Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reduced Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations in people at risk of clinical worsening. Real-world descriptions are limited.
Abstract Objectives Clinical laboratories plays a key role in screening, diagnosis and containment of the Coronavirus 2019 infection epidemic. The etiological diagnosis presupposes the isolation of virus genetic material in the patient’s biological sample but laboratory diagnostics also make use of searching possibility for immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgM classes antibodies. The characteristics of the antibody response are not yet completely clear. Methods This study describes a serological monitoring of subjects, elderly nursing care residence guests, interested by a very large infection outbreak. After first nasopharyngeal swab, all the positive subjects (43) were monitored for the persistence of the virus infection through nasopharyngeal swab after 20 days (16–24), 32 days (28–36) and after 49 days (47–50). At the same time, during the second (day 32) and third (day 49) follow up, all the guests were investigated for IgM and IgG anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, by using a quantitative chemiluminescence method. Results Thirty two days after performing the first diagnostic swab, 39 of 43 patients (90%) had IgG higher than the cut off value. After 49 days the four patients with negative IgG were still negative. The comparison of the levels of IgG-Ab between the controls shows a significant decrease in concentrations (−10%). Conclusions Our study confirms that in most patients affected by COVID-19 there is a typical antibody response with IgG-Ab present in 90% of nursing care COVID-19 positive residence guests. For IgM-Ab only 23% of tested subjects were positive on the 32nd and 49th day of illness, always in parallel with the IgG-Ab positivity.
Remdesivir has been associated with accelerated recovery of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, whether it is also beneficial in patients requiring mechanical ventilation is uncertain.All consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 were enrolled. Univariate and multivariable Cox models were used to explore the possible association between in-hospital death or hospital discharge, considered competing-risk events, and baseline or treatment-related factors, including the use of remdesivir. The rate of extubation and the number of ventilator-free days were also calculated and compared between treatment groups.One hundred thirteen patients requiring mechanical ventilation were observed for a median of 31 days of follow-up; 32% died, 69% were extubated, and 66% were discharged alive from the hospital. Among 33 treated with remdesivir (RDV), lower mortality (15.2% vs 38.8%) and higher rates of extubation (88% vs 60%), ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range], 11 [0-16] vs 5 [0-14.5]), and hospital discharge (85% vs 59%) were observed. Using multivariable analysis, RDV was significantly associated with hospital discharge (hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.27-3.97; P = .005) and with a nonsignificantly lower mortality (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.26-2.1; P = .560). RDV was also independently associated with extubation (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.73; P = .011), which was considered a competing risk to death in the ICU in an additional survival model.In our cohort of mechanically ventilated patients, RDV was not associated with a significant reduction of mortality, but it was consistently associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and higher probability of hospital discharge, independent of other risk factors.
Article Prospective serological evaluation of anti SARS-CoV-2 IgG and anti S1-RBD antibodies in a community outbreak was published on July 1, 2021 in the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) (volume 59, issue 8).
The term noninvasive ventilation (NIV) encompasses two different modes of delivering positive airway pressure, namely continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilevel positive airway pressure (bilevel-PAP). The two modes are different since CPAP does not actively assist inspiration whereas bilevel-PAP does. Bilevel-PAP is a type of noninvasive ventilation that helps keep the upper airways of the lungs open by providing a flow of air delivered through a face mask. The air is pressurized by a machine, which delivers it to the face mask through long, plastic hosing. With bilevel-PAP, the doctor prescribes specific alternating pressures: a higher pressure is used to breathe in (inspiratory positive airway pressure) and a lower pressure is used to breath out (expiratory positive airway pressure). Noninvasive ventilation has been shown to reduce the rate of tracheal intubation. The main indications are exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). This last is a common cause of respiratory failure with high incidence and high mortality rate. Clinical findings of ACPE are related to the increased extra-vascular water in the lungs and the resulting reduced lung compliance, increased airway resistance and elevated inspiratory muscle load which generates a depression in pleural pressure. These large pleural pressure swings are responsible for hemodynamic changes by increasing left ventricular afterload, myocardial transmural pressure, and venous return. These alterations can be detrimental to patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Under these circumstances, NIV, either by CPAP or bilevel-PAP, improves vital signs, gas exchange, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics by reducing left ventricular afterload and preload. In the first randomized study which compared the effectiveness of CPAP plus medical treatment vs medical treatment alone, the CPAP group showed a significant decrease in its 48 h mortality rate and no patient required endotracheal intubation. This result was successively confirmed in many reviews and meta-analyses. There are still unanswered questions regarding the role of NIV in ACPE: this review aims to support clinicians treating patients in emergency departments with various presentations of ACPE. It also covers recent developments in the treatment of ACPE and associated evidence.
