Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Clin Exp Med ; 23(6): 2739-2748, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36780118

RESUMO

Patients with cancer have many comorbidities that increase their risk of death from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reduce the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 in the general population. To our knowledge, no studies have focused on the clinical efficacy of mAbs compared to no outpatient treatment exclusively among patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, who are often excluded from clinical trials. We studied patients with cancer who had COVID-19 between 11.9.2020 and 7.21.2022 and received mAbs in an outpatient setting. We compared hospitalization and mortality rates to those of patients with cancer concurrently diagnosed with COVID-19, who were eligible for mAbs, but did not receive any outpatient treatment. 63 patients received mAbs and 89 no outpatient treatment. Administration of mAbs was associated with lower 90-day hospitalization (20.6% vs. 60.7%, p <0.001), all-cause (6.3% vs. 19.1%, p 0.025) and COVID-19-attributed (3.2% vs. 14.6%, p 0.019) mortality rates, and lower peak O2 requirements (ordinal Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI] = 0.20-0.53). Administration of mAbs (aHR 0.21, p <0.001), age (≥ 60 years, adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] 1.86, p=0.033), and metastases (aHR 0.41, p 0.007) were independently associated with hospitalization. mAb treatment remained significantly associated with all-cause (aHR 0.27, p 0.019) and COVID-19-attributed (aHR 0.19, p 0.031) mortality, after adjustment for other factors. mAb administration was associated with improved clinical outcomes among vulnerable patients with cancer and COVID-19. With no mAbs approved currently for treatment against the prevalent circulating variants, the development of new mAbs should be a research priority.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Morbidade , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico
2.
Res Sq ; 2023 Jan 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36711556

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer have many comorbidities that increase their risk of death from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reduce the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 in the general population. To our knowledge, no studies have focused on the clinical efficacy of mAbs compared to no outpatient treatment exclusively among patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, who are often excluded from clinical trials. METHODS: We studied patients with cancer who had COVID-19 between 11.9.2020 and 7.21.2022 and received mAbs in an outpatient setting. We compared hospitalization and mortality rates to those of patients with cancer concurrently diagnosed with COVID-19, who were eligible for mAbs, but did not receive any outpatient treatment. RESULTS: 63 patients received mAbs and 89 no outpatient treatment. Administration of mAbs was associated with lower 90-day hospitalization (20.6% vs. 60.7%, p<0.001), all-cause (6.3% vs. 19.1%, p=0.025) and COVID-19-attributed (3.2% vs. 14.6%, p=0.019) mortality rates, and lower peak O2 requirements (ordinal Odds Ratio [OR]=0.33, 95%Confidence Intervals [CI]=0.20-0.53). Administration of mAbs (aHR 0.21, p<0.001), age (≥ 60 years, adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] 1.86, p=0.033), and metastases (aHR 0.41, p=0.007) were independently associated with hospitalization. mAb treatment remained significantly associated with all-cause (aHR 0.27, p=0.019) and COVID-19-attributed (aHR 0.19, p=0.031) mortality, after adjustment for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: mAb administration was associated with improved clinical outcomes among vulnerable patients with cancer and COVID-19. With no mAbs approved currently for treatment against the prevalent circulating variants, the development of new mAbs should be a research priority.

3.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(10): ofac503, 2022 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36324327

RESUMO

Background: Organ transplant recipients (OTRs) are less protected from vaccination than immunocompetent hosts. Additional vaccine doses have shown increased immunogenicity. Few studies have assessed their clinical efficacy, particularly against Omicron variants, as most included patients from earlier phases of the pandemic, with higher base mortality rates. Methods: We studied adult OTRs who had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between 12/15/21 and 5/25/22. We compared clinical outcomes between those who had received 2 or ≥3 doses of an mRNA vaccine and concurrent unvaccinated controls. Results: Among 103 OTRs, vaccination was associated with lower 90-day mortality (unvaccinated vs 2 vs ≥3 doses: 25% vs 7% vs 3%; P = .003), hospital (unvaccinated vs 2 vs ≥3 doses: 56% vs 37% vs 27%; P = .018) and intensive care unit (ICU; unvaccinated vs 2 vs ≥3 doses: 25% vs 15% vs 3%; P = .001) admission rates, and peak O2 requirements (ordinal scale Kendall's tau b = -0.309 [lower scores, ie, O2 requirements with more vaccine doses]; P = .003). Age (age >60 years: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 7.73; P = .016; administration of antispike monoclonal antibody: aHR, 0.17; P = .042) and vaccination, especially with ≥3 doses (aHR, 0.105; P = .01), were independently associated with 90-day mortality. Black (P = .021) and Hispanic (P = .016) OTRs were underrepresented among the vaccinated, especially in the ≥3-dose group. Conclusions: Despite lower mRNA vaccine efficacy in OTRs and against Omicron variants, vaccination protects this vulnerable patient population from severe COVID-19 and death. Ethnic and racial disparities in health care have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and warrant better community outreach efforts.

4.
Prog Transplant ; 31(4): 368-376, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34839729

RESUMO

Introduction: Observational studies suggest that low-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis (450 mg daily for normal renal function) is as effective as and perhaps safer than standard-dose valganciclovir (900 mg daily) in preventing CMV infection among kidney transplant recipients. However, this practice is not supported by current guidelines due to concerns for breakthrough infection from resistant CMV, mainly in high-risk CMV donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative kidney transplant recipients. Standard-dose valganciclovir is costly and possibly associated with higher incidence of neutropenia and BKV DNAemia. Our institution adopted low-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis for intermediate-risk (seropositive) kidney transplant recipients in January 2018. Research Question: To analyze the efficacy (CMV DNAemia), safety (BK virus DNAemia, neutropenia, graft loss, and death), and cost savings associated with this change. Design: We retrospectively compared the above outcomes between CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients who received low-dose and standard-dose valganciclovir, transplanted within our institution, between 1/19/2014 and 7/15/2019, using propensity score-adjusted competing risk analyses. We also compared cost estimates between the two dosing regimens, for 3 months of prophylaxis, and for different percentage of patient-weeks with normal renal function, using the current average wholesale price of valganciclovir. Results: We studied 179 CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients, of whom 55 received low-dose and 124 standard-dose valganciclovir. The majority received nonlymphocyte depleting induction (basiliximab). Low-dose valganciclovir was at least as effective and safe as, and more cost-saving than standard-dose valganciclovir. Conclusion: This single-center study contributes to mounting evidence for future guidelines to be adjusted in favor of low-dose valganciclovir prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients.


Assuntos
Infecções por Citomegalovirus , Transplante de Rim , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Citomegalovirus/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Citomegalovirus/prevenção & controle , Ganciclovir/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Transplantados , Valganciclovir/uso terapêutico
5.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 10(10)2020 Oct 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33050499

RESUMO

In this systematic review, we investigate the epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). We identified 85 cases from 22 studies. The frequency of CAPA is currently unknown but ranges between <5% to >30% in different case series; the possibility of colonization rather than invasive disease is the most important confounder. The vast majority of patients with CAPA did not have any of the classic host risk factors, such as immunosuppression from organ transplant or neutropenia, although a significant proportion (46%) had received corticosteroids. Age, pulmonary comorbidities and male sex were associated with higher mortality. Patients treated with voriconazole had numerically lower case-fatality rate. Clinical vigilance for CAPA is advisable in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who are not improving, even those who do not meet classic host criteria for invasive mycoses, especially if they are receiving corticosteroids. A thorough, multi-faceted diagnostic work-up and early initiation of a mold-active triazole may be lifesaving. Further research studies using standardized, uniform definitions of invasive disease and colonization are urgently needed.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...