Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- COVID‐19 (1)
- Clinical effectiveness (1)
- High-risk patient (1)
- Invasive fungal infection (1)
- Neutropenia (1)
- Posaconazole serum level (1)
- logistic models (1)
- machine learning (1)
- risk factors (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Scores to identify patients at high risk of progression of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), may become instrumental for clinical decision-making and patient management. We used patient data from the multicentre Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients (LEOSS) and applied variable selection to develop a simplified scoring system to identify patients at increased risk of critical illness or death. A total of 1946 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the initial analysis and assigned to derivation and validation cohorts (n = 1297 and n = 649, respectively). Stability selection from over 100 baseline predictors for the combined endpoint of progression to the critical phase or COVID-19-related death enabled the development of a simplified score consisting of five predictors: C-reactive protein (CRP), age, clinical disease phase (uncomplicated vs. complicated), serum urea, and D-dimer (abbreviated as CAPS-D score). This score yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77–0.85) in the validation cohort for predicting the combined endpoint within 7 days of diagnosis and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77–0.85) during full follow-up. We used an additional prospective cohort of 682 patients, diagnosed largely after the “first wave” of the pandemic to validate the predictive accuracy of the score and observed similar results (AUC for the event within 7 days: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.78–0.87]; for full follow-up: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.78–0.86]). An easily applicable score to calculate the risk of COVID-19 progression to critical illness or death was thus established and validated.
Objectives: Novel formulations (gastro-resistant tablet and intravenous solution) of posaconazole (POS) have been approved in prophylaxis and therapy of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs). Study aim was to analyze treatment strategies and clinical effectiveness.
Methods: We set up a web-based registry on www.ClinicalSurveys.net for documentation of comprehensive data of patients who received novel POS formulations. Data analysis was split into two groups of patients who received novel POS formulations for antifungal prophylaxis (posaconazole prophylaxis group) and antifungal therapy (posaconazole therapy group), respectively.
Results: Overall, 180 patients (151 in the posaconazole prophylaxis group and 29 in the posaconazole therapy group) from six German tertiary care centers and hospitalized between 05/2014 – 03/2016 were observed. Median age was 58 years (range: 19 – 77 years) and the most common risk factor for IFD was chemotherapy (n = 136; 76%). In the posaconazole prophylaxis group and posaconazole therapy group, median POS serum levels at steady-state were 1,068 μg/L (IQR 573–1,498 μg/L) and 904 μg/L (IQR 728–1,550 μg/L), respectively (P = 0.776). During antifungal prophylaxis with POS, nine (6%) probable/proven fungal breakthroughs were reported and overall survival rate of hospitalization was 86%. The median overall duration of POS therapy was 18 days (IQR: 7 – 23 days). Fourteen patients (48%) had progressive IFD under POS therapy, of these five patients (36%) died related to or likely related to IFD.
Conclusions: Our study demonstrates clinical effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis with novel POS formulations. In patients treated for possible/probable/proven IFD, we observed considerable mortality in patients receiving salvage treatment and with infections due to rare fungal species.