COVID-19 or not COVID-19? Compared characteristics of patients hospitalized for suspected COVID-19.

During an epidemic period, we compared patients hospitalized for initial suspicion of COVID-19 but for whom an alternative diagnosis was finally retained (n = 152) with those who had COVID-19 (n = 222). Most common diagnoses were another infectious disease and heart failure. COVID-19-negative patients were more often active smokers had less often cough, fever, and digestive symptoms, as compared to the 222 COVID-19-positive patients. They had higher median neutrophil and lymphocyte counts and lower CRP level. In multivariate analysis, no current smoking, neurocognitive disorder, myalgia, and fibrinogen ≥4g/L were independently associated with a final diagnosis of COVID-19.

Healing Treatments in COVID-19 Patients: A Narrative Review.

Since December 2019, many drugs have been evaluated or advocated as potential treatments of SARS-CoV-2 induced disease (COVID-19), including many repositioned drugs and some others specifically developed for these diseases. They can be roughly classified into three categories according to their main mechanism of action (passive immunization, direct antivirals, and anti-inflammatory treatments), and their use depends on the stage of the disease. Despite often promising preclinical data, most of the treatments evaluated failed to show a significant clinical benefit. In addition, a few others have seen their effectiveness affected by the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and sub-variants. Herein, the aim of this article is to take stock of the data available as of the 14th of July 2022, concerning the specific healing options evaluated for patients suffering from COVID-19. We focus particularly on healing treatments of COVID-19 and do not deal with preventive treatments such as vaccine. Associated therapies such as venous thromboembolism prophylaxis are not detailed since they are covered in a specific chapter of this issue. Passive immunization, especially through monoclonal antibodies, showed a positive impact on the clinical evolution, whether in outpatients or inpatients without oxygen supply. However, their effectiveness strongly depends on the type of SARS-CoV-2 variant, and often decreases or even vanishes with the most recent variants. Among direct antiviral treatments, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir appears to currently be the cornerstone in the management of early infections, but its use may be limited by drug interactions. Remdesivir remains as an alternative in this situation, even though it is potentially less convenient. Anti-inflammatory treatments have often been shown to be the most effective in inpatients with oxygen supply. Dexamethasone is now a cornerstone of management of these patients. Added tocilizumab seems beneficial in the case of hyper inflammation. JAK inhibitors and anakinra have also gained an interest in some studies. As a conclusion of this narrative review, the best treatment strategy has yet to be defined and is likely to evolve in the future, not only because many other drugs are still under development and evaluation, but also because of the viral epidemics and epidemiology evolution.

Isolated Anti-HBc: Significance and Management.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is prevalent worldwide and is associated with dramatic levels of morbidity and mortality. Isolated anti-HBc (IAHBc) is a particular serological pattern that is commonly found in immunocompromised patients. There is ongoing debate regarding the management of patients with IAHBc. Herein, we summarize the current guidelines and the newest evidence. The frequency of IAHBc is variable, with a higher prevalence in some populations, such as persons living with HIV and others immunocompromised patients. The risk of HBV reactivation depends on host factors (including immunosuppression) and viral factors. It is now well established that immunocompromised patients can be classified into three groups for risk according to the type of immunosuppression and/or treatment. In patients at high risk, HBV therapy has to be considered systematically. In patients at moderate risk, the decision is based on the level of HBV DNA (preemptive treatment or monitoring and vaccination). In patients with low risk, HBV vaccination is another possible approach, although further studies are needed to assess the type of preemptive strategy.

Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Mortality in the Oldest Old: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

Influenza remains a major cause of illness and death in geriatric populations. While the influenza vaccine has successfully reduced morbidity and mortality, its effectiveness is suspected to decrease with age. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of influenza vaccination on all-cause mortality in very old ambulatory subjects. We conducted a prospective cohort study from 1 July 2016 to 31 June 2017 in a large unselected ambulatory population aged over 80 years. We compared all-cause mortality in vaccinated versus unvaccinated subjects after propensity-score matching, to control for age, sex and comorbidities. Among the 9149 patients included, with mean age 86 years, 4380 (47.9%) were vaccinated against influenza. In total, 5253 (57.4%) had at least one chronic disease. The most commonly vaccinated patients were those with chronic respiratory failure (76.3%) and the least commonly vaccinated were those suffering from Parkinson's disease (28.5%). Overall, 2084 patients (22.8%) died during the study. After propensity score matching, the mortality was evaluated at 20.9% in the vaccinated group and 23.9% in the unvaccinated group (OR = 0.84 [0.75-0.93], p = 0.001). This decrease in mortality in the vaccinated group persisted whatever the age and Charlson Comorbidity index. In conclusion, nearly a half of this ambulatory elderly population received Influenza vaccine. After adjustment on comorbidities, influenza vaccination was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality, even in the eldest multimorbid population. Improving immunization coverage in this frail older population is urgently needed.

Efficacy and safety of dapsone as second line therapy for adult immune thrombocytopenia: A retrospective study of 42 patients.

Dapsone is recommended as a second line therapy in immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), but is underused because of its potential side effects. The medical charts of 42 ITP patients treated with dapsone (100 mg/day) were retrospectively reviewed in order to assess its efficacy and safety in daily clinical practice. The overall response rate was 54.8% (n = 22, with a complete response in 38.1%) with a median time to response of 29 days (24-41 days). Patients with complete response had shorter disease duration whereas no difference was observed between responders and non-responders regarding age, sex or previous treatments received. Importantly, after dapsone withdrawal, a sustained response was observed in 5 patients, representing 12% of the whole cohort. Twenty percent of patients (n = 8) relapsed on therapy after 8.1 (6.5-13.6) months. Side effects occurred in 31% (n = 13) of patients, and required dapsone withdrawal in 22% (n = 9) or dosage reduction in 10% (n = 4) of the cases. Side effects resolved in all but one case. Overall, these data support dapsone as an interesting second line therapy in ITP, with a good safety and efficacy profile at a low cost.