Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Mycoses ; 2022 Nov 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2234270

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Since February 2021 active screening of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has been implemented in our institution. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate CAPA incidence in our centre and evaluate performance of our screening protocol. METHODS: We screened once per week, collecting endotracheal aspirates for fungal culture and galactomannan (GM) and serum for 1,3-ß-D-glucan (BG). In case of positivity (GM more than 4.5, platelia assay, and/or BG >7 pg/ml, wako and/or positive fungal culture), second-level investigations were performed to pursue CAPA diagnosis according to ECMM/ISHAM criteria: bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fungal culture and GM, chest computed tomography (CT), serum GM. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were screened (median age 64 years, range 39-79; 28 (27.4%) females). Twenty-two patients were diagnosed with CAPA (21%). 12 patients were positive for serum BG, 17 patients were positive for endotracheal aspirates GM and 27 patients were positive for endotracheal aspirates fungal culture. Thirty-two BALs were performed, and 26 patients underwent CT chest. Following the second level investigations 61% of the patients with positive screening tests were diagnosed with CAPA. Serum BG above 20 pg/ml or positive serum GM were always associated with typical CT chest signs of aspergillosis. Compared with 1 single positive test, having 2 positive screening test was significantly more associated with CAPA diagnosis (p = .0004). CONCLUSIONS: Active CAPA screening with serum 1,3-ß-D-glucan and endotracheal aspirates galactomannan and fungal cultures and consequent second level investigations led to high number of CAPA diagnosis. Combining more positive fungal biomarkers was more predictive of CAPA diagnosis.

2.
Clin Exp Rheumatol ; 39(5): 1119-1125, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2207207

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The results of the RECOVERY trial identified dexamethasone as the first pharmacological therapy that reduces mortality in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse glucocorticoid therapy for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoronaVirus (CoV), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV or SARS-CoV-2 infections and describe a case-series of COVID-19 patients treated with off-label pulse doses of methylprednisolone. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse therapy for betacoronaviridae infections as described in the protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020190183). All consecutive patients admitted to Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova di Reggio Emilia or Guastalla Hospital with COVID-19 between March 1st and April 30th, 2020 and treated with methylprednisolone 1 gram/day for at least three days were included in the case series. A retrospective review of available computed tomography (CT) scan and chest x-ray was performed independently by two radiologists blinded to clinical data, and discordances were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Twenty papers were included for SARS, but only two were comparative and were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Likewise, eleven papers were included for COVID-19, four of which were comparative and were considered for the primary outcome analysis. Included studies for both SARS and COVID-19 are mostly retrospective and highly heterogeneous, with lethality ranging from 0% to 100% and ICU admission rate ranging from 9% to 100%. Fourteen patients were included in our case series, 7 males and 7 females. CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trial is available yet for corticosteroids pulse-therapy defined as at least ≥500mg/day methylprednisolone in patients with emerging coronavirus pneumonia. Lethality among our cohort is high (4/14), but this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the fact that in our setting pulse-steroids were used in patients not eligible for other treatments because of comorbidities or as rescue therapy. The incidence of steroid-related adverse events seems low in our cohort. The quality of the evidence on glucocorticoid pulse-therapy in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 is poor. Randomised controlled trials are greatly needed.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Coronaviridae , Femenino , Glucocorticoides/efectos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA