Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Front Immunol ; 13: 980698, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36311723

RESUMEN

Immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for a severe course of COVID-19. Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has become widely accepted. However, the effects of mAb treatment on the long-term primary cellular response to SARS-CoV-2 are unknown. In the following study, we investigated the long-term cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1, Membrane (M) and Nucleocapsid (N) antigens using the ELISpot assay in unvaccinated, mAb-treated immunocompromised high-risk patients. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb untreated though vaccinated COVID-19 immunocompromised patients, vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 immunocompromised patients without COVID-19 and vaccinated healthy control subjects served as control groups. The cellular immune response was determined at a median of 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our data suggest that immunocompromised patients develop an endogenous long-term cellular immune response after COVID-19, although at low levels. A better understanding of the cellular immune response will help guide clinical decision making for these vulnerable patient cohorts.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Proteínas de la Nucleocápside , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Huésped Inmunocomprometido , Inmunidad Celular
2.
Viruses ; 15(1)2022 12 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36680159

RESUMEN

Vulnerable patients such as immunosuppressed or elderly patients are at high risk for a severe course of COVID-19 upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Immunotherapy with SARS-CoV-2 specific monoclonal antibodies (mAb) or convalescent plasma represents a considerable treatment option to protect these patients from a severe or lethal course of infection. However, monoclonal antibodies are not always available or less effective against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Convalescent plasma is more commonly available and may represent a good treatment alternative in low-income countries. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes in individuals treated with mAbs or convalescent plasma and compared the 30-day overall survival with a patient cohort that received supportive care due to a lack of SARS-CoV-2 specific therapies between March 2020 and April 2021. Our data demonstrate that mAb treatment is highly effective in preventing severe courses of SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients treated with mAb survived. Treatment with convalescent plasma improved overall survival to 82% compared with 61% in patients without SARS-CoV-2 targeted therapy. Our data indicate that early convalescent plasma treatment may be an option to improve the overall survival of high-risk COVID-19 patients. This is especially true when other antiviral drugs are not available or their efficacy is significantly reduced, which may be the case with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Anciano , COVID-19/terapia , COVID-19/etiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sueroterapia para COVID-19 , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Inmunización Pasiva/efectos adversos , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/uso terapéutico
3.
Pathogens ; 10(2)2021 Feb 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33572306

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Seasonality is a characteristic of some respiratory viruses. The aim of our study was to evaluate the seasonality and the potential effects of different meteorological factors on the detection rate of the non-SARS coronavirus detection by PCR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 12,763 respiratory tract sample results (288 positive and 12,475 negative) for non-SARS, non-MERS coronaviruses (NL63, 229E, OC43, HKU1). The effect of seven single weather factors on the coronavirus detection rate was fitted in a logistic regression model with and without adjusting for other weather factors. RESULTS: Coronavirus infections followed a seasonal pattern peaking from December to March and plunged from July to September. The seasonal effect was less pronounced in immunosuppressed patients compared to immunocompetent patients. Different automatic variable selection processes agreed on selecting the predictors temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover and precipitation as remaining predictors in the multivariable logistic regression model, including all weather factors, with low ambient temperature, low relative humidity, high cloud cover and high precipitation being linked to increased coronavirus detection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus infections followed a seasonal pattern, which was more pronounced in immunocompetent patients compared to immunosuppressed patients. Several meteorological factors were associated with the coronavirus detection rate. However, when mutually adjusting for all weather factors, only temperature, relative humidity, precipitation and cloud cover contributed independently to predicting the coronavirus detection rate.

4.
J Med Virol ; 93(6): 3955-3959, 2021 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32880994

RESUMEN

Data about the diagnostic efficiency of bilateral bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples and endotracheal aspirates (EA) testing for common viral respiratory infections are scarce. We analyzed data from 167 cases, where bilateral BAL samples were tested, and from 101 cases, where BAL samples and EA were tested. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed with the fast track diagnostics viral respiratory panel, producing data on the adenovirus, coronavirus, enterovirus, human metapneumovirus, bocavirus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus status of patients with respiratory disease symptoms. In the bilateral BAL cohort, 46 (27.5%) cases were positive for at least one of the viruses mentioned above in both samples. Discrepant results (virus not detected on one side) were seen in six (3.6%) cases. In the BAL versus EA cohort, 12 (11.9%) cases were positive in both materials, discrepant results (only one material being positive) were observed in 11 (10.9%) cases, with seven (63.6%) BAL samples, and four (36.4%) EA being positive. Bilateral sampling does not significantly improve the diagnostic efficiency of BAL for the detection of common respiratory viral pathogens via PCR. The diagnostic quality of EA and BAL samples for the detection of common viral respiratory pathogens is comparable.


Asunto(s)
Lavado Broncoalveolar/métodos , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/diagnóstico , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/virología , Virosis/diagnóstico , Virosis/virología , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Coronavirus/aislamiento & purificación , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa Multiplex/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...