Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
preprints.org; 2023.
Preprint in English | PREPRINT-PREPRINTS.ORG | ID: ppzbmed-10.20944.preprints202306.1455.v1

ABSTRACT

Nebulized thrombolysis offers locally targeted therapy with potentially lower bleeding risk than systemic administration for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) respiratory failure. In a proof-of-concept safety study, adult patients with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure and a <300mmHg PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) received nebulized rt-PA in two cohorts (C1 and C2), alongside standard of care during the first two UK COVID-19 waves. Matched historical controls (MHC; n=18) were used in C1. Safety co-primary endpoints were treatment-related bleeds and fibrinogen reduction to <1.0–1.5 g/L. A dose escalation strategy for improved efficacy with the least safety concerns was determined in C1 for use in C2; patients were stratified by ventilation type to receive 40–60 mg rt-PA per day for ≤14 days. Nine patients in C1 (IMV, 6/9; NIRS, 3/9) and 26 in C2 (IMV, 12/26; NIRS, 14/26) received nebulized rt-PA for a mean (SD) of 6.7 (4.6) and 9.1(4.6) days, respectively. Four bleeding events (one severe and three mild) in three patients were considered treatment-related. No significant fibrinogen reductions were reported. Greater improvement in mean P/F ratio from baseline to end of study was observed in C1 compared with MHC [C1; 154 to 299 vs MHC; 154 to 212). In C2, there was no difference in the baseline P/F ratio of NIRS and IMV patients. However, a larger improvement in P/F ratio was observed in NIRS patients [NIRS; 126 to 240 vs IMV; 120 to 188) and they required fewer treatment days (NIRS; 7.86 vs IMV; 10.5). Nebulized rt-PA appears to be well-tolerated, showing a trend of improved oxygenation and faster recovery in patients with acute COVID-19-induced respiratory failure requiring respiratory support; this effect was more pronounced in the NIRS group. Further investigation is required to study the potential of this novel treatment approach.


Subject(s)
Hemorrhage , Neoplasm Invasiveness , COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency
2.
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.07.03.21259949

ABSTRACT

C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are elevated following bacterial infections but may be attenuated by the IL-6-receptor antagonist tocilizumab. In hospitalised COVID-19 patients, tocilizumab induced a transient (<21 day) fall in CRP but retained CRP responses to nosocomial blood stream infections, and therefore its utility in guiding antibiotic prescribing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
3.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.08.27.20183442

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND COVID-19 is associated with immune dysregulation and hyperinflammation. Tocilizumab is an anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody. METHODS Patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia receiving standard care were randomized (2:1) to double-blinded intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo. The primary outcome measure was clinical status on a 7-category ordinal scale at day 28 (1, discharged/ready for discharge; 7, death). RESULTS Overall, 452 patients were randomized; the modified-intention-to-treat population included 294 tocilizumab-treated and 144 placebo-treated patients. Clinical status at day 28 was not statistically significantly improved for tocilizumab versus placebo (P=0.36). Median (95% CI) ordinal scale values at day 28: 1.0 (1.0 to 1.0) for tocilizumab and 2.0 (1.0 to 4.0) for placebo (odds ratio, 1.19 [0.81 to 1.76]). There was no difference in mortality at day 28 between tocilizumab (19.7%) and placebo (19.4%) (difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -7.6 to 8.2]; nominal P=0.94). Median time to hospital discharge was 8 days shorter with tocilizumab than placebo (20.0 and 28.0, respectively; nominal P=0.037; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.79]). Median duration of ICU stay was 5.8 days shorter with tocilizumab than placebo (9.8 and 15.5, respectively; nominal P=0.045). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 34.9% of 295 patients in the tocilizumab arm and 38.5% of 143 in the placebo arm. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized placebo-controlled trial in hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients, tocilizumab did not improve clinical status or mortality. Potential benefits in time to hospital discharge and duration of ICU stay are being investigated in ongoing clinical trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronobiology Disorders , Pneumonia , Death
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL