-
BMC Infectious Diseases Apr 2023Viral reactivations and co-infections have been reported among COVID-19 patients. However, studies on the clinical outcomes of different viral reactivations and...
BACKGROUND
Viral reactivations and co-infections have been reported among COVID-19 patients. However, studies on the clinical outcomes of different viral reactivations and co-infections are currently in limit. Thus, the primary purpose of this review is to perform an overarching investigation on the cases of latent virus reactivation and co-infection in COVID-19 patients to build collective evidence contributing to improving patient health. The aim of the study was to conduct a literature review to compare the patient characteristics and outcomes of reactivations and co-infections of different viruses.
METHODS
Our population of interest included confirmed COVID-19 patients who were diagnosed with a viral infection either concurrently or following their COVID-19 diagnosis. We extracted the relevant literature through a systematic search using the key terms in the online databases including the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), from inception onwards up to June 2022. The authors independently extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using the Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting (CARE) guidelines and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Main patient characteristics, frequency of each manifestation, and diagnostic criteria used in studies were summarized in tables.
RESULTS
In total, 53 articles were included in this review. We identified 40 reactivation studies, 8 coinfection studies, and 5 studies where concomitant infection in COVID-19 patients was not distinguished as either reactivation or coinfection. Data were extracted for 12 viruses including IAV, IBV, EBV, CMV, VZV, HHV-1, HHV-2, HHV-6, HHV-7, HHV-8, HBV, and Parvovirus B19. EBV, HHV-1, and CMV were most frequently observed within the reactivation cohort, whereas IAV and EBV within the coinfection cohort. In both reactivation and coinfection groups, patients reported cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and immunosuppression as comorbidities, acute kidney injury as complication, and lymphopenia and elevated D-dimer and CRP levels from blood tests. Common pharmaceutical interventions in two groups included steroids and antivirals.
CONCLUSION
Overall, these findings expand our knowledge on the characteristics of COVID-19 patients with viral reactivations and co-infections. Our experience with current review indicates a need for further investigations on virus reactivation and coinfection among COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Humans; Coinfection; COVID-19 Testing; COVID-19; Virus Diseases; Cytomegalovirus Infections
PubMed: 37101275
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08117-y -
BMC Gastroenterology Nov 2023Oral nucleoside (acid) analogues (NAs) are recommended for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV-ACLF). The efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Oral nucleoside (acid) analogues (NAs) are recommended for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV-ACLF). The efficacy and safety of tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) in these patients remain unclear.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and Embase database was conducted to select studies published before December 2022 on TDF or ETV for HBV-ACLF. The primary outcomes were survival rates at 4, 12, and 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes were virologic and biochemical responses, serum antigen conversion, liver function score, and safety.
RESULTS
Four prospective and one retrospective cohort studies were selected. The overall analysis showed comparable survival rates at 4, 12, and 48 weeks for all patients receiving TDF or ETV (4-week: RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.90-1.51, p = 0.24; 12-week: RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88-1.13, p = 0.94; 48-week: RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.58-1.57, p = 0.86). Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score at 12 weeks were comparable in both groups but lower than baseline (CTP: SMD = -0.75, 95% CI:-2.81-1.30, p = 0.47; MELD: SMD = -1.10, 95% CI:-2.29-0.08, p = 0.07). At 48 weeks, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels were found to decrease to different degrees from baseline in both the TDF and ETV groups, and the decrease was greater in the TDF group than in the ETV group. No significant differences were found in biochemical, virologic response, and serum antigen conversion between the two groups during the observation period.
CONCLUSION
TDF treatment of HBV-ACLF is similar to ETV in improving survival, liver function, and virologic response but the effects on renal function in two groups in the long term remain unclear. More and larger long-term clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Tenofovir; Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; End Stage Liver Disease; Treatment Outcome; Severity of Illness Index; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B virus
PubMed: 37957546
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; COVID-19; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35713300
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014945.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, resulting in a range of clinical manifestations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, resulting in a range of clinical manifestations and outcomes. Laboratory and immunological alterations have been considered as potential markers of disease severity and clinical evolution. Type I interferons (IFN-I), mainly represented by IFN-α and β, are a group of cytokines with an important function in antiviral responses and have played a complex role in COVID-19. Some studies have demonstrated that IFN-I levels and interferon response is elevated in mild cases, while other studies have noted this in severe cases. The involvement of IFN-I on the pathogenesis and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear. In this study, we summarize the available evidence of the association of plasma protein levels of type I IFN with the severity of COVID-19.
METHODS
The PRISMA checklist guided the reporting of the data. A systematic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed up to March of 2021, looking for articles that evaluated plasma protein levels of IFN-I in mild, severe, or critical COVID-19 patients. Comparative meta-analyses with random effects were performed to compare the standardized mean differences in plasma protein levels of IFN-I of mild versus severe and mild versus critical patients. Meta-regressions were performed to test the moderating role of age, sex, time that the IFN-I was measured, and limit of detection of the assay used in the difference between the means.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in plasma levels of IFN-α when comparing between mild and severe patients (SMD = -0.236, 95% CI -0.645 to 0.173, p = 0.258, I2 = 82.11), nor when comparing between patients mild and critical (SMD = 0.203, 95% CI -0.363 to 0.770, p = 0.481, I2 = 64.06). However, there was a significant difference between healthy individuals and patients with mild disease (SMD = 0.447, 95% CI 0.085 to 0.810, p = 0.016, I2 = 62.89).
CONCLUSIONS
Peripheral IFN-α cannot be used as a severity marker as it does not determine the clinical status presented by COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Biomarkers; COVID-19; Disease Progression; Humans; Interferon Type I; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 34054820
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.657363 -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Oct 2020Myelofibrosis (MF) is a Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by progressive bone marrow failure, increased risk of progression to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Myelofibrosis (MF) is a Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by progressive bone marrow failure, increased risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia, and constitutional symptoms. For over 3 decades, various formulations of interferon (IFN) have been used for the treatment of MF, with variable results, and the role of IFN in the treatment of MF is evolving.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline and Embase via Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched from inception through March 2019 for studies of pegylated IFN (peg-IFN) and non-peg-IFN in MF patients. The primary outcome of overall response rate was defined as a composite of complete response, partial response, complete hematologic response, and partial hematologic response. Random-effects models were used to pool overall response rate, and metaregression analyses were performed to compare peg-IFN and non--peg-IFN formulations.
RESULTS
Among the 10 studies with 141 MF patients included, the overall response rate was 49.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.4-69.3), and there was no statistically significant difference (P = .99) between peg-IFN (50.0%; 95% CI, 26.2-73.9; I = 76.9%) and non-peg-IFN (49.6%; 95% CI, 20.5-79.0; I = 56.7%). Treatment discontinuation resulting from adverse events was common with non-peg-IFN at 35.8% (95% CI, 3.5-68.1) per year, and less in the one study on peg-IFN (0.5% per year).
CONCLUSION
IFN can lead to hematologic improvements in a subset of MF patients, but study quality is limited and heterogenous. Biomarkers predicting response to IFN and formulations with improved tolerability are needed.
Topics: Humans; Interferon-alpha; Primary Myelofibrosis
PubMed: 32669244
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.018 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Dec 2023This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of venetoclax (VEN) + azacitidine (AZA) and VEN + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) compared with AZA, LDAC, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Efficacy of Venetoclax-Based Combination Therapies and Other Therapies in Treatment-Naive Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVES
This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of venetoclax (VEN) + azacitidine (AZA) and VEN + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) compared with AZA, LDAC, and decitabine monotherapies and best supportive care (BSC) in adults with untreated acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and feasibility assessment was conducted to select phase III randomized controlled trials for inclusion in the NMA. Complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery and overall survival (OS) were compared using a Bayesian fixed-effects NMA. Treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) with higher values indicating a higher likelihood of being effective.
RESULTS
A total of 1140 patients across 5 trials were included. VEN + LDAC (SUCRA 91.4%) and VEN + AZA (87.5%) were the highest ranked treatments for complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery. VEN + LDAC was associated significantly higher response rates versus AZA (odds ratio 5.64), LDAC (6.39), and BSC (23.28). VEN + AZA was also associated significantly higher response rates than AZA (5.06), LDAC (5.74), and BSC (20.68). In terms of OS, VEN + AZA (SUCRA: 95.2%) and VEN + LDAC (75.9%) were the highest ranked treatments. VEN + AZA was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with AZA (hazard ratio 0.66), LDAC (0.57), and BSC (0.37), and VEN + LDAC was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with LDAC (0.70) and BSC (0.46).
CONCLUSIONS
VEN + AZA and VEN + LDAC demonstrated improved efficacy compared with alternative therapies among treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Azacitidine; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cytarabine; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute
PubMed: 37741447
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.09.001 -
Liver International : Official Journal... Mar 2024We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of pan-genotypic regimens, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of pan-genotypic regimens, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) and other direct-acting antivirals (DAA) regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected adolescents (12-18 years), older children (6-11 years), and young children (3-5 years). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to inform the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
METHODS
We included clinical trials and observational studies published up to August 11, 2021, that evaluated DAA regimens in HCV-infected adolescents, older children, and young children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and key conference abstracts. Sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12), adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuation were the outcomes evaluated. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the ROBINS-I tool. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 49 studies including 1882 adolescents, 436 older children, and 166 young children were considered. The SVR12 was 100% (95% Confidence Interval: 96-100), 96% (90-100), and 96% (83-100) for GLE/PIB in adolescents, older, and young children, respectively; 95% (90-99), 93% (86-98), and 83% (70-93), for SOF/VEL, respectively; and 100% (97-100) and 100% (94-100) for SOF/DCV in adolescent and older children, respectively. There was a clear trend towards a higher rate of any reported AE from adolescents (50%), older children (53%), to young children (72%). Serious AEs and treatment discontinuations were uncommon in adolescents and older children (<1%) but slightly higher in young children (3%).
CONCLUSIONS
All three pan-genotypic DAA regimens were highly effective and well-tolerated and are now recommended by the WHO for use in adults, adolescents, and children down to 3 years, which will simplify procurement and supply chain management. The evidence was based largely on single-arm non-randomized controlled studies. Moreover, there were also missing data regarding key variables such as route of HCV acquisition, presence or absence of cirrhosis, or HIV co-infection that precluded evaluation of the impact of these factors on outcomes.
PROSPERO RECORD
CRD42020146752.
Topics: Adult; Child; Adolescent; Humans; Child, Preschool; Sofosbuvir; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C; Sustained Virologic Response; Hepacivirus; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Treatment Outcome; Carbamates; Imidazoles; Pyrrolidines; Valine
PubMed: 38293756
DOI: 10.1111/liv.15827 -
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023Host genetic factors significantly influence susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Among these genetic factors are single-nucleotide variants... (Review)
Review
Host genetic factors significantly influence susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Among these genetic factors are single-nucleotide variants (SNVs). and genes have been associated with severe COVID-19 in populations from the United Kingdom, Africa, and Latin America. IFNAR1 and IFNAR2 are subunits forming the type I interferon receptor (IFNAR). SNVs in the genes impact protein function, affecting antiviral response and disease phenotypes. This systematic review aimed to describe and variants associated with COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. Accordingly, the current review focused on and studies published between January 2021 and February 2023, utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed databases using Boolean operators and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the 170 literature pieces, 11 studies were included. We include case reports of rare SNVs, defined by minor allele frequency (MAF) < 1%, and genome-wide associated studies (GWAS). Variants in and could potentially be new targets for therapies that limit the infection and the resulting inflammation by SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PubMed: 38003785
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12111320 -
Journal of Cancer 2022Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is now administered to patients with advanced cancers. However, the safety and efficacy of ICIs in cancer patients with... (Review)
Review
Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is now administered to patients with advanced cancers. However, the safety and efficacy of ICIs in cancer patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is unknown. Therefore, we performed this systematic review to examine the safety and efficacy of ICIs in patients with HBV infection, with particular focus on HBV reactivation. Studies examining ICI treatment in patients with advanced cancer and HBV infection in PubMed from database inception to April 2022 were retrieved in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. In addition, reports of individuals diagnosed with HBV reactivation were supplemented through the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. We identified 20 articles (8 case reports, 10 retrospective case series, and 2 prospective clinical trials) and 2 meeting abstracts including 633 patients with advanced cancer and HBV infection treated with ICIs. The overall rate of HBV reactivation was 4.1% (26/633), and no HBV-related fatal events were reported. Among patients with HBV reactivation with known baseline data (20/26), HBV-DNA returned to undetectable status in 15 of 17 patients (88.2%) after a median 5.5 weeks (range, 1-14 weeks). Therapeutic responses to ICIs were observed in 14 of 88 patients (15.91%) with hepatocellular carcinoma, 6 of 45 patients (13.33%) with non-small cell lung cancer, and 3 of 13 patients (23.08%) with melanoma. ICIs may be safe and effective in patients with advanced cancer and HBV infection. However, there is still a need for clinical monitoring of liver enzymes and HBV-DNA during ICI therapy. Prospective trials are necessary to elucidate the appropriate antiviral therapy in these patients.
PubMed: 36484006
DOI: 10.7150/jca.77247 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jul 2021Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a clinical syndrome caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Patients can be asymptomatic...
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a clinical syndrome caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Patients can be asymptomatic or present respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, and even multiple-organ failure which can lead to death. The balance between an effective antiviral response and dysregulated immune response is the key factor determining the severity of COVID-19 progression. A systematic review was performed using the NCBI-PubMed database to find the articles related to COVID-19 immunity and inflammatory response published from 1 December 2019 to 15 April 2020. Haematological, immunological and biochemical parameters were extracted and correlated with disease severity, age and presence of comorbidities. Twelve articles were analysed comprising a total of 1042 hospitalized patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and 95 different parameters. Total lymphocyte count and levels of CD3+ and CD4+ T cells were decreased in severe and critical cases. Neutrophilia was found in patients who progressed to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Interleukin-six (IL-6) was high in mild and severe patients regardless of comorbidities. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and count and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were increased regardless of disease severity or presence of comorbidities. High levels of D-dimer and lactate dehydrogenase were present in diabetic patients and patients who developed ARDS. Procalcitonin levels were elevated to varying degrees in severe and critical patients. We conclude that the total lymphocyte count, CD3+ and CD4+ T cells are low, especially in severe and critical COVID-19 patients; ESR, CRP and IL-6 were elevated, independent of the severity of disease. Understanding the inflammatory response of COVID-19 patients is essential for the development of better therapeutic and management strategies.
Topics: Biomarkers; COVID-19; Humans; Immunity; Inflammation
PubMed: 34260778
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2199