Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.019
Filtrar
Adicionar filtros

Intervalo de ano
1.
JAMS Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies ; 15(4):247-254, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033620

RESUMO

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that can induce cytokine storm. To this point, no specific drug has been effective for curing COVID-19. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a combination of acupuncture intervention and pharmacologic treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild-moderate symptoms. Methods: A single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial of hospitalized COVID-19 patients confirmed by RT-PCR examination with mild-moderate symptoms was conducted from August to September 2020. Participants were assigned to the treatment group (receiving pharmacologic treatment and manual acupuncture intervention) or the control group (receiving only pharmacologic treatment). Laboratory outcomes, including complete blood count, C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin levels, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), were measured before and after the intervention. For clinical outcomes, we evaluated the duration of the cough symptom. Results: We found that participants in the treatment group had a shorter duration of the cough symptom compared to the control group, and the difference was statistically significant. In the treatment group, we found an increase in the percentage of lymphocyte count and ESR, while in the control group, both parameters were decreased;however, the differences were not statistically significant. There was a decrease in the mean of CRP and ferritin levels in both groups, and the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Our study has shown promising results for the effects of combined treatment of acupuncture and pharmacologic treatment on the duration of the cough symptom in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild-moderate symptoms. Further large-scale studies with rigorous design are needed to examine these preliminary results

2.
Acta Pharmaceutica Hungarica ; 91(3-4):106-107, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033588

RESUMO

ATMPs - a new era A boy from Hungary, Zente, was one and a half years old when the crowd-funding campaign to finance his life-saving medicine Zolgensma concluded with a happy end. He was the third European patient that received the new gene therapy, which replaces the function of the missing or nonworking survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene with a new, working copy of a human SMN gene that helps motor neuron cells work properly and survive. From a European perspective, it has been almost 15 years by now since regulatory framework for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) had been established to ensure the free movement of these medicines within the European Union, to facilitate their access to the EU market, and to foster the competitiveness of European pharmaceutical companies in the field. Zolgensma has been approved in the EU in May 2020. The FDA expects it will be reviewing and approving up to 20 cell and gene therapies each year until 2025. Rapid development of technology and better understanding of the manufacturing challenges are not the only prerequisites of the growth. Assessment of products like Zolgensma requires very specific knowledge and often an adaptive approach from regulators. They have to gain enough experience and need to be able to summarize knowledge in guidelines that would help developers of products that are substantially different from traditional medicines. FDA issued seven new guidelines in January 2020, in which, for example, they highlight the importance of long-term follow-up for gene therapies that offer one-time fix for inherited diseases and where pre-market studies may have limited value. 2. Regulatory tools These examples may already show that rapid change in technology leads to new kinds of medicines that require a properly adapted regulatory system. Patients would expect state-of-the-art medicines within the shortest possible time frame, however, authorities are traditionally more cautious. Still, there are several various initiatives from the EMA and the FDA to foster early access to medicines. Some of these have been available for a longer time. EMA's accelerated assessment reduces the timeframe for review of innovative applications of medicines with major public health interest. Conditional marketing authorisation grants authorization before a complete dataset is available, and compassionate use allows the use of an unauthorized medicine for patients with an unmet medical need. A more recent regulatory tool of EMA is the priority medicines scheme (PRIME) that aims to enhance support for the development of medicines that are expected to make a real difference to patients. Early dialogue between EMA and the developers is a crucial part of the tool, together with accelerated assessment and continuous scientific advice and protocol assistance. Up to now, 282 applications for PRIME eligibility have been assessed by the CHMP of which 95 have received a green light. Most of the applicants are small and medium size enterprises, and the major therapeutic area is oncology. FDA has similar programs, such as the Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review designations, and is also aiming to facilitate and accelerate development and marketing authorization of key medicines. By 2018, about 70% of new drug approvals by the FDA were expedited, compared to about 50% in 2010. The result is a growing pro-portion of medicines authorized with less premarket evidence, a trade-off, that most patients with fatal or debilitating disease would likely accept. Nevertheless, conditional approval requires a strong post-marketing attention from regulators, and lack of enough evidence sometimes leads to difficult decisions. In April 2019 a fast-tracked cancer drug, Lartruvo was withdrawn because a large study was not able to prove a favourable benefit-risk profile, which was established previously on a smaller patient population. The regulators approach is not expected to be changed, but experience from such cases would gradually be built into the decision-making process. In addition to this real world evidence (RWE) and patient recorded outcomes may also help in decision making. 3. Digital revolution The rapid development of biotechnology is not the only area where an adaptive regulatory approach is needed. Digital medicine is a new field, as smartphones and sensors open up new ways of generating data. For example, collecting and analysing RWE seems to be a good solution for single arm studies where randomized trials are not feasible. FDA has approved easy-to-use devices that are able to track several physiological systems of our body, which in turn can give a boost to developments in this field. In addition to these simpler devices, digital revolution in terms of artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive machine learning is another challenge that our regulatory systems should tackle. It has been recently announced that a new drug candidate, a long-acting and potent serotonin 5-HT1A receptor agonist, which was created using an artificial intelligence platform, will enter into clinical study. There are also numerous radiological applications based on AI, including computer aideddetection and diagnosis software, where images are analysed, and clinically relevant findings suggested to aid diagnostic decisions. Many of these new developments require a tailored approach from regulators to find a way for authorization within the existing regulatory framework. The fact, that many of these new developments are carried out by academic research groups or small companies without extensive regulatory experience, adds an extra layer of difficulty. To meet this challenge, EMA and the Heads of Medicines Agencies have established the EU-Innovation Network, to support medicine innovation and early development. As a milestone of its function, beginning in 1 February 2020 a pilot for simultaneous scientific advice is starting, where the applicants will receive a consolidated advice from the participating agencies. Innovative products often require specific expertise;therefore this new form of advice is also extremely beneficial for regulators as they are able to learn from each other and broaden their knowledge. 4. Conclusions The rapid development of pharmaceutical and digital technology requires a concerted action from all stakeholders. Or, as we all experience, a global pandemic can be an important driving force of the evolution of regulatory policies. Appropriate usage of currently available regulatory tools and a continuous discussion between academia, industry and regulators would be the only way to ensure quick access to state-of-the-art, safe and efficacious medicines, and medical devices. It is clearly shown currently by the concerted action of various stakeholders and series of rolling reviews which led to the expedited authorization of COVID-19 vaccines.

3.
Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research ; 30(142):452-457, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033568

RESUMO

Background & Objective: Individuals with opioid use disorder are a marginalized population in any society. They commonly have a weaker immune system, greater stress vulnerability, poorer health, more high-risk behaviors, and less access to healthcare services compared to the general population, which can expose them to a risk of severe COVID-19 complications. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of opioid use disorder on mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Materials & Methods: This registry-based retrospective cohort study was conducted on 2362 consecutive inpatients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 between March 5, 2020 and March 21, 2021, presenting to a university hospital in Ilam in the southwest of Iran. Forty-five patients with opioid use disorder were identified in this study and matched to 100 patients without opium addiction. All patients with a history of opium addiction were included in the study group, and age-and sex-matched patients without opioid use disorder were randomly recruited as the controls. After adjusting for the effects of age and comorbidities, data were analyzed in STATA version 10, using logistic regression models. Results: The mortality of patients with opioid use disorder increased following COVID-19 (adjusted OR: 6.59;95% CI: 1.84–23.59;P=0.004). Hypertension (adjusted OR: 8.17;95% CI: 2.21–30.15;P=0.002) and advancing age (OR: 1.06;95% CI: 1.01–1.11;P=0.01) were significantly associated with increased COVID-19 mortality. Conclusion: Based on the present findings, opioid use disorder is a possible risk factor for mortality following COVID-19. The findings of the present study can be applied in the implementation of preventive measures and policies and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccination. However, further relevant research is recommended.

4.
Current Journal of Neurology ; 21(2):83-90, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033507

RESUMO

Background: Fatigue is one of the most frequent complaints in patients with motor neuron diseases (MNDs), with a significant impact on the quality of life (QOL). There is lack of enough evidence for current pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments of fatigue in this population to be applied in clinical setting. Energy conservation strategies are one of the key interventions for fatigue management in chronic diseases. We aimed to investigate the effect of applying these techniques in the fatigue management of patients with MND. Methods: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was carried out on 28 patients with MND. Participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. In addition to routine treatment, patients in the intervention group participated in 3 weekly 1-hour energy conservation programs provided by an experienced occupational therapist. The Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) score, 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) were measured at baseline, immediately after the last intervention session, and one month later. Results: FSS and COPM significantly changed after the course in the intervention group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). Both FSS and COPM improved significantly toward the final assessment only in the intervention group. The SF-36 changes were not significant in each of the groups. Conclusion: According to the findings of the present study, using energy conservation strategies could lead to better mid-term fatigue management and occupational performance improvement, but it did not improve QOL in patients with MND.

5.
Acta Medica Iranica ; 60(6):338-344, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033505

RESUMO

Dyspnea and decreased O2 saturation are the most common causes of hospitalization in noncritical COVID-19 patients. Breathing exercises and chest physiotherapy are used for managing the patients. These treatments are, however, not well supported by scientific evidence. In a randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were randomly assigned to planned breathing exercises (n=40) and control groups (n=40). The participants in the intervention group were instructed to blow into a balloon five times a day while lying down. Other therapies were similar in both groups. The severity of dyspnea at rest/after activity and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) with/without O2 therapy were compared between the two groups on the first, second, and third days. The study findings showed no statistically significant difference in SpO2 with/without O2 therapy on the first, second, and third days between the two groups. Although the severity of dyspnea showed no significant difference between the two groups, the mean score of dyspnea at rest (2.72±2.25 vs. 1.6±1.21, P=0.007) and after activity (4.53±2.04 vs. 3.52±1.66, P=0.017) improved in the intervention group on the third day. Balloon-blowing exercise improves dyspnea in noncritical Covid-19 patients, but it does not significantly improve oxygenation.

6.
NeuroQuantology ; 20(10):5508-5516, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033485

RESUMO

Hypovitaminosis D was shown to be prevalent in this research of 124 people who were COVID-19 positive. With a p-value of 0.001, greater serum concentrations of inflammatory markers like COVID-19 were significantly related with lower vitamin D levels (D-dimer, CRP, and ferritin). One way to gauge the severity of COVID-19 infection is by looking at the serum vitamin D level. An increased risk of acute respiratory infection is linked to vitamin D deficiency. The processes through which vitamin D influences the immune system are complex. The usual immunomodulatory activity appears to be inhibited with reduced serum vitamin D concentrations, favoring a pro-inflammatory phase. Less effective macrophage activity and antigen presentation may be caused by insufficient vitamin D levels. As a result, low vitamin D levels may potentially contribute to a delayed or dysregulated response to the body's initial contact with SARS-CoV-2 or prevent the construction of an effective defense in cases of established SARS-CoV-2 infection. Inflammation and the biological functions of the innate and adaptive immune systems are linked to vitamin D. Coronavirus illness risk or severity have been observed to be inversely correlated with blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels in observational studies (COVID-19). The significance of vitamin D in COVID-19 has been attributed to a number of pathways, such as the modulation of immunological and inflammatory responses, control of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone systems, and participation in glucose metabolism and the cardiovascular system. Patients with COVID-19 may be more likely to experience catastrophic consequences if their 25(OH)D levels are low, not only because of the hyperinflammatory state that is often present but also because it aggravates cardiovascular disease and impaired glucose metabolism that already exist. Some randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that supplementing with vitamin D is helpful for lowering coronavirus 2 RNA positivity in SARS, but not for lowering intensive care unit admission or all-cause death in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. According to the most recent research, taking a vitamin D supplement to keep your serum 25(OH)D level at or above 30 ng/mL (recommended range: 40–60 ng/mL) may help lower your risk of developing COVID-19 and its serious consequences, such as death. According to worldwide recommendations, it is prudent to suggest vitamin D supplements to those who have vitamin D shortage or insufficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though additional well-designed research are necessary.

7.
Journal of Internal Medicine of Taiwan ; 32(4):281-288, 2021.
Artigo em Chinês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033398

RESUMO

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is still a lack of miracle drugs for treatment. Repurposing drugs such as Remdesivir and corticosteroids to treat COVID-19 are being studied. Traditional Chinese medicine was widely used during the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus infection in China in 2003. It was found that standard medical treatment combined with Chinese medicine treatment may improve the symptoms of SARS patients and speeding resolution of lung infiltration. The commonly used prescriptions for preventing the coronavirus infection are Sangjuyin plus Yupingfeng powder. Various Traditional Chinese medicines with potential to fight SARS-CoV-2 include Liquorice Root and Rhizome, Rhubarb, Heartleaf Houttuynia Herb, Indi-gowoad Root, Tangerine Peel, Scutellaria Root, and Red Sage Root and Rhizome etc. In addition, Chinese patent medicines including Shuanghuanglian Oral liquid, Lianhua Qingwen Capsule, Jinhua Qinggan Granule and Taiwan Chingguan Yihau are recognized as plausible agents for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia. The antiviral, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of selected Chinese herbal drugs may attribute to their inhibiting the binding of the coronavirus spike protein to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, inhibiting key enzymes such as 3-chymotrypsin-like protease and ribonucleic acid (RNA)- dependent RNA polymerase during viral replication, and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. Since most of the relevant studies mentioned the potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of these agents were only in vitro and animal experiments, more randomized double-blind controlled trials are needed to provide reliable evidence of clinical efficacy in future.

8.
Journal of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences ; 26(2), 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2033389

RESUMO

Background: Restrictive measures caused by the COVID-19 have exposed the families’ structure to some critical issues such as reduced quality of life and increased domestic violence. For this reason, the study of psychological factors are essential in this regard. Objectives: The study aimed to predict the quality of life and violence against women during COVID-19 quarantine based on resilience and coping styles. Methods: This descriptive correlation study was conducted on all married women in Karaj from October 1 to November 30, 2020. A total of 241 people were randomly selected as the sample and answered the questionnaires about coping styles, quality of life, violence against women, and resilience scale. The data were analysized by Pearson correlation test and regression analysis. Results: There was a significant positive relationship between resilience, efficient coping style, and quality of life, as well as a significant negative relationship between inefficient coping style and quality of life (P < 0.01). A significant negative relationship was observed between coping style with domestic violence, as well as a significant positive relationship between dysfunctional coping style and domestic violence (P < 0.01). Resilience and effective coping style predicted the quality of life, domestic violence, and ineffective coping style of domestic violence against women (P < 0.01). Conclusions: According to the results, individual and psychological factors of people could play a significant role in the occurrence of violence and thus reduce their quality of life. In educational-therapeutic sessions, counselors and family therapists increased the quality of life and reduced violence by examining coping styles and resilience to use educational strategies in this area.

9.
Current Oncology ; 29(8):5644-5654, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032870

RESUMO

Quality medical practice is based on science and evidence. For over a half-century, the efficacy of breast cancer screening has been challenged, particularly for women aged 40–49. As each false claim has been raised, it has been addressed and refuted based on science and evidence. Nevertheless, misinformation continues to be promoted, resulting in confusion for women and their physicians. Early detection has been proven to save lives for women aged 40–74 in randomized controlled trials of mammography screening. Observational studies, failure analyses, and incidence of death studies have provided evidence that there is a major benefit when screening is introduced to the general population. In large part due to screening, there has been an over 40% decline in deaths from breast cancer since 1990. Nevertheless, misinformation about screening continues to be promoted, adding to the confusion. Despite claims to the contrary, a careful reading of the guidelines issued by major groups such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Physicians shows that they all agree that most lives are saved by screening starting at the age of 40. There is no scientific support for using the age of 50 as a threshold for screening. All women should be provided with the facts and not false information about breast cancer screening so that they can make “informed decisions” for themselves about whether to participate.

10.
HemaSphere ; 6:3982, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032174

RESUMO

Background: Rituximab is one of the second-line treatments for ITP. At present, there are few studies on low-dose rituximab, lacking of a large number of prospective and randomized trials to support the efficacy and safety of lowdose rituximab, especially in children's ITP. Influenced by COVID-19, we used two low-dose rituximab regimens before and after March 2020 for second-line treatment of children's ITP. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of two different regimens for low-dose rituximab of children patients with chronic /refractory ITP, so as to provide basis for clinical treatment. Methods: 83 children patients were enrolled in this study and non-randomly assigned to receive 100mg/200mg (body weight 30kg) rituximab weekly for 4 weeks (group A, 53 cases) or a single dose of 375mg / m2 rituximab (group B, 30cases). The study was follow-up for at least half a year. Results: The baseline data of group A and B were the same. For group A: Overall and complete response (OR and CR) rates were 35.8% and 15%, respectively;the side effects rate is 3.8%. In responders, the median time to response was 4 (1 -12) weeks, with a median follow-up time of 12 (6 ∼ 36) months, 6 of 19 responders (31.6%) relapsed. For group B: OR and CR rates were 36.7% and 23%, respectively;the side effects rate is 10%. In responders, the median time to response was 1 (1 ∼ 4) weeks, with a median follow-up time of 11.5 (6 ∼ 17) months, 4 of 11 responders (36.4%) relapsed. No significant difference in the OR, NR, relapse free survival and incidence of side effects was observed in patients between the two groups. Image: Summary/Conclusion: The two low-dose rituximab regimens in the treatment of ITP in children both are safe and effective;The single-agent scheme is more recommended because of easier use and not increasing safety events.

11.
HemaSphere ; 6:1350-1351, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032173

RESUMO

Background: The efficacy of ravulizumab (intravenous [IV] formulation;administered every 8 weeks) for the treatment of patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) has been demonstrated in several randomized trials (NCT02946463, NCT03056040, NCT03406507). In study 303 (NCT03748823), subcutaneous (SC) ravulizumab, administered weekly via an on-body delivery system, showed pharmacokinetic non-inferiority to IV ravulizumab in adult patients with PNH who were clinically stable on prior IV eculizumab treatment. Here, we report results from the first 1 year of SC treatment, starting at day 15 for patients who continued SC ravulizumab during the extension period (SC/SC) and day 71 for patients who switched from IV ravulizumab to SC ravulizumab (IV/SC). Aims: To evaluate the efficacy, treatment administration satisfaction and safety of SC ravulizumab through the first 1 year (day 351) of treatment in adult patients with PNH previously treated with eculizumab. Methods: Patients (≥ 18 years) with clinically stable PNH (lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] levels ≤ 1.5 × upper limit of normal [246 U/L]) and ≥ 3 months prior eculizumab treatment were enrolled in the study, which consisted of a screening period (day-1 to day-30), a 10-week randomized treatment period and an extension period of up to 172 weeks. During the randomized treatment period, patients were assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive either SC ravulizumab or IV ravulizumab;all patients received SC ravulizumab during the extension period. Efficacy endpoints included: change in LDH from baseline;incidence of breakthrough hemolysis;transfusion avoidance;and stabilized hemoglobin (avoidance of a ≥ 2 g/dL decrease in hemoglobin in the absence of transfusion). Treatment administration satisfaction was assessed via the Treatment Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (TASQ), which has been validated in a PNH population. Safety, including adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs) and adverse device effects (ADEs), were also assessed up to the 1-year data cut-off. Results: In total, 128 patients received SC ravulizumab (SC/SC: n = 84;IV/SC: n = 44;mean [range] duration of SC treatment: 486.4 [37-709] days). Efficacy endpoints (SC/SC and IV/SC) remained stable over time through 1 year of SC ravulizumab treatment. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) percentage change in LDH from baseline to SC day 351 was 0.9% (20.5%). Breakthrough hemolysis events were infrequent: 5/128 patients (3.9%);no event was considered free C5-related. Transfusion avoidance was maintained in 83.6% of patients during SC treatment, and 79.7% achieved stabilized hemoglobin. Improvement in total TASQ score with SC ravulizumab (compared with baseline IV eculizumab) was apparent at the first post-SC treatment assessment (SC day 29) and maintained until data cut-off (Figure). The most common AEs (reported by ≥ 10% of patients, excluding ADEs related to device product issues) during SC treatment were headache (14.1%, all grade ≤ 2), COVID-19 (14.1%, one death) and pyrexia (10.9%);injection site reaction (4.7%) was the most common non-device related ADE. Treatment-emergent SAEs were experienced by 21.1% of patients through to data cut-off. Although many patients had ≥ 1 device issue ADE, full SC dose administration was achieved in 99.9% of attempts. ADE incidence decreased over time. Image: Summary/Conclusion: The SC method of administration provides an additional treatment option for patients with PNH receiving ravulizumab therapy. Patients may be switched from IV eculizumab or IV ravulizumab to SC ravulizumab without loss of efficacy.

12.
HemaSphere ; 6:1647-1648, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032170

RESUMO

Background: Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance and continuous LEN-based induction therapy until disease progression have become standard of care for frontline therapy of multiple myeloma (MM). As such, an increasing number of patients (pts) in need of 2nd line therapy have LEN-refractory disease. Optimal treatment in this setting has not been rigorously assessed in randomized studies. The phase I portion of Alliance A061202 demonstrated the safety of the ixazomib-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (IXA-POM-DEX) combination for the treatment of pts with LEN and proteasome inhibitor (PI)-refractory MM. Aims: In the randomized phase II portion, we evaluated the addition of IXA to POM-DEX for PI naïve / sensitive pts progressing on LEN as part of 1st line therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), depth of response, survival and safety. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to IXA-POM-DEX or POM-DEX and stratified by prior bortezomib exposure, International Staging System stage (1 and 2 vs 3) and the presence of high-risk cytogenetics. POM was administered at 4 mg on days 1-21;IXA 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15;and DEX 20 mg (>75 years (yrs)) or 40 mg (≤75 yrs) on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, the emergence of unacceptable side effects or withdrawal of treatment consent. Results: 38 and 39 eligible pts were assigned to IXA-POM-DEX and POM-DEX, respectively. The median age was 66 yrs (range 41-83) and 64 yrs (range 52-85). A planned first interim analysis was conducted after 43 out of 57 required events had occurred. PFS favored the IXA-POM-DEX arm (one-sided log rank test value = 4.6345, p=0.03134 [< p-value boundary of 0.058]), yielding a hazard ratio of 0.528 (upper 90% bound = 0.777). A stratified log-rank test found that PFS was superior for the triplet after adjusting for stratification factors (one-sided stratified log rank test value = 5.8371;p=0.0157), adjusted hazard ratio 0.451 (upper 90% bound = 0.694). The ORR favored IXA-POM-DEX (63.2% vs 43.6%, p=0.0853), and the ≥very good partial response was 26.3% vs 5.1%, respectively (p=0.01). The clinical benefit rate (ORR + minimal response rate) was 73.7% and 56.4%. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events included lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 40%, 37%, 16% and 16% of IXAPOM-DEX-treated pts and 26%, 21%, 13%, and 15% of POM-DEX-treated pts. Therapy was discontinued for disease progression in 47.4% of pts on IXA-POM-DEX and 76.9% of pts on POM-DEX and for adverse events in 7.9% and 7.7% of pts, respectively. Summary/Conclusion: The addition of IXA to the POM-DEX backbone improved the depth of response and PFS for pts relapsing on LEN as part of 1st line therapy. Hematologic toxicity was increased with the addition of IXA, but side effects were manageable. The ease of administration of this all-oral combination allowed for safer, uninterrupted treatment during the COVID pandemic. Our results should be confirmed in phase III trials but lend support for this regimen as part of 2nd line therapy for this patient population.

13.
HemaSphere ; 6:1596-1597, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032166

RESUMO

Background: The bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) regimen is a standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen-binding antibody-drug conjugate that eliminates myeloma cells by a multimodal mechanism: direct cell kill and anti-myeloma tumor immune response. Belamaf has demonstrated deep and durable responses as a monotherapy in the DREAMM-2 study of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Preclinical evidence of belamaf in combination with bortezomib or lenalidomide suggests enhanced anti-myeloma activity, providing rationale for this treatment combination. Aims: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of this combination in adult pts with transplant-ineligible (TI) NDMM and establish the recommended Phase III dose. Methods: DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing Phase I, open-label, randomized study of belamaf + VRd. The belamaf dose cohorts currently being evaluated are Cohort 1 (1.9 mg/kg Q3/4W), Cohort 2 (1.4 mg/kg Q6/8W), Cohort 3 (1.9 mg/kg Q6/8W), Cohort 4 (1.0 mg/kg Q3/4W), and Cohort 5 (1.4 mg/kg Q3/4W). Belamaf is given with VRd Q3W until Cycle 8, and with Rd Q4W thereafter. After evaluation of safety data for Cohort 1, Cohorts 2-5 were opened in parallel and enrolled pts were randomized 1:1:1:1. Primary endpoint is safety. Secondary endpoints include efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: As of data cutoff (07 Dec 2021), 64 pts were analyzed across all cohorts. Median age (range) was 73.0 (51- 88) years, 55% were male, 80% were white, 8% had extramedullary disease, 59% were International Staging System stage II or III, 20% had amp1q, and 17% had high-risk cytogenetics (≥1 of: t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p). The median duration of follow-up varied: Cohort 1 (17.4 months [mo]), Cohort 2 (5.9 mo), Cohort 3 (6.1 mo), Cohort 4 (4.7 mo), Cohort 5 (5.8 mo). Median number of belamaf cycles were: Cohort 1 (6), Cohort 2 (3), Cohort 3 (3.5), Cohort 4 (4.5), and Cohort 5 (5). Most common adverse events (AEs) across cohorts included thrombocytopenia (49%), constipation (43%), diarrhea (32%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (30%). AEs related to study treatment were experienced by 61 (97%) pts. Belamaf-related grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 24 (38%) pts. Belamaf dose reductions occurred in 11 (18%) pts, with dose delays in 10 (16%) pts. Three pts experienced a fatal severe AE (unrelated to study treatment);2 due to COVID-19 infection, 1 due to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Early deep responses were observed;67-92% pts achieved ≥very good partial response (VGPR) (Table), with median time to VGPR of 2.1-2.9 months across cohorts. Of pts with ≥VGPR, 17 were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative, 10 in Cohort 1. As of data cutoff, 8-75% of pts achieved best response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR (sCR). Grade 3 corneal exam findings were reported in 25-58% of pts;grade 3 visual acuity changes were reported in 21-75% of pts. No grade 4 corneal exam findings or visual acuity changes were reported in pts receiving belamaf Q6/8W, compared with 0-17% and 0-8%, respectively, in the Q3/4W cohorts. Belamaf PK profile was similar to that in pts with RRMM, accounting for baseline characteristics. Image: Summary/Conclusion: Belamaf + VRd demonstrated high response rates in pts with TI NDMM, with a high rate of MRD negativity indicating deep responses. No new safety signals were observed relative to DREAMM-2. Study is ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of variable dose intensities of belamaf in combination with VRd.

14.
HemaSphere ; 6:1985-1987, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032163

RESUMO

Background: Ibrutinib (IBR) is an oral covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), licensed for treatment of relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Under NHS interim Covid-19 agreements in England, IBR with or without rituximab (R) was approved for the frontline treatment for MCL patients (pts) as a safer alternative to conventional immunochemotherapy. Although recent phase 2 studies have reported high response rates in low-risk patients for this combination in the frontline setting, randomised phase 3 and real-world data are currently lacking. Aims: To describe the real-world response rates (overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate) and toxicity profile of IBR +/-R in adult patients with previously untreated MCL. Methods: Following institutional approval, adults commencing IBR +/-R for untreated MCL under interim Covid-19 arrangements were prospectively identified by contributing centres. Hospital records were interrogated for demographic, pathology, response, toxicity and survival data. ORR/CR were assessed per local investigator according to the Lugano criteria using CT and/or PET-CT. Results: Data were available for 66 pts (72.7% male, median age 71 years, range 41-89). Baseline demographic and clinical features are summarised in Table 1. 23/66 pts (34.8%) had high-risk disease (defined as presence of TP53 mutation/deletion, blastoid or pleomorphic variant MCL, or Ki67%/MiB-1 ≥30%). IBR starting dose was 560mg in 56/62 pts (90%) and was given with R in 22/64 pts (34%). At a median follow up of 8.7 months (m) (range 0-18.6), pts had received a median of 7 cycles of IBR. 19/60 pts (32%) required a dose reduction or delay in IBR treatment. New atrial fibrillation and grade ≥3 any-cause toxicity occurred in 3/59 pts (5.8%) and 8/57 (14.0%) respectively. For the whole population and high-risk pts only, ORR was 74.4% and 64.7% respectively (p=0.2379), with a median time to response of 3.8m, coinciding with the first response assessment scan. Seven pts (16.7%), of whom 2 had highrisk disease, attained CR at a median of 6.0m. ORR for pts receiving vs not receiving R were 84.2% and 66.7% respectively (p=0.1904). IBR was discontinued in 20/61 pts (32.8%) at a median time to discontinuation of 4.1m, due to progressive disease (PD, 19.7%), toxicity (4.9%), death (3.3%;1 pt each of Covid-19 and E. coli infection), pt choice (3.3%) and other unspecified reasons (1.6%). 15/66 pts (22.7%) overall and 7/23 (30.4%) with high-risk disease progressed on IBR at a median time to PD of 4.0m. No pts underwent autologous stem cell transplantation consolidation during the study period. 12/57 pts (21.1%) received second line treatment (R-chemotherapy n=7, Nordic MCL protocol n=2, VR-CAP n=2, pirtobrutinib n=1). Response to second line treatment was CR in 4/11 pts, PD in 7/11. Of the 2 Nordic-treated patients, 1 had CR after cycle 2 and 1 PD. Fourteen pts (21.2%) died during the follow up period, due to MCL (n=11), Covid-19 (n=2) and congestive cardiac failure (n=1). Overall survival was lower for patients with high-risk disease (HR 0.55, p=0.038). Image: Summary/Conclusion: In this real-world UK cohort of pts receiving first-line IBR +/-R for MCL, including older and high-risk pts, we report high ORR rates in a similar range to the phase II Geltamo IMCL-2015 study of combination IBR-R in an exclusively low-risk population. Documented CR rates were lower, possibly reflecting a low usage of rituximab in the Covid-19 pandemic as well as CT assessment of response. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with low rates of toxicityrelated treatment discontinuation. The study is ongoing.

15.
HemaSphere ; 6:1096-1097, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032152

RESUMO

Background: Infectious complications are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL). Therapeutic approaches that deplete CLL cells also affect normal B-cells. Optimal treatment would result in eradication of CLL cells and recovery of normal immune function. FLAIR (ISRCTN01844152) is a phase III trial for previously untreated CLL comparing ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) and subsequently amended to also compare ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V) and ibrutinib alone (I) with FCR. Measurable residual disease (MRD) and normal B-cell levels were assessed at multiple timepoints. Aims: To assess the depletion of normal B-cells during treatment and recovery after end of treatment. Methods: Participants aged under 75 years with <20% TP53-deleted cells were initially randomised to FCR or IR and subsequently to FCR, IR, I+V or I with the IR arm closed after randomisation of 771 participants to FCR/IR. FCR was given for 6 cycles, while treatment in the IR, I and I+V arms continued for up to 6 years except in participants attaining <0.01% MRD who continued treatment for the time taken to achieved MRD <0.01% and then stopped if MRD remained <0.01%. Month (M) 24 was earliest permitted stopping point. MRD flow cytometry was performed according to ERIC guidelines (panel: CD19/5/20/43/79/81+ROR1, acquisition of 0.5-2.2 million cells, BD Biosciences Lyric). Additional analysis of normal B-cell subsets was performed in a cohort of >500 patients (panel: CD19 to identify B-cells, CD20/5/79b+ROR1 and CD3 to exclude CLL & contaminating cells, with CD27/ 38/IgD/IgM to characterise normal B-cell subsets using a Coulter Cytoflex LX). Results: Normal B-cells were undetectable during FCR treatment and only rarely detectable until 12 months after last FCR cycle. Circulating normal B-cells were reduced in number or undetectable in participants receiving ibrutinibcontaining regimens with greater depletion in the I+V and IR arms relative to I monotherapy. B-progenitors persist through FCR treatment but were depleted during I, I+R or I+V treatment. Normal B-cell levels at 24 and 36 months after randomisation, with time off-treatment if applicable, are shown in Figure 1. In the ibrutinib-containing arms (IR, I, and I+V), there was a trend towards fewer COVID-associated SAE at any time point for participants with detectable B-cells at 24M (4/181, 2.2%) compared to those with no detectable B-cells (14/344, 4.1%) and COVID-associated SAEs were not observed in FCR-treated participants who had recovered any level of normal B-cells by 24M (0/215). However, the data on COVID infections are limited and there was no apparent association between normal B-cell levels at 24M with the proportion of participants experiencing an infectious SAE overall. Assessment of normal B-cell subsets during ibrutinib-based treatment demonstrated a mix of naïve and memory B-cells. Serological response to COVID infection/vaccination in this cohort is currently being performed. Participants stopping I+V treatment at 24-30 months post-randomisation due to MRD eradication showed rapid recovery of normal naive B-cells within 6-12 months after end of treatment in the vast majority (>95%) of evaluable cases. Summary/Conclusion: Normal circulating B-cells are depleted during treatment with rituximab but can persist at a low level during I, IR or I+V treatment. Most patients in remission after treatment with FCR or I+V show recovery of normal B-cells at 12 months of stopping treatment.

16.
HemaSphere ; 6:371-372, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032140

RESUMO

Background: Therapy options are limited for COVID-19 patients with hematological disease, cancer, immunosuppression or adanced age. Een though no benefit was obsered for conalescent plasma in unselected patients with COVID-19, retrospectie data suggest that it could be effectie in patients unable to mount a sufficient immune response upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Plasma from accinated donors has not been systematically assessed for COVID-19 treatment. Aims: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to address plasma efficacy in patients at high risk for an aderse outcome. Methods: COVID-19 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and oxygen saturation <=94% were randomized (NCT05200754). Patients receied conalescent or accinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma in two bags (238 - 337 ml plasma each) from different donors on day 1 and 2 (PLASMA) or standard of care (CONTROL). Randomization was stratified according to four clinical patient groups, hematological/solid cancer (group-1), treatment or disease associated immunosuppression (group 2), high risk disease by standard parameters (group-3) or age >=75 years (group-4). Mechanically entilated patients were not eligible. Plasma was obtained from donors with high leel neutralizing actiity (titer >=1:80) either after SARS-CoV-2 infection (conalescent) or after accination with at least two doses of mRNA accines (accinated). Crossoer for the control group was allowed at day 10. The primary endpoint was time to improement as two points on a seen-point ordinal scale or lie discharge from the Hospital (IMPROVEMENT) with prespecified analyses of subgroups (Janssen M, et al. Trials 2020 Oct 6;21(1):828). Results: A total of 133 patients were randomized with 68 receiing PLASMA with a median age of 68 years (range 36-95) or CONTROL (n=65, of which n=10 (15.4%) crossed oer at day 10) with a median age of 70 years (range 38-90). The distribution of the four predefined groups was group-1, n=53;group-2, n=18;group-3, n=35;and group-4, n=27. The intention to treat analysis reealed a non-significant shorter time to IMPROVEMENT for patients in PLASMA (median 12.5 days, 95%-CI [10;16]) compared to patients in CONTROL (median 18 days, 95%-CI [11;28] ), hazard ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interal [0.83;1.85], p=0.29). Oerall, 27 patients died (PLASMA, n=12;CONTROL, n=15;p=0.80). Predefined subgroup analysis reealed a clinically significant benefit in patients with hematological malignancies, other cancers or immunosuppression (group-1, group-2, n=71). With a median time to improement of 13 days (95%-CI [9;19]) for PLASMA and 32 days (95%-CI [17;57]) for CONTROL(HR 2.03, 95%-CI [1.17;3.6], p=0.01). A sensitiity analysis reealed that IMPROVEMENT appeared to be seen een earlier with accinated (median 10 days, 95%-CI [8;14]) compared to conalescent SARS-CoV-2 plasma (median 13 days, 95%-CI [6;38]) and CONTROL. Within group-1 and group-2, six patients in PLASMA (18.2%) and 10 in CONTROL (28.6%) died. No significant differences in improement were obsered in group-3 and group-4 with a HR of 0.72 (95%-CI [0.41;1.28], p=0.26). Within group-3 and group-4, six patients in PLASMA (18.8%) and fie in CONTROL (16.7%) died. No preiously unknown side effects of plasma therapy emerged within the trial. Summary/Conclusion: Plasma from conalescent and particularly accinated donors improed outcome of COVID-19 patients with an underlying hematological disease /cancer or other reasons of impaired immune response. Plasma did not improe outcome in immune-competent patients with other risk factors and/or older age. (Figure Presented).

17.
HemaSphere ; 6:1988-1990, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032126

RESUMO

Background: Optimal consolidation for young R/R FL in the rituximab age remains uncertain and the benefit of ASCT is not clearly established. Aims: The FIL FLAZ12 trial (NCT01827605) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial, comparing RIT versus ASCT, as consolidation after chemoimmunotherapy, both followed by R maintenance in R/R FL. Methods: Pts aged 18-65 yrs, with R/R FL after 1 or 2 lines of chemoimmunotherapy, without significant comorbidities were enrolled. Patients received 3 courses of therapy chosen by the investigator among RCHOP, R-DHAP, R-FM, R-ICE, R-IEV or R-B. Pts achieving at least PR (according to Cheson et al. 2007) were randomized 1:1 to either RIT or ASCT before CD34+ collection. Conditioning for ASCT was BEAM or TEAM. RIT was given as previously described (Morschhauser et al., 2008). After consolidation, pts received R maintenance every 3 months for eight courses. Primary endpoint was PFS. Considering ASCT toxicity, it was hypothesized to be a superior choice, if capable of increasing 3-years PFS from 40% to 60% (two-side log-rank test with alpha of 5% and a power of 85%). Clinical secondary endpoints were ORR, CRR, OS, EFS and TTF. Results: Between Aug 2012, and Sep 2019, 164 pts were screened and 159 enrolled by 38 FIL Centers (enrolled population). Unfortunately, the study was prematurely closed due to low accrual. The data were analyzed on an ITT basis on May 2, 2021 with a median follow-up (mFU) from enrollment of 43 months and 75 PFS events. The two arms were clinically well balanced, with median age of 57 yrs (IQR 49-62), 55% male, 57% stage IV, 20% bulky disease. Tumor re-biopsy was performed in 79% pts. POD-24, retrospectively assessed was observed in 32% of pts. Two pts (1%) did not start treatment (non-confirmed histology and withdrawal). Sixteen (10%) pts discontinued before randomization (7 SD, 3 PD, 3 AE, 1 withdrawal, 2 poor compliance) and 141 (89%) were randomized to either RIT (71) or ASCT (70) (randomized population). Of these 19 (13%) (RIT 8, ASCT 11) did not receive the planned consolidation due to 7 PD, 4 AE, 1 medical decision, 2 poor mobilization, 2 withdrawals, 1 poor compliance, 2 protocol breaches, while 63 (89%) received RIT and 59 (84%) ASCT. After RIT, 61% of pts achieved CR and 23% PR, while after ASCT these were 70% and 9%. Estimated PFS at 3 yrs was 60% (95% CI: 46%-71%) in the RIT arm vs. 59% (95% CI:45%-70%) in the ASCT arm, p = 0.8613 (HR 0.96, 95%CI: 0.57,1.59). (Figure 1) 3yrs-OS was again superimposable in the two arms: 83% (95%CI: 69%-91%) in the RIT vs 85% (95% CI: 72%-91%) in the ASCT, p = 0.8310 (HR 1.10, 95%CI: 0.45,2.72). Grade ≥ 3 hematological toxicity was 46% in the RIT vs 94% in the ASCT arm (p < 0.001). For ASCT vs RIT grade ≥3 neutropenia occurred in 94% vs 41% of pts (p < 0.001). During follow-up, 4 pts died in remission: 1 AML (RIT), 2 SARS-COV2 infections (RIT) and 1 pneumonia (ASCT). Second cancers occurred in 3 pts after RIT and 7 after ASCT (p = 0.480). Multivariable analysis for PFS indicated POD-24, male sex, LDH and refractory disease as adverse parameters. Subgroup analysis for PFS including gender, age, LDH, POD-24 and extranodal disease show no subgroup favoring RIT nor ASCT. Image: Summary/Conclusion: Even if prematurely interrupted, our study demonstrated no meaningful difference in efficacy between ASCT and RIT, but ASCT was more toxic and more demanding for pts and health service. Both strategies induced a similar and favorable long-term outcome suggesting that consolidation programs milder than ASCT require further investigation in R/R FL.

18.
HemaSphere ; 6:4028-4029, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032122

RESUMO

Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are two of the most frequent hematological malignancies. CLL and MDS are also considerably heterogeneous in terms of clinical course and response to treatment, ranging from relatively indolent to extremely aggressive. Thus, open issues abound regarding the impact of CLL and MDS and their treatment on patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been identified as an emerging paradigm, aiming to capture the patient's perspective onselfassessed health status. Obviously, these data are critical with regards to the evaluation of the treatment effects and the patients' QoL, while also enabling the positioning of the patient as a key stakeholder within the healthcare decision making process. Novel methodologies and eHealth approaches can be valuable for the adoption of the PRO paradigm in real-world settings as they can promote richer, less obtrusive and preemptive communication which could facilitate early recognition of potential symptoms of disease or treatment adverse effects (e.g., adverse drug reactions, lack of physical activity, worsening of QoL etc.). Aims: In this , we present the lessons learned thus far from the implementation of the MyPal project, a Horizon 2020 Research & Innovation Action aiming to foster palliative care for patients with CLL and MDS by leveraging the ePRO paradigm. Methods: MyPal aspires to empower patients and their caregivers to more accurately capture their symptoms/conditions, communicate them in a seamless and effective way to their healthcare providers (HCPs);and, ultimately, to foster action through advanced methods of identification of important deviations relevant to the patient's state and QoL. To this end, MyPal developed a technical platform including a mobile app for patients with CLL and MDS, collecting information via standardized questionnaires and other information sources (e.g., wearable sensors), also enabling spontaneous symptoms reporting, educational material provision, motivational messages, discussion guides, notifications etc. A data intensive web-based dashboard platform is also provided for healthcare professionals, providing real-time analytics, enabling a better view of collected PROs and other relevant information on patients' health status. Currently, a randomised clinical study is being conducted in 4 European countries to evaluate the proposed intervention and its potential impact on patients' QoL. Results: Based on this experience, a number of key issues have emerged: (a) while patients are generally positive about the use of eHealth, they are still reluctant about engaging in eHealth clinical studies;(b) digital literacy levels differ across different age groups as well as among different cultural contexts;(c) the COVID-19 pandemic seriously hindered patient recruitment due to the widely adopted recommendations for patients to avoid visits to hospitals unless absolutely necessary but (d) the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted the potential benefits for HCPs of using eHealth tools in order to deliver patient care in a more decentralized and patient-centric fashion. Summary/Conclusion: In conclusion, MyPal is likely to provide important new evidence about how digital health systems can be used to improve QoL and facilitate better communication between patients with hematological malignancies and HCPs.

19.
HemaSphere ; 6:2759-2760, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2032096

RESUMO

Background: Patients with hematologic malignancies have a high risk of dying from COVID19 due to inability to mount humoral and cellular immune responses to the virus. Remdesvir is an inhibitor of viral RNA-polimerase. Some, but not all studies suggest it hastens recovery and reduces mortality in patients with COVID19. In a large randomized trial, convalescent plasma obtained from persons recovering from the infection was not proven to be useful in treatment of COVID19 in the general population, but other studies suggest it is useful in hematologic patients unable to produce antibodies against the virus. Recommendations on the use of these two drugs vary, some recommend its use only in severely immunocompromized individuals, some only in serious cases and some not at all. Reflecting these differences, the practice of using them varied between Croatian centers during the current pandemic. Aims: To analyze the effect of remdesvir and convalescent plasma on mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies by performing a matched-pair analysis. Methods: KroHem, the Croatian Cooperative Group for Hematologic Diseases, collected data on the outcome of patients with hematologic malignancies who became infected with SARS-COV2 while on concurrent systemic antineoplastic therapy during 2020 and 2021, before the appearance of the omicron strain. Patients treated with remdesvir and/or convalescent plasma were matched to those untreated according to age, disease type and antineoplastic therapy, factors found in our previous analyses to be related to outcome. Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and myeloproliferative neoplasms were excluded, due to low risk of COVID19 mortality. Death during infection was considered as due to COVID19. Results: We identified 119 patients fulfilling the entry criteria. Three could not be matched, 2 with T-PLL treated with alemtuzumab and one with plasmablastic lymphoma and newly diagnosed HIV infection. All three died. In the remaining 116 patient pairs remdesvir significantly reduced the mortality: 36 out of 106 treated patients died, in comparison to 54 untreated (p=0.0207, McNemar's test). The effect of plasma was not significant: 26 of 73 treated patients died, in comparison to 33 untreated (p=0.2812). Therapy was substantially more effective in patients who received treatment within a week from symptom onset;11 of 58 patients treated with remdesvir died in comparison to 33 untreated (p<0.0001) and 8 out of 35 treated with plasma in comparison to 20 untreated (p=0.0095). Patients treated with remdesvir only had similar outcomes as those treated with remdesvir and plasma (15% vs. 19% respectively). (Figure Presented ) Summary/Conclusion: Our study suggests that patients with hematologic neoplasia, who are at a high risk of dying from COVID19, should receive treatment with remdesvir and convalescent plasma as soon as possible, resulting in a 2.5-3 times reduction in mortality. The effect of later treatment, if any, is less prominent.

20.
TH Open ; 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2031841

RESUMO

Background. Thromboembolism remains a detrimental complication of COVID-19 despite the use of prophylactic doses of anticoagulation Objectives. Compare different thromboprophylaxis strategies in COVID-19 patients Methods. We conducted a systematic database search until Jun 30th, 2022. Eligible studies were randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized studies that compared prophylactic to intermediate or therapeutic doses of anticoagulation in adult patients with COVID-19, admitted to general wards or intensive care unit (ICU). Primary outcomes were mortality, thromboembolism, and bleeding events. Data is analyzed separately in RCTs and non-RCTs, and in ICU and non-ICU patients. Results. We identified 682 studies and included 53 eligible studies. Therapeutic anticoagulation showed no mortality benefit over prophylactic anticoagulation in four RCTs (OR 0.67, 95%CI, 0.18-2.54). Therapeutic anticoagulation didn't improve mortality in ICU or non-ICU patients. Risk of thromboembolism was significantly lower among non-ICU patients who received enhanced (therapeutic/intermediate) anticoagulation (OR 0.21, 95%CI, 0.06-0.74). Two additional RCTs (Multiplatform Trial and HEP-COVID), not included in the quantitative meta-analysis, analyzed non-ICU patients and reported a similar benefit with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a significantly higher risk of bleeding events among non-randomized studies (OR 3.45, 95% CI, 2.32-5.13). Among RCTs, although patients who received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation had higher numbers of bleeding events, these differences were not statistically significant. Studies comparing prophylactic and intermediate-dose anticoagulation showed no differences in primary outcomes. Conclusions. There is a lack of mortality benefit with therapeutic-dose over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation in ICU and non-ICU COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic anticoagulation significantly decreased risk of thromboembolism risk in some of the available RCTs, especially among non-ICU patients. This potential benefit, however, may be counter-balanced by higher risk of bleeding. Individualized assessment of patient's bleeding risk will ultimately impact the true clinical benefit of anticoagulation in each patient. Finally, we found no mortality or morbidity benefit with intermediate-dose anticoagulation.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA