Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 58
Filter
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e23441, 2021 02 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Cancer Cell ; 39(8): 1081-1090.e2, 2021 08 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343145

ABSTRACT

As COVID-19 adversely affects patients with cancer, prophylactic strategies are critically needed. Using a validated antibody assay against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, we determined a high seroconversion rate (94%) in 200 patients with cancer in New York City that had received full dosing with one of the FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines. On comparison with solid tumors (98%), a significantly lower rate of seroconversion was observed in patients with hematologic malignancies (85%), particularly recipients following highly immunosuppressive therapies such as anti-CD20 therapies (70%) and stem cell transplantation (73%). Patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (97%) or hormonal therapies (100%) demonstrated high seroconversion post vaccination. Patients with prior COVID-19 infection demonstrated higher anti-spike IgG titers post vaccination. Relatively lower IgG titers were observed following vaccination with the adenoviral than with mRNA-based vaccines. These data demonstrate generally high immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination in oncology patients and identify immunosuppressed cohorts that need novel vaccination or passive immunization strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Seroconversion , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Host-Pathogen Interactions/immunology , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Public Health Surveillance , Risk Factors , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/blood , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Vaccination
3.
Pharmacol Res ; 157: 104872, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318931

ABSTRACT

The rapidly progressing of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a global concern. This meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of current option of therapies for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) besides COVID-19, in an attempt to identify promising therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and WANFANG DATA for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies that evaluated therapies (hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy, and ribavirin-based therapy, etc.) for SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The primary outcomes were mortality, virological eradication and clinical improvement, and secondary outcomes were improvement of symptoms and chest radiography results, incidence of acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS), utilization of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AEs). Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models, and the quality of evidence was appraised using GRADEpro. Eighteen articles (5 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 11 retrospective cohort studies) involving 4,941 patients were included. Compared with control treatment, anti-coronary virus interventions significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96; I2 = 81.3%), remarkably ameliorate clinical improvement (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19) and radiographical improvement (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11-2.36, I2 = 11.0 %), without manifesting clear effect on virological eradication, incidence of ARDS, intubation, and AEs. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of ribavirin and corticosteroids remarkably decreased mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68). The lopinavir/ritonavir-based combination showed superior virological eradication and radiographical improvement with reduced rate of ARDS. Likewise, hydroxychloroquine improved radiographical result. For safety, ribavirin could induce more bradycardia, anemia and transaminitis. Meanwhile, hydroxychloroquine could increase AEs rate especially diarrhea. Overall, the quality of evidence on most outcomes were very low. In conclusion, although we could not draw a clear conclusion for the recommendation of potential therapies for COVID-19 considering the very low quality of evidence and wide heterogeneity of interventions and indications, our results may help clinicians to comprehensively understand the advantages and drawbacks of each anti-coronavirus agents on efficacy and safety profiles. Lopinavir/ritonavir combinations might observe better virological eradication capability than other anti-coronavirus agents. Conversely, ribavirin might cause more safety concerns especially bradycardia. Thus, large RCTs objectively assessing the efficacy of antiviral therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infections should be conducted with high priority.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/drug therapy , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(6): e419-e426, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1307283

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Various observations have suggested that the course of COVID-19 might be less favourable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases receiving rituximab compared with those not receiving rituximab. We aimed to investigate whether treatment with rituximab is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. METHODS: In this cohort study, we analysed data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with rituximab (rituximab group) compared with patients who did not receive rituximab (no rituximab group). Severe disease was defined as that requiring admission to an intensive care unit or leading to death. Secondary objectives were to analyse deaths and duration of hospital stay. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding factors (age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body-mass index, interstitial lung disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, corticosteroid use, chronic renal failure, and the underlying disease [rheumatoid arthritis vs others]). Odds ratios and hazard ratios and their 95% CIs were calculated as effect size, by dividing the two population mean differences by their SD. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353609. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2020, and Nov 20, 2020, data were collected for 1090 patients (mean age 55·2 years [SD 16·4]); 734 (67%) were female and 356 (33%) were male. Of the 1090 patients, 137 (13%) developed severe COVID-19 and 89 (8%) died. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, severe disease was observed more frequently (effect size 3·26, 95% CI 1·66-6·40, p=0·0006) and the duration of hospital stay was markedly longer (0·62, 0·46-0·85, p=0·0024) in the 63 patients in the rituximab group than in the 1027 patients in the no rituximab group. 13 (21%) of 63 patients in the rituximab group died compared with 76 (7%) of 1027 patients in the no rituximab group, but the adjusted risk of death was not significantly increased in the rituximab group (effect size 1·32, 95% CI 0·55-3·19, p=0·53). INTERPRETATION: Rituximab therapy is associated with more severe COVID-19. Rituximab will have to be prescribed with particular caution in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. FUNDING: None.

5.
Eur J Pharmacol ; 906: 174248, 2021 Sep 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1267662

ABSTRACT

Concern regarding coronavirus (CoV) outbreaks has stayed relevant to global health in the last decades. Emerging COVID-19 infection, caused by the novel SARS-CoV2, is now a pandemic, bringing a substantial burden to human health. Interferon (IFN), combined with other antivirals and various treatments, has been used to treat and prevent MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV2 infections. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of IFN-based treatments and combinational therapy with antivirals, corticosteroids, traditional medicine, and other treatments. Major healthcare databases and grey literature were investigated. A three-stage screening was utilized, and included studies were checked against the protocol eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed, followed by narrative data synthesis. Fifty-five distinct studies of SARS-CoV2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV were spotted. Our narrative synthesis showed a possible benefit in the use of IFN. A good quality cohort showed lower CRP levels in Arbidol (ARB) + IFN group vs. IFN only group. Another study reported a significantly shorter chest X-ray (CXR) resolution in IFN-Alfacon-1 + corticosteroid group compared with the corticosteroid only group in SARS-CoV patients. In a COVID-19 trial, total adverse drug events (ADEs) were much lower in the Favipiravir (FPV) + IFN-α group compared with the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.001). Also, nausea in patients receiving FPV + IFN-α regimen was significantly lower (P = 0.03). Quantitative analysis of mortality did not show a conclusive effect for IFN/RBV treatment in six moderately heterogeneous MERS-CoV studies (log OR = -0.05, 95% CI: (-0.71,0.62), I2 = 44.71%). A meta-analysis of three COVID-19 studies did not show a conclusive nor meaningful relation between receiving IFN and COVID-19 severity (log OR = -0.44, 95% CI: (-1.13,0.25), I2 = 31.42%). A lack of high-quality cohorts and controlled trials was observed. Evidence suggests the potential efficacy of several combination IFN therapies such as lower ADEs, quicker resolution of CXR, or a decrease in inflammatory cytokines; Still, these options must possibly be further explored before being recommended in public guidelines. For all major CoVs, our results may indicate a lack of a definitive effect of IFN treatment on mortality. We recommend such therapeutics be administered with extreme caution until further investigation uncovers high-quality evidence in favor of IFN or combination therapy with IFN.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Interferons/therapeutic use , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/drug therapy , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Humans , Interferons/adverse effects , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/diagnostic imaging , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/mortality
6.
Stat Med ; 40(22): 4890-4913, 2021 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1265406

ABSTRACT

In sequential analysis, hypothesis testing is performed repeatedly in a prospective manner as data accrue over time to quickly arrive at an accurate conclusion or decision. In this tutorial paper, detailed explanations are given for both designing and operating sequential testing. We describe the calculation of exact thresholds for stopping or signaling, statistical power, expected time to signal, and expected sample sizes for sequential analysis with Poisson and binary type data. The calculations are run using the package Sequential, constructed in R language. Real data examples are inspired on clinical trials practice, such as the current efforts to develop treatments to face the COVID-19 pandemic, and the comparison of treatments of osteoporosis. In addition, we mimic the monitoring of adverse events following influenza vaccination and Pediarix vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Mult Scler Relat Disord ; 52: 103014, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230681

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Ocrelizumab (OCR) is a monoclonal antibody directed at B-cells that is FDA approved for treatment of RRMS and PPMS. Prior studies have raised concerns about patients' ability to form antibodies in response to various antigens, especially SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study is to determine whether OCR attenuates the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with MS as compared with other disease modifying therapies. METHODS: This is a case-control study looking at the odds of developing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in patients treated with OCR versus other disease modifying therapies. From May 13, 2020 through March 1, 2021, patients with a RT-PCR-confirmed infection to SARS-CoV-2 were tested for presence of antibodies and the data was recorded. Outpatients with MS at the Methodist Hospitals Comprehensive MS Center were selected who had a prior infection with COVID-19 as demonstrated by RT-PCR in the electronic health records. Odds ratios were calculated to compare rates of antibody formation with OCR exposure vs other DMT. RESULTS: 24 patients had evidence of COVID-19 and had antibody testing available at the time of analysis. Patients who received OCR had decreased odds of forming antibodies (OR 0.045, p = 0.011, 95% CI (0.004,0.488)). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received OCR within the prior 6 months of COVID-19 infection had decreased odds of developing antibodies as compared with other DMTs. This suggests that OCR may attenuate the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2. Additional studies should analyze the odds of spike protein antibody formation in response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for patients on OCR.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Multiple Sclerosis , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Viral , Antibody Formation , COVID-19 Vaccines , Case-Control Studies , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Reprod Biol Endocrinol ; 19(1): 69, 2021 May 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1228997

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: No information exists in the literature regarding the effect of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on subsequent IVF cycle attempt. We therefore aim to assess the influence of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on IVF treatments. DESIGN: An observational study. SETTING: A tertiary, university-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All couples undergoing consecutive ovarian stimulation cycles for IVF before and after receiving mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and reached the ovum pick-up (OPU) stage. The stimulation characteristics and embryological variables of couples undergoing IVF treatments after receiving mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were assessed and compared to their IVF cycles prior to vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stimulation characteristics and embryological variables. RESULTS: Thirty-six couples resumed IVF treatment 7-85 days after receiving mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. No in-between cycles differences were observed in ovarian stimulation and embryological variables before and after receiving mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine did not affect patients' performance or ovarian reserve in their immediate subsequent IVF cycle. Future larger studies with longer follow-up will be needed to validate our observations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Embryo Transfer , Fertilization in Vitro , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Female , Humans , Infertility/therapy , Male , Ovarian Reserve , Ovulation Induction , Pregnancy , RNA, Messenger , Treatment Outcome
9.
Gynecol Endocrinol ; 37(10): 895-897, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1223203

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: No information exists in the literature regarding the effect of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) infection on subsequent in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle attempt. We, therefore, aim to assess the influence of COVID-19 infection on IVF treatments. DESIGN: An observational study. SETTING: A tertiary, university-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive couples undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF, before and after recovering from COVID-19 infection, and reached the ovum pick-up (OPU) stage. The stimulation characteristics and embryological variables of couples undergoing IVF treatments after recovering from COVID-19 infection were assessed and compared to their IVF cycles prior to COVID-19 infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stimulation characteristics and embryological variables. RESULTS: Nine couples (seven with the female partner infection and two with the male partner) resumed IVF treatment 8-92 d after recovering from the COVID-19 infection (negative polymerase chain reaction [PCR]). No in-between cycles differences were observed in OS and embryological variables between the cycles before and after recovering from the COVID-19 infection, except for a significantly lower proportion of top-quality embryos. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection did not affect patients' performance or ovarian reserve in their immediate subsequent IVF cycle, except for a reduced proportion of top-quality embryos (TQEs). We therefore suggest, to postpone IVF treatment for a least 3 months (duration of folliculogenesis and spermatogenesis) after recovering from COVID-19 infection, aiming to recruit healthy gametes that were not exposed to COVID-19 infection during their development.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , Embryo Transfer/statistics & numerical data , Fertilization in Vitro/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Embryo, Mammalian/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Ovarian Reserve , Ovulation Induction
10.
Neurologist ; 26(3): 108-111, 2021 May 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1214713

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with a hypercoagulable state, increasing the risk for ischemic stroke. In select cases, patients are already on anticoagulation therapy. Such examples highlight the severity of COVID-19's hyperthrombotic state, and raise questions regarding optimal stroke prevention in these patients. CASE REPORT: An 84-year-ool male with past medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was admitted for respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia. He was continued on his home apixaban 5 mg twice daily. On day 2 of admission, he developed a new aphasia, and right-sided facial droop. Computed tomography (CT) head was unrevealing. CT angiography did not show large vessel occlusion. CT perfusion demonstrated a left middle cerebral artery ischemic penumbra, without core. He was not eligible for thrombolysis or thrombectomy interventions. Later CT head confirmed L middle cerebral artery infarct. The patient's D-dimer was 1,184 ng/mL on day 1 of admission, and increased to 111,574 by day 4. His hypoxia worsened, requiring intubation and transfer to the ICU. He experienced further clinical decline and eventual demise. CONCLUSION: Ischemic stroke in anticoagulated patients with COVID-19 has been previously reported. Such cases emphasize the severity of the coronavirus virus associated hypercoagulable state. A majority of reported cases have occurred in patients continuing their ambulatory therapy. Overall, such cases are likely underreported. There are current trials comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. There are no studies specifically addressing anticoagulation agent failure in these patients. Further research is required this area to determine the optimal therapy for patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Ischemic Stroke/etiology , Aged, 80 and over , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , Fatal Outcome , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Male , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/drug therapy , Pyrazoles/administration & dosage , Pyridones/administration & dosage
11.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(2): 209-220, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1197659

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity. LIMITATIONS: Low-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Drug Administration Schedule , Humans , Length of Stay , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
12.
World J Clin Cases ; 9(10): 2205-2217, 2021 Apr 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1178582

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly to multiple countries through its infectious agent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The severity, atypical clinical presentation, and lack of specific anti-viral treatments have posed a challenge for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. Understanding the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases in different geographical areas is essential to improve the prognosis of COVID-19 patients and slow the spread of the disease. AIM: To investigate the epidemiological and clinical characteristics and main therapeutic strategy for confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Liaoning Province, China. METHODS: Adult patients (n = 65) with confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled in this retrospective study from January 20 to February 29, 2020 in Liaoning Province, China. Pharyngeal swabs and sputum specimens were collected from the patients for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleic acid. Patient demographic information and clinical data were collected from the medical records. Based on the severity of COVID-19, the patients were divided into nonsevere and severe groups. All patients were followed until March 20, 2020. RESULTS: The mean age of 65 COVID-19 patients was 45.5 ± 14.4 years, 56.9% were men, and 24.6% were severe cases. During the 14 d before symptom onset, 25 (38.5%) patients lived or stayed in Wuhan, whereas 8 (12.3%) had no clear history of exposure. Twenty-nine (44.6%) patients had at least one comorbidity; hypertension and diabetes were the most common comorbidities. Compared with nonsevere patients, severe patients had significantly lower lymphocyte counts [median value 1.3 × 109/L (interquartile range 0.9-1.95) vs 0.82 × 109/L (0.44-1.08), P < 0.001], elevated levels of lactate dehydrogenase [450 U/L (386-476) vs 707 U/L (592-980), P < 0.001] and C-reactive protein [6.1 mg/L (1.5-7.2) vs 52 mg/L (12.7-100.8), P < 0.001], and a prolonged median duration of viral shedding [19.5 d (16-21) vs 23.5 d (19.6-30.3), P = 0.001]. The overall median viral shedding time was 19.5 d, and the longest was 53 d. Severe patients were more frequently treated with lopinavir/ritonavir, antibiotics, glucocorticoid therapy, immunoglobulin, thymosin, and oxygen support. All patients were discharged following treatment in quarantine. CONCLUSION: Our findings may facilitate the identification of severe cases and inform clinical treatment and quarantine decisions regarding COVID-19.

13.
Lancet Oncol ; 22(3): 309-320, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1164661

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer outcomes is of increasing concern. However, the extent to which key treatment modalities have been affected is unclear. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on radiotherapy activity in England. METHODS: In this population-based study, data relating to all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the English NHS, between Feb 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020, were extracted from the National Radiotherapy Dataset. Changes in mean weekly radiotherapy courses, attendances (reflecting fractions), and fractionation patterns following the start of the UK lockdown were compared with corresponding months in 2019 overall, for specific diagnoses, and across age groups. The significance of changes in radiotherapy activity during lockdown was examined using interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis. FINDINGS: In 2020, mean weekly radiotherapy courses fell by 19·9% in April, 6·2% in May, and 11·6% in June compared with corresponding months in 2019. A relatively greater fall was observed for attendances (29·1% in April, 31·4% in May, and 31·5% in June). These changes were significant on ITS analysis (p<0·0001). A greater reduction in treatment courses between 2019 and 2020 was seen for patients aged 70 years or older compared with those aged younger than 70 years (34·4% vs 7·3% in April). By diagnosis, the largest reduction from 2019 to 2020 in treatment courses was for prostate cancer (77·0% in April) and non-melanoma skin cancer (72·4% in April). Conversely, radiotherapy courses in April, 2020, compared with April, 2019, increased by 41·2% in oesophageal cancer, 64·2% in bladder cancer, and 36·3% in rectal cancer. Increased use of ultra-hypofractionated (26 Gy in five fractions) breast radiotherapy as a percentage of all courses (0·2% in April, 2019, to 60·6% in April, 2020; ITS p<0·0001) contributed to the substantial reduction in attendances. INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy activity fell significantly, but use of hypofractionated regimens rapidly increased in the English NHS during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. An increase in treatments for some cancers suggests that radiotherapy compensated for reduced surgical activity. These data will assist health-care providers in understanding the indirect consequences of the pandemic and the role of radiotherapy services in minimising these consequences. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United Kingdom/epidemiology
14.
JAMA Psychiatry ; 78(7): 767-777, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1159461

ABSTRACT

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US. Design and Setting: This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD. Interventions: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM). Main Outcomes and Measures: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Results: In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.


Subject(s)
Opiate Substitution Treatment/economics , Opioid-Related Disorders/economics , Adult , Buprenorphine/economics , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , Combined Modality Therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Delayed-Action Preparations , Female , Humans , Male , Methadone/economics , Methadone/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Naloxone/administration & dosage , Naloxone/economics , Naloxone/therapeutic use , Opiate Overdose/drug therapy , Opiate Overdose/economics , Opiate Overdose/prevention & control , Opioid-Related Disorders/mortality , Opioid-Related Disorders/therapy , Psychotherapy/economics , Psychotherapy/methods , Treatment Outcome
15.
Molecules ; 26(7)2021 Mar 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1159212

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has reached over 100 million worldwide. Due to the multi-targeted nature of the virus, it is clear that drugs providing anti-COVID-19 effects need to be developed at an accelerated rate, and a combinatorial approach may stand to be more successful than a single drug therapy. Among several targets and pathways that are under investigation, the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and specifically angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), and Ca2+-mediated SARS-CoV-2 cellular entry and replication are noteworthy. A combination of ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a critical line of therapy for pulmonary hypertension, has shown therapeutic relevance in COVID-19 when investigated independently. To that end, we conducted in silico modeling using BIOiSIM, an AI-integrated mechanistic modeling platform by utilizing known preclinical in vitro and in vivo datasets to accurately simulate systemic therapy disposition and site-of-action penetration of the CCBs and ACEi compounds to tissues implicated in COVID-19 pathogenesis.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/pharmacokinetics , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Repositioning/methods , Hypertension, Pulmonary/drug therapy , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/pharmacokinetics , Antiviral Agents/blood , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , COVID-19/complications , Calcium Channel Blockers/pharmacokinetics , Computer Simulation , Databases, Pharmaceutical , Drug Development/methods , Humans , Hypertension, Pulmonary/virology , Tissue Distribution
16.
Infect Dis Ther ; 10(2): 839-851, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1144416

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have symptoms requiring acute and follow-up care. The aims of this study were to assess (1) provider-reported use of medications and their perceived effectiveness and (2) degree of difficulty managing specific symptoms at episodic COVID-19 care sites and in a longitudinal monitoring program. METHODS: We sent an online survey to physicians, advanced practice providers, and registered nurses redeployed to COVID-19 care sites at an academic medical center from March to May 2020. We asked about the use of medications and perceived effectiveness of medications to treat symptoms of COVID-19 and the perceived challenge of symptom management. Comparison was made by provider type (episodic or longitudinal site of care). RESULTS: Responses from 64 providers were included. The most frequently used medications were acetaminophen (87.1% of respondents), benzonatate (83.9%), and albuterol metered dose inhalers (MDI) (80.6%). Therapies for lower respiratory tract symptoms were reported as more commonly used by longitudinal follow-up providers compared to episodic providers including guaifenesin (90.6% vs 60.0%, p = 0.007), benzonatate (93.8% vs 73.3%, p = 0.04), nebulized albuterol for patients with asthma (75.0% vs 43.3%, p = 0.019), and albuterol MDIs for patients without asthma (90.6% vs 66.7%, p = 0.029). Medications found to have the highest perceived efficacy by respondents using the therapy (> 80% reporting "very efficacious") included albuterol, acetaminophen for fever, non-sedating antihistamines, nasal steroid spray, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for myalgia, arthralgia, or headache. Lower respiratory symptoms and anxiety were rated as the most challenging symptoms to manage. CONCLUSIONS: Providers reported that clinical care of mild COVID-19 with medications in common use for other respiratory infections is effective, both at episodic care and longitudinal sites of care, but that specific symptoms are still challenging to manage.

17.
CNS Drugs ; 35(3): 317-330, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1141535

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) target immunity and have the potential to increase the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and alter its clinical course. We assessed these risks in patients with MS (PwMS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the overall risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, severe disease course, and potential population-level predictors of COVID-19 infection in PwMS, and to provide a context using a cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, the association of different MS DMTs with the incidence and clinical course of COVID-19 was evaluated. Safety data from the Biogen Global Safety Database are also presented on reported cases of COVID-19 in patients treated with Biogen MS therapies. METHODS: The IBM® Explorys electronic health record database of > 72,000,000 patients from US healthcare networks identified patients with MS or SLE, with and without polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19. COVID-19 cumulative incidence, hospitalization, and deaths among DMT classes were compared using logistic regression (adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, and race/ethnicity). As a secondary data source to assess safety data, COVID-19 reports for Biogen MS therapies were extracted and described from Biogen's Global Safety Database. RESULTS: 30,478 PwMS with an open DMT prescription were identified within Explorys; 344 were COVID-19 positive. The most significant risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 were comorbidity score ≥ 1, body mass index ≥ 30, and Black/African ancestry. Similar risk factors were also identified for patients with SLE. Patients with MS were less likely to develop COVID-19 when treated with interferons (0.61%) and glatiramer acetate (0.51%), vs all other MS DMTs (both p < 0.001); anti-CD20 therapy was associated with the highest risk (3.45%; p < 0.0001). In the Biogen Global Safety Database, we identified 1217 patients who were COVID-19 positive treated with intramuscular interferon beta-1a, peginterferon beta-1a, natalizumab, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, or fampridine. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities, obesity, and Black/African ancestry, but not age, were associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in PwMS. Interferons and glatiramer acetate were associated with a reduced COVID-19 risk, whereas anti-CD20 therapies were associated with an increased risk, within the treated MS cohort. COVID-19 safety reports for patients receiving Biogen MS therapies were consistent with the Explorys database and MS literature, illustrating the replicability and power of this approach.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Multiple Sclerosis/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , African Americans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alemtuzumab/therapeutic use , Azathioprine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Cladribine/therapeutic use , Comorbidity , Crotonates/therapeutic use , Cyclophosphamide/therapeutic use , Cyclosporine/therapeutic use , Databases, Factual , Dimethyl Fumarate/therapeutic use , Female , Fingolimod Hydrochloride/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxybutyrates , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , Incidence , Interferon-beta/therapeutic use , Logistic Models , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/drug therapy , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/epidemiology , Male , Methotrexate/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Mitoxantrone/therapeutic use , Multiple Sclerosis/epidemiology , Mycophenolic Acid/therapeutic use , Natalizumab/therapeutic use , Nitriles , Obesity/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Rituximab/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Toluidines/therapeutic use , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
18.
Turk J Med Sci ; 51(4): 1624-1630, 2021 08 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1138801

ABSTRACT

Background/aim: SARS-CoV-2, a ribonucleic acid coronavirus, rapidly spread worldwide within a short timeframe. Although different antiviral, antiinflammatory, and immunomodulatory drugs are used, current evidence is insufficient as to which drug is more efficient. Our study compared favipiravir and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) therapies in inpatient care for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Materials and methods: Demographic data, test results, treatments, and latest status of patients receiving inpatient COVID-19 pneumonia therapy were recorded. The initial favipiravir and LPV/RTV receiving groups were compared regarding the need for intensive care units (ICU) and mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed by including variables showing significant differences as a result of paired comparisons into the model. Results: Of the 204 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, 59 (28.9%), 131 (64.2%), and 14 were administered LPV/RTV, favipiravir, and favipiravir with LPV/RTV, respectively. No difference was found in age, sex, presence of comorbidity, and tocilizumab, systemic corticosteroid, and plasma therapy use between patients administered with these three different treatment regimens. The mean mortality age of the patients was 71 ± 14.3 years, which was substantially greater than that of the survivors (54.2 ± 15.5 years). Compared with patients administered with LPV/RTV, ICU admission and mortality rates were lower in patients administered with favipiravir. CK-MB, AST, CRP, LDH, and creatinine levels were higher, whereas lymphocyte counts were lower in patients who died. Age, AST, CRP, LDH, and neutrophil counts were higher in patients needing ICU, and eosinophil and lymphocyte counts were significantly lower. Logistic regression analysis showed that favipiravir use independently decreased mortality (p = 0.006). Conclusion: The use of favipiravir was more effective than LPV/RTV in reducing mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Amides/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Pyrazines/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Aged , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , HIV Protease Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
19.
Bioinformatics ; 2021 Mar 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1123228

ABSTRACT

MOTIVATION: COVID-19 has several distinct clinical phases: a viral replication phase, an inflammatory phase, and in some patients, a hyper-inflammatory phase. High mortality is associated with patients developing cytokine storm syndrome. Treatment of hyper-inflammation in these patients using existing, approved therapies with proven safety profiles could address the immediate need to reduce mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed the changes in the gene expression, pathways and putative mechanisms induced by SARS-CoV2 in NHBE, and A549 cells, as well as COVID-19 lung vs. their respective controls. We used these changes to identify FDA approved drugs that could be repurposed to help COVID-19 patients with severe symptoms related to hyper-inflammation. We identified methylprednisolone (MP) as a potential leading therapy. The results were then confirmed in five independent validation data sets including Vero E6 cells, lung and intestinal organoids, as well as additional patient lung sample vs. their respective controls. Finally, the efficacy of MP was validated in an independent clinical study. Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred at a significantly lower rate in the MP-treated group compared to control group (29.6% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.027). Clinical results confirmed the in silico prediction that MP could improve outcomes in severe cases of COVID-19. A low number needed to treat (NNT = 5) suggests MP may be more efficacious than dexamethasone or hydrocortisone. AVAILABILITY: iPathwayGuide is available at https://ipathwayguide.advaitabio.com/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

20.
Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol ; 14(4): 439-444, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1121131

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are useful to study the role of individual and contextual factors in which therapies vs placebos are administered and to provide an important perspective for understanding the phenomenon of nocebo-related risks.Areas covered: The results of nocebo effects in RCT placebo groups, measured in terms of adverse events (AEs) and dropouts, will be presented as an explicative framework for the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are the only RCTs routinely conducted during the pandemic. Information about efficacy and safety of different vaccines represents a fertile ground for nocebo phenomena. Individual and contextual factors will be emphasized in order to understand the presence of a refusal of immunization associated with a specific vaccine considered less effective and safe. Critical aspects and some guidelines will be presented in order to counteract the nocebo effects and to improve adherence to drug treatments and the vaccination campaign.Expert opinion: The nocebo effect could explain the presence of strong resistance in European countries to immunization with a vaccine perceived as less effective, compared to others. Increased awareness of the nocebo effect would be relevant as it could lead to a greater participation in the vaccination campaign and in protecting individuals against SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Nocebo Effect , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Europe , Humans , Medication Adherence , Patient Dropouts , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Vaccination Refusal/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL