Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(11): e061870, 2022 11 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2097985

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID-19, where symptoms persist 12 weeks after the initial SARS-CoV-2-infection, is a substantial problem for individuals and society in the surge of the pandemic. Common symptoms are fatigue, postexertional malaise and cognitive dysfunction. There is currently no effective treatment and the underlying mechanisms are unknown, although several hypotheses exist, with chronic inflammation as a common denominator. In prospective studies, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested to be effective for the treatment of similar syndromes such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. A case series has suggested positive effects of HBOT in long COVID-19. This randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial will explore HBOT as a potential treatment for long COVID-19. The primary objective is to evaluate if HBOT improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with long COVID-19 compared with placebo/sham. The main secondary objective is to evaluate whether HBOT improves endothelial function, objective physical performance and short-term HRQoL. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II clinical trial in 80 previously healthy subjects debilitated due to long COVID-19, with low HRQoL. Clinical data, HRQoL questionnaires, blood samples, objective tests and activity metre data will be collected at baseline. Subjects will be randomised to a maximum of 10 treatments with hyperbaric oxygen or sham treatment over 6 weeks. Assessments for safety and efficacy will be performed at 6, 13, 26 and 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint (physical domains in RAND 36-Item Health Survey) and main secondary endpoints defined at 13 weeks after baseline. Data will be reviewed by an independent data safety monitoring board. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by the Swedish National Institutional Review Board (2021-02634) and the Swedish Medical Products Agency (5.1-2020-36673). Positive, negative and inconclusive results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04842448.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Oxigenoterapia Hiperbárica , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como Asunto , COVID-19/terapia , Método Doble Ciego , Estudios Prospectivos , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del Tratamiento , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19
2.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 108, 2022 Jan 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662412

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A mismatch between a widespread use of broad-spectrum antibiotic agents and a low prevalence of reported bacterial co-infections in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections has been observed. Herein, we sought to characterize and compare bacterial co-infections at admission in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, influenza or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of bacterial co-infections at admission in SARS-CoV-2, influenza or RSV-positive adult patients with CAP admitted to Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from year 2011 to 2020. The prevalence of bacterial co-infections was investigated and compared between the three virus groups. In each virus group, length of stay, ICU-admission and 30-day mortality was compared in patients with and without bacterial co-infection, adjusting for age, sex and co-morbidities. In the SARS-CoV-2 group, risk factors for bacterial co-infection, were assessed using logistic regression models and creation of two scoring systems based on disease severity, age, co-morbidities and inflammatory markers with assessment of concordance statistics. RESULTS: Compared to influenza and RSV, the bacterial co-infection testing frequency in SARS-CoV-2 was lower for all included test modalities. Four percent [46/1243 (95% CI 3-5)] of all SARS-CoV-2 patients had a bacterial co-infection at admission, whereas the proportion was 27% [209/775 (95% CI 24-30)] and 29% [69/242 (95% CI 23-35)] in influenza and RSV, respectively. S. pneumoniae and S. aureus constituted the most common bacterial findings for all three virus groups. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with and without bacterial co-infection at admission, a relevant association could not be demonstrated nor excluded with regards to risk of ICU-admission (aHR 1.53, 95% CI 0.87-2.69) or 30-day mortality (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 0.66-2.46) in adjusted analyses. Bacterial co-infection was associated with increased inflammatory markers, but the diagnostic accuracy was not substantially different in a scoring system based on disease severity, age, co-morbidities and inflammatory parameters [C statistic 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.74)], compared to using disease severity, age and co-morbidities only [C statistic 0.63 (95% CI 0.56-0.70)]. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of bacterial co-infections was significantly lower in patients with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 positive pneumonia as compared to influenza and RSV positive pneumonia.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfección , Orthomyxoviridae , Neumonía Viral , Virus Sincitial Respiratorio Humano , Adulto , Coinfección/epidemiología , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Staphylococcus aureus
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA