Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
J Multidiscip Healthc ; 15: 815-824, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1896596

ABSTRACT

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare connective tissue disease characterised by immune dysfunction, vascular damage and fibrosis affecting the skin and multiple internal organs. The clinical spectrum of SSc is wide and its manifestations may lead to severe morbidity and mortality, in addition to a great impact on patients' quality of life. Due to the multifaceted clinical manifestations of SSc, its management requires a combined expertise of different medical specialists to guarantee an adequate disease control and prevent organ complications. Multi-disciplinary teams (MDT), which are composed by physicians and other specialized health professionals, represent therefore a key element for the comprehensive management of SSc patients. Moreover, MTD can improve communication and patients' empowerment while the presence of dedicated nurses can help patients to ask questions about their condition. The scope of this narrative review is to analyse the available evidences regarding the role of MDT in the management of SSc patients, and how this holistic approach may improve different disease domains and the overall prognosis. MDT regarding the cardiovascular and lung complication are the more represented in literature, given the great impact in prognosis. Nonetheless, MDT have been shown to be fundamental also in other disease domains as they can intercept early manifestations, thus stratifying patients based on the individual risks in order to personalize patients' follow-up. MDTs may also minimize the treatment delay, enabling fast-track specialist referral. On the other hand, there are few trials specifically studying MDT in SSc and several authors have highlight the lack of standardization.

2.
Eur J Intern Med ; 101: 37-38, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1804001

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Interleukin-6
3.
Clin Immunol ; 231: 108845, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377685

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to the care of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the long-term. By crossing population data with the results of a web-based survey focused on the timeframes January-April and May-December 2020, we found that among 334/518 responders, 28 had COVID-19 in 2020. Seventeen cases occurred in May-December, in parallel with trends in the general population and loosening of containment policy strength. Age > 40 years (p = 0.026), prednisone escalation (p = 0.008) and infected relatives (p < 0.001) were most significantly associated with COVID-19. Weaker associations were found with asthma, lymphadenopathy and azathioprine or cyclosporine treatment. Only 31% of patients with infected relatives developed COVID-19. Healthcare service disruptions were not associated with rising hospitalisations. Vaccination prospects were generally welcomed. Our data suggest that COVID-19 has a moderate impact on patients with SLE, which might be significantly modulated by public health policies, including vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aging , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Data Collection , Female , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Incidence , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination Refusal , Young Adult
4.
Pharmacol Res ; 161: 105114, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318944

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The clinical spectrum of COVID-19 is broad and varies from mild to severe forms complicated by acute respiratory distress and death. This heterogeneity might reflect the ability of the host immune system to interact with SARS-CoV2 or the characteristics of the virus itself in terms of loads or persistence. Information on this issue might derive from interventional studies. However, results from high-quality trials are scarce. Here we evaluate the level of evidence of available published interventional studies, with a focus on randomised controlled trials and the efficacy of therapies on clinical outcomes. Moreover, we present data on a large cohort of well-characterized patients hospitalized at a single University Hospital in Milano (Italy), correlating viral clearance with clinical and biochemical features of patients.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Humans , Viral Load
5.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(4): e253-e261, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1228198

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe COVID-19 develop a life-threatening hyperinflammatory response to the virus. Interleukin (IL)-1 or IL-6 inhibitors have been used to treat this patient population, but the comparative effectiveness of these different strategies remains undetermined. We aimed to compare IL-1 and IL-6 inhibition in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, respiratory insufficiency, and hyperinflammation. METHODS: This cohort study included patients admitted to San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with COVID-19, respiratory insufficiency, defined as a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and hyperinflammation, defined as serum C-reactive protein concentration of 100 mg/L or more or ferritin concentration of 900 ng/mL or more. The primary endpoint was survival, and the secondary endpoint was a composite of death or mechanical ventilation (adverse clinical outcome). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to compare clinical outcomes of patients receiving IL-1 inhibition (anakinra) or IL-6 inhibition (tocilizumab or sarilumab) with those of patients who did not receive interleukin inhibitors, after accounting for baseline differences. All patients received standard care. Interaction tests were used to assess the probability of survival according to C-reactive protein or lactate dehydrogenase concentrations. FINDINGS: Of 392 patients included between Feb 25 and May 20, 2020, 275 did not receive interleukin inhibitors, 62 received the IL-1 inhibitor anakinra, and 55 received an IL-6 inhibitor (29 received tocilizumab and 26 received sarilumab). In the multivariable analysis, compared with patients who did not receive interleukin inhibitors, patients treated with IL-1 inhibition had a significantly reduced mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0·450, 95% CI 0·204-0·990, p=0·047), but those treated with IL-6 inhibition did not (0·900, 0·412-1·966; p=0·79). In the multivariable analysis, there was no difference in adverse clinical outcome risk in patients treated with IL-1 inhibition (HR 0·866, 95% CI 0·482-1·553; p=0·63) or IL-6 inhibition (0·882, 0·452-1·722; p=0·71) relative to patients who did not receive interleukin inhibitors. For increasing C-reactive protein concentrations, patients treated with IL-6 inhibition had a significantly reduced risk of mortality (HR 0·990, 95% CI 0·981-0·999; p=0·031) and adverse clinical outcome (0·987, 0·979-0·995; p=0·0021) compared with patients who did not receive interleukin inhibitors. For decreasing concentrations of serum lactate dehydrogenase, patients treated with an IL-1 inhibitor and patients treated with IL-6 inhibitors had a reduced risk of mortality; increasing concentrations of lactate dehydrogenase in patients receiving either interleukin inhibitor were associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 1·009, 95% CI 1·003-1·014, p=0·0011 for IL-1 inhibitors and 1·006, 1·001-1·011, p=0·028 for IL-6 inhibitors) and adverse clinical outcome (1·006, 1·002-1·010, p=0·0031 for IL-1 inhibitors and 1·005, 1·001-1·010, p=0·016 for IL-6 inhibitors) compared with patients who did not receive interleukin inhibitors. INTERPRETATION: IL-1 inhibition, but not IL-6 inhibition, was associated with a significant reduction of mortality in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, respiratory insufficiency, and hyperinflammation. IL-6 inhibition was effective in a subgroup of patients with markedly high C-reactive protein concentrations, whereas both IL-1 and IL-6 inhibition were effective in patients with low lactate dehydrogenase concentrations. FUNDING: None.

6.
Front Pharmacol ; 11: 598308, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028187

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a condition caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Severe cases of COVID-19 result in acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. A detrimental, hyper-inflammatory immune response with excess release of cytokines is the main driver of disease development and of tissue damage in these patients. Thus, repurposing of biologic agents and other pharmacological inhibitors of cytokines used for the treatment of various inflammatory conditions emerged as a logical therapeutic strategy to quench inflammation and improve the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients. Evaluated agents include the interleukin one receptor blocker anakinra, monoclonal antibodies inhibiting IL-6 tocilizumab and sarilumab, monoclonal antibodies inhibiting granulocyte-monocyte colony stimulating factor and tumor necrosis factor, and Janus kinase inhibitors. In this review, we discuss the efficacy and safety of these therapeutic options based on direct personal experience and on published evidence from observational studies and randomized clinical trials.

7.
Panminerva Med ; 64(2): 244-252, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-875064

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Biobanks are imperative infrastructures, particularly during outbreaks, when there is an obligation to acquire and share knowledge as quick as possible to allow for implementation of science-based preventive, diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies. METHODS: We established a COVID-19 biobank with the aim of collecting high-quality and well-annotated human biospecimens, in the effort to understand the pathogenic mechanisms underlying COVID-19 and identify therapeutic targets (COVID-BioB, NCT04318366). Here we describe our experience and briefly review the characteristics of the biobanks for COVID-19 that have been so far established. RESULTS: A total of 46,677 samples have been collected from 913 participants (63.3% males, median [IQR] age 62.2 [51.2-74.0] years) since the beginning of the program. Most patients (66.9%) had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19, with a median length of stay of 15.0 (9.0-27.0) days. A minority of patients (13.3% of the total) had been admitted for other reasons and subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The remainder were managed at home after being seen at the Emergency Department. CONCLUSIONS: Having a solid research infrastructure already in place, along with flexibility and adaptability to new requirements, allowed for the quick building of a COVID-19 biobank that will help expand and share the knowledge of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Biological Specimen Banks , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol ; 43(8): 891-893, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-599443

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No studies investigated the prevalence of arrhythmias among clinically-stable patients affected by COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We assessed prevalence, type, and burden of arrhythmias, by a single-day snapshot in seven non-intensive COVID Units at a third-level center. RESULTS: We enrolled 132 inhospital patients (mean age 65±14y; 66% males) newly diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. Arrhythmic episodes were detected in 12 patients (9%). In detail, 8 had atrial fibrillation, and 4 self-limiting supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. There were no cases of ventricular arrhythmias or new-onset atrioventricular blocks. In addition, we report no patients with QTc interval >450 ms. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-day snapshot survey suggests that the prevalence of arrhythmias among clinically stable COVID-19 patients is low. In particular, no life-threatening arrhythmic events occurred.


Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 2(8): e465-e473, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-599198

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation is high. We aimed to examine whether mavrilimumab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor-α monoclonal antibody, added to standard management, improves clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation. METHODS: This single-centre prospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxia, and systemic hyperinflammation. Patients received a single intravenous dose (6 mg/kg) of mavrilimumab added to standard care given by the hospital at the time. The control group consisted of contemporaneous patients with similar baseline characteristics who received standard care at the same hospital. The main outcome was time to clinical improvement (defined as improvement of two or more points on the seven-point ordinal scale of clinical status). Other outcomes included proportion of patients achieving clinical improvement, survival, mechanical ventilation-free survival, and time to fever resolution. Adverse events were monitored daily. FINDINGS: Between March 17 and April 15, 2020, 13 non-mechanically ventilated patients (median age 57 years [IQR 52-58], 12 [92%] men) received mavrilimumab and 26 patients (median age 60 [IQR 53-67], 17 [65%] men) in the control group received standard care. During the 28-day follow-up, no patients in the mavrilimumab group died, and seven (27%) patients in the control group died (p=0·086). At day 28, all patients in the mavrilimumab group and 17 (65%) patients in the control group showed clinical improvement (p=0·030), with earlier improvement in the mavrilimumab than in the control group (mean time to improvement 8 days [IQR 5 to 11] vs 19 days [11 to >28], p=0·0001). By day 28, one (8%) patient in the mavrilimumab group progressed to mechanical ventilation compared with nine (35%) patients in the control group who progressed to mechanical ventilation or died (p=0·14). By day 14, fever resolved in ten (91%) of 11 febrile patients in the mavrilimumab group, compared with 11 (61%) of 18 febrile patients in the control group (p=0·18); fever resolution was faster in mavrilimumab recipients versus controls (median time to resolution 1 day [IQR 1 to 2] vs 7 days [3 to >14], p=0·0093). Mavrilimumab was well tolerated, with no infusion reactions. Three (12%) patients in the control group developed infectious complications. INTERPRETATION: Mavrilimumab treatment was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with standard care in non-mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation. Treatment was well tolerated. Confirmation of efficacy requires controlled testing. FUNDING: IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute.

10.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 2(6): e325-e331, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-197737

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and systemic inflammation is high. In areas of pandemic outbreak, the number of patients can exceed maximum capacity of intensive care units (ICUs), and, thus, these individuals often receive non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU. Effective treatments for this population are needed urgently. Anakinra is a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that might be beneficial in this patient population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy. We included consecutive patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, moderate-to-severe ARDS, and hyperinflammation (defined as serum C-reactive protein ≥100 mg/L, ferritin ≥900 ng/mL, or both) who were managed with non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU and who received standard treatment of 200 mg hydroxychloroquine twice a day orally and 400 mg lopinavir with 100 mg ritonavir twice a day orally. We compared survival, mechanical ventilation-free survival, changes in C-reactive protein, respiratory function, and clinical status in a cohort of patients who received additional treatment with anakinra (either 5 mg/kg twice a day intravenously [high dose] or 100 mg twice a day subcutaneously [low dose]) with a retrospective cohort of patients who did not receive anakinra (referred to as the standard treatment group). All outcomes were assessed at 21 days. This study is part of the COVID-19 Biobank study, which is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04318366. FINDINGS: Between March 17 and March 27, 2020, 29 patients received high-dose intravenous anakinra, non-invasive ventilation, and standard treatment. Between March 10 and March 17, 2020, 16 patients received non-invasive ventilation and standard treatment only and comprised the comparison group for this study. A further seven patients received low-dose subcutaneous anakinra in addition to non-invasive ventilation and standard treatment; however, anakinra treatment was interrupted after 7 days because of a paucity of effects on serum C-reactive protein and clinical status. At 21 days, treatment with high-dose anakinra was associated with reductions in serum C-reactive protein and progressive improvements in respiratory function in 21 (72%) of 29 patients; five (17%) patients were on mechanical ventilation and three (10%) died. In the standard treatment group, eight (50%) of 16 patients showed respiratory improvement at 21 days; one (6%) patient was on mechanical ventilation and seven (44%) died. At 21 days, survival was 90% in the high-dose anakinra group and 56% in the standard treatment group (p=0·009). Mechanical ventilation-free survival was 72% in the anakinra group versus 50% in the standard treatment group (p=0·15). Bacteraemia occurred in four (14%) of 29 patients receiving high-dose anakinra and two (13%) of 16 patients receiving standard treatment. Discontinuation of anakinra was not followed by inflammatory relapses. INTERPRETATION: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and ARDS managed with non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU, treatment with high-dose anakinra was safe and associated with clinical improvement in 72% of patients. Confirmation of efficacy will require controlled trials. FUNDING: None.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL