Dataset Information

Clinical deterioration during neutropenia recovery after G-CSF therapy in patient with COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) induce neutrophils proliferation and cytokines production. It has often been used to treat neutropenia without solid evidence of efficacy. It has been demonstrated that respiratory distress is associated with neutropenia recovery but not with G-CSFs. In general, G-CSFs are known to be safe and well tolerated in most clinical settings. However, the safety of G-CSFs in an overwhelming inflammatory disease like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is largely unknown.

Case summary

We report a case with COVID-19 and neutropenia who rapidly deteriorated after administration of G-CSF.

Conclusion

We observed a faster neutropenia recovery than previously known after administration of G-CSF in our case and in three similar cases previously reported in literature. This rapid neutropenia recovery and the robust inflammatory response in COVID-19 raise concerns about G-CSF safety in patients with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Taha M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7515585 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical deterioration during neutropenia recovery after G-CSF therapy in patient with COVID-19.

Taha Muhanad M Sharma Aditi A Soubani Ayman A

Respiratory medicine case reports 20200924

<h4>Background</h4>Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) induce neutrophils proliferation and cytokines production. It has often been used to treat neutropenia without solid evidence of efficacy. It has been demonstrated that respiratory distress is associated with neutropenia recovery but not with G-CSFs. In general, G-CSFs are known to be safe and well tolerated in most clinical settings. However, the safety of G-CSFs in an overwhelming inflammatory disease like coronavirus disease 2 ...[more]

PMID: 32999856

Similar Datasets

Project description:(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Project description:BackgroundThe determinants of COVID-19 disease severity and extrapulmonary complications (EPCs) are poorly understood. We characterise the relationships between SARS-CoV-2 RNAaemia and disease severity, clinical deterioration, and specific EPCs.MethodsWe used quantitative (qPCR) and digital (dPCR) PCR to quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs and plasma in 191 patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with COVID-19. We recorded patient symptoms, laboratory markers, and clinical outcomes, with a focus on oxygen requirements over time. We collected longitudinal plasma samples from a subset of patients. We characterised the role of RNAaemia in predicting clinical severity and EPCs using elastic net regression.Findings23·0% (44/191) of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients had viral RNA detected in plasma by dPCR, compared to 1·4% (2/147) by qPCR. Most patients with serial measurements had undetectable RNAaemia 10 days after onset of symptoms, but took 16 days to reach maximum severity, and 33 days for symptoms to resolve. Initially RNAaemic patients were more likely to manifest severe disease (OR 6·72 [95% CI, 2·45 - 19·79]), worsening of disease severity (OR 2·43 [95% CI, 1·07 - 5·38]), and EPCs (OR 2·81 [95% CI, 1·26 - 6·36]). RNA load correlated with maximum severity ( r = 0·47 [95% CI, 0·20 - 0·67]).InterpretationdPCR is more sensitive than qPCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAaemia, which is a robust predictor of eventual COVID-19 severity and oxygen requirements, as well as EPCs. Since many COVID-19 therapies are initiated on the basis of oxygen requirements, RNAaemia on presentation might serve to direct early initiation of appropriate therapies for the patients most likely to deteriorate.FundingNIH/NIAID (Grants R01A153133, R01AI137272, and 3U19AI057229 - 17W1 COVID SUPP #2) and a donation from Eva Grove.Research in contextEvidence before this study: The varied clinical manifestations of COVID-19 have directed attention to the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 in the body. Although most concentrated and tested for in the nasopharynx, SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been found in blood, stool, and numerous tissues, raising questions about dissemination of viral RNA throughout the body, and the role of this process in disease severity and extrapulmonary complications. Recent studies have detected low levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in blood using either quantitative reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (qPCR) or droplet digital PCR (dPCR), and have associated RNAaemia with disease severity and biomarkers of dysregulated immune response.Added value of this study: We quantified SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx and plasma of patients presenting to the Emergency Department with COVID-19, and found an array-based dPCR platform to be markedly more sensitive than qPCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, with a simplified workflow well-suited to clinical adoption. We collected serial plasma samples during patients' course of illness, and showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNAaemia peaks early, while clinical condition often continues to worsen. Our findings confirm the association between RNAaemia and disease severity, and additionally demonstrate a role for RNAaemia in predicting future deterioration and specific extrapulmonary complications.Implications of all the available evidence: Variation in SARS-CoV-2 RNAaemia may help explain disparities in disease severity and extrapulmonary complications from COVID-19. Testing for RNAaemia with dPCR early in the course of illness may help guide patient triage and management.

Project description:ImportanceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to serious illness as a result of an excessive immune response. Fluvoxamine may prevent clinical deterioration by stimulating the σ-1 receptor, which regulates cytokine production.ObjectiveTo determine whether fluvoxamine, given during mild COVID-19 illness, prevents clinical deterioration and decreases the severity of disease.Design, setting, and participantsDouble-blind, randomized, fully remote (contactless) clinical trial of fluvoxamine vs placebo. Participants were community-living, nonhospitalized adults with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, with COVID-19 symptom onset within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater. One hundred fifty-two participants were enrolled from the St Louis metropolitan area (Missouri and Illinois) from April 10, 2020, to August 5, 2020. The final date of follow-up was September 19, 2020.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of fluvoxamine (n = 80) or placebo (n = 72) 3 times daily for 15 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting both criteria of (1) shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and (2) oxygen saturation less than 92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.ResultsOf 152 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 46 [13] years; 109 [72%] women), 115 (76%) completed the trial. Clinical deterioration occurred in 0 of 80 patients in the fluvoxamine group and in 6 of 72 patients in the placebo group (absolute difference, 8.7% [95% CI, 1.8%-16.4%] from survival analysis; log-rank P = .009). The fluvoxamine group had 1 serious adverse event and 11 other adverse events, whereas the placebo group had 6 serious adverse events and 12 other adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19, patients treated with fluvoxamine, compared with placebo, had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days. However, the study is limited by a small sample size and short follow-up duration, and determination of clinical efficacy would require larger randomized trials with more definitive outcome measures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04342663.

Dataset Information

Clinical deterioration during neutropenia recovery after G-CSF therapy in patient with COVID-19.

Background

Case summary

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical deterioration during neutropenia recovery after G-CSF therapy in patient with COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets