Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 31
Filtrar
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(4): e244954, 2024 Apr 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38573635

RESUMEN

Importance: On June 21, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older using shared clinical decision-making. Understanding the severity of RSV disease in adults can help guide this clinical decision-making. Objective: To describe disease severity among adults hospitalized with RSV and compare it with the severity of COVID-19 and influenza disease by vaccination status. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, adults aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 US states from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Clinical data during each patient's hospitalization were collected using standardized forms. Data were analyzed from August to October 2023. Exposures: RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, severity of RSV disease was compared with COVID-19 and influenza severity, by COVID-19 and influenza vaccination status, for a range of clinical outcomes, including the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death. Results: Of 7998 adults (median [IQR] age, 67 [54-78] years; 4047 [50.6%] female) included, 484 (6.1%) were hospitalized with RSV, 6422 (80.3%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1092 (13.7%) were hospitalized with influenza. Among patients with RSV, 58 (12.0%) experienced IMV or death, compared with 201 of 1422 unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 (14.1%) and 458 of 5000 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 (9.2%), as well as 72 of 699 unvaccinated patients with influenza (10.3%) and 20 of 393 vaccinated patients with influenza (5.1%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of IMV or in-hospital death were not significantly different among patients hospitalized with RSV and unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.13; P = .22) or influenza (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; P = .35); however, the odds of IMV or death were significantly higher among patients hospitalized with RSV compared with vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.86; P = .03) or influenza disease (aOR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.62-4.86; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized in this US cohort during the 16 months before the first RSV vaccine recommendations, RSV disease was less common but similar in severity compared with COVID-19 or influenza disease among unvaccinated patients and more severe than COVID-19 or influenza disease among vaccinated patients for the most serious outcomes of IMV or death.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Masculino , Virus Sincitiales Respiratorios , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , COVID-19/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunas contra la Influenza/uso terapéutico , Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio/epidemiología , Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio/terapia
2.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 73(8): 180-188, 2024 Feb 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38421945

RESUMEN

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. However, few estimates of updated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended illness are available. This analysis evaluated VE of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during September 2023-January 2024 using a test-negative, case-control design with data from two CDC VE networks. VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 51% (95% CI = 47%-54%) during the first 7-59 days after an updated dose and 39% (95% CI = 33%-45%) during the 60-119 days after an updated dose. VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization from two CDC VE networks were 52% (95% CI = 47%-57%) and 43% (95% CI = 27%-56%), with a median interval from updated dose of 42 and 47 days, respectively. Updated COVID-19 vaccine provided increased protection against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults. These results support CDC recommendations for updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Adolescente , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Comités Consultivos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitalización
3.
Emerg Med Pract ; 25(Suppl 12): 1-37, 2023 Dec 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38085603

RESUMEN

Maternal stroke contributes to a significant burden of disease in the pregnant and postpartum patient populations, with an incidence nearly 3-fold that of comparable nonpregnant cohorts. Emergency clinicians must maintain a high index of suspicion for cerebrovascular injury in these patients, as rapid diagnosis and emergent management can prevent devastating neurological outcomes. Data on management of cerebrovascular injury in pregnant and postpartum patients are limited, but management of maternal stroke in the emergency department aligns closely with protocols established for nonpregnant patients. This issue discusses the risk factors associated with maternal stroke, and reviews the available evidence for emergency department management of maternal stroke, including thrombolytic and interventional therapies.


Asunto(s)
Accidente Cerebrovascular , Embarazo , Femenino , Humanos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/diagnóstico , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Periodo Posparto , Factores de Riesgo , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Incidencia
5.
Resuscitation ; 190: 109858, 2023 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37270091

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Post-cardiac arrest patients are vulnerable to hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury (HIBI), but HIBI may not be identified until computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain is obtained post-resuscitation and stabilization. We aimed to evaluate the association of clinical arrest characteristics with early CT findings of HIBI to identify those at the highest risk for HIBI. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who underwent whole-body imaging. Head CT reports were analyzed with an emphasis on findings suggestive of HIBI; HIBI was present if any of the following were noted on the neuroradiologist read: global cerebral oedema, sulcal effacement, blurred grey-white junction, and ventricular compression. The primary exposure was duration of cardiac arrest. Secondary exposures included age, cardiac vs noncardiac etiology, and witnessed vs unwitnessed arrest. The primary outcome was CT findings of HIBI. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients (average age 54 years, 32% female, 71% White, 53% witnessed arrest, 32% cardiac etiology of arrest, mean CPR duration of 15 ± 10 minutes) were included in this analysis. CT findings of HIBI were seen in 47 (48.3%) patients. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated a significant association between CPR duration and HIBI (adjusted OR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.01-1.11, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Signs of HIBI are commonly seen on CT head within 6 hours of OHCA, occurring in approximately half of patients, and are associated with CPR duration. Determining risk factors for abnormal CT findings can help clinically identify patients at higher risk for HIBI and target interventions appropriately.


Asunto(s)
Lesiones Encefálicas , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar , Hipoxia-Isquemia Encefálica , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario/diagnóstico por imagen , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario/etiología , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario/terapia , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hipoxia-Isquemia Encefálica/etiología , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X
6.
J Clin Med ; 12(11)2023 Jun 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37298001

RESUMEN

We examined the associations between the Neurological Pupillary Index (NPi) and disposition at hospital discharge in patients admitted to the neurocritical care unit with acute brain injury (ABI) due to acute ischemic stroke (AIS), spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The primary outcome was discharge disposition (home/acute rehabilitation vs. death/hospice/skilled nursing facility). Secondary outcomes were tracheostomy tube placement and transition to comfort measures. Among 2258 patients who received serial NPi assessments within the first seven days of ICU admission, 47.7% (n = 1078) demonstrated NPi ≥ 3 on initial and final assessments, 30.1% (n = 680) had initial NPI < 3 that never improved, 19% (n = 430) had initial NPi ≥ 3, which subsequently worsened to <3 and never recovered, and 3.1% (n = 70) had initial NPi < 3, which improved to ≥3. After adjusting for age, sex, admitting diagnosis, admission Glasgow Coma Scale score, craniotomy/craniectomy, and hyperosmolar therapy, NPi values that remained <3 or worsened from ≥3 to <3 were associated with poor outcomes (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 2.58, 95% CI [2.03; 3.28]), placement of a tracheostomy tube (aOR 1.58, 95% CI [1.13; 2.22]), and transition to comfort measures only (aOR 2.12, 95% CI [1.67; 2.70]). Our study suggests that serial NPi assessments during the first seven days of ICU admission may be helpful in predicting outcomes and guiding clinical decision-making in patients with ABI. Further studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of interventions to improve NPi trends in this population.

7.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 10(1): ofac698, 2023 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36695662

RESUMEN

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(3): e460-e468, 2023 02 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35580849

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization. METHODS: Case-control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states 11 March-15 December 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with 2 doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose 2) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: A total of 10 078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-91) versus 82% (95% CI, 79-85) at ≥180 days (P < .001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, P < .001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, P < .001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) (91% to 87%, P = .005), and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, P < .001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In a period largely predating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of 2 mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Hospitalización , Vacunas de ARNm , ARN Mensajero , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Anciano
9.
Neurocrit Care ; 38(3): 676-687, 2023 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36380126

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to describe incidence and factors associated with early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies based on presumed poor neurologic prognosis (WLST-N) and practices around multimodal prognostication after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: We performed a subanalysis of a randomized controlled trial assessing prehospital therapeutic hypothermia in adult patients admitted to nine hospitals in King County with nontraumatic OHCA between 2007 and 2012. Patients who underwent tracheal intubation and were unconscious following return of spontaneous circulation were included. Our outcomes were (1) incidence of early WLST-N (WLST-N within < 72 h from return of spontaneous circulation), (2) factors associated with early WLST-N compared with patients who remained comatose at 72 h without WLST-N, (3) institutional variation in early WLST-N, (4) use of multimodal prognostication, and (5) use of sedative medications in patients with early WLST-N. Analysis included descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 1,040 patients (mean age was 65 years, 37% were female, 41% were White, and 44% presented with arrest due to ventricular fibrillation) admitted to nine hospitals. Early WLST-N accounted for 24% (n = 154) of patient deaths and occurred in half (51%) of patients with WLST-N. Factors associated with early WLST-N in multivariate regressions were older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.03), preexisting do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders (OR 4.67, 95% CI: 1.55-14.01), bilateral absent pupillary reflexes (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.42-4.10), and lack of neurological consultation (OR 2.60, 95% CI: 1.52-4.46). The proportion of patients with early WLST-N among all OHCA admissions ranged from 19-60% between institutions. A head computed tomography scan was obtained in 54% (n = 84) of patients with early WLST-N; 22% (n = 34) and 5% (n = 8) underwent ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 additional prognostic tests, respectively. Prognostic tests were more frequently performed when neurological consultation occurred. Most patients received sedating medications (90%) within 24 h before early WLST-N; the median time from last sedation to early WLST-N was 4.2 h (interquartile range 0.4-15). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one quarter of deaths after OHCA were due to early WLST-N. The presence of concerning neurological examination findings appeared to impact early WLST-N decisions, even though these are not fully reliable in this time frame. Lack of neurological consultation was associated with early WLST-N and resulted in underuse of guideline-concordant multimodal prognostication. Sedating medications were often coadministered prior to early WLST-N and may have further confounded the neurological examination. Standardizing prognostication, restricting early WLST-N, and a multidisciplinary approach including neurological consultation might improve outcomes after OHCA.


Asunto(s)
Reanimación Cardiopulmonar , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Hipotermia Inducida , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Anciano , Masculino , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario/terapia , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario/complicaciones , Coma/etiología , Pronóstico , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar/efectos adversos , Hipotermia Inducida/métodos
10.
Vaccine ; 40(48): 6979-6986, 2022 11 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36374708

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Humanos , Adulto , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Prueba de COVID-19 , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Hospitalización , Síndrome
11.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(42): 1327-1334, 2022 Oct 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36264830

RESUMEN

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network† assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years§ should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Humanos , Adolescente , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Hospitalización , Vacunas Combinadas , ARN Mensajero , Vacunas de ARNm
12.
Pharmacotherapy ; 42(10): 780-791, 2022 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36073083

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Outcomes following andexanet alfa reversal of factor Xa inhibitors in patients requiring urgent or emergent invasive procedures are lacking. This study aimed to describe efficacy and safety outcomes following andexanet alfa administration within 24 h of an invasive procedure. METHODS: This single-center, observational, retrospective study included patients who received andexanet alfa within 24 h of an invasive or surgical procedure. The primary outcome was hemostatic efficacy graded as excellent, good, or poor using similar definitions to the ANNEXA-4 criteria. Secondary outcomes included hospital discharge disposition, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, 30-day thromboischemic event rates, and serum coagulation assay changes pre- and postreversal. RESULTS: Forty-four patients met inclusion criteria; of these, 27 (62.8%) received apixaban and 16 (37.2%) were treated with rivaroxaban prior to admission. The indications for reversal were categorized as intracranial (n = 20 [45.5%]) or extracranial (n = 24 [54.5%]) sites. Majority of patients required emergent operative procedures (18 [40.9%]), followed by invasive device placement (10 [22.7%]) or arterial embolization (9 [20.5%]). Thirty-eight (86.4%) patients were able to be adequately graded for hemostatic efficacy. Overall, 30 (78.9%) patients achieved excellent or good hemostasis within 24 h after periprocedural administration of andexanet alfa (19 [82.6%] apixaban vs. 11 [78.6%] rivaroxaban; 12 [80.0%] intracranial events vs. 18 [78.3%] extracranial events). Discharge disposition was most often to a short- or long-term care facilities (27 [61.4%]). Thirty-day mortality and thromboischemic complications occurred in 15 (34.1%) and 12 (27.3%) patients, respectively. Prothrombin time and antifactor Xa assay results were significantly decreased after andexanet alfa administration (p < 0.05) while thromboelastogram assay values (reaction time, kinetic time, and activated clotting time) showed nonsignificant changes pre- versus postreversal. CONCLUSION: Andexanet alfa may be used for urgent or emergent reversal of apixaban and rivaroxaban peri-procedurally with promising hemostatic outcomes. Further prospective, comparative clinical research is warranted.


Asunto(s)
Factor Xa , Hemostáticos , Factor Xa/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores del Factor Xa/efectos adversos , Hemorragia/inducido químicamente , Hemorragia/prevención & control , Hemostáticos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Pirazoles/efectos adversos , Piridonas/efectos adversos , Proteínas Recombinantes/uso terapéutico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Rivaroxabán/efectos adversos
13.
Curr Treat Options Neurol ; 24(9): 383-408, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35965956

RESUMEN

Purpose of Review: To summarize pathophysiology, key conflicts, and therapeutic approaches in managing concomitant severe acute brain injury (SABI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent Findings: ARDS is common in SABI and independently associated with worse outcomes in all SABI subtypes. Most landmark ARDS trials excluded patients with SABI, and evidence to guide decisions is limited in this population. Potential areas of conflict in the management of patients with both SABI and ARDS are (1) risk of intracranial pressure (ICP) elevation with high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), permissive hypercapnia due to lung protective ventilation (LPV), or prone ventilation; (2) balancing a conservative fluid management strategy with ensuring adequate cerebral perfusion, particularly in patients with symptomatic vasospasm or impaired cerebrovascular blood flow; and (3) uncertainty about the benefit and harm of corticosteroids in this population, with a mortality benefit in ARDS, increased mortality shown in TBI, and conflicting data in other SABI subtypes. Also, the widely adapted partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) target of > 55 mmHg for ARDS may exacerbate secondary brain injury, and recent guidelines recommend higher goals of 80-120 mmHg in SABI. Distinct pathophysiology and trajectories among different SABI subtypes need to be considered. Summary: The management of SABI with ARDS is highly complex, and conventional ARDS management strategies may result in increased ICP and decreased cerebral perfusion. A crucial aspect of concurrent management is to recognize the risk of secondary brain injury in the individual patient, monitor with vigilance, and adjust management during critical time windows. The care of these patients requires meticulous attention to oxygenation and ventilation, hemodynamics, temperature management, and the neurological exam. LPV and prone ventilation should be utilized, and supplemented with invasive ICP monitoring if there is concern for cerebral edema and increased ICP. PEEP titration should be deliberate, involving measures of hemodynamic, pulmonary, and brain physiology. Serial volume status assessments should be performed in SABI and ARDS, and fluid management should be individualized based on measures of brain perfusion, the neurological exam, and cardiopulmonary status. More research is needed to define risks and benefits in corticosteroids in this population.

14.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 2): S159-S166, 2022 10 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35675695

RESUMEN

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Ad26COVS1 , Adulto , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Hospitalización , Humanos , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
15.
medRxiv ; 2022 Jun 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35734090

RESUMEN

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series plus a booster dose with a primary series alone for the prevention of Omicron variant COVID-19 hospitalization. Design: Multicenter observational case-control study using the test-negative design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE). Setting: Twenty-one hospitals in the United States (US). Participants: 3,181 adults hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness between December 26, 2021 and April 30, 2022, a period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1, BA.2) predominance. Participants included 1,572 (49%) case-patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and 1,609 (51%) control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Median age was 64 years, 48% were female, and 21% were immunocompromised; 798 (25%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus booster, 1,326 (42%) were vaccinated with a primary series alone, and 1,057 (33%) were unvaccinated. Main Outcome Measures: VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated for a primary series plus a booster and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. VE analyses were stratified by immune status (immunocompetent; immunocompromised) because the recommended vaccine schedules are different for these groups. The primary analysis evaluated all COVID-19 vaccine types combined and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. Results: Among immunocompetent patients, VE against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization for a primary series plus one booster of any vaccine product dose was 77% (95% CI: 71-82%), and for a primary series alone was 44% (95% CI: 31-54%) (p<0.001). VE was higher for a boosted regimen than a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines used in the US (BNT162b2: primary series plus booster VE 80% (95% CI: 73-85%), primary series alone VE 46% (95% CI: 30-58%) [p<0.001]; mRNA-1273: primary series plus booster VE 77% (95% CI: 67-83%), primary series alone VE 47% (95% CI: 30-60%) [p<0.001]). Among immunocompromised patients, VE for a primary series of any vaccine product against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization was 60% (95% CI: 41-73%). Insufficient sample size has accumulated to calculate effectiveness of boosted regimens for immunocompromised patients. Conclusions: Among immunocompetent people, a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing COVID-19 hospitalization due to the Omicron variant.

16.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 54(2): 295-300, 2022 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35507109

RESUMEN

The ongoing controversy regarding optimal reversal agent for factor Xa-inhibitors is mainly due to lack of comparative data of andexanet alfa (AA) to 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC), institutional formulary restrictions, and navigation of clinical scenarios involving patients clinically worsen despite initial reversal efforts. The combination use of 4F-PCC and AA has not been evaluated in clinical trials and the outcomes of such patients with FXA-inhibitor associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are unknown. A total of five patients, including four outside hospital transfers, received 4F-PCC prior to AA for FXa-inhibitor associated ICH (n = 3 apixaban, n = 2 rivaroxaban; n = 4 ICH, n = 1 TBI). The doses of 4F-PCC ranged from 25 to 60 units/kg and were administered within a range of 1.5-4.2 h prior to AA. One patient required surgical intervention with craniotomy and three patients underwent external ventricular drain placement. Two of the five patients developed an ischemic or thromboembolic complication within one week from 4F-PCC and AA administration. This case series discusses multiple unique patient cases in which 4F-PCC and AA were both administered for FXa-inhibitor associated ICH. The results highlight the potentially increased thrombotic risk associated with combination use. Ongoing post-marketing data collection of real patient case scenarios are essential to the establishment of consensus guidelines on how to prioritize initial reversal efforts and manage these patients during the course of their bleed.


Asunto(s)
Factores de Coagulación Sanguínea , Factor Xa , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Factores de Coagulación Sanguínea/efectos adversos , Factor IX/uso terapéutico , Factor Xa/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores del Factor Xa/efectos adversos , Humanos , Hemorragias Intracraneales/inducido químicamente , Hemorragias Intracraneales/tratamiento farmacológico , Proteínas Recombinantes , Estudios Retrospectivos , Rivaroxabán/uso terapéutico
17.
J Infect Dis ; 226(5): 797-807, 2022 09 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35385875

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to evaluate 2- and 3-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. METHODS: We conducted a 21-site case-control analysis of 10 425 adults hospitalized in March to December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-negative). Participants were classified as follows: SOT recipient (n = 440), other immunocompromising condition (n = 1684), or immunocompetent (n = 8301). The VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls. RESULTS: Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -19% to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI, 85% to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI, 87% to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI, 83% to 99%) for 3 doses. CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent adults and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trasplante de Órganos , Adulto , COVID-19/prevención & control , Hospitalización , Humanos , Trasplante de Órganos/efectos adversos , ARN Mensajero , Receptores de Trasplantes , Vacunas Sintéticas , Vacunas de ARNm
18.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(12): 459-465, 2022 Mar 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35324878

RESUMEN

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) are effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization (1-3). However, how well mRNA vaccines protect against the most severe outcomes of these hospitalizations, including invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death is uncertain. Using a case-control design, mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated IMV and in-hospital death was evaluated among adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized at 21 U.S. medical centers during March 11, 2021-January 24, 2022. During this period, the most commonly circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.529 (Omicron). Previous vaccination (2 or 3 versus 0 vaccine doses before illness onset) in prospectively enrolled COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died within 28 days of hospitalization was compared with that among hospitalized control patients without COVID-19. Among 1,440 COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died, 307 (21%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses before illness onset. Among 6,104 control-patients, 4,020 (66%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses. Among the 1,440 case-patients who received IMV or died, those who were vaccinated were older (median age = 69 years), more likely to be immunocompromised* (40%), and had more chronic medical conditions compared with unvaccinated case-patients (median age = 55 years; immunocompromised = 10%; p<0.001 for both). VE against IMV or in-hospital death was 90% (95% CI = 88%-91%) overall, including 88% (95% CI = 86%-90%) for 2 doses and 94% (95% CI = 91%-96%) for 3 doses, and 94% (95% CI = 88%-97%) for 3 doses during the Omicron-predominant period. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID-19-associated death and respiratory failure treated with IMV. CDC recommends that all persons eligible for vaccination get vaccinated and stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination (4).


Asunto(s)
Vacuna nCoV-2019 mRNA-1273 , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Respiración Artificial , Eficacia de las Vacunas , COVID-19/mortalidad , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
19.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(4): 680-689, 2022 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35347854

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Distrés Psicológico , Adulto , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estado de Salud , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Calidad de Vida/psicología , SARS-CoV-2 , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19
20.
BMJ ; 376: e069761, 2022 03 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35264324

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: 21 hospitals across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization's clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: mRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/virología , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Hospitalización , Humanos , Esquemas de Inmunización , Estudios Prospectivos , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...