Search

Introduction: After the implementation of mitigation strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic, the incidence of respiratory viruses, including human coronaviruses (HCoV), experienced a significant decrease. The aim of this study is to characterize the epidemiology and clinical aspects of HCoV infections in ambulatory adults during COVID-19 pandemic times., Methods: descriptive, prospective, longitudinal study performed in a private hospital in La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina between November 2020 and October 2022; 458 outpatient adults with upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) were studied undergoing clinical and microbiological follow-up., Results: 44 (9.6%) subjects were positive by multiplex PCR for HCoV. 14 of them for 229E (31.8%), 13 for OC43 (29.5%), 11 for HKU-1 (25.1%) and 6 for NL63 (13.6%). A repeated PCR was positive for the same HCoV in 19 (57%) of 33 patients on day 3-5. No hospitalizations or deaths were reported., Discussion: Endemic HCoV caused a significant proportion of URTI among outpatient adults during COVID-19-related restrictions times. An alternating pattern of circulation between alfa-HCoV and beta-HCoV was observed.

Importance: The use of convalescent plasma (CP) could be an option for patients with severe COVID-19, especially in poor-resource countries where direct antiviral drugs are not commercially available. Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration limits the CP administration for outpatients and inpatients with COVID-19 who are immunocompromised and only if high levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are confirmed in the CP unit. Although most of the randomized clinical trials failed to show a clear-cut benefit of CP in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, other studies have shown that if given early in the course of the disease, it might be a useful therapeutic option. In this retrospective study, we demonstrated that early treatment (within 3 days of hospitalization) was significantly associated with reduced 28-day mortality compared with those patients treated beyond day 3. The results from our study add up to the scientific evidence on the use of CP as a relatively safe, cheap, and possibly effective therapy in certain patients suffering from severe SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19., Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021., Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale., Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies., Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Introduction: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Argentina population suffered from significant changes in population mobility due to non-pharmaceutical interventions. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of the mobility restrictions to the rates of positivity and diversity among different respiratory viruses., Methods: Retrospective analytical study performed at Instituto Médico Platense in La Plata that included 458 patients with nasopharyngeal swab to search for respiratory pathogens by multiplex PCR. Changes in mobility were studied using "Community Mobility Reports", data set developed by Google and publicly available., Results: Community mobility had significant correlation with the percentages of viral test positivity (p = < 0.01; R2=0.89) and viral diversity (p = 0.04; R2 = 0.78)., Discussion: Non-pharmaceutical interventions established to contain SARS-CoV-2 spread had a significant impact in the circulation patterns of other respiratory viruses.

Background: Convalescent plasma is frequently administered to patients with Covid-19 and has been reported, largely on the basis of observational data, to improve clinical outcomes. Minimal data are available from adequately powered randomized, controlled trials., Methods: We randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. The primary outcome was the patient's clinical status 30 days after the intervention, as measured on a six-point ordinal scale ranging from total recovery to death., Results: A total of 228 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 105 to receive placebo. The median time from the onset of symptoms to enrollment in the trial was 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), and hypoxemia was the most frequent severity criterion for enrollment. The infused convalescent plasma had a median titer of 1:3200 of total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (interquartile range, 1:800 to 1:3200). No patients were lost to follow-up. At day 30 day, no significant difference was noted between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in the distribution of clinical outcomes according to the ordinal scale (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.35; P = 0.46). Overall mortality was 10.96% in the convalescent plasma group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of -0.46 percentage points (95% CI, -7.8 to 6.8). Total SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers tended to be higher in the convalescent plasma group at day 2 after the intervention. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo. (PlasmAr ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04383535.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Copyright of Medicina (Buenos Aires) is the property of Medicina (Buenos Aires) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)