Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Commun Biol ; 5(1): 1376, 2022 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2212034

ABSTRACT

Little is known about SARS-CoV-2 evolution under Molnupiravir and Paxlovid, the only antivirals approved for COVID-19 treatment. By investigating SARS-CoV-2 variability in 8 Molnupiravir-treated, 7 Paxlovid-treated and 5 drug-naïve individuals at 4 time-points (Days 0-2-5-7), a higher genetic distance is found under Molnupiravir pressure compared to Paxlovid and no-drug pressure (nucleotide-substitutions/site mean±Standard error: 18.7 × 10-4 ± 2.1 × 10-4 vs. 3.3 × 10-4 ± 0.8 × 10-4 vs. 3.1 × 10-4 ± 0.8 × 10-4, P = 0.0003), peaking between Day 2 and 5. Molnupiravir drives the emergence of more G-A and C-T transitions than other mutations (P = 0.031). SARS-CoV-2 selective evolution under Molnupiravir pressure does not differ from that under Paxlovid or no-drug pressure, except for orf8 (dN > dS, P = 0.001); few amino acid mutations are enriched at specific sites. No RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) or main proteases (Mpro) mutations conferring resistance to Molnupiravir or Paxlovid are found. This proof-of-concept study defines the SARS-CoV-2 within-host evolution during antiviral treatment, confirming higher in vivo variability induced by Molnupiravir compared to Paxlovid and drug-naive, albeit not resulting in apparent mutation selection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Evolution, Molecular
2.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(8)2022 Jul 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2023074

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the global efforts to antagonize carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) spreading, it remains an emerging threat with a related mortality exceeding 40% among critically ill patients. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence concerning the best infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies to fight CRAB spreading in endemic hospitals. METHODS: The study was a critical review of the literature aiming to evaluate all available studies reporting IPC measures to control CRAB in ICU and outside ICU in both epidemic and endemic settings in the past 10 years. RESULTS: Among the 12 included studies, the majority consisted of research reports of outbreaks mostly occurred in ICUs. The reported mortality reached 50%. Wide variability was observed related to the frequency of application of recommended CRAB IPC measures among the studies: environmental disinfection (100%); contact precautions (83%); cohorting staff and patients (75%); genotyping (66%); daily chlorhexidine baths (58%); active rectal screening (50%); closing or stopping admissions to the ward (33%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite effective control of CRAB spreading during the outbreaks, the IPC measures reported were heterogeneous and highly dependent on the different setting as well as on the structural characteristics of the wards. Reinforced 'search and destroy' strategies both on the environment and on the patient, proved to be the most effective measures for permanently eliminating CRAB spreading.

3.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(8)2022 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1957212

ABSTRACT

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill patients with COVID-19 represents a very huge global threat due to a higher incidence rate compared to non-COVID-19 patients and almost 50% of the 30-day mortality rate. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the first pathogen involved but uncommon non-fermenter gram-negative organisms such as Burkholderia cepacea and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia have emerged as other potential etiological causes. Against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative microorganisms, Ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) is considered a first-line option, even more so in case of a ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance or shortage. The aim of this report was to describe our experience with CZA in a case series of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the ICU with VAP due to difficult-to-treat (DTT) P. aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacea, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and to compare it with data published in the literature. A total of 23 patients were treated from February 2020 to March 2022: 19/23 (82%) VAPs were caused by Pseudomonas spp. (16/19 DTT), 2 by Burkholderia cepacea, and 6 by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia; 12/23 (52.1%) were polymicrobial. Septic shock was diagnosed in 65.2% of the patients and VAP occurred after a median of 29 days from ICU admission. CZA was prescribed as a combination regimen in 86% of the cases, with either fosfomycin or inhaled amikacin or cotrimoxazole. Microbiological eradication was achieved in 52.3% of the cases and the 30-day overall mortality rate was 14/23 (60.8%). Despite the high mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients, CZA, especially in combination therapy, could represent a valid treatment option for VAP due to DTT non-fermenter gram-negative bacteria, including uncommon pathogens such as Burkholderia cepacea and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.

4.
Eur Respir J ; 60(4)2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775304

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Methylprednisolone , Glucocorticoids , Double-Blind Method , Oxygen , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL