Hepatic transplant during SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. A literature review.

ANTECEDENTES: En diciembre de 2019 se identificó en la ciudad de Wuhan, China, un nuevo beta coronavirus, el SARS-CoV-2, como agente causal de neumonía grave, conocida como COVID-19, lo cual ha provocado medidas estrictas de aislamiento, cierre de programas de trasplante hepático y la necesidad de modificar los protocolos de tratamiento. OBJETIVO: Documentar la información publicada sobre el impacto de la COVID-19 en la población con antecedente de trasplante hepático y establecer un protocolo de tratamiento. MÉTODO: Se buscaron en PubMed los términos MeSH "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "trasplante hepático" y "tratamiento". RESULTADOS: Hasta el momento se ha demostrado en la población con trasplante hepático una mayor facilidad para adquirir el virus, sin una diferencia en la mortalidad al compararla con la población general. La inmunosupresión debe continuar, sin suspender los inhibidores de la calcineurina. Del tratamiento específico, los esteroides son los que han demostrado el mayor beneficio clínico y una disminución de la mortalidad. CONCLUSIÓN: El trasplante hepático no se asocia de manera independiente a una mayor mortalidad. Otros factores, además del trasplante, deben tomarse en cuenta al momento de establecer la gravedad. BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a new beta coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was identified in the city of Wuhan, China, as a causative agent of severe pneumonia, known as COVID-19, which has led to strict isolation measures, closure of liver transplantation programs and the need to modify treatment protocols. OBJECTIVE: Document the information published so far on the impact of COVID-19 in the population with a history of liver transplantation and establish a treatment protocol. METHOD: MeSH terms were searched for "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "liver transplantation" and "treatment". RESULTS: Up to now, a greater ease in acquiring the virus has been shown in the liver transplant population, without a difference in mortality when compared to the general population. Immunosuppression should continue at the minimum tolerated levels, without suspending calcineurin inhibitors. Of the specific treatment, steroids are those that have shown the greatest clinical benefit and decreased mortality. CONCLUSION: Liver transplantation is not independently associated with higher mortality. Factors other than transplantation must be taken into account when considering the risk of severity.

De vuelta a la clínica. Métodos I. Diseños de investigación. Mayor calidad de información, mayor certeza a la respuesta / Back to the clinic. Methods I. Research designs. Higher quality of information, greater certainty to the answer

Resumen Los diseños de investigación se refieren a la forma como se obtiene la información y están limitados por viabilidad ética, económica y temporal. Son estrategias estandarizadas para disminuir los sesgos que en el modelo arquitectónico de la investigación se identifican en el estado basal, maniobra y desenlace; de ahí que no hay diseños específicos para cada pregunta. El diseño con menor probabilidad de sesgos es el ensayo clínico, seguido de la cohorte, el estudio de casos y controles y, finalmente, la encuesta transversal. Entre las principales características que dan mérito a los diseños están las siguientes: la pesquisa de la población, que se refiere a la ubicación de la población en relación con el curso clínico o historia natural de la enfermedad; la maniobra, o acción que se espera modifique la condición basal, que puede ser observacional o experimental; el seguimiento, o monitoreo documentado que se le da a cada sujeto, que puede ser longitudinal o transversal; y la direccionalidad, prolectiva o retrolectiva, que alude al tiempo de recopilación de la información con fines de investigación. Siempre será mejor tener una pregunta valiosa, incluso cuando se responda con un diseño con mayor riesgo de sesgos, que una pregunta irrelevante o sin aplicabilidad.

Abstract Research designs refer to the way information is obtained and are limited by ethical, economic and temporal viability. Research designs are standardized strategies to reduce biases, which in the architectural model of research are identified in the baseline state, the maneuver and the outcome; hence, there are no specific designs for each question. The design with the lowest probability of bias is the clinical trial, followed by cohort and case-control studies and, finally, by cross-sectional surveys. Among the main characteristics that give merit to research designs are the following: population inquiry, which refers to the situation of the population in relation to the clinical course/natural history of the disease; the maneuver, or action that is expected to modify the baseline state, which can be observational or experimental; follow-up, or documented monitoring that is given to each subject, which can be longitudinal or cross-sectional; and directionality, which can prolective or retrolective and refers to the timing of data collection for research purposes. It will always be better having a valuable question, even when answered with a design with higher risk of bias, than a question that is irrelevant or has no applicability.

Candida norvegensis fungemia in a liver transplant recipient.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of candidemia due to non-Candida albicans Candida species has been progressively increasing in recent years. The use of fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis has been described as a risk factor for the development of infections by fluconazole resistant Candida strains. We report a case of Candida norvegensis bloodstream infection in a liver transplant recipient. CASE REPORT: A 61-year-old man, who received a third liver allograft and became worse with the onset of ischemic cholangiopathy and recurrent episodes of cholangitis, was admitted to our hospital due to the development of intra-abdominal abscesses. He received multiple antibiotic schemes, and after 3 months he was discharged, maintaining parenteral antibiotic at home. While he was on fluconazole prophylaxis, a breakthrough candidemia due to C. norvegensis occurred. In vitro susceptibilities of the isolate to several antifungal agents were as follows: amphotericin B MIC 0.5 mg/l, flucytosine 64 mg/l, fluconazole 64 mg/l, itraconazole 4 mg/l, voriconazole 0.75 mg/l, and caspofungin 0.047 mg/l. He was treated with anidulafungin with resolution of candidemia. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis may lead to the emergence of fluconazole-resistant Candida infections, with C. norvegensis being a possible emerging pathogen in organ transplant recipients.