RESUMEN

Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The treatment of osteoarticular infections in pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) is a challenging task for the practitioner. The aim of this study is to evaluate cefixime for the treatment of osteoarticular infections in pediatric SCD patients by retrospective design. METHODS: This study was done in the pediatric hospital of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The data was obtained from medical records of patients aged 1-16 years admitted between January 2019 to December 2020, diagnosed with SCD and received cefixime for the treatment of OI. A descriptive study for pediatric patients admitted between January 2019 to December 2020 diagnosed with sickle cell disease and diagnosed with osteoarticular infection. All patients were treated with cefixime. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used for the descriptive analysis. RESULTS: A total of 260 patients were screened, and 51 cases [osteomyelitis (OM), n = 43, and septic arthritis (SA), n = 8] met the inclusion criteria. The median age of OM patients was 7 years, with males making up 67.4% of the cohort. The median length of IV antibiotics and hospital stays were 10 days and 11 days, respectively. The median total duration of antibiotic use was 37 and 25 days for OM and SA, respectively. The treatment success rate was 88% in OM cases and 100% in SA patients. Readmission was noted in 39.5% of the OM patients, while only 25% of the SA patients were recorded for reinfection. CONCLUSION: The study's findings revealed that Cefixime is a viable oral alternative for treating osteoarticular infection in pediatric SCD patients. Nonetheless, a prospective investigation is required to corroborate the findings of this study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) contains spike proteins that assist the virus in entering host cells. In the absence of a specific intervention, efforts are afoot throughout the world to find an effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2. Through innovative techniques, monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are being designed and developed to block a particular pathway of SARS-CoV-2 infection. More than 100 patent applications describing the development of MAbs and their application against SARS-CoV-2 have been registered. Most of them target the receptor binding protein so that the interaction between virus and host cell can be prevented. A few monoclonal antibodies are also being patented for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Some of them, like Regeneron® have already received emergency use authorization. These protein molecules are currently preferred for high-risk patients such as those over 65 years old with compromised immunity and those with metabolic disorders such as obesity. Being highly specific in action, monoclonal antibodies offer one of the most appropriate interventions for both the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Technological advancement has helped in producing highly efficacious MAbs. However, these agents are known to induce immunogenic and non-immunogenic reactions. More research and testing are required to establish the suitability of administering MAbs to all patients at risk of developing a severe illness. This patent study is focused on MAbs as a therapeutic option for treating COVID-19, as well as their invention, patenting information, and key characteristics.

Asunto(s)