Experience With the Use of Baricitinib and Tocilizumab Monotherapy or Combined, in Patients With Interstitial Pneumonia Secondary to Coronavirus COVID19: A Real-World Study / Experiencia con el uso de baricitinib y tocilizumab en monoterapia o combinados, en pacientes con neumonía intersticial secundaria al coronavirus COVID-19: Un estudio del mundo real

Objective: To describe the experience of treatment with baricitinib (BARI) and/or tocilizumab (TCZ), in monotherapy or combined, in patients admitted for interstitial pneumonia secondary to COVID19, and for 30 days after discharge. Methods: Medical records of patients admitted with COVID19 and IP with PaO2/FiO2<300, treated with BARI and/or TCZ, and compared with patients who did not, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Sixty patients were included; 43 (72%) are males, mean age 67 (SD: 14) years (<50 years: 17%; 51–70: 30%; >70: 53%), with 8.5 (SD: 1) days of symptoms. Sixteen (27%) patients required ICU (94% in <70 years). Fifteen (25%) patients died, 67% in >70 years; 11 (18%) patients died in the first 15 days of admission and 4 (7%) between days 16 to 30. Twenty-three (38%) patients received BARI, 12 (52%) monotherapy (Group 1), during 6 (SD: 2.6) days on average, none required ICU and 2 (17%) died. Thirty-one (52%) patients received TCZ, 20 (33%) as monotherapy (Group 2), 16 (52%) patients required ICU and 4 (20%) died. In the 11 (18%) patients who received BARI (2.8 [SD: 2.5] days average) and TCZ combined (Group 3), 3 (27%) required ICU and died. There were no severe side effects in BARI or TCZ patients. In the 17 (28%) patients who received neither BARI nor TCZ (Group 4), none required ICU and 6 (35%) died. Mean (SD) PaO2/FiO2 at admission between groups was respectively: 167 (82.3), 221 (114.9), 236 (82.3), 276 (83.2). Conclusion: Treatment with BARI and TCZ did not cause serious side effects. They could be considered early in patients with NI secondary to COVID19 and impaired PaO2/PaFi.(AU)

Objetivo: Describir la experiencia con baricitinib (BARI) y/o tocilizumab (TCZ), en monoterapia o combinados en pacientes ingresados por neumonía intersticial (NI) por COVID-19 y durante los 30 días después del alta. Método: Se revisaron retrospectivamente las historias clínicas de los pacientes ingresados por COVID-19 y NI, con PaO2/FiO2<300, tratados con BARI y/o TCZ y se compararon con pacientes que no los recibieron. Resultados: Se incluyeron 60 pacientes; 43 (72%) varones, edad media 67 (DE: 14) años (< 50 años: 17%; 51-70: 30%; > 70: 53%), y 8,5 (DE: 1) días de síntomas. Dieciséis (27%) ingresaron en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) (94% < 70 años). Quince (25%) fallecieron (67% > 70 años); 11 (18%) de ellos en los primeros 15 días del ingreso y cuatro (7%) entre los días 16 y 30. Veintitrés (38%) pacientes recibieron BARI, 12 (52%) en monoterapia (Grupo 1), durante seis (DE: 2.6) días de promedio, ninguno de ellos ingresó en UCI y dos (17%) fallecieron. Treinta y un (52%) pacientes recibieron una dosis de TCZ, 20 (33%) en monoterapia (Grupo 2), 16 (52%) ingresaron en UCI y cuatro (20%) fallecieron. Entre los 11 (18%) pacientes que recibieron BARI (2,8 [DE: 2,5] días de promedio) y TCZ combinados (Grupo 3), tres (27%) ingresaron en UCI y fallecieron. No hubo efectos secundarios graves entre los que recibieron BARI y/o TCZ. Entre los 17 (28%) pacientes que no recibieron ni BARI ni TCZ (Grupo 4), ninguno ingresó en UCI y seis (35%) fallecieron. La PaO2/FiO2 media (DE) al ingreso entre los grupos fue respectivamente: 167 (82,3), 221 (114,9), 236 (82,3), 276 (83,2). Conclusión: El tratamiento con BARI y TCZ no provocó efectos secundarios graves. Podrían considerarse precozmente en pacientes con NI secundaria a COVID-19 y deterioro de PaO2/PaFi.(AU)

Experience with the use of baricitinib and tocilizumab monotherapy or combined, in patients with interstitial pneumonia secondary to coronavirus COVID19: a real-world study / Experiencia con el uso de baricitinib y tocilizumab en monoterapia o combinados, en pacientes con neumonía intersticial secundaria al coronavirus COVID-19: un estudio del mundo real

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of treatment with baricitinib (BARI) and/or tocilizumab (TCZ), in monotherapy or combined, in patients admitted for interstitial pneumonia secondary to COVID19, and for 30 days after discharge. METHODS: Medical records of patients admitted with COVID19 and IP with PaO2/FiO2<300, treated with BARI and/or TCZ, and compared with patients who did not, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included; 43 (72%) are males, mean age 67 (SD: 14) years (<50 years: 17%; 51-70: 30%; >70: 53%), with 8.5 (SD: 1) days of symptoms. Sixteen (27%) patients required ICU (94% in <70 years). Fifteen (25%) patients died, 67% in >70 years; 11 (18%) patients died in the first 15 days of admission and 4 (7%) between days 16 to 30. Twenty-three (38%) patients received BARI, 12 (52%) monotherapy (Group 1), during 6 (SD: 2.6) days on average, none required ICU and 2 (17%) died. Thirty-one (52%) patients received TCZ, 20 (33%) as monotherapy (Group 2), 16 (52%) patients required ICU and 4 (20%) died. In the 11 (18%) patients who received BARI (2.8 [SD: 2.5] days average) and TCZ combined (Group 3), 3 (27%) required ICU and died. There were no severe side effects in BARI or TCZ patients. In the 17 (28%) patients who received neither BARI nor TCZ (Group 4), none required ICU and 6 (35%) died. Mean (SD) PaO2/FiO2 at admission between groups was respectively: 167 (82.3), 221 (114.9), 236 (82.3), 276 (83.2). CONCLUSION: Treatment with BARI and TCZ did not cause serious side effects. They could be considered early in patients with NI secondary to COVID19 and impaired PaO2/PaFi

OBJETIVO: Describir la experiencia con baricitinib (BARI) y/o tocilizumab (TCZ), en monoterapia o combinados en pacientes ingresados por neumonía intersticial (NI) por COVID-19 y durante los 30 días después del alta. MÉTODO: Se revisaron retrospectivamente las historias clínicas de los pacientes ingresados por COVID-19 y NI, con PaO2/FiO2<300, tratados con BARI y/o TCZ y se compararon con pacientes que no los recibieron. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 60 pacientes; 43 (72%) varones, edad media 67 (DE: 14) años (< 50 años: 17%; 51-70: 30%; > 70: 53%), y 8,5 (DE: 1) días de síntomas. Dieciséis (27%) ingresaron en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) (94% < 70 años). Quince (25%) fallecieron (67% > 70 años); 11 (18%) de ellos en los primeros 15 días del ingreso y cuatro (7%) entre los días 16 y 30. Veintitrés (38%) pacientes recibieron BARI, 12 (52%) en monoterapia (Grupo 1), durante seis (DE: 2.6) días de promedio, ninguno de ellos ingresó en UCI y dos (17%) fallecieron. Treinta y un (52%) pacientes recibieron una dosis de TCZ, 20 (33%) en monoterapia (Grupo 2), 16 (52%) ingresaron en UCI y cuatro (20%) fallecieron. Entre los 11 (18%) pacientes que recibieron BARI (2,8 [DE: 2,5] días de promedio) y TCZ combinados (Grupo 3), tres (27%) ingresaron en UCI y fallecieron. No hubo efectos secundarios graves entre los que recibieron BARI y/o TCZ. Entre los 17 (28%) pacientes que no recibieron ni BARI ni TCZ (Grupo 4), ninguno ingresó en UCI y seis (35%) fallecieron. La PaO2/FiO2 media (DE) al ingreso entre los grupos fue respectivamente: 167 (82,3), 221 (114,9), 236 (82,3), 276 (83,2). CONCLUSIÓN: El tratamiento con BARI y TCZ no provocó efectos secundarios graves. Podrían considerarse precozmente en pacientes con NI secundaria a COVID-19 y deterioro de PaO2/PaFi

Comparison of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score and the Five-Factor Score to Assess Survival in Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis: A Study of 550 Patients From Spain (REVAS Registry).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), version 3, and the Five Factor Score (FFS), version 1996 and version 2009, to assess survival in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV). METHODS: A total of 550 patients with AAV (41.1% with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, 37.3% with microscopic polyangiitis, and 21.6% with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis), diagnosed between 1990 and 2016, were analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and multivariable Cox analysis were used to assess the relationships between the outcome and the different scores. RESULTS: Overall mortality was 33.1%. The mean ± SD BVAS at diagnosis was 17.96 ± 7.82 and was significantly higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors (mean ± SD 20.0 ± 8.14 versus 16.95 ± 7.47, respectively; P < 0.001). The mean ± SD 1996 FFS and 2009 FFS were 0.81 ± 0.94 and 1.47 ± 1.16, respectively, and were significantly higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors (mean ± SD 1996 FFS 1.17 ± 1.07 versus 0.63 ± 0.81 [P < 0.001] and 2009 FFS 2.13 ± 1.09 versus 1.15 ± 1.05 [P < 0.001], respectively). Mortality rates increased according to the different 1996 FFS and 2009 FFS categories. In multivariate analysis, BVAS, 1996 FFS, and 2009 FFS were significantly related to death (P = 0.007, P = 0.020, P < 0.001, respectively), but the stronger predictor was the 2009 FFS (hazard ratio 2.9 [95% confidence interval 2.4-3.6]). When the accuracy of BVAS, 1996 FFS, and 2009 FFS to predict survival was compared in the global cohort, ROC analysis yielded area under the curve values of 0.60, 0.65, and 0.74, respectively, indicating that 2009 FFS had the best performance. Similar results were obtained when comparing these scores in patients diagnosed before and after 2001 and when assessing the 1-year, 5-year, and long-term mortality. Correlation among BVAS and 1996 FFS was modest (r = 0.49; P < 0.001) but higher than between BVAS and the 2009 FFS (r = 0.28; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: BVAS and FFS are useful to predict survival in AAV, but the 2009 FFS has the best prognostic accuracy at any point of the disease course.

Linfadenitis cervical, pancitopenia y fiebre en paciente con infección por VIH / Cervical lymphadenitis, pancytopenia and fever in a patient with HIV infection

No disponible