Association between genetic polymorphism, severity, and treatment response among COVID-19 infected Egyptian patients.

Background: The world has been suffering from the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic since the end of 2019. The COVID-19-infected patients differ in the severity of the infection and the treatment response. Several studies have been conducted to explore the factors that affect the severity of COVID-19 infection. One of these factors is the polymorphism of the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) and the type 2 transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) genes since these two proteins have a role in the entry of the virus into the cell. Also, the ACE-1 regulates the ACE-2 expression, so it is speculated to influence the COVID-19 severity. Objective: This study investigates the relationship between the ACE-1, ACE-2, and TMPRSS2 genes single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) and the COVID-19 disease severity, treatment response, need for hospitalization, and ICU admission in Egyptian patients. Patients and Methods: The current study is an observational prospective, cohort study, in which 109 total COVID-19 patients and 20 healthy volunteers were enrolled. Of those 109 patients, 51 patients were infected with the non-severe disease and were treated in an outpatient setting, and 58 suffered from severe disease and required hospitalization and were admitted to the ICU. All 109 COVID-19 patients received the treatment according to the Egyptian treatment protocol. Results: Genotypes and allele frequencies among severe and non-severe patients were determined for ACE-1 rs4343, TMPRSS2 rs12329760, and ACE-2 rs908004. The GG genotype and the wild allele of the ACE-2 rs908004 and the mutant allele of the ACE-1 rs4343 were significantly more predominant in severe patients. In contrast, no significant association existed between the TMPRSS2 rs12329760 genotypes or alleles and the disease severity. Conclusion: The results of this study show that the ACE-1 and ACE-2 SNPs can be used as severity predictors for COVID-19 infection since also they have an effect on length of hospitalization.

Midodrine improves clinical and economic outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged use of intravenous (IV) vasopressors in patients with septic shock can lead to deleterious effects. AIMS: This study assessed the impact of midodrine administration on weaning off IV vasopressors and its economic value. METHODS: It is a prospective randomized controlled study of 60 resuscitated patients with septic shock who demonstrated clinical stability on low-dose IV vasopressors for at least 24 h. Participants were randomized into two groups: norepinephrine (IV norepinephrine) and midodrine (IV norepinephrine + oral midodrine 10 mg thrice a day). A cost comparison was applied based on the outcomes of both groups. RESULTS: The median duration of norepinephrine administration in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups was 4 and 6 days, respectively (p = 0.001). Norepinephrine weaning time was significantly less in the midodrine versus norepinephrine groups (26 and 78.5 h, respectively; p < 0.001). Mortality was 43.3% versus 73.3% in the midodrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively (p = 0.018). The mean length of stay was comparable in the two groups. The midodrine group showed cost-saving results versus the norepinephrine group. CONCLUSION: The use of midodrine in septic shock patients significantly reduced IV norepinephrine duration, weaning period during the septic shock recovery phase, and mortality. Thus, the use of midodrine is dominant with less cost, better outcome and a cost-saving option in terms of budget impact analysis. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03,911,817) on April 11, 2019.

Evaluation of the effect of acetazolamide versus mannitol on cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, a pilot study.

Background Cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity still occurs despite the intensive hydration approach adapted to prevent its occurrence. Objective Evaluation of the effect of acetazolamide (ACTZ) on minimizing cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity compared to mannitol when added to hydration regimen. Setting Nasser Institute Cancer Center (NICC), Cairo, Egypt. Method A total of 35 patients planned to receive cisplatin were divided into two groups: 20 patients received mannitol and 15 patients received ACTZ. Both groups received standard hydration measures as well for prevention of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Main outcome measure Patients' kidney function was assessed using serum creatinine, creatinine clearance and blood urea nitrogen. Kidney injury was assessed using RIFLE criteria. Patients' liver function tests and hematological parameters were also monitored. Results Patients in the mannitol group showed higher risk of developing kidney injury (30%) whereas those in the ACTZ group showed lower risk (8.9%), relative risk (RR) 0.269, 95% CI 0.108-0.815. No statistically significant difference occurred between the two groups concerning liver function tests or hematological parameters. Conclusion Use of ACTZ in addition to intensive hydration may have more beneficial effect on minimizing cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity compared to mannitol plus intensive hydration approach. A large multicenter randomized clinical trials is recommended to confirm study results and to assess effect of ACTZ on tumor response.

Validation of pharmacogenetic algorithms and warfarin dosing table in Egyptian patients.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin remains a difficult drug to use due to the large variability in dose response. Clear understanding of the accuracy of warfarin pharmacogenetic dosing methods might lead to appropriate control of anticoagulation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of warfarin dosing table and two pharmacogenetic algorithms, namely the algorithms of Gage et al. (Clin Pharmacol Ther 84:326-331, 2008), and the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium algorithm (IWPC) in a real Egyptian clinical setting. Additionally, three non-pharmacogenetic dosing methods (the Gage, IWPC clinical algorithms and the empiric 5 mg/day dosing) were evaluated. SETTING: Sixty-three Egyptian patients on a stable therapeutic warfarin dose were included. Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic of the critical care medicine department. METHODS: CYP2C9 and VKORC1 polymorphisms were genotyped by real time PCR system. Predicted doses by all dosing methods were calculated and compared with the actual therapeutic warfarin doses. RESULTS: The Gage algorithm (adjusted R(2) = 0.421, and mean absolute error (MAE) = 3.3), and IWPC algorithm (adjusted R(2) = 0.419, MAE = 3.2) produced better accuracy than did the warfarin dosing table (adjusted R(2) = 0.246, MAE = 3.5), the two clinical algorithms (R(2) = 0.24, MAE = 3.7) and the fixed dose approach (MAE = 3.9). However, all dosing models produced comparable clinical accuracy with respect to proportion of patients within 1 mg/day of actual dose (ideal dose). Non-pharmacogenetic methods severely over-predicted dose (defined as ≥2 mg/day more than actual dose) compared to the three pharmacogenetic models. In comparison to non-pharmacogenetic methods, the three pharmacogenetic models performed better regarding the low dose group in terms of percentage of patients within ideal dose. In the high dose group, none of the dosing models predicted warfarin doses within ideal dose. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that genotype-based dosing improved prediction of warfarin therapeutic dose beyond that available with the fixed-dose approach or the clinical algorithms, especially in the low-dose group. However, the two pharmacogenetic algorithms were the most accurate.

Once versus individualized multiple daily dosing of aminoglycosides in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the once daily dosing (ODD) program in critically ill Egyptian patients compared to individualized multiple daily dosing (MDD) in terms of clinical and bacteriological efficacy. In addition, the incidence of nephrotoxicity associated with both regimens in this specific group of patients was assessed. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with suspected or confirmed bacterial infections admitted to the Critical Care Medicine Department, Kasr El-Aini-Cairo University Hospitals comprised the study population. The amikacin group (30 patients) was sub-divided into 14 patients receiving amikacin ODD (1 g i.v.) and 16 patients receiving amikacin in MDD (500 mg i.v./dose). The gentamicin group (22 patients) was sub-divided into 10 patients receiving the drug ODD (240 mg i.v.) and 12 patients receiving gentamicin MDD (80 mg i.v./dose). Amikacin or gentamicin serum levels were determined by the enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique using Emit 2000. MDD regimen was adjusted based on the individual pharmacokinetic parameters using the Sawchuk-Zaske method. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two dosing regimens with regard to clinical and antibacterial efficacy or incidence of nephrotoxicity of both gentamicin and amikacin groups. In the ODD regimen, duration of treatment had no effect on increasing incidence of nephrotoxicity unlike the individualized MDD regimen. No dose adjustments were needed in the once daily dosing regimen since trough concentrations have never been above toxic level. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the ODD regimen is preferred in critically ill patients to individualized MDD as shown by comparable efficacy, nephrotoxicity and lesser need for therapeutic drug monitoring and frequent dose adjustments required in the individualized MDD regimen.