremia/drug therapy , Bacteremia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Hospitals , Humans , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Spain/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL