Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 70
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
N Engl J Med ; 385(16): 1474-1484, 2021 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612234

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rare breakthrough infections have been reported, including infections among health care workers. Data are needed to characterize these infections and define correlates of breakthrough and infectivity. METHODS: At the largest medical center in Israel, we identified breakthrough infections by performing extensive evaluations of health care workers who were symptomatic (including mild symptoms) or had known infection exposure. These evaluations included epidemiologic investigations, repeat reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT), serologic assays, and genomic sequencing. Correlates of breakthrough infection were assessed in a case-control analysis. We matched patients with breakthrough infection who had antibody titers obtained within a week before SARS-CoV-2 detection (peri-infection period) with four to five uninfected controls and used generalized estimating equations to predict the geometric mean titers among cases and controls and the ratio between the titers in the two groups. We also assessed the correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and N gene cycle threshold (Ct) values with respect to infectivity. RESULTS: Among 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented. Neutralizing antibody titers in case patients during the peri-infection period were lower than those in matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio, 0.361; 95% confidence interval, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers were associated with lower infectivity (higher Ct values). Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks). The B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant was found in 85% of samples tested. A total of 74% of case patients had a high viral load (Ct value, <30) at some point during their infection; however, of these patients, only 17 (59%) had a positive result on concurrent Ag-RDT. No secondary infections were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Among fully vaccinated health care workers, the occurrence of breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 was correlated with neutralizing antibody titers during the peri-infection period. Most breakthrough infections were mild or asymptomatic, although persistent symptoms did occur.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Israel/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Treatment Failure
2.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 448, 2021 12 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1582028

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Determining the optimal timing for extubation can be challenging in the intensive care. In this study, we aim to identify predictors for extubation failure in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We used highly granular data from 3464 adult critically ill COVID patients in the multicenter Dutch Data Warehouse, including demographics, clinical observations, medications, fluid balance, laboratory values, vital signs, and data from life support devices. All intubated patients with at least one extubation attempt were eligible for analysis. Transferred patients, patients admitted for less than 24 h, and patients still admitted at the time of data extraction were excluded. Potential predictors were selected by a team of intensive care physicians. The primary and secondary outcomes were extubation without reintubation or death within the next 7 days and within 48 h, respectively. We trained and validated multiple machine learning algorithms using fivefold nested cross-validation. Predictor importance was estimated using Shapley additive explanations, while cutoff values for the relative probability of failed extubation were estimated through partial dependence plots. RESULTS: A total of 883 patients were included in the model derivation. The reintubation rate was 13.4% within 48 h and 18.9% at day 7, with a mortality rate of 0.6% and 1.0% respectively. The grandient-boost model performed best (area under the curve of 0.70) and was used to calculate predictor importance. Ventilatory characteristics and settings were the most important predictors. More specifically, a controlled mode duration longer than 4 days, a last fraction of inspired oxygen higher than 35%, a mean tidal volume per kg ideal body weight above 8 ml/kg in the day before extubation, and a shorter duration in assisted mode (< 2 days) compared to their median values. Additionally, a higher C-reactive protein and leukocyte count, a lower thrombocyte count, a lower Glasgow coma scale and a lower body mass index compared to their medians were associated with extubation failure. CONCLUSION: The most important predictors for extubation failure in critically ill COVID-19 patients include ventilatory settings, inflammatory parameters, neurological status, and body mass index. These predictors should therefore be routinely captured in electronic health records.


Subject(s)
Airway Extubation , COVID-19 , Treatment Failure , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Humans , Machine Learning
4.
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
5.
Viruses ; 13(10)2021 10 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470991

ABSTRACT

Different and several public health strategies have been planned to reduce transmission of pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 since it started. None drugs have been confirmed as able to prevent viral transmission. Hydroxychloroquine with its immunomodulatory properties has been proposed as potential anti-viral drug in particular for prevention once viral exposure has been happen or in first phases of infection. Furthermore, in several immunological systemic disease hydroxychloroquine was able to reduce the number of thrombotic complications. So, because COVID-19 was associated to immunological imbalance and to thrombotic complications, we retrospectively analyzed the rate of infection in those patients being under treatment with this drug during COVID-19 epidemic outbreak from 8 March until 28 April in particular comparing those with pre-exposure to this treatment and those that were not taking this medication before SARS-CoV-2 viral infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods , Treatment Failure , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
6.
JAMA ; 326(6): 490-498, 2021 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363618

ABSTRACT

Importance: Azithromycin has been hypothesized to have activity against SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine whether oral azithromycin in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of azithromycin vs matching placebo conducted from May 2020 through March 2021. Outpatients from the US were enrolled remotely via internet-based surveys and followed up for 21 days. Eligible participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) within 7 days prior to enrollment, were aged 18 years or older, and were not hospitalized at the time of enrollment. Among 604 individuals screened, 297 were ineligible, 44 refused participation, and 263 were enrolled. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment randomization. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to a single oral 1.2-g dose of azithromycin (n = 171) or matching placebo (n = 92). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. There were 23 secondary clinical end points, including all-cause hospitalization at day 21. Results: Among 263 participants who were randomized (median age, 43 years; 174 [66%] women; 57% non-Hispanic White and 29% Latinx/Hispanic), 76% completed the trial. The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring committee for futility after the interim analysis. At day 14, there was no significant difference in proportion of participants who were symptom free (azithromycin: 50%; placebo: 50%; prevalence difference, 0%; 95% CI, -14% to 15%; P > .99). Of 23 prespecified secondary clinical end points, 18 showed no significant difference. By day 21, 5 participants in the azithromycin group had been hospitalized compared with 0 in the placebo group (prevalence difference, 4%; 95% CI, -1% to 9%; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, treatment with a single dose of azithromycin compared with placebo did not result in greater likelihood of being symptom free at day 14. These findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin for outpatient SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04332107.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Oral , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/administration & dosage , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Symptom Assessment , Treatment Failure
7.
N Engl J Med ; 385(21): 1951-1960, 2021 11 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1361668

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early administration of convalescent plasma obtained from blood donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In this randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial, we assigned patients who were being treated in an emergency department for Covid-19 symptoms to receive either one unit of convalescent plasma with a high titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or placebo. All the patients were either 50 years of age or older or had one or more risk factors for disease progression. In addition, all the patients presented to the emergency department within 7 days after symptom onset and were in stable condition for outpatient management. The primary outcome was disease progression within 15 days after randomization, which was a composite of hospital admission for any reason, seeking emergency or urgent care, or death without hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the worst severity of illness on an 8-category ordinal scale, hospital-free days within 30 days after randomization, and death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 511 patients were enrolled in the trial (257 in the convalescent-plasma group and 254 in the placebo group). The median age of the patients was 54 years; the median symptom duration was 4 days. In the donor plasma samples, the median titer of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was 1:641. Disease progression occurred in 77 patients (30.0%) in the convalescent-plasma group and in 81 patients (31.9%) in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, -6.0 to 9.8; posterior probability of superiority of convalescent plasma, 0.68). Five patients in the plasma group and 1 patient in the placebo group died. Outcomes regarding worst illness severity and hospital-free days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Covid-19 convalescent plasma to high-risk outpatients within 1 week after the onset of symptoms of Covid-19 did not prevent disease progression. (SIREN-C3PO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04355767.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Disease Progression , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Failure , Young Adult
8.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 777-789, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343497

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial , Treatment Failure
9.
Respir Med ; 187: 106550, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331211

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In COVID-19 associated hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) without mandatory indication for urgent endotracheal intubation, a trial of CPAP may be considered. We aimed to evaluate HACOR (heart rate, acidosis, consciousness, oxygenation, respiratory rate) score performance in these patients as predictor of CPAP failure. METHODS: Prospective observational multicentric study (three centers in different countries), including adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to a respiratory intermediate care unit, presenting PaO2/FiO2 < 300 and PaCO2 < 45 mmHg, who received CPAP. One hour after starting CPAP, HACOR was calculated. RESULTS: We enrolled 128 patients, mean age 61,7 years. Mean HACOR at 1 h after starting CPAP was 3,27 ± 3,84 and mean PaO2/FiO2 was 203,30 ± 92,21 mmHg; 35 patients (27,3 %) presented CPAP failure: 29 underwent oro-tracheal intubation and 6 died due to COVID-19 (all having a do-not-intubate order). HACOR accuracy for predicting CPAP failure was 82,03 %, while PaO2/FiO2 accuracy was 81,25 %. CONCLUSION: Although HACOR score had a good diagnostic performance in predicting CPAP failure in COVID-19-related ARF, PaO2/FiO2 has also shown to be a good predictor of failure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Acidosis , Aged , Blood Gas Analysis , COVID-19/physiopathology , Consciousness , Female , Heart Rate , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , ROC Curve , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Rate , Treatment Failure
10.
N Engl J Med ; 385(16): 1474-1484, 2021 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1328877

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rare breakthrough infections have been reported, including infections among health care workers. Data are needed to characterize these infections and define correlates of breakthrough and infectivity. METHODS: At the largest medical center in Israel, we identified breakthrough infections by performing extensive evaluations of health care workers who were symptomatic (including mild symptoms) or had known infection exposure. These evaluations included epidemiologic investigations, repeat reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT), serologic assays, and genomic sequencing. Correlates of breakthrough infection were assessed in a case-control analysis. We matched patients with breakthrough infection who had antibody titers obtained within a week before SARS-CoV-2 detection (peri-infection period) with four to five uninfected controls and used generalized estimating equations to predict the geometric mean titers among cases and controls and the ratio between the titers in the two groups. We also assessed the correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and N gene cycle threshold (Ct) values with respect to infectivity. RESULTS: Among 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented. Neutralizing antibody titers in case patients during the peri-infection period were lower than those in matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio, 0.361; 95% confidence interval, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers were associated with lower infectivity (higher Ct values). Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks). The B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant was found in 85% of samples tested. A total of 74% of case patients had a high viral load (Ct value, <30) at some point during their infection; however, of these patients, only 17 (59%) had a positive result on concurrent Ag-RDT. No secondary infections were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Among fully vaccinated health care workers, the occurrence of breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 was correlated with neutralizing antibody titers during the peri-infection period. Most breakthrough infections were mild or asymptomatic, although persistent symptoms did occur.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Israel/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Treatment Failure
11.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys ; 109(3): 756-763, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318870

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Fewer attendances for radiation therapy results in increased efficiency and less foot traffic within a radiation therapy department. We investigated outcomes after single-fraction (SF) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with oligometastatic disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between February 2010 and June 2019, patients who received SF SBRT to 1 to 5 sites of oligometastatic disease were included in this retrospective study. The primary objective was to describe patterns of first failure after SBRT. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), high-grade treatment-related toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3), and freedom from systemic therapy (FFST). RESULTS: In total, 371 patients with 494 extracranial oligometastases received SF SBRT ranging from 16 Gy to 28 Gy. The most common primary malignancies were prostate (n = 107), lung (n = 63), kidney (n = 52), gastrointestinal (n = 51), and breast cancers (n = 42). The median follow-up was 3.1 years. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS was 93%, 69%, and 55%, respectively; PFS was 48%, 19%, and 14%, respectively; and FFST was 70%, 43%, and 35%, respectively. Twelve patients (3%) developed grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicity, with no grade 5 toxicity. As the first site of failure, the cumulative incidence of local failure (irrespective of other failures) at 1, 3 and 5 years was 4%, 8%, and 8%, respectively; locoregional relapse at the primary was 10%, 18%, and 18%, respectively; and distant failure was 45%, 66%, and 70%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SF SBRT is safe and effective, and a significant proportion of patients remain FFST for several years after therapy. This approach could be considered in resource-constrained or bundled-payment environments. Locoregional failure of the primary site is the second most common pattern of failure, suggesting a role for optimization of primary control during metastasis-directed therapy.


Subject(s)
Neoplasm Metastasis/radiotherapy , Radiosurgery/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Neoplasms/surgery , Pandemics , Progression-Free Survival , Radiation Injuries/pathology , Radiosurgery/adverse effects , Radiotherapy Dosage , Retrospective Studies , Salvage Therapy , Treatment Failure , Young Adult
12.
JAMA ; 326(6): 490-498, 2021 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1315243

ABSTRACT

Importance: Azithromycin has been hypothesized to have activity against SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine whether oral azithromycin in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of azithromycin vs matching placebo conducted from May 2020 through March 2021. Outpatients from the US were enrolled remotely via internet-based surveys and followed up for 21 days. Eligible participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) within 7 days prior to enrollment, were aged 18 years or older, and were not hospitalized at the time of enrollment. Among 604 individuals screened, 297 were ineligible, 44 refused participation, and 263 were enrolled. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment randomization. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to a single oral 1.2-g dose of azithromycin (n = 171) or matching placebo (n = 92). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. There were 23 secondary clinical end points, including all-cause hospitalization at day 21. Results: Among 263 participants who were randomized (median age, 43 years; 174 [66%] women; 57% non-Hispanic White and 29% Latinx/Hispanic), 76% completed the trial. The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring committee for futility after the interim analysis. At day 14, there was no significant difference in proportion of participants who were symptom free (azithromycin: 50%; placebo: 50%; prevalence difference, 0%; 95% CI, -14% to 15%; P > .99). Of 23 prespecified secondary clinical end points, 18 showed no significant difference. By day 21, 5 participants in the azithromycin group had been hospitalized compared with 0 in the placebo group (prevalence difference, 4%; 95% CI, -1% to 9%; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, treatment with a single dose of azithromycin compared with placebo did not result in greater likelihood of being symptom free at day 14. These findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin for outpatient SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04332107.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Oral , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/administration & dosage , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Symptom Assessment , Treatment Failure
14.
Med Glas (Zenica) ; 18(2): 362-369, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1289328

ABSTRACT

Aim To identify predictive factors related with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure that are not based on the patient's respiratory status or acid base gas analyses in COVID-19 critically ill patients, and to create a predictive model of NIV failure. Methods A total of 73 COVID-19 critically ill patients who developed acute respiratory failure and underwent NIV were divided into two groups: Group 1, patients who required endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation after NIV and Group 2, patients with successful weaning from NIV. Demographic data, clinical symptoms and signs, clinical index and scores, duration indicators and laboratory data were analysed. Predictive factors of NIV failure were assessed using univariate and multivariate regression analyses followed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results In the Group 1 (NIV failure) there were 54 (73.97%) patients. Predictive factors for NIV failure were: the presence of dyspnoea on the day of admission at hospital (p<0.05; sensitivity 44.40%; specificity 84.20%), higher radiographic assessment of lung oedema score (RALES) on the day of starting NIV (p<0.009; sensitivity 70.40%; specificity 73.75%), higher length of NIV (p<0.014; sensitivity 48%; specificity 84.10%) and higher urea on the day of starting NIV (p<0.004; sensitivity 70.44%; specificity 73.72%) Conclusion NIV treatment in COVID-19 critically ill patients has a high failure rate. In addition to respiratory parameters, dyspnoea, higher RALES, higher length of NIV and increased urea value could predict NIV failure. These factors should be considered in treatment decision making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Humans , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Failure
17.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(21): 792-793, 2021 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1248455

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 vaccines are a critical tool for controlling the ongoing global pandemic. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations for three COVID-19 vaccines for use in the United States.* In large, randomized-controlled trials, each vaccine was found to be safe and efficacious in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (1-3). Despite the high level of vaccine efficacy, a small percentage of fully vaccinated persons (i.e. received all recommended doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine) will develop symptomatic or asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (2-8).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Disease Notification/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Failure , United States/epidemiology
18.
JAMA ; 325(17): 1731-1743, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241490

ABSTRACT

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Treatment Failure
19.
Minerva Med ; 112(3): 329-337, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1239284

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has high mortality rate mainly stemming from acute respiratory distress leading to respiratory failure (ARF). Aim of the study was to evaluate the management of severe ARF due to COVID-19 pneumonia using noninvasive ventilatory support (NIVS), studying safety and effectiveness of NIVS. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter study. Primary outcomes were NIVS failure with intubation rate and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital stay and factors related to NIVS failure and mortality. These outcomes were compared with patients intubated and admitted to ICU. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were hospitalized because of severe respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <250). One hundred thirty-eight patients were admitted to Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) for a NIVS trial. One hundred patients were treated successfully with NIVS (74.5%); 38 failed NIVS trial (27.5%). In-hospital mortality was 23.18% in RICU group and 30.55% in ICU group. Patients with NIVS failure were older, had a lower number of lymphocytes, a higher IL-6, lower PaO2, PaC O2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, higher respiratory rate (RR) and heart rate at admission and lower PaO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio and higher RR after 1-6 hours. Multivariate analysis identified higher age, C-reactive protein as well as RR after 1-6 hours and PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1-6 hours as an independent predictor mortality. CONCLUSIONS: NIVS is a safe and effective strategy in the treatment of severe ARF due to COVID-19 related pneumonia, that reduces mortality and length of hospital stay in the carefully selected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acute Disease , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Heart Rate , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure , Treatment Outcome
20.
Int J Mol Sci ; 22(9)2021 Apr 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1231493

ABSTRACT

Candida auris is a novel and major fungal pathogen that has triggered several outbreaks in the last decade. The few drugs available to treat fungal diseases, the fact that this yeast has a high rate of multidrug resistance and the occurrence of misleading identifications, and the ability of forming biofilms (naturally more resistant to drugs) has made treatments of C. auris infections highly difficult. This review intends to quickly illustrate the main issues in C. auris identification, available treatments and the associated mechanisms of resistance, and the novel and alternative treatment and drugs (natural and synthetic) that have been recently reported.


Subject(s)
Antifungal Agents/pharmacology , Candida/isolation & purification , Candidiasis/drug therapy , Drug Resistance, Fungal/drug effects , Antifungal Agents/chemistry , Antifungal Agents/therapeutic use , Azoles/pharmacology , Candida/drug effects , Candidiasis/microbiology , Drug Therapy, Combination , Echinocandins/pharmacology , Humans , Mycology/methods , Polyenes/pharmacology , Treatment Failure
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...