Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-313100

ABSTRACT

Background: The use of several promising drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged. However, considering the pathophysiology of COVID-19, the effect of a single agent is limited. Hence, the current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients who received combination treatment with remdesivir, dexamethasone, and tocilizumab (RDT) and those who did not.MethodsPatients who received combination therapy with RDT at Japanese Red Cross Medical Center were included in the RDT group, and those who did not in the control group. The mortality rate and presence of severe adverse events were compared between the two groups.ResultsIn total, 46 patients (n = 29, control group and n = 17, RDT group) with severe COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. The 28-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the RDT group than in the control group, with 1 (6%) and 9 (31%) deaths recorded, respectively (P = 0.04). Further, both groups did not present with severe adverse events.ConclusionsInformation on the outcomes of combination therapy with RDT was considered useful for the treatment of severe COVID-19.

2.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-312933

ABSTRACT

Background: Corticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score–matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. Methods: : This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January–April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Results: : Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388–0.962;p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758;95% CI, 1.323–2.337;p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466;95% CI, 0.841–2.554;p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831;95% CI, 1.347–5.950;p = 0.006). Conclusions: : Corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation. Trial registration : This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).

3.
Intern Med ; 60(21): 3503-3506, 2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572222

ABSTRACT

In hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, anticoagulation therapy is administered to prevent thrombosis. However, anticoagulation sometimes causes bleeding complications. We herein report two Japanese cases of severe COVID-19 in which spontaneous muscle hematomas (SMH) developed under therapeutic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin. Although the activated partial prothrombin time was within the optimal range, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) revealed SMH in the bilateral iliopsoas muscles in both cases, which required emergent transcatheter embolization. Close monitoring of the coagulation system and the early diagnosis of bleeding complications through CECT are needed in severe COVID-19 patients treated with anticoagulants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heparin , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Hematoma/chemically induced , Hematoma/diagnostic imaging , Heparin/adverse effects , Humans , Japan , Muscles , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Respir Investig ; 59(6): 804-809, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401819

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine risk factors associated with critical coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and to establish a risk predictive model for Japanese patients. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed adult Japanese patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan between February 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021. The patients were divided into critical and non-critical groups based on their condition during the clinical courses. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between clinical characteristics and critical illness. Based on the results, we established a predictive model for the development of critical COVID-19. RESULTS: In total, 300 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 86 were included in the critical group. Analyses revealed that age ≥65 y, hemodialysis, need for O2 supplementation upon diagnosis, and an initial serum C-reactive protein level of ≥6.5 mg/dL were independently associated with the development of critical COVID-19. Next, a predictive model for the development of critical COVID-19 was created, and this included the following variables: age ≥65 y, male sex, diabetes, hemodialysis, need for O2 supplementation upon diagnosis, and an initial serum C-reactive protein level of ≥6.5 mg/dL. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.90). Using a cutoff score of 12, the positive and negative predictive values of 74.0% and 80.4% were obtained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Upon diagnosis, the predictive model can be used to identify adult Japanese patients with COVID-19 who will require intensive treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Male , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Renal Dialysis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Respir Investig ; 59(6): 799-803, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347805

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and is also an important disease in Japan. Thus, the optimal treatment strategy for severe COVID-19 should be established urgently. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib-a Janus kinase inhibitor, remdesivir, and dexamethasone (BRD) are unknown. METHODS: Patients who received combination therapy with BRD at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center were enrolled in the study. All patients received baricitinib (≤14 d), remdesivir (≤10 d), and dexamethasone (≤10 d). The efficacy and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 44 patients with severe COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. The 28-d mortality rate was low at 2.3% (1/44 patients). The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was avoided in most patients (90%, 17/19 patients). Patients who received BRD therapy had a median hospitalization duration of 11 d, time to recovery of 9 d, duration of intensive care unit stay of 6 d, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of 5 d, and duration of supplemental oxygen therapy of 5 d. Adverse events occurred in 15 patients (34%). Liver dysfunction, thrombosis, iliopsoas hematoma, renal dysfunction, ventilator-associated pneumonia, infective endocarditis, and herpes zoster occurred in 11%, 11%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 2%, and 2% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with BRD was effective in treating severe COVID-19, and the incidence rate of adverse events was low. The results of the present study are encouraging; however, further randomized clinical studies are needed.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Azetidines/therapeutic use , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Azetidines/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Purines/adverse effects , Pyrazoles/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Sulfonamides/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
7.
Respir Investig ; 59(5): 635-642, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275682

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has afflicted large populations worldwide. Although vaccines aroused great expectations, their side effects on Japanese people and the antibody titer transition after vaccination are unclear. METHODS: The side effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in participants who received vaccination at our center were investigated. Some participants were also surveyed for the antibody titer transition. RESULTS: In this study, 983 and 798 Japanese participants responded to the first and second doses, respectively. Side effects occurred in 757 (77.0%) and 715 participants (90.0%) after the first and second doses, respectively. No Grade 4 side effects occurred. The second dose had significantly more side effects than the first dose (p < 0.001). Side effects occurred after the second dose in 571 female (92.1%) and 178 male participants (80.1%). Female participants had a higher incidence of side effects than the male participants (p < 0.001). A comparison among the age groups showed significant differences (p = 0.018), and the frequency of side effects decreased with age. Twenty-three individuals participated in the survey of antibody titer transition. After the second vaccine dose, the median antibody titers for IgG and IgM were 3.76 and 0.07 AU/mL, respectively. Both IgG and IgM titers showed a significant increase over the study period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine might be safe for Japanese people, and the antibody titer increased with two doses of vaccination. Larger nationwide studies are warranted to verify these findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Male , RNA, Messenger , RNA, Viral , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 10727, 2021 05 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238019

ABSTRACT

Corticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January-April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388-0.962; p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758; 95% CI, 1.323-2.337; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466; 95% CI, 0.841-2.554; p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831; 95% CI, 1.347-5.950; p = 0.006). In conclusion, corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation.Trial registration: This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/pathology , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
9.
Intern Med ; 59(21): 2693-2699, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-902227

ABSTRACT

Objective Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading around the world. The aim of this study was to assess the degree of anxiety, depression, resilience, and other psychiatric symptoms among healthcare workers in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This survey involved medical healthcare workers at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center (Tokyo, Japan) between April 22 and May 15, 2020. The degree of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and resilience was assessed using the Japanese versions of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Furthermore, we added original questionnaires comprising three factors: (i) anxiety and fear of infection and death; (ii) isolation and unreasonable treatment; and (iii) motivation and escape behavior at work. Results In total, 848 healthcare workers participated in this survey: 104 doctors, 461 nurses, 184 other co-medical staff, and 99 office workers. Among all participants, 85 (10.0%) developed moderate-to-severe anxiety disorder, and 237 (27.9%) developed depression. Problems with anxiety and fear of infection and death, isolation and unreasonable treatment, and motivation and escape from work were higher in the depression group than in the non-depression group (total CES-D score ≥ 16 points). Being a nurse and high total GAD-7 scores were risk factors of depression. Older workers and those with higher resilience were less likely to develop depression than others. Conclusion During the COVID-19 epidemic, many healthcare workers suffered from psychiatric symptoms. Psychological support and interventions for protecting the mental health of them are needed.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/etiology , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Depression/etiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Japan/epidemiology , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Respir Investig ; 58(6): 440-447, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-726837

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently spreading worldwide. This study examined whether serum Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) level is a useful biomarker for evaluating the severity of COVID-19. METHODS: We retrospectively examined patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center between February 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020. Patients were divided into four categories based on clinical and radiological findings: mild, moderate, severe, and critical. Patients who presented with a mild or moderate illness and patients who started with or worsened to a severe or critical illness were classified as the non-severe and severe groups, respectively. The two groups were compared for patient characteristics, including serum KL-6 levels. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to define the optimum cut-off value of serum KL-6 level to evaluate COVID-19 severity. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were enrolled, including 33 in the non-severe group and 21 in the severe group, of which four died. Compared with those in the non-severe group, more patients in the severe group were significantly older and had comorbidities. Serum KL-6 levels were significantly higher in the severe group than in the non-severe group both at diagnosis (median, 338 U/mL) and at peak levels within one week after diagnosis (median, 781 U/mL) (both p < 0.001). Serum KL-6 value at peak level (371 U/mL) was used as the optimal cut-off to evaluate disease severity (sensitivity, 85.7%; specificity, 96.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Serum KL-6 levels were significantly elevated in severe COVID-19 and is useful for evaluating its severity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mucin-1/blood , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL