Glucocorticoides solos versus tocilizumab solo o glucocorticoides más tocilizumab en pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 e inflamación moderada / Glucocorticoids alone versus tocilizumab alone or glucocorticoids plus tocilizumab in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and mild inflammation

Objetivos: Analizar si existen diferencias en desenlaces clínicos según el tratamiento inmunosupresor recibido en pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 e inflamación moderada.MétodosEstudio de cohortes retrospectivo de 142 pacientes con neumonía grave COVID-19 e inflamación moderada. Se dividieron en tres grupos de tratamiento (pulsos de metilprednisolona solo [grupoI], tocilizumab solo [grupoII] y metilprednisolona más tocilizumab [grupoIII]). Analizamos las diferencias intergrupos en el curso clínico con un seguimiento de 60días y factores clínicos analíticos relacionados.ResultadosFallecieron 14 pacientes (9,8%): 8 (10%) del grupoI y 6 (9,5%) de los gruposII yIII. Quince (10,6%) ingresaron en UCI: 2 (2,5%) del grupoI, 4 (28,5%) del grupoII y 9 (18,4%) del grupoIII. La estancia media hospitalaria fue mayor en los del grupoII. La evolución clínica no se asoció al tratamiento administrado.ConclusionesEl uso de tocilizumab debería reservarse para escenarios de ensayos clínicos. Su utilización generalizada podría acompañarse de mayor estancia media hospitalaria e ingreso en UCI sin diferencias en la mortalidad con un potencial aumento de efectos adversos. (AU)

Aim: To assess clinical outcomes according to the immunosuppressive treatment administered to patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and moderate inflammation.MethodsA retrospective observational cohort study involving 142 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate inflammation divided into three treatment groups (pulses of methylprednisolone alone [groupI], tocilizumab alone [groupII] and methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab [groupIII]). The aim was to assess intergroups differences in the clinical course with a 60-day follow-up and related analytical factors.Results14 patients (9,8%) died: 8 (10%) in groupI and 6 (9,5%) in groupsII andIII. 15 (10,6%) were admitted to ICU: 2 (2,5%) from groupI, 4 (28,5%) from groupII and 9 (18,4%) from groupIII. The mean hospital stay was longer in groupII and clinical outcome was not associated with treatment.ConclusionsTocilizumab seems to be not associated with better clinical outcomes and should be reserved for clinical trial scenario, since its widespread use may result in higher rate of ICU admission and longer mean hospital stay without differences in mortality rate and potentially adverse events. (AU)

Glucocorticoids alone versus tocilizumab alone or glucocorticoids plus tocilizumab in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and mild inflammation.

AIM: To assess clinical outcomes according to the immunosuppressive treatment administered to patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and moderate inflammation. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study involving 142 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate inflammation divided into three treatment groups (pulses of methylprednisolone alone [group I], tocilizumab alone [group II] and methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab [group III]). The aim was to assess intergroups differences in the clinical course with a 60-day follow-up and related analytical factors. RESULTS: 14 patients (9,8%) died: 8 (10%) in group I and 6 (9,5%) in groups II and III. 15 (10,6%) were admitted to ICU: 2 (2,5%) from group I, 4 (28,5%) from group II and 9 (18,4%) from group III. The mean hospital stay was longer in group II and clinical outcome was not associated with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab seems to be not associated with better clinical outcomes and should be reserved for clinical trial scenario, since its widespread use may result in higher rate of ICU admission and longer mean hospital stay without differences in mortality rate and potentially adverse events.

OBJETIVOS: Analizar si existen diferencias en desenlaces clínicos según el tratamiento inmunosupresor recibido en pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 e inflamación moderada. MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo de 142 pacientes con neumonía grave COVID-19 e inflamación moderada. Se dividieron en tres grupos de tratamiento (pulsos de metilprednisolona solo [grupo I], tocilizumab solo [grupo II] y metilprednisolona más tocilizumab [grupo III]). Analizamos las diferencias intergrupos en el curso clínico con un seguimiento de 60 días y factores clínicos analíticos relacionados. RESULTADOS: Fallecieron 14 pacientes (9,8%): 8 (10%) del grupo I y 6 (9,5%) de los grupos II y III. Quince (10,6%) ingresaron en UCI: 2 (2,5%) del grupo I, 4 (28,5%) del grupo II y 9 (18,4%) del grupo III. La estancia media hospitalaria fue mayor en los del grupo II. La evolución clínica no se asoció al tratamiento administrado. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de tocilizumab debería reservarse para escenarios de ensayos clínicos. Su utilización generalizada podría acompañarse de mayor estancia media hospitalaria e ingreso en UCI sin diferencias en la mortalidad con un potencial aumento de efectos adversos.

[Glucocorticoids alone versus tocilizumab alone or glucocorticoids plus tocilizumab in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and mild inflammation]. / Glucocorticoides solos versus tocilizumab solo o glucocorticoides más tocilizumab en pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 e inflamación moderada.

AIM: To assess clinical outcomes according to the immunosuppressive treatment administered to patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and moderate inflammation. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study involving 142 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate inflammation divided into three treatment groups (pulses of methylprednisolone alone [groupI], tocilizumab alone [groupII] and methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab [groupIII]). The aim was to assess intergroups differences in the clinical course with a 60-day follow-up and related analytical factors. RESULTS: 14 patients (9,8%) died: 8 (10%) in groupI and 6 (9,5%) in groupsII andIII. 15 (10,6%) were admitted to ICU: 2 (2,5%) from groupI, 4 (28,5%) from groupII and 9 (18,4%) from groupIII. The mean hospital stay was longer in groupII and clinical outcome was not associated with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab seems to be not associated with better clinical outcomes and should be reserved for clinical trial scenario, since its widespread use may result in higher rate of ICU admission and longer mean hospital stay without differences in mortality rate and potentially adverse events.

Anakinra after treatment with corticosteroids alone or with tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate hyperinflammation. A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Little evidence appears to exist for the use of anakinra, a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, after non-response to treatment with corticosteroids alone or combined with tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate hyperinflammatory state. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was carried out involving 143 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate hyperinflammation. They received standard therapy along with pulses of methylprednisolone (group 1) or methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab (group 2), with the possibility of receiving anakinra (group 3) according to protocol. The aim of this study was to assess the role of anakinra in the clinical course (death, admission to the intensive care ward) during the first 60 days after the first corticosteroid pulse. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging characteristics as well as infectious complications were also analyzed. RESULTS: 74 patients (51.7%) in group 1, 59 (41.3%) patients in group 2, and 10 patients (7%) in group 3 were included. 8 patients (10.8%) in group 1 died, 6 (10.2%) in group 2, and 0 (0%) in group 3. After adjustment for age and clinical severity indices, treatment with anakinra was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.518, 95% CI 0.265-0.910; p = 0.0437). Patients in group 3 had a lower mean CD4 count after 3 days of treatment. No patients in this group presented infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate hyperinflammatory state associated with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, treatment with anakinra after non-response to corticosteroids or corticosteroids plus tocilizumab therapy may be an option for the management of these patients and may improve their prognosis.

Dalbavancin is a novel antimicrobial against Gram-positive pathogens: clinical experience beyond labelled indications.

Very limited labelled indications have been approved for the newer antimicrobials. Data on the clinical uses, efficacy and safety of dalbavancin are scarce, thus here we sought to describe our clinical experience. 16-month observational prospective study was performed. 19 (86%) were used under off-label indications. 10 (46%) for osteoarticular infections, 5 (23%) bloodstream infections and 3 (14%) endocarditis. To highlight, one patient received dalbavancin as long-term suppressive therapy. Most frequent use reasons were promptly hospital discharge, 11 (65%), and the presence of resistant organisms involving limited treatment options, 5 (23%). Successful outcome was observed in >95% of the patients and only 1 (4.5%) adverse event was reported. Further evidence beyond labelled indications is urgently needed. Despite the limitations, dalbavancin appears to be a safe and efficient option for adult patients who have tried and/or failed other therapies due to multidrug-resistant Gram-positive organisms.

Quasiexperimental intervention study protocol to optimise the use of new antibiotics in Spain: the NEW_SAFE project.

INTRODUCTION: Ceftaroline, tedizolid, dalbavancin, ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam are novel antibiotics used to treat infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDR). Their use should be supervised and monitored as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Appropriate use of the new antibiotics will be improved by including consensual indications for their use in local antibiotic guidelines, together with educational interventions providing advice to prescribers to ensure that the recommendations are clearly understood. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be implemented in two phases. First, a preliminary historical cohort (2017-2019) of patients from 13 Andalusian hospitals treated with novel antibiotics will be analysed. Second, a quasiexperimental intervention study will be developed with an interrupted time-series analysis (2020-2021). The intervention will consist of an educational interview between prescribers and ASP leaders at each hospital to reinforce the proper use of novel antibiotics. The educational intervention will be based on a consensus guideline designed and disseminated by leaders after the retrospective cohort data have been analysed. The outcomes will be acceptance of the intervention and appropriateness of prescription. Incidence of infection and colonisation with MDR organisms as well as incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection will also be analysed. Changes in prescription quality between periods and the safety profile of the antibiotics in terms of mortality rate and readmissions will also be measured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will be obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board. The study is being conducted in compliance with the protocol and regulatory requirements consistent with International Council of Harmonisation E6 Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03941951; Pre-results.

Disseminated aspergillosis in an immunocompetent patient treated with corticosteroids: value of PCR for diagnosis / Aspergilosis diseminada en una paciente inmunocompetente en tratamiento con corticoides: valor de la PCR en el diagnóstico

No disponible

Effects of rituximab in connective tissue disorders related interstitial lung disease.

OBJECTIVES: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a key prognostic factor in connective tissue disorders (CTDs). The aim of our study was to assess the changes in pulmonary functional tests (PFTs) in various CTDs, including anti-synthetase syndrome (SYN), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and mixed connective tissue disorder (MCTD), following the use of rituximab therapy. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with ILD secondary to SYN (n=15), MCTD (n=6) and SSc (n=23). PFTs were performed at baseline and at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in forced vital capacity (FVC) at 1 year. RESULTS: In the SYN population, median FVC changed from 53.0% (42.0-90.0) at baseline to 51.4% (45.6-85.0) at 1 year and 63.0 (50-88) (p=0.6) at 2 years (p=0.14). In SSc, FVC changed from 81.0% (66.0-104.0) at baseline to 89.0% (65.0-113.0) at 1 year (p=0.1) and 74.5 (50-91) at 2 years (p=0.07). In the MCTD population, FVC changed from 64.5% (63.0-68.0) at baseline to 63.0% (59.0-71.0) at 1 year (p=0.6) and 61 (59-71) after 2 years (p=0.8). DLCO showed a trend for improvement in the SYN population (p=0.06 at 1 year and 0.2 at years) while changes remain non-significant in the SSc and MCTD patients. In SYN patients, the percentage of responders at 1 year for FVC (33.3%) was greater than in SSc (9.5%) (p=0.07) and MCTD (17%) (p=0.45). RTX showed a satisfactory safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: A trend of improvement of PFTs was observed in SYN patients although not reaching significance, while SSc and MCTD patients were stabilised.