RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Different antivirals are available for the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Our aim was to describe a real-world experience of outpatient management of COVID-19 subjects at high risk of progression. METHODS: This prospective observational study conducted in the University Hospital of Pisa (January 2022-July 2022) included consecutive COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for disease progression. Patients received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, molnupiravir, or 3-day remdesivir, according to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) indications. All patients were followed up until 30 days from the first positive nasopharyngeal swab. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were occurrence of adverse events and a negative test within 10 days from the first positive test. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with death or hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 562 outpatients were included: 114 (20.3%) received molnupiravir, 252 (44.8%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 196 (34.9%) 3-day remdesivir. The composite endpoint occurred in 2.5% of patients and was more frequent in patients treated with remdesivir (5.1%) compared with molnupiravir (1.8%) or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (0.8%, ANOVA among groups p = 0.012). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, presence of ≥ 3 comorbidities, hematological disease, gastrointestinal symptoms, and each-day increment from symptoms onset were factors associated with death or hospitalization, while antiviral treatment was not a predictor. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (49.2%). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with remdesivir was associated with a higher probability of having a negative test within 10 days from the first positive one. CONCLUSION: Death or hospitalization did not differ among high-risk COVID-19 outpatients treated with currently available antivirals. Safety and time to a negative test differed among the three drugs.
RESUMEN
Several studies reported acute symptomatic seizures as a possible neurological complication of COVID-19 pneumonia. Apart from metabolic imbalances, hypoxia, and fever, other ictogenic mechanisms are likely related to an immune-mediated damage. The same mechanisms are shared by other respiratory viruses. Since neurotropic properties of SARS-CoV-2 have been questioned, we investigated whether SARS-CoV-2 has a similar ictogenic potential to other respiratory non-neurotropic viruses. We conducted a retrospective study identifying 1141 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and 146 patients with H1N1/H3N2 pneumonia. We found a similar prevalence of seizures in the two viral pneumonia (1.05% with SARS-CoV-2 vs 2.05% with influenza; pâ¯=â¯0.26). We detailed clinical, electroencephalographic, and neuroradiological features of each patient, together with the hypothesized pathogenesis of seizures. Previous epilepsy or pre-existing predisposing conditions (i.e., Alzheimer's disease, stroke, cerebral neoplasia) were found in one-third of patients that experienced seizures, while two-thirds of patients had seizures without known risk factors other than pneumonia in both groups. The prevalence of pre-existing predisposing conditions and disease severity indexes was similar in SARS-CoV-2 and H1N1/H3N2 pneumonia, thus excluding they could act as potential confounders. Considering all the patients with viral pneumonia together, previous epilepsy (pâ¯<â¯0.001) and the need for ventilatory support (pâ¯<â¯0.001), but not the presence of pre-existing predisposing conditions (pâ¯=â¯0.290), were associated with seizure risk. Our study showed that SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses share a similar ictogenic potential. In both these infections, seizures are rare but serious events, and can manifest without pre-existing predisposing conditions, in particular when pneumonia is severe, thus suggesting an interplay between disease severity and host response as a major mechanism of ictogenesis, rather than a virus-specific mechanism.