Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 24
Filter
1.
Frontiers in oncology ; 12, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1905324

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the coronavirus 2 disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts an enormous burden on healthcare systems worldwide. This may worsen outcomes in patients with severe chronic diseases such as cancer, autoimmune diseases, and immune deficiencies. In this critical situation, only a few available data exist, which do not allow us to provide practical guides for the treatment of oncological or immunocompromised patients. Therefore, a further step forward is needed, addressing the specific needs and demands of frail patients in the pandemic era. Here we aim to present a protocol of a study approved by an ethical committee named “CO.M.E.TA”. CO.M.E.TA protocol is a network project involving six Italian institutions and its goals are: i) to measure and compare the impact of the pandemic on the access of cancer and immunocompromised patients to therapies in three Italian regions;ii) to assess how reorganizational measures put in place in these different institutions have impacted specific metrics of performance;iii) to establish a COVID-19 Biobank of biological samples from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients to be used to study immunological alterations in patients with immune frailty.

2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1860837

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with solid or hematological tumors, neurological and immune-inflammatory disorders are potentially fragile subjects at increased risk of experiencing severe COVID-19 and an inadequate response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: We designed a prospective Italian multicentrer study to assess humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients (n = 378) with solid tumors (ST), hematological malignancies (HM), neurological disorders (ND) and immunorheumatological diseases (ID). A group of healthy controls was also included. We analyzed the immunogenicity of the primary vaccination schedule and booster dose. RESULTS: The overall seroconversion rate in patients after 2 doses was 62.1%. Significantly lower rates were observed in HM (52.4%) and ID (51.9%) than in ST (95.6%) and ND (70.7%); a lower median antibody level was detected in HM and ID versus ST and ND (P < 0.0001). Similar rates of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response were found in all disease groups, with a higher level observed in ND. The booster dose improved the humoral response in all disease groups, although to a lesser extent in HM patients, while the T-cell response increased similarly in all groups. In the multivariable logistic model, independent predictors of seroconversion were disease subgroup, treatment type and age. Ongoing treatment known to affect the immune system was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination (P < 0.0001) but had no effect on T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: Immunosuppressive treatment more than disease type per se is a risk factor for a low humoral response after vaccination. The booster dose can improve both humoral and T-cell responses.

3.
Front Oncol ; 12: 855723, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775732

ABSTRACT

Background: Frail patients are considered at relevant risk of complications due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and, for this reason, are prioritized candidates for vaccination. As these patients were originally not included in the registration trials, fear related to vaccine adverse events and disease worsening was one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Herein, we report the safety profile of the prospective, multicenter, national VAX4FRAIL study (NCT04848493) to evaluate vaccines in a large trans-disease cohort of patients with solid or hematological malignancies and neurological and rheumatological diseases. Methods: Between March 3 and September 2, 2021, 566 patients were evaluable for safety endpoint: 105 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine and 461 the BNT162b2 vaccine. Frail patients were defined per protocol as patients under treatment with hematological malignancies (n = 131), solid tumors (n = 191), immune-rheumatological diseases (n = 86), and neurological diseases (n = 158), including multiple sclerosis and generalized myasthenia. The impact of the vaccination on the health status of patients was assessed through a questionnaire focused on the first week after each vaccine dose. Results: The most frequently reported moderate-severe adverse events were pain at the injection site (60.3% after the first dose, 55.4% after the second), fatigue (30.1%-41.7%), bone pain (27.4%-27.2%), and headache (11.8%-18.9%). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe symptoms after vaccine administration were identified through a multivariate logistic regression analysis: age was associated with severe fever presentation (younger patients vs. middle-aged vs. older ones), female individuals presented a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and bone pain; and the mRNA-1237 vaccine was associated with a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site and fever. After the first dose, patients presenting a severe symptom were at a relevant risk of recurrence of the same severe symptom after the second one. Overall, 11 patients (1.9%) after the first dose and 7 (1.2%) after the second one required postponement or suspension of the disease-specific treatment. Finally, two fatal events occurred among our 566 patients. These two events were considered unrelated to the vaccine. Conclusions: Our study reports that mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination is safe also in frail patients; as expected, side effects were manageable and had a minimum impact on patient care path.

4.
Eur Respir J ; 2022 Mar 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775304

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus 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 multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for 3 consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of the patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need of supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 of 151 (75.4%) patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 of 150 (75.2%) 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% confidence interval (CI), 13.0 to 17.0) and 16 days (95%CI, 13.8 to 18.2); 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. MESSAGE OF THE STUDY: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used for severe and/or life threatening immuno-inflammatory diseases. The addition of pulse glucocorticoid therapy to the standard low dose of dexamethasone scheme was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

5.
BMC Palliat Care ; 20(1): 193, 2021 Dec 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1635269

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, millions of people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers are experiencing physical and psychological distress. Psychosocial support and education can reduce distress and prevent avoidable healthcare resource use. To date, we lack knowledge from large-scale studies on which interventions generate positive outcomes for people with cancer and their informal caregivers' quality of life. This protocol describes the DIAdIC study that will evaluate the effectiveness of two psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at improving patient-family caregiver dyads' emotional functioning and self-efficacy. METHODS: We will conduct an international multicenter three-arm randomized controlled trial in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each country, 156 dyads (936 in total) of people with advanced cancer and their family caregiver will be randomized to one of the study arms: 1) a nurse-led face-to-face intervention (FOCUS+), 2) a web-based intervention (iFOCUS) or 3) a control group (care as usual). The two interventions offer tailored psychoeducational support for patient-family caregiver dyads. The nurse-led face-to-face intervention consists of two home visits and one online video session and the web-based intervention is completed independently by the patient-family caregiver dyad in four online sessions. The interventions are based on the FOCUS intervention, developed in the USA, that addresses five core components: family involvement, optimistic outlook, coping effectiveness, uncertainty reduction, and symptom management. The FOCUS intervention will be adapted to the European context. The primary outcomes are emotional functioning and self-efficacy of the patient and the family caregiver, respectively. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, benefits of illness, coping, dyadic communication, and ways of giving support of the patient and family caregiver. DISCUSSION: DIAdIC aims to develop cost-effective interventions that integrate principles of early palliative care into standard care. The cross-country setup in six European countries allows for comparison of effectiveness of the interventions in different healthcare systems across Europe. By focusing on empowerment of the person with cancer and their family caregiver, the results of this RCT can contribute to the search for cost-effective novel interventions that can relieve constraints on professional healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov on 12/11/2020, identifier NCT04626349 . DATE AND VERSION IDENTIFIER: 20211209_DIAdIC_Protocol_Article.


Subject(s)
Caregivers , Neoplasms , Humans , Internet , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Neoplasms/therapy , Psychosocial Support Systems , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
6.
Eur J Neurol ; 28(10): 3254-3262, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604147

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lockdown was imposed in Italy. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions, feelings and unmet needs of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients who experienced the 2-month lockdown in a "red zone" in the northern part of Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: The study had a descriptive design that used a cross-sectional online survey which included open-ended questions to elicit responses on the participant's feelings concerning their risk of contracting coronavirus, how their physical activity had changed, and their personal needs, dictated by their condition, which were not met in this pandemic period as compared to previous periods. Demographic data were analysed using descriptive frequencies, while the open-ended questions were analysed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: The study included 103 participants (63 men/40 women [61.17 vs. 38.83%]). Framework analysis led to the identification of four main themes: (i) fearing the risk of contracting coronavirus; (ii) reduction of physical activity; (iii) perception of the risk of not being able to access outpatient clinics or support services; and (iv) negative experiences of the important reduction in socialization. The perceptions of unmet needs appeared to be greater than the actual experience, particularly for the reduction in physical activity and the interruption of contacts with the neurologist and other specialists. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights how perceptions and actual experience shape the meaning of living with PD during the pandemic. Worth noting is the divergence between perceptions and real impact in some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Parkinson Disease , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Parkinson Disease/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
8.
J Transl Med ; 18(1): 405, 2020 10 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477432

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival. RESULTS: In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6-24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2-28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus/immunology , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Off-Label Use , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Validation Studies as Topic
10.
Front Immunol ; 12: 704110, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376699

ABSTRACT

Patients diagnosed with malignancy, neurological and immunological disorders, i.e., fragile patients, have been excluded from COVID-19 vaccine trials. However, this population may present immune response abnormalities, and relative reduced vaccine responsiveness. Here we review the limited current evidence on the immune responses to vaccination of patients with different underlying diseases. To address open questions we present the VAX4FRAIL study aimed at assessing immune responses to vaccination in a large transdisease cohort of patients with cancer, neurological and rheumatological diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Clinical Protocols , Humans , Immune System Diseases/immunology , Immunocompromised Host/immunology , Neoplasms/immunology , Nervous System Diseases/immunology , Patient Selection , Prospective Studies
11.
J Clin Pathol ; 2021 Apr 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203982

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The progressive increase of both the workload and the complexity of laboratory procedures, along with shortage of staff, has made evident the need to increase the efficiency in the pathology departments. To support the pathologists, a new technical professional role, the pathologists' assistant (PA), has been introduced. METHODS: We decided to carry out a retrospective analysis on PAs' performance. This was compared with that of junior/senior pathologists in the amount and type of surgical specimens examined, the number of lymph node retrieved in colorectal resections, the number of cases needing a second grossing procedure and the average time spent in grossing. As the COVID-19 pandemic period in fact resulted in a dramatic reduction of histological cases in our department, we divided PA activities into two periods, according to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 'Simple' specimens made up the majority (92%) of the specimens examined by PAs in pre-COVID-19 period while 'complex' specimens, often neoplastic, represented the minor part (7%). However, 'simple' specimens dropped to 81% and 'complex' specimens rose to 18% in the COVID-19 period, when PAs had the chance to test themselves with more complicated surgical samples, under the supervision of a pathologist. Lymph node retrieval rate and average time spent in grossing are in line with literature data and confirm that PAs performance is comparable with pathologists' one, in selected settings. CONCLUSION: In our experience, PA has represented a fundamental time-saving resource for the pathologists, who can devote time almost exclusively to diagnostic reporting.

12.
Indian J Palliat Care ; 27(1): 152-171, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1134310

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been causing a high burden of suffering for patients and families. There is limited evidence on the preparedness of Indian palliative care services for the pandemic. AIM: This study aimed to assess the preparedness and capacity of Indian palliative care services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was developed based on prior evidence and international health regulations. It was emailed to the Indian Palliative Care Association members and investigators' professional networks in India. One participant per palliative care service was requested. Descriptive analysis was used. RESULTS: Representatives of 78 palliative care services completed the survey. Three in four services had COVID-19 case definition and adapted their protocols for infection control (75%). About half of the services (55%) reported concerns about achieving appropriate hand hygiene in the community. More than half of the services (59%) had capacity to train nonspecialists for symptom control and psychological support. About half of the services reported that they had plans to redeploy staff (56%) and resources (53%) in the case of outbreaks. Two-fifths of the services used paper records to store an updated contact list of staff (40%) and did not have designated focal contacts for information update (40%). Staff anxiety related to personal infection risk and family care was relatively high (median score = 7 on a 1-10 scale). CONCLUSION: We recommend the following resource allocation to enable palliative care services to support the Indian health system in delivering essential care in this and future pandemics: (1) infection control, especially in the community; (2) training using existing clinical protocols to strengthen palliative care across the health system; and (3) redeployment plans.

13.
Clin Exp Rheumatol ; 39(5): 1119-1125, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1102871

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The results of the RECOVERY trial identified dexamethasone as the first pharmacological therapy that reduces mortality in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse glucocorticoid therapy for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoronaVirus (CoV), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV or SARS-CoV-2 infections and describe a case-series of COVID-19 patients treated with off-label pulse doses of methylprednisolone. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse therapy for betacoronaviridae infections as described in the protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020190183). All consecutive patients admitted to Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova di Reggio Emilia or Guastalla Hospital with COVID-19 between March 1st and April 30th, 2020 and treated with methylprednisolone 1 gram/day for at least three days were included in the case series. A retrospective review of available computed tomography (CT) scan and chest x-ray was performed independently by two radiologists blinded to clinical data, and discordances were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Twenty papers were included for SARS, but only two were comparative and were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Likewise, eleven papers were included for COVID-19, four of which were comparative and were considered for the primary outcome analysis. Included studies for both SARS and COVID-19 are mostly retrospective and highly heterogeneous, with lethality ranging from 0% to 100% and ICU admission rate ranging from 9% to 100%. Fourteen patients were included in our case series, 7 males and 7 females. CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trial is available yet for corticosteroids pulse-therapy defined as at least ≥500mg/day methylprednisolone in patients with emerging coronavirus pneumonia. Lethality among our cohort is high (4/14), but this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the fact that in our setting pulse-steroids were used in patients not eligible for other treatments because of comorbidities or as rescue therapy. The incidence of steroid-related adverse events seems low in our cohort. The quality of the evidence on glucocorticoid pulse-therapy in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 is poor. Randomised controlled trials are greatly needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronaviridae , Female , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
14.
Clin Exp Rheumatol ; 38(6): 1215-1222, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-958715

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of clinical improvement and intubation/death in tocilizumab-treated severe COVID19, focusing on IL6 and CRP longitudinal monitoring. METHODS: 173 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia receiving tocilizumab in Reggio Emilia province Hospitals between 11 March and 3 June 2020 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Clinical improvement was defined as status improvement on a six-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. A composite outcome of intubation/death was also evaluated. CRP and IL-6 levels were determined before TCZ administration (T0) and after 3 (T3), and 7 (T7) days. RESULTS: At multivariate analysis T0 and T3 CRP levels were negatively associated with clinical improvement (OR 0.13, CI 0.03-0.55 and OR 0.11, CI 0.0-0.46) (p=0.006 and p=0.003) and positively associated with intubation/death (OR 17.66, CI 2.47-126.14 and OR 5.34, CI: 1.49-19.12) (p=0.01 and p=0.004). No significant associations with IL-6 values were observed. General linear model analyses for repeated measures showed significantly different trends for CRP from day 3 to day 7 between patients who improved and those who did not, and between patients who were intubated or died and those who were not (p<0.0001 for both). ROC analysis identified a baseline CRP level of 15.8 mg/dl as the best cut-off to predict intubation/death (AUC = 0.711, sensitivity = 0.67, specificity = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: CRP serial measurements in the first week of TCZ therapy are useful in identifying patients developing poor outcomes.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , Pneumonia, Viral , Acute-Phase Proteins , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
15.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(1): 24-31, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-880239

ABSTRACT

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening billions of people worldwide. Tocilizumab has shown promising results in retrospective studies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with a good safety profile. Objective: To evaluate the effect of early tocilizumab administration vs standard therapy in preventing clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial that randomized patients hospitalized between March 31 and June 11, 2020, with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive tocilizumab or standard of care in 24 hospitals in Italy. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction method with nasopharyngeal swab. Eligibility criteria included COVID-19 pneumonia documented by radiologic imaging, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg, and an inflammatory phenotype defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein. Interventions: Patients in the experimental arm received intravenous tocilizumab within 8 hours from randomization (8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg), followed by a second dose after 12 hours. Patients in the control arm received supportive care following the protocols of each clinical center until clinical worsening and then could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary composite outcome was defined as entry into the intensive care unit with invasive mechanical ventilation, death from all causes, or clinical aggravation documented by the finding of a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 150 mm Hg, whichever came first. Results: A total of 126 patients were randomized (60 to the tocilizumab group; 66 to the control group). The median (interquartile range) age was 60.0 (53.0-72.0) years, and the majority of patients were male (77 of 126, 61.1%). Three patients withdrew from the study, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses. Seventeen patients of 60 (28.3%) in the tocilizumab arm and 17 of 63 (27.0%) in the standard care group showed clinical worsening within 14 days since randomization (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59-1.86). Two patients in the experimental group and 1 in the control group died before 30 days from randomization, and 6 and 5 patients were intubated in the 2 groups, respectively. The trial was prematurely interrupted after an interim analysis for futility. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and Pao2/Fio2 ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg who received tocilizumab, no benefit on disease progression was observed compared with standard care. Further blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and to evaluate possible applications of tocilizumab in different stages of the disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04346355; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-001386-37.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Blood Gas Analysis , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/physiopathology , Disease Progression , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Fever , Hospitalization , Humans , Italy , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 98: 106165, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-816323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is the most frequent complication of COVID-19, due to an aberrant host immune response that is associated with an acute respiratory distress syndrome, and, in most critical patients, with a "cytokine storm". IL-6 might play a key role in the cytokine storm and might be a potential target to treat severe and critical COVID-19. Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, directed against IL-6 receptor. METHODS: This multicentre study project includes a single-arm phase 2 study and a further parallel cohort, enrolling hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and oxygen saturation at rest in ambient air ≤93% or requiring respiratory support. Patients receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (up to 800 mg) as one intravenous administration. A second administration (same dose) after 12 h is optional. Two-week and one-month lethality rates are the co-primary endpoints. Sample size planned for the phase 2 study is 330 patients. The parallel cohort will include patients who cannot enter the phase 2 study because being intubated from more than 24 h, or having already received tocilizumab, or the phase 2 study has reached sample size. Primary analysis will include patients enrolled in the phase 2 study. Results of the primary analysis will be validated in the prospective cohort of patients consecutively registered after phase 2 closure from March 20 to March 24, who were potentially eligible for the phase 2 study. CONCLUSION: This trial aims to verify the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in the Italian population with COVID-19 pneumonia and respiratory impairment. EudraCT Number: 2020-001110-38; Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT04317092.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Pneumonia, Viral , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Monitoring , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , Male , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/etiology , Treatment Outcome
17.
J Pain Symptom Manage ; 60(6): e10-e26, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-765215

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Palliative care is an essential component of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response but is overlooked in national and international preparedness plans. The preparedness and capacity of African palliative care services to respond to COVID-19 is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the preparedness and capacity of African palliative care services to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We developed, piloted, and conducted a cross-sectional online survey guided by the 2005 International Health Regulations. It was electronically mailed to the 166 African Palliative Care Association's members and partners. Descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS: About 83 participants from 21 countries completed the survey. Most services had at least one procedure for the case management of COVID-19 or another infectious disease (63%). Respondents reported concerns over accessing running water, soap, and disinfectant products (43%, 42%, and 59%, respectively) and security concerns for themselves or their staff (52%). Two in five services (41%) did not have any or make available additional personal protective equipment. Most services (80%) reported having the capacity to use technology instead of face-to-face appointment, and half (52%) reported having palliative care protocols for symptom management and psychological support that could be shared with nonspecialist staff in other health care settings. CONCLUSION: Our survey suggests that African palliative care services could support the wider health system's response to the COVID-19 pandemic with greater resources such as basic infection control materials. It identified specific and systemic weaknesses impeding their preparedness to respond to outbreaks. The findings call for urgent measures to ensure staff and patient safety.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Infection Control/organization & administration , Palliative Care/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2 , Africa , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
18.
Arthritis Rheumatol ; 73(1): 48-52, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696616

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the susceptibility to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with autoimmune conditions treated with antimalarials in a population-based study. METHODS: All residents treated with chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) from July through December 2019 and living in 3 provinces of Regione Emilia-Romagna were identified by drug prescription registries and matched with the registry containing all residents living in the same areas who have had swabs and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 4,408 patients were identified. The prevalence of patients receiving antimalarials was 0.85 per 1,000 men and 3.3 per 1,000 women. The cumulative incidence of testing during the study period was 2.7% in the general population and 3.8% among those receiving CQ or HCQ, while the cumulative incidence of testing positive was 0.55% in the general population and 0.70% among those receiving CQ/HCQ. Multivariate models showed that those receiving CQ/HCQ had a slightly higher probability of being tested compared to the general population (OR 1.09 [95% CI 0.94-1.28]), the same probability of being diagnosed as having COVID-19 (OR 0.94 [95% CI 0.66-1.34]), and a slightly lower probability of being positive once tested (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.56-1.23]). None of the differences were significant. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support the use of antimalarials as a prophylactic treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Autoimmune Diseases/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Juvenile/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Susceptibility , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Lupus Erythematosus, Discoid/drug therapy , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , SARS-CoV-2
20.
J Exp Clin Cancer Res ; 39(1): 109, 2020 Jun 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-593372

ABSTRACT

If we focus our attention on seven main features of COVID-19 infection (heterogeneity, fragility, lack of effective treatments and vaccines, "miraculous cures", psychological suffering, deprivation, and globalization), we may establish parallelism with the challenges faced in the steep road to the understanding and treatment of neoplastic diseases. How the similarities between these two conditions can help us cope with the emergency effort represented by the management of cancer patients in the COVID-19 era, today and in the future? In a manner similar to the Cancer Moonshot initiative in the United States, we can hypothesize a multinational moonshot project towards the management of cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, we believe that the main road to elaborate meaningful scientific evidence is represented by the collection of all the data on COVID-19 and cancer comorbidity that are and will become available in cancer centers, coupled with the design of large clinical studies. To address this goal, it is essential to identify the entity that can produce this scientific evidences and the potentially most successful research strategy to undertake. The largest Italian organization for cancer research, Alliance Against Cancer (Alleanza Contro il Cancro, ACC), is called to play a scientific leadership in addressing these challenges, which requires the coordination of oncology teams at regional, national, and international levels. To fulfill this commitment, ACC will create a liaison with health government agencies in order to develop "dynamic" indications able to fight such an unpredictable pandemic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Medical Oncology/trends , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Government Agencies , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL