Eficacia y seguridad de la administración de plasma de convaleciente en pacientes con COVID-19 / Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma administration in patients with COVID-19 infection

Introducción Durante la pandemia de COVID-19 surgieron diversas estrategias para el manejo de la enfermedad, incluidos los tratamientos farmacológicos y no farmacológicos como el plasma convaleciente (PC). El uso de PC se sugirió debido a los resultados benéficos mostrados al tratar otras enfermedades virales. Objetivo Determinar la eficacia y la seguridad de la administración de PC obtenido de sangre total en pacientes con COVID-19. Métodos Ensayo clínico piloto en pacientes con COVID-19 de un hospital general. Los sujetos se separaron en 3 grupos que recibieron la transfusión de 400ml de PC (n=23) o 400ml de plasma estándar (PE) (n=19) y un grupo no transfundido (NT) (n=37). Los pacientes recibieron además, el tratamiento médico estándar disponible para COVID-19. El seguimiento de los sujetos se llevó a cabo diariamente desde el ingreso hasta el día 21. Resultados El PC no mejoró la curva de supervivencia en las variantes moderadas y graves de COVID-19, ni disminuyó el grado de severidad de la enfermedad evaluado con la escala de progresión clínica COVID-19, OMS y SOFA. Ningún paciente presentó una reacción postransfusional severa al PC. Conclusiones El tratamiento con PC no disminuye la mortalidad de los pacientes, aun cuando su administración tiene un alto grado de seguridad (AU)

Introduction During the COVID-19 pandemic, several strategies were suggested for the management of the disease, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments such as convalescent plasma (CP). The use of CP was suggested due to the beneficial results shown in treating other viral diseases. Objective To determine the efficacy and safety of CP obtained from whole blood in patients with COVID-19. Methods Pilot clinical trial in patients with COVID-19 from a general hospital. The subjects were separated into three groups that received the transfusion of 400ml of CP (n=23) or 400ml of standard plasma (SP) (n=19) and a non-transfused group (NT) (n=37). Patients also received the standard available medical treatment for COVID-19. Subjects were followed up daily from admission to day 21. Results The CP did not improve the survival curve in moderate and severe variants of COVID-19, nor did it reduce the degree of severity of the disease evaluated with the COVID-19 WHO and SOFA clinical progression scale. No patient had a severe post-transfusion reaction to CP. Conclusions Treatment with CP does not reduce the mortality of patients even when its administration has a high degree of safety (AU)

[Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma administration in patients with COVID-19 infection]. / Eficacia y seguridad de la administración de plasma de convaleciente en pacientes con COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several strategies were suggested for the management of the disease, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments such as convalescent plasma (CP). The use of CP was suggested due to the beneficial results shown in treating other viral diseases. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of CP obtained from whole blood in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Pilot clinical trial in patients with COVID-19 from a general hospital. The subjects were separated into three groups that received the transfusion of 400ml of CP (n=23) or 400ml of standard plasma (SP) (n=19) and a non-transfused group (NT) (n=37). Patients also received the standard available medical treatment for COVID-19. Subjects were followed up daily from admission to day 21. RESULTS: The CP did not improve the survival curve in moderate and severe variants of COVID-19, nor did it reduce the degree of severity of the disease evaluated with the COVID-19 WHO and SOFA clinical progression scale. No patient had a severe post-transfusion reaction to CP. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CP does not reduce the mortality of patients even when its administration has a high degree of safety.

Effects of resistant starch on glycemic response, postprandial lipemia and appetite in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: Resistant starch (RS) content has exhibited beneficial effects on glycemic control; however, few studies have investigated the effects of this substance on postprandial responses and appetite in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Here, we aimed to examine the effects of RS from two sources on glycemic response (GR), postprandial lipemia, and appetite in subjects with T2D. METHODS: In a randomized and crossover study, 17 subjects with T2D consumed native banana starch (NBS), high-amylose maize starch (HMS) or digestible maize starch (DMS) for 4 days. On day 5, a 6-h oral meal tolerance test (MTT) was performed to evaluate glycemic and insulinemic responses as well as postprandial lipemia. Besides, subjective appetite assessment was measured using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: NBS induced a reduction on fasting glycemia, glycemia peak and insulinemic response during MTT. However, no modifications on postprandial lipemia were observed after RS treatments. Both NBS and HMS reduced hunger and increased satiety. CONCLUSION: NBS supplementation induced more beneficial effects on glycemic metabolism than HMS even when all interventions were matched for digestible starch content. RS intake did not modify postprandial lipemia, however, positively affected subjective appetite rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered at www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12621001382864) on October 11, 2021.

Resistant Starch Consumption Effects on Glycemic Control and Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Study.

We previously observed beneficial effects of native banana starch (NBS) with a high resistant starch (RS) content on glycemic response in lean and obese participants. Here, we aimed to determine the effects of NBS and high-amylose maize starch (HMS) on glycemic control (GC) and glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) when treatments were matched for digestible starch content. In a randomized, crossover study, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed in 17 participants (aged 28-65 years, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, both genders) consuming HMS, NBS, or digestible maize starch (DMS) for 4 days. HMS and NBS induced an increase in 24 h mean blood glucose during days 2 to 4 (p < 0.05). CONGA, GRADE, and J-index values were higher in HMS compared with DMS only at day 4 (p < 0.05). Yet, NBS intake provoked a reduction in fasting glycemia changes from baseline compared with DMS (p = 0.0074). In conclusion, under the experimental conditions, RS from two sources did not improve GC or GV. Future longer studies are needed to determine whether these findings were affected by a different baseline microbiota or other environmental factors.

Effects of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners on Energy Intake, Body Weight and Postprandial Glycemia in Healthy and with Altered Glycemic Response Rats.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) consumption on energy intake, body weight and postprandial glycemia in healthy and with altered glycemic response rats. Animals on normal diet (ND) or high-fat diet (HFD) were divided to receive NNS (sucralose, aspartame, stevia, rebaudioside A) or nutritive sweeteners (glucose, sucrose) for 8 weeks. The NNS were administered at doses equivalent to the human acceptable daily intake (ADI). A test using rapidly digestible starch was performed before and after treatments to estimate glycemic response. No effects of NNS consumption were observed on energy intake or body weight. Sucrose provoked an increased fluid consumption, however, energy intake, and weight gain were not altered. In ND, no effects of NNS on glycemic response were observed. In HFD, the glycemic response was increased after sucralose and stevia when only the final tolerance test was considered, however, after including the baseline test, these results were no longer significant compared to glucose. These findings provide further evidence suggesting that at the recommended doses, NNS do not alter feeding behavior, body weight or glycemic tolerance in healthy and with altered glycemic rats.