Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Respiration ; 101(3): 262-271, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34592744

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) often includes systemic corticosteroids. Use of steroid-sparing agents is amenable to avoid potential side effects. METHODS: Functional indices and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) patterns of patients with non-IPF ILDs receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were analyzed. Two independent radiologists and a machine learning software system (Imbio 1.4.2.) evaluated HRCT patterns. RESULTS: Fifty-five (n = 55) patients were included in the analysis (male: 30 [55%], median age: 65.0 [95% CI: 59.7-70.0], mean forced vital capacity %predicted [FVC %pred.] ± standard deviation [SD]: 69.4 ± 18.3, mean diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide %pred. ± SD: 40.8 ± 14.3, hypersensitivity pneumonitis: 26, connective tissue disease-ILDs [CTD-ILDs]: 22, other ILDs: 7). There was no significant difference in mean FVC %pred. post-6 months (1.59 ± 2.04) and 1 year (-0.39 ± 2.49) of treatment compared to baseline. Radiographic evaluation showed no significant difference between baseline and post-1 year %ground glass opacities (20.0 [95% CI: 14.4-30.0] vs. 20.0 [95% CI: 14.4-25.6]) and %reticulation (5.0 [95% CI: 2.0-15.6] vs. 7.5 [95% CI: 2.0-17.5]). A similar performance between expert radiologists and Imbio software analysis was observed in assessing ground glass opacities (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.73) and reticulation (ICC = 0.88). Fourteen patients (25.5%) reported at least one side effect and 8 patients (14.5%) switched to antifibrotics due to disease progression. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that MMF is a safe and effective steroid-sparing agent leading to disease stabilization in a proportion of patients with non-IPF ILDs. Machine learning software systems may exhibit similar performance to specialist radiologists and represent fruitful diagnostic and prognostic tools.


Asunto(s)
Fibrosis Pulmonar Idiopática , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Fibrosis Pulmonar Idiopática/diagnóstico por imagen , Fibrosis Pulmonar Idiopática/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/tratamiento farmacológico , Aprendizaje Automático , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ácido Micofenólico/efectos adversos , Ácido Micofenólico/uso terapéutico , Capacidad Vital
2.
Respir Res ; 22(1): 317, 2021 Dec 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34937570

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Data on the safety and efficacy profile of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 needs to be enriched. METHODS: In this open label, prospective study, we evaluated clinical outcomes in consecutive patients with COVID-19 and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 receiving tocilizumab plus usual care versus usual care alone. Tocilizumab was administered at the time point that PaO2/FiO2 < 200 was observed. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to discharge, change in PaO2/FiO2 at day 5 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10. FINDINGS: Overall, 114 patients were included in the analysis (tocilizumab plus usual care: 56, usual care: 58). Allocation to usual care was associated with significant increase in 28-day mortality compared to tocilizumab plus usual care [Cox proportional-hazards model: HR: 3.34, (95% CI: 1.21-9.30), (p = 0.02)]. There was not a statistically significant difference with regards to hospital discharge over the 28 day period for patients receiving tocilizumab compared to usual care [11.0 days (95% CI: 9.0 to 16.0) vs 14.0 days (95% CI: 10.0-24.0), HR: 1.32 (95% CI: 0.84-2.08), p = 0.21]. ΔPaO2/FiO2 at day 5 was significantly higher in the tocilizumab group compared to the usual care group [42.0 (95% CI: 23.0-84.7) vs 15.8 (95% CI: - 19.4-50.3), p = 0.03]. ΔWHO scale at day 10 was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group compared to the usual care group (-0.5 ± 2.1 vs 0.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Administration of tocilizumab, at the time point that PaO2/FiO2 < 200 was observed, improved survival and other clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 irrespective of systemic inflammatory markers levels.


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/administración & dosificación , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19/mortalidad , Hospitalización/tendencias , Gravedad del Paciente , Administración Intravenosa , Anciano , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Tasa de Supervivencia/tendencias
3.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 29(3): 372-378, 2023 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36273769

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials comparing tocilizumab and baricitinib in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial aiming to address this unmet need. METHODS: To determine whether baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab, we assessed whether the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1.50. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to hospital discharge by day 28 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10. RESULTS: We assigned 251 patients with COVID-19 and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of <200 to receive either tocilizumab (n = 126) or baricitinib (n = 125) plus standard of care. Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 (mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received baricitinib, 39.2% [n = 49/125]; mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received tocilizumab, 44.4% [n = 56/126]; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.21; p 0.001 for non-inferiority). Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the time to hospital discharge within 28 days (patients who received baricitinib- discharged alive: 58.4% [n = 73/125] vs. patients who received tocilizumab- discharged alive: 52.4% [n = 66/126]; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61-1.18; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and tocilizumab arms in the change in WHO scale at day 10 (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-1.0]; p 0.83). DISCUSSION: In the setting of this trial, baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab with regards to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 and the time to discharge by day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
4.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 1096203, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36698813

RESUMEN

Introduction: Myositis associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) seems to be an under-recognized entity. Methods: In this multicenter, retrospective study, we recorded between 9/12/2019 and 30/9/2021 consecutive patients who presented in five different ILD centers from two European countries (Greece, France) and received a multidisciplinary diagnosis of myositis associated-ILD. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over 1 year in specific subgroups of patients. Secondary outcomes included comparison of disease characteristics between patients diagnosed with the amyopathic subtype and patients with evidence of myopathy at diagnosis. Results: We identified 75 patients with myositis associated-ILD. Median age (95% CI) at the time of diagnosis was 64.0 (61.0-65.0) years. Antinuclear antibody testing was positive in 40% of the cohort (n = 30/75). Myopathy onset occurred first in 40.0% of cases (n = 30), ILD without evidence of myopathy occurred in 29 patients (38.7%), while 16 patients (21.3%) were diagnosed concomitantly with ILD and myopathy. The commonest radiographic pattern was cellular non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) and was observed in 29 patients (38.7%). The radiographic pattern of organizing pneumonia was significantly more common in patients diagnosed with the amyopathic subtype compared to patients that presented with myopathy [24.1% (n = 7/29) vs. 6.5% (n = 3/46), p = 0.03]. One year survival was 86.7% in the overall population. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly higher all-cause 1-year mortality in patients with the amyopathic subtype compared to patients with evidence of myopathy [H R 4.24 (95% CI: 1.16-15.54), p = 0.03]. Patients diagnosed following hospitalization due to acute respiratory failure experienced increased risk of 1-year all-cause mortality compared to patients diagnosed in outpatient setting [HR 6.70 (95% CI: 1.19-37.81), p = 0.03]. Finally, patients with positive anti-MDA5 presented with higher 1-year all-cause mortality compared to anti-MDA5 negative patients [HR 28.37 (95% CI: 5.13-157.01), p = 0.0001]. Conclusion: Specific ILD radiographic patterns such as NSIP and organizing pneumonia may herald underlying inflammatory myopathies. Hospitalized patients presenting with bilateral organizing pneumonia refractory to antibiotics should be meticulously evaluated for myositis associated-ILD even if there is no overt muscular involvement. Incorporation of ILD radiological patterns in the diagnostic criteria of inflammatory myopathies may lead to timely therapeutic interventions and positively impact patients' survival.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA