RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Peripheral arterial disease is a marker of vascular damage that is diagnosed by measuring the ankle-brachial index. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and agreement of the MESI ABPI-MD and Microlife WatchBP® office-ABI oscillometric devices with respect to the gold standard arterial Doppler. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study of inpatients who underwent ABI measurement with the three devices. Values are considered normal between 1-1.4, indeterminate between 0.91-0.99 and pathological ≤0.9 and >1.4. RESULTS: A total of 187 patients (54.4% male) with a mean age of 66 years were included. The Doppler results were inferior to those of the oscillometric devices (median [IQR] 1.1 [0.2] vs. 1.2 [0.2], P<.05), with no significant differences between the automated devices (P=.29 for the right lower limb and P=.342 for the left lower limb). Both devices had high specificity (96.5-99.2%) and low sensitivity (29.5-45.4%). The correlation of the results was good-moderate for MESI and moderate for Microlife. The agreement between the two was acceptable-moderate. CONCLUSION: Automated oscillometric devices could be useful in asymptomatic patients as an alternative to arterial Doppler.
Asunto(s)
Índice Tobillo Braquial , Oscilometría , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica , Ultrasonografía Doppler , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico , Anciano , Estudios Transversales , Oscilometría/instrumentación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
Some patients with COVID-19 pneumonia develop an associated cytokine storm syndrome that aggravates the pulmonary disease. These patients may benefit of anti-inflammatory treatment. The role of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation remains unexplored. In a prospective, randomized controlled, observer-blinded endpoint, investigator-initiated trial, 240 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation were randomly allocated to receive oral colchicine or not. The primary efficacy outcome measure was a composite of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (CPAP or BiPAP), admission to the intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or death. The composite primary outcome occurred in 19.3% of the total study population. The composite primary outcome was similar in the two arms (17% in colchicine group vs. 20.8% in the control group; p = 0.533) and the same applied to each of its individual components. Most patients received steroids (98%) and heparin (99%), with similar doses in both groups. In this trial, including adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and associated hyperinflammation, no clinical benefit was observed with short-course colchicine treatment beyond standard care regarding the combined outcome measurement of CPAP/BiPAP use, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation or death (Funded by the Community of Madrid, EudraCT Number: 2020-001841-38; 26/04/2020).
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , COVID-19/complicaciones , Colchicina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Estudios Prospectivos , Respiración ArtificialRESUMEN
Background: The use of IL-6 blockers in COVID-19 hospitalized patients has been associated with a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. However, many uncertainties remain pertaining to optimal intervention time, administration schedule, and predictors of response. To date, data on the use of subcutaneous sarilumab is limited and no randomized trial results are available. Methods: Open label randomized controlled trial at a single center in Spain. We included adult patients admitted with microbiology documented COVID-19 infection, imaging confirmed pneumonia, fever and/or laboratory evidence of inflammatory phenotype, and no need for invasive ventilation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive sarilumab, a single 400 mg dose in two 200 mg subcutaneous injections, added to standard care or standard care, in a 2:1 proportion. Primary endpoints included 30-day mortality, mean change in clinical status at day 7 scored in a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharge (category 7), and duration of hospitalization. The primary efficacy analysis was conducted on the intention-to-treat population. Results: A total of 30 patients underwent randomization: 20 to sarilumab and 10 to standard care. Most patients were male (20/30, 67%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 61.5 years (56-72). At day 30, 2/20 (10%) patients died in the sarilumab arm vs. none (0/10) in standard care (Log HR 15.11, SE 22.64; p = 0.54). At day 7, no significant differences were observed in the median change in clinical status (2 [0-3]) vs. 3 [0-3], p = 0.32). Median time to discharge (days) was similar (7 [6-11] vs. 6 [4-12]; HR 0.65, SE 0.26; p = 0.27). No significant differences were detected in the rate of progression to invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Conclusions and Relevance: Our pragmatic pilot study has failed to demonstrate the benefit of adding subcutaneous sarilumab to standard care for mortality by 30 days, functional status at day 7, or hospital stay. Findings herein do not exclude a potential effect of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 but adequately powered blinded randomized phase III trials are warranted to assess the impact of the subcutaneous route and a more selected target population. Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04357808.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We compared 48 week effectiveness and safety of first-line antiretroviral regimens. METHODS: We analysed HIV treatment-naive adults from the Cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS) starting the most commonly used antiretroviral regimens from 2014 to 2018. We used multivariable regression models to assess the impact of initial regimen on: (i) viral suppression (VS) (viral load <50 copies/mL); (ii) change in CD4 cell count; (iii) CD4/CD8 normalization (>0.4 and >1); (iv) CD4 percentage normalization (>29%); (v) multiple T-cell marker recovery (MTMR: CD4 > 500 cells/mm3 plus CD4 percentage >29% plus CD4/CD8 > 1); (vi) lipid, creatinine and transaminase changes; and (vii) discontinuations due to adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Among 3945 individuals analysed, the most frequently prescribed regimens were ABC/3TC/DTG (34.0%), TAF/FTC/EVG/CBT (17.2%), TDF/FTC + DTG (11.9%), TDF/FTC/EVG/CBT (11.7%), TDF/FTC/RPV (11.5%), TDF/FTC + bDRV (8.3%) and TDF/FTC + RAL (5.3%). At 48 weeks, 89.7% of individuals achieved VS with no significant differences by initial regimen. CD4 mean increase was 257.8 (249.3; 266.2) cells/mm3, and it was lower with TAF/FTC/EVG/CBT and TDF/FTC/RPV compared with ABC/3TC/DTG. CD4 percentage normalization was less likely with TAF/FTC/EVG/CBT, and MTMR was less likely with TAF/FTC/EVG/CBT and TDF/FTC + RAL. The proportion of discontinuations due to AE was higher with TDF/FTC + bDRV (9.7%), followed by TDF/FTC/EVG/CBT (9.5%) and TDF/FTC + DTG (7.9%). Compared with ABC/3TC/DTG, cholesterol and LDL mean increases were higher with TAF/FTC/EVG/CBT and lower with TDF/FTC + DTG, TDF/FTC/RPV and TDF/FTC + RAL. Higher mean increases in triglycerides were significantly associated with TAF/FTC/EVG/CBT. Regimens containing DTG showed higher creatinine increases. CONCLUSIONS: The significantly greater immunological response and safety of some combinations may be useful for making decisions when initiating treatment.