Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(7): 747-754, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433967

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The consequences of COVID-19 in those who recover from acute infection requiring hospitalisation have yet to be clearly defined. We aimed to describe the temporal trends in respiratory outcomes over 12 months in patients hospitalised for severe COVID-19 and to investigate the associated risk factors. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal, cohort study, patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19 who did not require mechanical ventilation were prospectively followed up at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months after discharge from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. Patients with a history of hypertension; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; cancer; and chronic lung disease, including asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; or a history of smoking documented at time of hospital admission were excluded at time of electronic case-note review. Patients who required intubation and mechanical ventilation were excluded given the potential for the consequences of mechanical ventilation itself to influence the factors under investigation. During the follow-up visits, patients were interviewed and underwent physical examination, routine blood test, pulmonary function tests (ie, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]; forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity [FVC]; functional residual capacity; FVC; FEV1; residual volume; total lung capacity; and vital capacity), chest high-resolution CT (HRCT), and 6-min walk distance test, as well as assessment using a modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC). FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, and March 31, 2020, of 135 eligible patients, 83 (61%) patients participated in this study. The median age of participants was 60 years (IQR 52-66). Temporal improvement in pulmonary physiology and exercise capacity was observed in most patients; however, persistent physiological and radiographic abnormalities remained in some patients with COVID-19 at 12 months after discharge. We found a significant reduction in DLCO over the study period, with a median of 77% of predicted (IQR 67-87) at 3 months, 76% of predicted (68-90) at 6 months, and 88% of predicted (78-101) at 12 months after discharge. At 12 months after discharge, radiological changes persisted in 20 (24%) patients. Multivariate logistic regression showed increasing odds of impaired DLCO associated with female sex (odds ratio 8·61 [95% CI 2·83-26·2; p=0·0002) and radiological abnormalities were associated with peak HRCT pneumonia scores during hospitalisation (1·36 [1·13-1·62]; p=0·0009). INTERPRETATION: In most patients who recovered from severe COVID-19, dyspnoea scores and exercise capacity improved over time; however, in a subgroup of patients at 12 months we found evidence of persistent physiological and radiographic change. A unified pathway for the respiratory follow-up of patients with COVID-19 is required. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China, UK Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Function Tests , Time Factors
2.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 8: 710946, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1399130

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on the inflammatory response and viral clearance in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We included 229 patients with confirmed COVID-19 in a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Propensity score matching at a ratio of 1:3 was introduced to eliminate potential confounders. Patients were assigned to the ACEI/ARB group (n = 38) or control group (n = 114) according to whether they were current users of medication. Results: Compared to the control group, patients in the ACEI/ARB group had lower levels of plasma IL-1ß [(6.20 ± 0.38) vs. (9.30 ± 0.31) pg/ml, P = 0.020], IL-6 [(31.86 ± 4.07) vs. (48.47 ± 3.11) pg/ml, P = 0.041], IL-8 [(34.66 ± 1.90) vs. (47.93 ± 1.21) pg/ml, P = 0.027], and TNF-α [(6.11 ± 0.88) vs. (12.73 ± 0.26) pg/ml, P < 0.01]. Current users of ACEIs/ARBs seemed to have a higher rate of vasoconstrictive agents (20 vs. 6%, P < 0.01) than the control group. Decreased lymphocyte counts [(0.76 ± 0.31) vs. (1.01 ± 0.45)*109/L, P = 0.027] and elevated plasma levels of IL-10 [(9.91 ± 0.42) vs. (5.26 ± 0.21) pg/ml, P = 0.012] were also important discoveries in the ACEI/ARB group. Patients in the ACEI/ARB group had a prolonged duration of viral shedding [(24 ± 5) vs. (18 ± 5) days, P = 0.034] and increased length of hospitalization [(24 ± 11) vs. (15 ± 7) days, P < 0.01]. These trends were similar in patients with hypertension. Conclusions: Our findings did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and COVID-19 mortality. ACEIs/ARBs might decrease proinflammatory cytokines, but antiviral treatment should be enforced, and hemodynamics should be monitored closely. Since the limited influence on the ACEI/ARB treatment, they should not be withdrawn if there was no formal contraindication.

3.
EBioMedicine ; 62: 103125, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-938894

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The pharmacokinetics and appropriate dose regimens of favipiravir are unknown in hospitalized influenza patients; such data are also needed to determine dosage selection for favipiravir trials in COVID-19. METHODS: In this dose-escalating study, favipiravir pharmacokinetics and tolerability were assessed in critically ill influenza patients. Participants received one of two dosing regimens; Japan licensed dose (1600 mg BID on day 1 and 600 mg BID on the following days) and the higher dose (1800 mg/800 mg BID) trialed in uncomplicated influenza. The primary pharmacokinetic endpoint was the proportion of patients with a minimum observed plasma trough concentration (Ctrough) ≥20 mg/L at all measured time points after the second dose. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled into the low dose group and 19 patients into the high dose group of the study. Favipiravir Ctrough decreased significantly over time in both groups (p <0.01). Relative to day 2 (48 hrs), concentrations were 91.7% and 90.3% lower in the 1600/600 mg group and 79.3% and 89.5% lower in the 1800/800 mg group at day 7 and 10, respectively. In contrast, oseltamivir concentrations did not change significantly over time. A 2-compartment disposition model with first-order absorption and elimination described the observed favipiravir concentration-time data well. Modeling demonstrated that less than 50% of patients achieved Ctrough ≥20 mg/L for >80% of the duration of treatment of the two dose regimens evaluated (18.8% and 42.1% of patients for low and high dose regimen, respectively). Increasing the favipravir dosage predicted a higher proportion of patients reaching this threshold of 20 mg/L, suggesting that dosing regimens of ≥3600/2600 mg might be required for adequate concentrations. The two dosing regimens were well-tolerated in critical ill patients with influenza. CONCLUSION: The two dosing regimens proposed for uncomplicated influenza did not achieve our pre-defined treatment threshold.


Subject(s)
Amides , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Oseltamivir , Pyrazines , Aged , Amides/administration & dosage , Amides/pharmacokinetics , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Oseltamivir/administration & dosage , Oseltamivir/pharmacokinetics , Pyrazines/administration & dosage , Pyrazines/pharmacokinetics , Severity of Illness Index
6.
BMC Infect Dis ; 20(1): 637, 2020 Aug 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-733046

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading globally. Recently, several articles have mentioned that the early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 significantly differ from those of ARDS due to other causes. Actually, we newly observed that some mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients recovering from severe ARDS (more than 14 days after invasive ventilation) often experienced evidently gradual increases in CO2 retention and minute ventilation. However, the underlying mechanics remain unclear. CASE PRESENTATION: To explain these pathophysiological features and discuss the ventilatory strategy during the late phase of severe ARDS in COVID-19 patients, we first used a metabolic module on a General Electric R860 ventilator (Engstrom Carestation; GE Healthcare, USA) to monitor parameters related to gas metabolism, lung mechanics and physiological dead space in two COVID-19 patients. We found that remarkably decreased ventilatory efficiency (e.g., the ratio of dead space to tidal volume 70-80%, arterial to end-tidal CO2 difference 18-23 mmHg and ventilatory ratio 3-4) and hypermetabolism (oxygen consumption 300-400 ml/min, CO2 elimination 200-300 ml/min) may explain why these patients experienced more severe respiratory distress and CO2 retention in the late phase of ARDS caused by COVID-19. CONCLUSION: During the recovery period of ARDS among mechanically-ventilated COVID-19 patients, attention should be paid to the monitoring of physiological dead space and metabolism. Tidal volume (8-9 ml/kg) could be increased appropriately under the limited plateau pressure; however, barotrauma should still be kept in mind.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Female , Humans , Monitoring, Physiologic , Oxygen Consumption , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Tidal Volume , Ventilators, Mechanical
7.
Crit Care Med ; 48(11): e1079-e1086, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725837

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China. PATIENTS: Forty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Hypoxia/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Kidney Blood Press Res ; 45(4): 612-622, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-680430

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory viral infections are frequency accompanied by multiple organ dysfunction, including acute kidney injury (AKI). In December 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak began in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, and rapidly spread worldwide. While diffuse alveolar damage and acute respiratory failure are the main features of COVID-19, other organs may be involved, and the incidence of AKI is not well described. We assessed the incidence and clinical characteristics of AKI in patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and its effects on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to two general hospitals in Wuhan from 5 January 2020 to 21 March 2020. Demographic data and information on organ dysfunction were collected daily. AKI was defined according to the KDIGO clinical practice guidelines. Early and late AKI were defined as AKI occurring within 72 h after admission or after 72 h, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 116 patients, AKI developed in 21 (18.1%) patients. Among them, early and late AKI were found in 13 (11.2%) and 8 (6.9%) patients, respectively. Compared with patients without AKI, patients with AKI had more severe organ dysfunction, as indicated by a higher level of disease severity status, higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score on admission, an increased prevalence of shock, and a higher level of respiratory support. Patients with AKI had a higher SOFA score on admission (4.5 ± 2.1 vs. 2.8 ± 1.4, OR 1.498, 95% CI 1.047-2.143 ) and greater hospital mortality (57.1% vs. 12.6%, OR 3.998, 95% CI 1.088-14.613) than patients without AKI in both the univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients with late AKI, but not those with early AKI, had a significantly prolonged length of stay (19.6 vs. 9.6 days, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that admission SOFA score was an independent risk factor for AKI in COVID-19 patients, and patients with AKI had higher in-hospital mortality. Moreover, AKI development after 72 h of admission was related to prolonged hospitalization time.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Acute Kidney Injury/mortality , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Disease Progression , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals, General , Humans , Incidence , Kidney Function Tests , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Multiple Organ Failure/etiology , Multiple Organ Failure/therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Water-Electrolyte Balance
9.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 26(6): 1324-1326, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-6800

ABSTRACT

We report co-infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza A virus in a patient with pneumonia in China. The case highlights possible co-detection of known respiratory viruses. We noted low sensitivity of upper respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2, which could further complicate recognition of the full extent of disease.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/virology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , China , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coinfection , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Influenza A virus , Influenza, Human/virology , Male , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...