Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Critical Care Conference: 42nd International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine Brussels Belgium ; 27(Supplement 1), 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2318935

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) inhomogeneities in lung aeration can act as local multipliers of pressure during inspiration (stress risers), increasing the risk of lung damage even in presence of airway pressures considered safe [1]. In this study we aimed to describe lung inhomogeneities in COVID-19 related ARDS (C-ARDS) and to relate these to disease severity and lung morphology. Method(s): We enrolled patients with C-ARDS within 3 days from mechanical ventilation start, deeply sedated and paralyzed. Lung CT scan was obtained at PEEP of 5 cmH2O to measure lung weight compartments (non-, poorly-, well- and over-aerated). Lung inhomogeneities were computed as the gas/tissue ratio of each voxel compared to the neighboring voxels. We considered values > 1.61 as pathologic lung inhomogeneities, as previously described [1]. The fraction of total lung volume with pathologic inhomogeneities (extent) and the average severity of inhomogeneities contained in that fraction (intensity) was calculated. Respiratory system compliance and blood gas analysis were obtained at the same PEEP level of the CT scan. Some results have been presented in another publication [2]. Result(s): Forty patients were studied in the supine position 1 (0-1) days after ICU admission. The extent of pathologic lung inhomogeneities represented 18 +/- 4% of total lung volume. The intensity of pathologic lung inhomogeneities was on average 2.53 +/- 0.12. Extent was positively correlated with the amount of poorly aerated lung weight ( r2 = 0.51, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1) and negatively correlated with the amount of non-aerated lung weight ( r2 = 0.22, p = 0.002). No correlation was found between extent and intensity and PaO2/ FiO2, dead space fraction or respiratory system compliance. Conclusion(s): In C-ARDS lung inhomogeneities represent roughly 20% of total lung volume. In these regions local stress is increased with risk of secondary lung damage.

2.
Bmj ; 370 (no pagination), 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2267877

ABSTRACT

Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment and prevention of covid-19? Recommendations The first version on this living guidance focuses on corticosteroids. It contains a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19. Corticosteroids are inexpensive and are on the World Health Organisation list of essential medicines. How this guideline was created This guideline reflects an innovative collaboration between the WHO and the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, driven by an urgent need for global collaboration to provide trustworthy and living covid-19 guidance. A standing international panel of content experts, patients, clinicians, and methodologists, free from relevant conflicts of interest, produce recommendations for clinical practice. The panel follows standards, methods, processes, and platforms for trustworthy guideline development using the GRADE approach. We apply an individual patient perspective while considering contextual factors (that is, resources, feasibility, acceptability, equity) for countries and healthcare systems. The evidence A living systematic review and network meta-analysis, supported by a prospective meta-analysis, with data from eight randomised trials (7184 participants) found that systemic corticosteroids probably reduce 28 day mortality in patients with critical covid-19 (moderate certainty evidence;87 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval 124 fewer to 41 fewer)), and also in those with severe disease (moderate certainty evidence;67 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (100 fewer to 27 fewer)). In contrast, systemic corticosteroids may increase the risk of death in patients without severe covid-19 (low certainty evidence;absolute effect estimate 39 more per 1000 patients, (12 fewer to 107 more)). Systemic corticosteroids probably reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and harms are likely to be minor (indirect evidence). Understanding the recommendations The panel made a strong recommendation for use of corticosteroids in severe and critical covid-19 because there is a lower risk of death among people treated with systemic corticosteroids (moderate certainty evidence), and they believe that all or almost all fully informed patients with severe and critical covid-19 would choose this treatment. In contrast, the panel concluded that patients with non-severe covid-19 would decline this treatment because they would be unlikely to benefit and may be harmed. Moreover, taking both a public health and a patient perspective, the panel warned that indiscriminate use of any therapy for covid-19 would potentially rapidly deplete global resources and deprive patients who may benefit from it most as potentially lifesaving therapy. Updates This is a living guideline. Work is under way to evaluate other interventions. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is version 1 of the living guideline, published on 4 September (BMJ 2020;370:m3379) version 1. Updates will be labelled as version 2, 3 etc. When citing this article, please cite the version number. Submitted August 28 Accepted August 31Copyright © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to.

3.
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging ; 48(SUPPL 1):S145-S145, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1609981
4.
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ; 76(SUPPL 110):471, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1570391

ABSTRACT

Background: Novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines have been recently approved, and public concern regarding the risk of anaphylactic reactions arised after few cases during the first days of mass-vaccination. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been suggested as the most probable culprit agent for allergic reactions. We describe the allergy work-up protocol implemented for the vaccination campaign in our Center, aiming to allow the greatest number of people to be vaccinated safely. Method: The protocol included the self-report of a history of suspected drug or vaccine allergies, and subsequent teleconsultation and allergometric tests for PEG and Polysorbate 80 (PS80). A desensitizing protocol of vaccine administration was applied to patients sensitized only to PS80, and to those with a suspect allergic reaction after the first vaccine dose. Results: 10.2% (414 out of 4042) of the entire vaccine population have been screened: only one patient resulted allergic to PEG and therefore excluded from the vaccination. Another patient was sensitized to PS80 only and safely vaccinated applying the desensitizing protocol. Seven subjects without a previous history of allergic disease experienced suspect hypersensitivity reactions to the first administered dose: one of them resulted allergic to PEG and was excluded from the second dose, while the others safely completed the vaccination with the desensitizing protocol. Conclusion: A careful allergological risk-assessment protocol significantly reduces the number of patients who would have avoided SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for their allergies and to effectively identify and manage those rare patients with sensitization to PEGs and/or PS80.

5.
Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica ; 13:13, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1029168

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are sex differences in vulnerability to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The coronavirus S protein mediates viral entry into target cells employing the host cellular serine protease TMPRSS2 for S-protein priming. The TMPRSS2 gene expression is responsive to androgen stimulation and it could partially explain sex differences. We hypothesized that men chronically exposed to 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) have a lower risk of hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: This is a population-based case-control study on consecutive patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus who required hospitalization for COVID-19 (cases), age-matched to beneficiaries of the Lombardy Regional Health Service (controls). Data were collected by two high-volume COVID-19 regional centers of Lombardy (Italy). The primary outcome was to compare the prevalence of patients chronically exposed to 5ARIs, who required hospitalization for COVID-19, with the one of controls. RESULTS: Overall, 943 males were enrolled;45 (4.77%) were exposed to 5ARI. COVID-19 patients aged >55 years under 5ARI treatment were significantly less than expected on the basis of the prevalence of 5ARI treatment among age-matched controls (5.57 vs. 8.14%;p=0.0083, 95%CI=0.75-3.97%). This disproportion was higher for men aged >65 (7.14 vs. 12.31%;p=0.0001, 95%CI=2.83-6.97%). Eighteen 5ARIs-patients died;the mean age of men who died was higher than those who did not: 75.98+/-9.29 vs. 64.78+/-13.57 (p<0.001). Cox-regression and multivariable models did not show correlation between 5ARIs exposure and protection against intensive care unit admission/death. CONCLUSIONS: Men exposed to 5ARIs might be less vulnerable to severe COVID-19, supporting its use in disease prophylaxis.

7.
Pulmonology ; 27(1): 52-66, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-663267

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an IL-6 receptor-blocking agent proposed for the treatment of severe COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the rationale for the use of tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 and to summarize the available evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, pre-print repositories (bioRxiv and medRxiv) and two trial Registries were searched for studies on the use of tocilizumab in COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral pneumonia, and/or sepsis until 20th June 2020. RESULTS: We identified 3 indirect pre-clinical studies and 28 clinical studies including 5776 patients with COVID-19 (13 with a comparison group, 15 single-arm). To date, no randomized trials have been published. We retrieved no studies at low risk of bias. Forty-five ongoing studies were retrieved from trial registries. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. Its use should be considered experimental, requiring ethical approval and clinical trial oversight.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Animals , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Humans , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Anaesthesia ; 75(7): 928-934, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-30792

ABSTRACT

The first person-to-person transmission of the 2019 novel coronavirus in Italy on 21 February 2020 led to an infection chain that represents one of the largest known COVID-19 outbreaks outside Asia. In northern Italy in particular, we rapidly experienced a critical care crisis due to a shortage of intensive care beds, as we expected according to data reported in China. Based on our experience of managing this surge, we produced this review to support other healthcare services in preparedness and training of hospitals during the current coronavirus outbreak. We had a dedicated task force that identified a response plan, which included: (1) establishment of dedicated, cohorted intensive care units for COVID-19-positive patients; (2) design of appropriate procedures for pre-triage, diagnosis and isolation of suspected and confirmed cases; and (3) training of all staff to work in the dedicated intensive care unit, in personal protective equipment usage and patient management. Hospital multidisciplinary and departmental collaboration was needed to work on all principles of surge capacity, including: space definition; supplies provision; staff recruitment; and ad hoc training. Dedicated protocols were applied where full isolation of spaces, staff and patients was implemented. Opening the unit and the whole hospital emergency process required the multidisciplinary, multi-level involvement of healthcare providers and hospital managers all working towards a common goal: patient care and hospital safety. Hospitals should be prepared to face severe disruptions to their routine and it is very likely that protocols and procedures might require re-discussion and updating on a daily basis.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Referral and Consultation , Surge Capacity/statistics & numerical data , Tertiary Care Centers , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Italy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL