Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Lancet Reg Health Am ; : 100228, 2022 Mar 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1757632

ABSTRACT

Background: Interleukin-6 inhibitors reduce mortality in severe COVID-19. British Columbia began using tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (maximum 800 mg) in January 2021 in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but due to drug shortages, decreased dosing to 400 mg IV fixed dose in April 2021. The aims of this study were twofold: to compare physiological responses and clinical outcomes of these two strategies, and examine the cost-effectiveness of treating all patients with 400 mg versus half the patients with 8 mg/kg and the other half without tocilizumab. Methods: This was a single-centre, before-after cohort study of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab, and a control cohort treated with dexamethasone only. Physiological responses and clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving both doses of tocilizumab and those receiving dexamethasone only. We built a decision tree model to examine cost-effectiveness. Findings: 152 patients were included; 40 received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg, 59 received 400 mg and 53 received dexamethasone only. Median CRP fell from 103 mg/L to 5.2 mg/L, 96 mg/L to 6.8 mg/L and from 81.3 mg/L to 48 mg/L in the 8 mg/kg, 400 mg tocilizumab, and dexamethasone only groups, respectively. 28-day mortality was 5% (n=2) vs 8% (n=5) vs 13% (n=7), with no significant difference in all pair-wise comparison. At an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 Canadian per life-year, utilizing 400 mg for all patients rather than 8 mg/kg for half the patients is cost-effective in 51.6% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Interpretation: Both doses of tocilizumab demonstrated comparable reduction of inflammation with similar 28-day mortality. Without consideration of equity, the net monetary benefits of providing 400 mg tocilizumab to all patients are comparable to 8 mg/kg to half the patients. In the context of ongoing drug shortages, fixed-dose 400 mg tocilizumab may be a practical, feasible and economical option. Funding: This work was supported by a gift donation from Hsu & Taylor Family to the VGH Foundation, and the Yale Bernard G. Forget Scholarship.

2.
Res Pract Thromb Haemost ; 5(8): e12638, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1588881

ABSTRACT

Background: Pulmonary endothelial injury and microcirculatory thromboses likely contribute to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common cause of death, in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest differences in the effect of therapeutic heparin between moderately and severely ill patients with COVID-19. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to determine the effects of therapeutic heparin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv, and medical conference proceedings for RCTs comparing therapeutic heparin with usual care, excluding trials that used oral anticoagulation or intermediate doses of heparin in the experimental arm. Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine odds ratios (ORs). Results and Conclusions: There were 3 RCTs that compared therapeutic heparin to lower doses of heparin in 2854 moderately ill ward patients, and 3 RCTs in 1191 severely ill patients receiving critical care. In moderately ill patients, there was a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause death (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.02), but significant reductions in the composite of death or invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 0.98), and death or any thrombotic event (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77). Organ support-free days alive (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57) were significantly increased with therapeutic heparin. There was a nonsignificant increase in major bleeding. In severely ill patients, there was no evidence for benefit of therapeutic heparin, with significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions with illness severity for all-cause death (P = .034). In conclusion, therapeutic heparin is beneficial in moderately ill patients but not in severely ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

3.
BMJ ; 375: n2400, 2021 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470506

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial , Biomarkers/blood , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
4.
Blood Rev ; 45: 100707, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1064893

ABSTRACT

A subset of patients with severe COVID-19 develop profound inflammation and multi-organ dysfunction consistent with a "Cytokine Storm Syndrome" (CSS). In this review we compare the clinical features, diagnosis, and pathogenesis of COVID-CSS with other hematological CSS, namely secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH), idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD), and CAR-T cell therapy associated Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS). Novel therapeutics targeting cytokines or inhibiting cell signaling pathways have now become the mainstay of treatment in these CSS. We review the evidence for cytokine blockade and attenuation in these known CSS as well as the emerging literature and clinical trials pertaining to COVID-CSS. Established markers of inflammation as well as cytokine levels are compared and contrasted between these four entities in order to establish a foundation for future diagnostic criteria of COVID-CSS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/immunology , Castleman Disease/immunology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Biomarkers/blood , C-Reactive Protein/immunology , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Castleman Disease/drug therapy , Castleman Disease/pathology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/pathology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/virology , Ferritins/blood , Ferritins/immunology , Gene Expression Regulation , Humans , Immunotherapy, Adoptive/adverse effects , Interleukin-1/antagonists & inhibitors , Interleukin-1/blood , Interleukin-1/immunology , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Interleukin-6/blood , Interleukin-6/immunology , Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic/drug therapy , Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic/pathology , Signal Transduction
5.
Blood Adv ; 4(20): 4981-4989, 2020 10 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-873909

ABSTRACT

Studies on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1) suggest a protective effect of anti-A antibodies against viral cell entry that may hold relevance for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether ABO blood groups are associated with different severities of COVID-19. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis and nested prospective observational substudy of critically ill patients with COVID-19. We collected data pertaining to age, sex, comorbidities, dates of symptom onset, hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), standard laboratory parameters, and serum inflammatory cytokines. National (N = 398 671; P = .38) and provincial (n = 62 246; P = .60) ABO blood group distributions did not differ from our cohort (n = 95). A higher proportion of COVID-19 patients with blood group A or AB required mechanical ventilation (P = .02) and CRRT (P = .004) and had a longer ICU stay (P = .03) compared with patients with blood group O or B. Blood group A or AB also had an increased probability of requiring mechanical ventilation and CRRT after adjusting for age, sex, and presence of ≥1 comorbidity. Inflammatory cytokines did not differ between patients with blood group A or AB (n = 11) vs O or B (n = 14; P > .10 for all cytokines). Collectively, our data indicate that critically ill COVID-19 patients with blood group A or AB are at increased risk for requiring mechanical ventilation, CRRT, and prolonged ICU admission compared with patients with blood group O or B. Further work is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms.


Subject(s)
ABO Blood-Group System/blood , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Critical Illness/therapy , Cytokines/blood , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL