Three-Day Icatibant on Top of Standard Care in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2, Proof-of-Concept Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate icatibant, a competitive antagonist of the bradykinin B2 receptors, for the treatment of inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia admitted in the early hypoxemic stage. METHODS: The randomized, open-label clinical trial of icatibant for COVID-19 pneumonia (ICAT·COVID, registered as NCT04978051 at ClinicalTrials.gov) was conducted in Barcelona. Inpatients requiring supplemental but not high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation were allocated (1:1) to treatment with either three 30-mg icatibant doses/d for 3 consecutive days plus standard care or standard care alone, and followed for up to 28 days after initial discharge. The primary and key secondary outcomes were clinical response on study day 10/discharge and clinical efficacy at 28 days from initial discharge, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical response occurred in 27 of 37 patients (73.0%) in the icatibant group and 20 of 36 patients (55.6%) in the control group (rate difference, 17.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.22 to 39.06; P = .115). Clinical efficacy ensued in 37 patients (100.0%) in the icatibant group and 30 patients (83.3%) in the control group (rate difference, 16.67; 95% CI, 4.49-28.84; P = .011). No patient died in the icatibant group, compared with 6 patients (16.7%) in the control group (P = .011). All patients but 1 had adverse events, which were evenly distributed between study arms. No patient withdrew because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adding icatibant to standard care was safe and improved both COVID-19 pneumonia and mortality in this proof-of-concept study. A larger, phase 3 trial is warranted to establish the clinical value of this treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04978051.

Efecto de una campaña de concienciación en el diagnóstico e impacto clínico de la inmunodeficiencia primaria / Effect of an awareness campaign on the diagnosis and clinical impact of primary immunodeficiency

Antecedentes y objetivo: Las deficiencias predominantemente de anticuerpos constituyen, en la actualidad, el grupo de inmunodeficiencias primarias (IDP) más prevalente en adultos. Son enfermedades complejas desde el punto de vista clínico, catalogadas como minoritarias y que tienen a menudo un retraso inaceptable en su diagnóstico. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar si un mejor conocimiento de estas entidades podía conllevar un incremento en el número de diagnósticos, una reducción en el intervalo al diagnóstico y, por ende, una disminución en la carga de enfermedad al diagnóstico.Pacientes y métodosSe diseñó un estudio de intervención casi experimental y Unicentro, que incluyó dos períodos, período 1 preintervención (1986-2008) y período 2 postintervención (2009-2018). Se efectuó un estudio descriptivo comparativo de diversas variables en ambos períodos.ResultadosSe incluyeron 116 pacientes [27 (23,3%) en el período 1 y 89 (76,7%) en el período 2]. La tasa de incidencia aumentó de forma significativa (0,204 y 1,236/100.000 habs./año; P < 0,05), el retraso en el diagnóstico tendió a ser menor (4 vs. 3,73 años), los motivos de sospecha diagnóstica se diversificaron y la carga de enfermedad al diagnóstico (expresada por bronquiectasias, espirometría alterada, capacidad de generar anticuerpos por mecanismo timo-independiente y necesidad de tratamiento substitutivo) tendió a disminuir en el período 2.ConclusionesDadas las complicaciones potencialmente graves de los pacientes con diagnóstico tardío de IDP, es necesaria la creación de unidades multidisciplinarias especializadas, la unificación de protocolos asistenciales y el diseño de intervenciones para la divulgación de esta entidad. (AU)

Background and objectives: Predominantly antibody deficiencies are the most prevalent primary immunodeficiency (PID) in adults. These are rare diseases difficult to diagnose. Therefore, they are diagnosed late. This study aims to evaluate whether an awareness campaign of PIDs among physicians is associated with an increase in number of diagnoses, a reduction in diagnostic delay and diagnosis at earlier stages.Patients and methodsA single centre, interventional, quasi-experimental study was designed that included 2 periods, period 1 pre-intervention (1986-2008) and period 2 post-intervention (2009-2018). A descriptive comparative study of variables was carried out in both periods.Results116 patients were included [27 (23.3%) in period 1 and 89 (76.7%) in period 2]. The incidence rate increased significantly (0.204 and 1.236/100,000habs./year; P < 0.05), the diagnosis delay tended to be lower (4 vs. 3.73 years). The reasons for diagnostic suspicion were diverse and the burden disease at diagnosis (expressed by bronchiectasis, altered spirometry, ability to generate antibodies by thymus-independent mechanism and need for substitute treatment) tended to decrease in period 2.ConclusionsGiven the potentially serious complications of patients with late diagnosis of PIDs, it is necessary to create specialized multidisciplinary units, to unify assistance protocols and to design interventions to increase the knowledge of these entities. (AU)

Effect of an awareness campaign on the diagnosis and clinical impact of primary immunodeficiency. / Efecto de una campaña de concienciación en el diagnóstico e impacto clínico de la inmunodeficiencia primaria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Predominantly antibody deficiencies are the most prevalent primary immunodeficiency (PID) in adults. These are rare diseases difficult to diagnose. Therefore, they are diagnosed late. This study aims to evaluate whether an awareness campaign of PIDs among physicians is associated with an increase in number of diagnoses, a reduction in diagnostic delay and diagnosis at earlier stages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single centre, interventional, quasi-experimental study was designed that included 2 periods, period 1 pre-intervention (1986-2008) and period 2 post-intervention (2009-2018). A descriptive comparative study of variables was carried out in both periods. RESULTS: 116 patients were included [27 (23.3%) in period 1 and 89 (76.7%) in period 2]. The incidence rate increased significantly (0.204 and 1.236/100,000habs./year; P < 0.05), the diagnosis delay tended to be lower (4 vs. 3.73 years). The reasons for diagnostic suspicion were diverse and the burden disease at diagnosis (expressed by bronchiectasis, altered spirometry, ability to generate antibodies by thymus-independent mechanism and need for substitute treatment) tended to decrease in period 2. CONCLUSIONS: Given the potentially serious complications of patients with late diagnosis of PIDs, it is necessary to create specialized multidisciplinary units, to unify assistance protocols and to design interventions to increase the knowledge of these entities.

Cannabis use is associated with monocyte activation (sCD163) in patients admitted for alcohol use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: The effect of concomitant cocaine and cannabis use on monocyte activation and inflammation in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) is unknown. METHODS: To analyze the impact of cocaine and cannabis use on levels of markers of monocyte activation (sCD163 and sCD14) and systemic inflammation (interleukin-6 [IL-6]) in AUD patients admitted for hospital treatment between 2013 and 2018. Clinical and laboratory parameters were obtained upon admission. IL-6, sCD163, and sCD14 were measured in frozen plasma samples. We performed logistic regression to detect associations between cocaine and cannabis use and markers of monocyte activation and inflammation in the highest quartile. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients (77.5 % male) were included (median age = 50 years). The median alcohol intake upon admission was 142 g/day. The median duration of AUD was 20 years. Of the 289 patients with AUD, 76 % were active smokers, 23.1 % and 22.1 % concomitantly used cocaine and cannabis, respectively The median levels of IL-6, sCD163, and sCD14 were 4.37 pg/mL, 759 ng/mL, and 1.68 × 106 pg/mL, respectively. We did not detect associations between cocaine use and inflammation or monocyte activation. Cannabis use was associated with a higher odds of having sCD163 levels in the highest quartile (adjusted odds ratio = 2.34, 95 % confidence interval = 1.07-5.15, p = 0.03). Cannabis use was not associated with inflammation. CONCLUSION: In this series of AUD patients the concomitant use of cannabis use was associated with sCD163 levels that were in the highest quartile, consistent with monocyte activation.