Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 5.289
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
3.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 522-532, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. METHODS: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. FINDINGS: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference -1·7 [-9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [-6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI -7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , International Cooperation , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
4.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 511-521, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537197

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Global randomised controlled trials of the anti-IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have shown conflicting results but potential decreases in time to discharge and burden on intensive care. Tocilizumab reduced progression to mechanical ventilation and death in a trial population enriched for racial and ethnic minorities. We aimed to investigate whether tocilizumab treatment could prevent COVID-19 progression in the first multicentre randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab done entirely in a lower-middle-income country. METHODS: COVINTOC is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 12 public and private hospitals across India. Adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 (Indian Ministry of Health grading) confirmed by positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result were randomly assigned (1:1 block randomisation) to receive tocilizumab 6 mg/kg plus standard care (the tocilizumab group) or standard care alone (the standard care group). The primary endpoint was progression of COVID-19 (from moderate to severe or from severe to death) up to day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat population of all participants who had at least one post-baseline assessment for the primary endpoint. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is completed and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/05/025369). FINDINGS: 180 patients were recruited between May 30, 2020, and Aug 31, 2020, and randomly assigned to the tocilizumab group (n=90) or the standard care group (n=90). One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group inadvertently received tocilizumab at baseline and was included in the tocilizumab group for all analyses. One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group withdrew consent after the baseline visit and did not receive any study medication and was not included in the modified intention-to-treat population but was still included in safety analyses. 75 (82%) of 91 in the tocilizumab group and 68 (76%) of 89 in the standard care group completed 28 days of follow-up. Progression of COVID-19 up to day 14 occurred in eight (9%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 11 (13%) of 88 in the standard care group (difference -3·71 [95% CI -18·23 to 11·19]; p=0·42). 33 (36%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 22 (25%) of 89 patients in the standard care group had adverse events; 18 (20%) and 15 (17%) had serious adverse events. The most common adverse event was acute respiratory distress syndrome, reported in seven (8%) patients in each group. Grade 3 adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (6%) patients in the standard care group. There were no grade 4 adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in 18 (20%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 15 (17%) in the standard care group; 13 (14%) and 15 (17%) patients died during the study. INTERPRETATION: Routine use of tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 is not supported. However, post-hoc evidence from this study suggests tocilizumab might still be effective in patients with severe COVID-19 and so should be investigated further in future studies. FUNDING: Medanta Institute of Education and Research, Roche India, Cipla India, and Action COVID-19 India.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , India , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
5.
6.
Blood Purif ; 50(3): 290-297, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533118

ABSTRACT

The principles and use of plasmapheresis are often little understood by intensivists. We propose to review the principles, the main indications, and the methods of using this technique.


Subject(s)
Critical Care/methods , Plasma Exchange/methods , Animals , Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis/therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Equipment Design , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/therapy , Humans , Liver Failure, Acute/therapy , Membranes, Artificial , Plasma Exchange/instrumentation , Purpura, Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic/therapy
7.
J Am Soc Nephrol ; 32(11): 2958-2969, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526711

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcome of COVID-19-associated collapsing glomerulopathy is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 76 native kidney biopsies from patients with history of COVID-19 between March 2020 and April 2021. Presenting and outcome data were obtained for all 23 patients with collapsing glomerulopathy and for seven patients with noncollapsing podocytopathies. We performed APOL1 genotyping by Sanger sequencing, immunostaining for spike and nucleocapsid proteins, and in situ hybridization for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The 23 patients with COVID-19-associated collapsing glomerulopathy were median age 57 years (range, 35-72), included 16 men, and were predominantly (91%) Black. Severity of COVID-19 was mild or moderate in most (77%) patients. All but one patient presented with AKI, 17 had nephrotic-range proteinuria, and six had nephrotic syndrome. Fourteen (61%) patients required dialysis at presentation. Among 17 patients genotyped, 16 (94%) were high-risk APOL1. Among 22 (96%) patients with median follow-up at 155 days (range, 30-412), 11 (50%) received treatment for COVID-19, and eight (36%) received glucocorticoid therapy for podocytopathy. At follow-up, 19 (86%) patients were alive, and 15 (68%) were dialysis free, including seven of 14 who initially required dialysis. The dialysis-free patients included 64% (seven of 11) of those treated for COVID-19 and 75% (six of eight) of those treated with glucocorticoids for podocytopathy. Overall, 36% achieved partial remission of proteinuria, 32% had no remission, and 32% reached combined end points of ESKD or death. Viral infection of the kidney was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: Half of 14 patients with COVID-19-associated collapsing glomerulopathy requiring dialysis achieved dialysis independence, but the long-term prognosis of residual proteinuric CKD remains guarded, indicating a need for more effective therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Kidney Glomerulus/pathology , Podocytes/pathology , Renal Insufficiency/pathology , Renal Insufficiency/virology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Recovery of Function , Renal Dialysis , Renal Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
8.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 1170, 2021 Nov 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526605

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
9.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1690-1702, 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525402

ABSTRACT

Importance: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. Interventions: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , ABO Blood-Group System , Adult , Aged , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Failure , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
10.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(44): e309, 2021 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526761

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes of critically ill pregnant and puerperal patients in the clinical course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Records of pregnant and puerperal women with polymerase chain reaction positive COVID-19 virus who were admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) from March 2020 to August 2021 were investigated. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data, pharmacotherapy, and neonatal outcomes were analyzed. These outcomes were compared between patients that were discharged from ICU and patients who died in ICU. RESULTS: Nineteen women were included in this study. Additional oxygen was required in all cases (100%). Eight patients (42%) were intubated and mechanically ventilated. All patients that were mechanically ventilated have died. Increased levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) was seen in all patients (100%). D-dimer values increased in 15 patients (78.9%); interleukin-6 (IL-6) increased in 16 cases (84.2%). Sixteen patients used antiviral drugs. Eleven patients were discharged from the ICU and eight patients have died due to complications of COVID-19 showing an ICU mortality rate of 42.1%. Mean number of hospitalized days in ICU was significantly lower in patients that were discharged (P = 0.037). Seventeen patients underwent cesarean-section (C/S) (89.4%). Mean birth week was significantly lower in patients who died in ICU (P = 0.024). Eleven preterm (57.8%) and eight term deliveries (42.1%) occurred. CONCLUSION: High mortality rate was detected among critically ill pregnant/parturient patients followed in the ICU. Main predictors of mortality were the need of invasive mechanical ventilation and higher number of days hospitalized in ICU. Rate of C/S operations and preterm delivery were high. Pleasingly, the rate of neonatal death was low and no neonatal COVID-19 occurred.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/mortality , Puerperal Disorders/mortality , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/therapy , Cesarean Section , Combined Modality Therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Delivery, Obstetric/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
11.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0257892, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526682

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory viral illness causing pneumonia and systemic disease. Abnormalities in pulmonary function tests (PFT) after COVID-19 infection have been described. The determinants of these abnormalities are unclear. We hypothesized that inflammatory biomarkers and CT scan parameters at the time of infection would be associated with abnormal gas transfer at short term follow-up. METHODS: We retrospectively studied subjects who were hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and discharged. Serum inflammatory biomarkers, CT scan and clinical characteristics were assessed. CT images were evaluated by Functional Respiratory Imaging with automated tissue segmentation algorithms of the lungs and pulmonary vasculature. Volumes of the pulmonary vessels that were ≤5mm (BV5), 5-10mm (BV5_10), and ≥10mm (BV10) in cross sectional area were analyzed. Also the amount of opacification on CT (ground glass opacities). PFT were performed 2-3 months after discharge. The diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO) was obtained. We divided subjects into those with a DLCO <80% predicted (Low DLCO) and those with a DLCO ≥80% predicted (Normal DLCO). RESULTS: 38 subjects were included in our cohort. 31 out of 38 (81.6%) subjects had a DLCO<80% predicted. The groups were similar in terms of demographics, body mass index, comorbidities, and smoking status. Hemoglobin, inflammatory biomarkers, spirometry and lung volumes were similar between groups. CT opacification and BV5 were not different between groups, but both Low and Normal DLCO groups had lower BV5 measures compared to healthy controls. BV5_10 and BV10 measures were higher in the Low DLCO group compared to the normal DLCO group. Both BV5_10 and BV10 in the Low DLCO group were greater compared to healthy controls. BV5_10 was independently associated with DLCO<80% in multivariable logistic regression (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01, 1.64). BV10 negatively correlated with DLCO% predicted (r = -0.343, p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormalities in pulmonary vascular volumes at the time of hospitalization are independently associated with a low DLCO at follow-up. There was no relationship between inflammatory biomarkers during hospitalization and DLCO. Pulmonary vascular abnormalities during hospitalization for COVID-19 may serve as a biomarker for abnormal gas transfer after COVID-19 pneumonia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Lung/blood supply , Lung/diagnostic imaging , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers/metabolism , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Lung/metabolism , Lung/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
14.
Microbiol Spectr ; 9(2): e0135221, 2021 10 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526454

ABSTRACT

The emerging new lineages of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have marked a new phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Understanding the recognition mechanisms of potent neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (NAbs) against the spike protein is pivotal for developing new vaccines and antibody drugs. Here, we isolated several monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (S-RBD) from the B cell receptor repertoires of a SARS-CoV-2 convalescent. Among these MAbs, the antibody nCoV617 demonstrates the most potent neutralizing activity against authentic SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as prophylactic and therapeutic efficacies against the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) transgenic mouse model in vivo. The crystal structure of S-RBD in complex with nCoV617 reveals that nCoV617 mainly binds to the back of the "ridge" of RBD and shares limited binding residues with ACE2. Under the background of the S-trimer model, it potentially binds to both "up" and "down" conformations of S-RBD. In vitro mutagenesis assays show that mutant residues found in the emerging new lineage B.1.1.7 of SARS-CoV-2 do not affect nCoV617 binding to the S-RBD. These results provide a new human-sourced neutralizing antibody against the S-RBD and assist vaccine development. IMPORTANCE COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious threat to global health and the economy, so it is necessary to find safe and effective antibody drugs and treatments. The receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is responsible for binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. It contains a variety of dominant neutralizing epitopes and is an important antigen for the development of new coronavirus antibodies. The significance of our research lies in the determination of new epitopes, the discovery of antibodies against RBD, and the evaluation of the antibodies' neutralizing effect. The identified antibodies here may be drug candidates for the development of clinical interventions for SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/antagonists & inhibitors , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/genetics , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/immunology , Animals , Antibodies, Monoclonal/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/metabolism , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/metabolism , Binding Sites/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Crystallography, X-Ray , Disease Models, Animal , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Mice , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Mice, Transgenic , Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs/immunology , Viral Load/drug effects
15.
Artif Organs ; 45(12): 1466-1476, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526347

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe cases requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Together with supportive therapies (ventilation in particular), the suppression of the pro-inflammatory state has been a hypothesized target. Pharmacological therapies with corticosteroids and interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists have reduced mortality. The use of extracorporeal cytokine removal, also known as hemoperfusion (HP), could be a promising non-pharmacological approach to decrease the pro-inflammatory state in COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE databases in order to summarize the evidence regarding HP therapy in COVID-19. We included original studies and case series enrolling at least five patients. RESULTS: We included 11 articles and describe the characteristics of the populations studied from both clinical and biological perspectives. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low. Only two studies had a control group, one of which included 101 patients in total. The remaining studies had a range between 10 and 50 patients included. There was large variability in the HP techniques implemented and in clinical and biological outcomes reported. Most studies described decreasing levels of IL-6 after HP treatment. CONCLUSION: Our review does not support strong conclusions regarding the role of HP in COVID-19. Considering the very low level of clinical evidence detected, starting HP therapies in COVID-19 patients does not seem supported outside of clinical trials. Prospective randomized data are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Cytokines/blood , Hemoperfusion , Inflammation Mediators/blood , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Hemoperfusion/adverse effects , Hemoperfusion/mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
16.
Artif Organs ; 45(12): 1522-1532, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526346

ABSTRACT

Disturbed oxygenation is foremost the leading clinical presentation in COVID-19 patients. However, a small proportion also develop carbon dioxide removal problems. The Advanced Organ Support (ADVOS) therapy (ADVITOS GmbH, Munich, Germany) uses a less invasive approach by combining extracorporeal CO2 -removal and multiple organ support for the liver and the kidneys in a single hemodialysis device. The aim of our study is to evaluate the ADVOS system as treatment option in-COVID-19 patients with multi-organ failure and carbon dioxide removal problems. COVID-19 patients suffering from severe respiratory insufficiency, receiving at least two treatments with the ADVOS multi system (ADVITOS GmbH, Munich, Germany), were eligible for study inclusion. Briefly, these included patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) according to KDIGO guidelines, and moderate or severe ARDS according to the Berlin definition, who were on invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours. In total, nine COVID-19 patients (137 ADVOS treatment sessions with a median of 10 treatments per patient) with moderate to severe ARDS and carbon dioxide removal problems were analyzed. During the ADVOS treatments, a rapid correction of acid-base balance and a continuous CO2 removal could be observed. We observed a median continuous CO2 removal of 49.2 mL/min (IQR: 26.9-72.3 mL/min) with some treatments achieving up to 160 mL/min. The CO2 removal significantly correlated with blood flow (Pearson 0.421; P < .001), PaCO2 (0.341, P < .001) and HCO 3 - levels (0.568, P < .001) at the start of the treatment. The continuous treatment led to a significant reduction in PaCO2 from baseline to the last ADVOS treatment. In conclusion, it was feasible to remove CO2 using the ADVOS system in our cohort of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure. This efficient removal of CO2 was achieved at blood flows up to 300 mL/min using a conventional hemodialysis catheter and without a membrane lung or a gas phase.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Carbon Dioxide/blood , Extracorporeal Circulation/instrumentation , Lung/physiopathology , Multiple Organ Failure/therapy , Renal Dialysis/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial , Aged , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , Critical Illness , Extracorporeal Circulation/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multiple Organ Failure/blood , Multiple Organ Failure/diagnosis , Multiple Organ Failure/physiopathology , Renal Dialysis/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
17.
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci ; 76(7): e268-e274, 2021 08 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526159

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Mexico is among the countries in Latin America hit hardest by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A large proportion of older adults in Mexico have high prevalence of multimorbidity and live in poverty with limited access to health care services. These statistics are even higher among adults living in rural areas, which suggest that older adults in rural communities may be more susceptible to COVID-19. The objectives of the article were to compare clinical and demographic characteristics for people diagnosed with COVID-19 by age group, and to describe cases and mortality in rural and urban communities. METHOD: We linked publicly available data from the Mexican Ministry of Health and the Census. Municipalities were classified based on population as rural (<2,500), semirural (≥2,500 and <15,000), semiurban (≥15,000 and <100,000), and urban (≥100,000). Zero-inflated negative binomial models were performed to calculate the total number of COVID-19 cases, and deaths per 1,000,000 persons using the population of each municipality as a denominator. RESULTS: Older adults were more likely to be hospitalized and reported severe cases, with higher mortality rates. In addition, rural municipalities reported a higher number of COVID-19 cases and mortality related to COVID-19 per million than urban municipalities. The adjusted absolute difference in COVID-19 cases was 912.7 per million (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.0-1746.4) and mortality related to COVID-19 was 390.6 per million (95% CI: 204.5-576.7). DISCUSSION: Urgent policy efforts are needed to mandate the use of face masks, encourage handwashing, and improve specialty care for Mexicans in rural areas.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Health Status Disparities , Poverty/statistics & numerical data , Rural Population/statistics & numerical data , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Mexico/epidemiology , Rural Health Services/organization & administration , Urban Health Services/organization & administration
18.
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol ; 60(6): 1043-1046, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525965

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study is to evaluate the prognosis of pregnant women having SARS-CoV-2 infection and investigate whether there was a difference in perinatal outcomes between pregnant women who had SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who did not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted with 116 singleton pregnancies. Cases enrolling in the study were divided into two groups. While those in the first group had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 46) the second group consisted of healthy pregnant women (n = 70). RESULTS: Emergency Cesarean section was performed on three SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnancies (30, 33 and 34 gestational weeks). Intensive care unit admission was required for all three cases after delivery and two of them died. Among the pregnancies that had an infection in the third trimester, 71.4% (n = 20) of them had delivery in 14 days after diagnosis and 17.4% (n = 8) of their newborns were followed up at newborn intensive care unit. Overall, only one newborn had a positive swab test result for SARS-CoV-2. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding their delivery week (37.02 ± 5.85 vs 38.5 ± 2.33). Similarly, there was no significant difference between groups, concerning mean age, parity, and birth weight (P = 0.707, P = 0.092, P = 0.334; P < 0.05). Furthermore, the difference between SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnancies that were followed up as inpatient or outpatient with respect to the delivery week and birth weight was not significant (p > 0.05). Also, APGAR 5 scores of hospitalized women (9.3 ± 1.1) were found to be lower than the outpatient group (9.8 ± 0.8) (P = 0.043; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: No significant difference was detected between groups in terms of the delivery week, birth weight, and APGAR scores. The inpatient group was found to have lower APGAR 5 scores.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Cesarean Section/statistics & numerical data , Delivery, Obstetric , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/mortality , Pregnant Women/psychology , Abortion, Spontaneous/epidemiology , Birth Weight , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Pregnancy Outcome , Premature Birth/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Stem Cell Reports ; 16(11): 2567-2576, 2021 11 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525954

ABSTRACT

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Communication , Pandemics/ethics , SARS-CoV-2 , Stem Cell Transplantation/ethics , Therapeutics/ethics , Humans
20.
Chest ; 160(1): 175-186, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525725

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 aerosolization during noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation may endanger health care professionals. Various circuit setups have been described to reduce virus aerosolization. However, these setups may alter ventilator performance. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the consequences of the various suggested circuit setups on ventilator efficacy during CPAP and noninvasive ventilation (NIV)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eight circuit setups were evaluated on a bench test model that consisted of a three-dimensional printed head and an artificial lung. Setups included a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask, a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface, a single-limb circuit with a passive exhalation valve, three single-limb circuits with custom-made additional leaks, and two single-limb circuits with active exhalation valves. All setups were evaluated during NIV and CPAP. The following variables were recorded: the inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator, the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator, the triggering delay, the maximal inspiratory pressure delivered by the ventilator, the tidal volume generated to the artificial lung, the total work of breathing, and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator. RESULTS: With NIV, the type of circuit setup had a significant impact on inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator (P < .0001), the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001), the triggering delay (P < .0001), the maximal inspiratory pressure (P < .0001), the tidal volume (P = .0008), the work of breathing (P < .0001), and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001). Similar differences and consequences were seen with CPAP as well as with the addition of bacterial filters. Best performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask. Worst performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface. INTERPRETATION: Ventilator performance is significantly impacted by the circuit setup. A dual-limb circuit with oronasal mask should be used preferentially.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation , Air Filters , Benchmarking/methods , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/adverse effects , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/instrumentation , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Critical Pathways/standards , Critical Pathways/trends , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Research Design , Respiratory Function Tests/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Ventilators, Mechanical
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...