Search

Background: N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) has been previously shown to exert beneficial effects in diverse respiratory diseases, through antioxidant and anti-inflammatory actions. Our aim was to evaluate NAC potential impact in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, in terms of progression to severe respiratory failure (SRF) and mortality., Patients and Methods: This retrospective, two-centre cohort study included consecutive patients hospitalised with moderate or severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who received standard of care were compared with patients who additionally received NAC 600 mg bid orally for 14 days. Patients' clinical course was recorded regarding (i) the development of SRF (PO 2 /FiO 2 <150) requiring mechanical ventilation support and (ii) mortality at 14 and 28 days., Results: A total of 82 patients were included, 42 in the NAC group and 40 in the control group. Treatment with oral NAC led to significantly lower rates of progression to SRF as compared to the control group ( p  < .01). Patients in the NAC group presented significantly lower 14- and 28-day mortality as compared to controls ( p  < .001 and p  < .01 respectively). NAC treatment significantly reduced 14- and 28-day mortality in patients with severe disease ( p  < .001, respectively). NAC improved over time the PO2/FiO2 ratio and decreased the white blood cell, CRP, D-dimers and LDH levels. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, non-severe illness and NAC administration were independent predictors of 28-days survival., Conclusion: Oral NAC administration (1200 mg/d) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia reduces the risk for mechanical ventilation and mortality. Our findings need to be confirmed by properly designed prospective clinical trials.

With increasingly successful management of HIV, focus has shifted away from AIDS-related complications to other chronic co-morbidities. For HIV-related cognitive problems, the true aetiopathogenesis and epidemiology remains unclear. Rather than a systematic review, this paper presents the challenges and the opportunities we faced in establishing our own clinical service. Papers were identified using Pubmed and the terms "screening", "HIV" and "neurocognitive". This article covers the background of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) with a focus on HIV-related neurocognitive impairment (NCI), detailing classification, prevalence, diagnostic categories and diagnostic uncertainties. Screening is discussed, including a comparison of the available screening tools for cognitive deficits in HIV-infected patients and the importance of practice effects. Discussed also are the normal ranges and the lack thereof and potential investigations for those found to have impairments. We conclude by discussing the role of NCI screening in routine clinical care at the current time.

Despite ever improving advances in antiretroviral therapy, neurocognitive impairments such as asymptomatic and mild neurocognitive impairment remain a significant problem for the HIV-positive population. We distributed a post-neurocognitive impairment screening service evaluation questionnaire to assess satisfaction and anxiety. Subjects were HIV positive and aged 18-50. They were screened using the Brief Neurocognitive Score and International HIV Dementia Score as well as undergoing screening for anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment [GAD-7]), depression (Participant Health Questionnaire Mood Scale [PHQ-9]) and memory (Everyday Memory Questionnaire [EMQ-R]). On completion, they were either reassured that the tests were normal or were referred for further investigation. Following assessment, subjects were asked to complete an anonymous satisfaction survey; 101 surveys were analysed. Forty-nine per cent of participants stated that they "felt better" following screening, 43% said it "made no difference", 6% stated it "worried me" and 1% "did not understand". On a scale of 0-10 of helpfulness, the mean score was 7.53. Forty-seven subjects indicated that they were referred for further investigation and 46 subjects that nothing else was needed; 8 reported they did not know. Those referred on rated satisfaction at a mean of 7.54/10 and those with normal screen as 7.09/10 (p = 0.46). Of the groups that were referred for further investigation, 6% said the test "worried them" compared to 4% in the non-referred group. Forty-nine per cent said they "felt better" despite an abnormal result compared to 50% in a normal screening result (p = 0.76). The results of this survey show that screening for neurocognitive impairment by this method is acceptable and helpful to participants. It did not lead to an increase in anxiety and there was no correlation between referred for further investigations and anxiety suggesting concerns about creating undue anxiety by screening and referral are unfounded.