RESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Central nervous system (CNS) infections in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients may present atypical or nonspecific symptoms. Due to a wider range of infectious agents compared with immunocompetent hosts, diagnosis is challenging. This review categorizes CNS infections in SOT recipients by cause. RECENT FINDINGS: New studies have reported new data on the epidemiology and the risk factors associated with each specific pathogen described in this review. Additionally, we included the treatment recommendations. SUMMARY: The latest findings give us an insight into the different pathogens causing infectious neurologic complications in SOT recipients.
Assuntos
Infecções do Sistema Nervoso Central , Transplante de Órgãos , Humanos , Transplante de Órgãos/efeitos adversos , Infecções do Sistema Nervoso Central/etiologia , Infecções do Sistema Nervoso Central/epidemiologia , Fatores de Risco , Transplantados , Hospedeiro ImunocomprometidoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients who are cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative have better post-transplant outcomes than CMV-seropositive recipients. Letermovir (LTV) is approved for CMV primary prophylaxis in adults who are CMV-seropositive after allo-HCT, and its use is associated with improved long-term post-transplant outcomes. We analysed whether LTV has affected the relationship between CMV serostatus and post-transplant outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of allo-HCT recipients, stratified according to donor (D) and recipient (R). CMV serostatus and the use of LTV: D-/R-, R+/LTV-, and R+/LTV+. Outcomes measured were all-cause and non-relapse mortality, clinically significant CMV infection, graft-versus-host disease, and relapse up to week 48 after allo-HCT. The D-/R- group served as the reference for comparisons in univariate, competing risk regression, and cumulative incidence functions. RESULTS: The analysis included 1071 consecutive allo-HCT recipients: 131 D-/R-, 557 R+/LTV-, and 383 R+/LTV+. All-cause mortality by day 100 was 6.1% for the D-/R- group, compared with 14.0% (p 0.024) and 7.8% (p 0.7) for the R+/LTV- and R+/LTV + groups, respectively. Non-relapse mortality by day 100 was 11.0%, 6.8% and 3.8% for R+/LTV-, R+/LTV+, and D-/R- groups, respectively, without significant difference. When including relapse as a competing event, the hazard ratio for non-relapse mortality was 1.83 (95% CI: 1.12-2.99, p 0.017) for R+/LTV- compared with D-/R- and 1.05 (95% CI 0.62-1.77, p 0.85) for R+/LTV + compared with D-/R-. DISCUSSION: CMV primary prophylaxis with LTV abrogated the mortality gap based on CMV serostatus, a protective effect that persisted after discontinuation of primary prophylaxis.
Assuntos
Antivirais , Infecções por Citomegalovirus , Transplante de Células-Tronco Hematopoéticas , Transplante Homólogo , Humanos , Infecções por Citomegalovirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Citomegalovirus/mortalidade , Transplante de Células-Tronco Hematopoéticas/efeitos adversos , Transplante de Células-Tronco Hematopoéticas/mortalidade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Feminino , Adulto , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Transplante Homólogo/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Adulto Jovem , Citomegalovirus , Adolescente , Doença Enxerto-Hospedeiro/prevenção & controle , Acetatos/uso terapêutico , Quinazolinas/uso terapêutico , Prevenção Primária/métodosRESUMO
Objective: We sought to determine the accuracy of the LOW-HARM score (Lymphopenia, Oxygen saturation, White blood cells, Hypertension, Age, Renal injury, and Myocardial injury) for predicting death from coronavirus disease 2019) COVID-19. Methods: We derived the score as a concatenated Fagan's nomogram for Bayes theorem using data from published cohorts of patients with COVID-19. We validated the score on 400 consecutive COVID-19 hospital admissions (200 deaths and 200 survivors) from 12 hospitals in Mexico. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LOW-HARM for predicting hospital death. Results: LOW-HARM scores and their distributions were significantly lower in patients who were discharged compared to those who died during their hospitalization 5 (SD: 14) versus 70 (SD: 28). The overall area under the curve for the LOW-HARM score was 0.96, (95% confidence interval: 0.94-0.98). A cutoff > 65 points had a specificity of 97.5% and a positive predictive value of 96%. Conclusions: The LOW-HARM score measured at hospital admission is highly specific and clinically useful for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19.
RESUMO
No disponible
