Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Front Immunol ; 13: 895209, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1847178

ABSTRACT

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines' effectiveness is not yet clearly known in immunocompromised patients. This study aims to assess the humoral and cellular specific immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the predictors of poor response in patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) phenotype and in patients treated with B-cell depletion therapies (BCDT), as well as the safety of these vaccines. Methods: From March to September 2021, we performed a prospective study of all adult patients who would receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and were previously diagnosed with (i) a CVID syndrome (CVID phenotype group; n=28) or (ii) multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with B-cell depleting therapies three to six months before vaccination (BCD group; n=24). Participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection; or prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration; or use of any immunosuppressant (except BCDT in MS group) were excluded. A group of subjects without any medical condition that confers immunosuppression and who met all study criteria was also assessed (control group; n=14). A chemiluminescence immunoassay was used to determine pre- and post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anti-S IgG antibodies. T-cell specific response was assessed by analysis of pre- and post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination blood samples with an interferon-gamma release assay. The baseline blood sample also included several biochemical, haematological and immunological analyses. Results: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are safe in immunocompromised patients, although their effectiveness was lower than in healthy individuals. CVID phenotype patients showed impaired humoral (29%) and cellular (29%) response, while BCD patients fundamentally presented humoral failure (54%). Low IgA values, low CD19+ peripheral B cells, low switched memory B cells, and a low CD4+/CD8+ ratio were predictors of inadequate specific antibody response in CVID phenotype patients. No factor was found to predict poor cellular response in CVID phenotype patients, nor a defective humoral or cellular response in BCD patients. Conclusion: The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in CVID phenotype and BCD patients is lower than in healthy individuals. Knowledge of predictive factors of humoral and cellular response failure in immunocompromised patients could be very useful in clinical practice, and thus, studies in this regard are clearly needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Common Variable Immunodeficiency , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Vaccines , Common Variable Immunodeficiency/therapy , Humans , Immunity, Cellular , Phenotype , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Clin Immunol ; 41(8): 1733-1744, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525558

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is important to predict which patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 are at higher risk of life-threatening COVID-19. Several studies suggest that neutralizing auto-antibodies (auto-Abs) against type I interferons (IFNs) are predictive of critical COVID-19 pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test for auto-Abs to type I IFN and describe the main characteristics of COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care depending on whether or not these auto-Abs are present. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in whom samples were available, from March 2020 to March 2021, in Barcelona, Spain. RESULTS: A total of 275 (70.5%) out of 390 patients admitted to ICU were tested for type I IFNs auto-antibodies (α2 and/or ω) by ELISA, being positive in 49 (17.8%) of them. Blocking activity of plasma diluted 1/10 for high concentrations (10 ng/mL) of IFNs was proven in 26 (9.5%) patients. Almost all the patients with neutralizing auto-Abs were men (92.3%). ICU patients with positive results for neutralizing IFNs auto-Abs did not show relevant differences in demographic, comorbidities, clinical features, and mortality, when compared with those with negative results. Nevertheless, some laboratory tests (leukocytosis, neutrophilia, thrombocytosis) related with COVID-19 severity, as well as acute kidney injury (17 [65.4%] vs. 100 [40.2%]; p = 0.013) were significantly higher in patients with auto-Abs. CONCLUSION: Auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of type I IFNs were found in 9.5% of patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19 pneumonia in a hospital in Barcelona. These auto-Abs should be tested early upon diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as they account for a significant proportion of life-threatening cases.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
3.
Clin Biochem ; 100: 13-21, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1509676

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Currently, good prognosis and management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are crucial for developing disease management guidelines and providing a viable healthcare system. We aimed to propose individual outcome prediction models based on binary logistic regression (BLR) and artificial neural network (ANN) analyses of data collected in the first 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients with COVID-19 infection. We also analysed different variables for ICU patients who survived and those who died. METHODS: Data from 326 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were collected. Data were captured on laboratory variables, demographics, comorbidities, symptoms and hospital stay related information. These data were compared with patient outcomes (survivor and non-survivor patients). BLR was assessed using the Wald Forward Stepwise method, and the ANN model was constructed using multilayer perceptron architecture. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the ANN model was significantly larger than the BLR model (0.917 vs 0.810; p < 0.001) for predicting individual outcomes. In addition, ANN model presented similar negative predictive value than the BLR model (95.9% vs 94.8%). Variables such as age, pH, potassium ion, partial pressure of oxygen, and chloride were present in both models and they were significant predictors of death in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study could provide helpful information for other hospitals to develop their own individual outcome prediction models based, mainly, on laboratory variables. Furthermore, it offers valuable information on which variables could predict a fatal outcome for ICU patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Aged , Critical Illness , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Statistical , Neural Networks, Computer , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , ROC Curve , Time Factors
4.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 691712, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1291802

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Severe lung injury is triggered by both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the subsequent host-immune response in some COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, single-center, open-label, phase II trial with the aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC alone, in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome was time to clinical stability within 56 days after randomization. Results: From April 1 to May 2, 2020, 55 patients were prospectively included for subsequent randomization; 27 were assigned to the experimental group and 28 to the control group. The experimental treatment was not associated with a difference in time to clinical stability (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.37]) nor most secondary outcomes. Median methylprednisolone cumulative doses were significantly lower (360 mg [IQR 360-842] vs. 870 mg [IQR 364-1451]; p = 0.007), and administered for a shorter time (median of 4.00 days [3.00-17.5] vs. 18.5 days [3.00-53.2]; p = 0.011) in the experimental group than in the control group. Although not statistically significant, those receiving the experimental therapy showed a numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, especially at day 10 [2 (7.41%) vs. 5 (17.9%); OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.05-2.1); p = 0.282]. The total number of non-serious adverse events was 42 in each the two groups. Those receiving experimental treatment had a numerically higher rate of non-serious infectious adverse events [16 (38%) vs. 10 (24%)] and serious infectious adverse events [7 (35%) vs. 3 (23%)] than those receiving SoC. Conclusions: The combined use of methylprednisolone pulses plus tacrolimus, in addition to the SoC, did not significantly improve the time to clinical stability or other secondary outcomes compared with the SoC alone in severe COVID-19. Although not statistically significant, patients receiving the experimental therapy had numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, supporting recent non-randomized studies with calcineurin inhibitors. It is noteworthy that the present trial had a limited sample size and several other limitations. Therefore, further RCTs should be done to assess the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus to tackle the inflammatory stages of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier [NCT04341038/EudraCT: 2020-001445-39].

5.
Clin Biochem ; 89: 70-76, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1032517

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug that has been prescribed for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 infection. To assist in clinician decision-making, several clinical laboratories have developed and validated measurement procedures in-house based on HPLC or HPLC-MS/MS to measure the mass concentration of hydroxychloroquine in different biological fluids. In these cases, laboratories produce their calibration materials but rarely estimate the measurement uncertainty of their assigned values. Thus, we aimed to show how this uncertainty can be calculated, using the preparation of hydroxychloroquine calibrators in blood-hemolysate-based matrix as an example. METHODS: A bottom-up approach was used to estimate the uncertainty related to the values assigned to end-user calibration materials prepared in-house. First, a specification of the measurand and a measurement equation were proposed. Then, different sources of uncertainty related to the preparation of hydroxychloroquine calibration materials were identified and quantified. Afterwards, the combined uncertainty was calculated using the law for the propagation of uncertainty resulting in the final expanded uncertainty. RESULTS: In this study, the most significant source of uncertainty was that associated with the hydroxychloroquine's reference material mass obtained via balance, while the smallest contribution was from the uncertainty associated with the hydroxychloroquine reference material purity. CONCLUSIONS: A simple procedure to estimate the measurement uncertainty of values assigned to calibration materials is presented here, which would be easy to implement in clinical laboratories. Also, it could be put into practice for other pharmacological quantities measured by in-house HPLC or HPLC-MS/MS procedures commonly used in clinical laboratories.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid/methods , Hydroxychloroquine/blood , Antimalarials/administration & dosage , Antimalarials/blood , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Calibration , Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid/standards , Hemolysis , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Quality Control , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Uncertainty , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL