scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Giulia Ingoglia

Bio: Giulia Ingoglia is an academic researcher from University of Palermo. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Scopus. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 12 publications receiving 861 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There is rationale, pre-clinical evidence of effectiveness and evidence of safety from long-time clinical use for other indications to justify clinical research on chloroquine in patients with COVID-19.

870 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 with CQ/HCQ may not reduce risk of death, compared to standard care and high dose regimens or combination with macrolides may be associated with harm.

58 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) among patients admitted to an intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mortality of those who developed VAP.
Abstract: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) among patients admitted to an intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mortality of those who developed VAP. We performed a systematic search on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to 2nd March 2021 for nonrandomized studies specifically addressing VAP in adult patients with COVID-19 and reporting data on at least one primary outcome of interest. Random effect single-arm meta-analysis was performed for the occurrence of VAP and mortality (at the longest follow up) and ICU length of stay. Twenty studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, for a total of 2611 patients with at least one episode of VAP. The pooled estimated occurrence of VAP was of 45.4% (95% C.I. 37.8-53.2%; 2611/5593 patients; I2 = 96%). The pooled estimated occurrence of mortality was 42.7% (95% C.I. 34-51.7%; 371/946 patients; I2 = 82%). The estimated summary estimated metric mean ICU LOS was 28.58 days (95% C.I. 21.4-35.8; I2 = 98%). Sensitivity analysis showed that patients with COVID-19 may have a higher risk of developing VAP than patients without COVID-19 (OR 3.24; 95% C.I. 2.2-4.7; P = 0.015; I2 = 67.7%; five studies with a comparison group).

43 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: No difference in mortality rate was observed in patients undergoing CZA combination therapy compared to CZA monotherapy in the treatment of severe infections, and the quality of the studies, assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa Scale, was moderate-high.
Abstract: Ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) is a novel beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor combination approved for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019128927) was to evaluate the effectiveness of CZA combination therapy versus CZA monotherapy in the treatment of severe infections. The databases included in the search, until February 12th, 2020, were MEDLINE by PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies published in peer-reviewed journals and in the English language. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (longest follow-up) evaluated in patients with the diagnosis of infection with at least one pathogen; secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological improvement/cure. Thirteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis: 7 RCTs and 6 retrospective studies All the six retrospective studies identified carbapenamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) as the cause of infection and for this reason were included in the network meta-analysis (NMA); the quality of the studies, assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa Scale, was moderate-high. In all the six retrospective studies included in the NMA, CZA was used in large part for off-label indications (mostly blood stream infections: 80-100% of patients included). No difference in mortality rate was observed in patients undergoing CZA combination therapy compared to CZA monotherapy [n = 503 patients, direct evidence OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.65-1.41].

37 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Night/after-hours surgery may be associated with a higher risk of mortality in adult patients, and patients' and surgical characteristics seem not to completely explain this finding.
Abstract: Background The association between night/after-hours surgery and patients' mortality is unclear. Methods The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019128534). We searched Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE from inception until August 29, 2019 for studies examining an association between timing of surgical procedures (time of anaesthesia induction or surgery start) and mortality (within 30 days or in-hospital) in adult patients. Studies reporting patients' mortality after surgery performed during the weekend only were excluded. All analyses were done using the random-effects model. Results We included 40 observational studies (36 retrospective and four prospective) that examined a total of 2 957 065 patients. Twenty-eight studies were judged of good quality and 12 of poor quality according to Newcastle–Ottawa score, owing to a lack of adequate comparability between study groups. Primary analysis from adjusted estimates demonstrated as association between night/after-hours surgery and a higher risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR]=1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.28; P=0.002; number of studies=18; I2=67%) based on low certainty evidence. Analysis from unadjusted estimates demonstrated a consistent association (OR=1.47; 95% CI, 1.19–1.83; P=0.0005; studies=38, I2=97%; low certainty). The number of centres per study had no credible subgroup effect on the association between the time of surgery and mortality. We were unable to evaluate the subgroup effect of urgency of surgery because of high heterogeneity. Conclusions Night/after-hours surgery may be associated with a higher risk of mortality. Patients' and surgical characteristics seem not to completely explain this finding. However, the certainty of the evidence was low.

36 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression is described and the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation are highlighted.
Abstract: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alongside investigations into the virology of SARS-CoV-2, understanding the fundamental physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Here, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression. From nascent reports describing SARS-CoV-2, we make inferences on the basis of the parallel pathophysiological and immunological features of the other human coronaviruses targeting the lower respiratory tract - severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Finally, we highlight the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation.

3,236 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign CO VID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
Abstract: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

1,762 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Analysis of epidemiological, diagnostic, clinical, and therapeutic aspects, including perspectives of vaccines and preventive measures that have already been globally recommended to counter this pandemic virus, suggest that this novel virus has been transferred from an animal source, such as bats.
Abstract: SUMMARYIn recent decades, several new diseases have emerged in different geographical areas, with pathogens including Ebola virus, Zika virus, Nipah virus, and coronaviruses (CoVs). Recently, a new type of viral infection emerged in Wuhan City, China, and initial genomic sequencing data of this virus do not match with previously sequenced CoVs, suggesting a novel CoV strain (2019-nCoV), which has now been termed severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is suspected to originate from an animal host (zoonotic origin) followed by human-to-human transmission, the possibility of other routes should not be ruled out. Compared to diseases caused by previously known human CoVs, COVID-19 shows less severe pathogenesis but higher transmission competence, as is evident from the continuously increasing number of confirmed cases globally. Compared to other emerging viruses, such as Ebola virus, avian H7N9, SARS-CoV, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), SARS-CoV-2 has shown relatively low pathogenicity and moderate transmissibility. Codon usage studies suggest that this novel virus has been transferred from an animal source, such as bats. Early diagnosis by real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing has facilitated the identification of the pathogen at an early stage. Since no antiviral drug or vaccine exists to treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2, potential therapeutic strategies that are currently being evaluated predominantly stem from previous experience with treating SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and other emerging viral diseases. In this review, we address epidemiological, diagnostic, clinical, and therapeutic aspects, including perspectives of vaccines and preventive measures that have already been globally recommended to counter this pandemic virus.

1,011 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An overview of the known clinical features and treatment options for COVID‐19 is provided and quarantine is the only intervention that appears to be effective in decreasing the contagion rate.
Abstract: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2, a novel coronavirus from the same family as SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, has spread worldwide leading the World Health Organization to declare a pandemic. The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), presents flu-like symptoms which can become serious in high-risk individuals. Here, we provide an overview of the known clinical features and treatment options for COVID-19. We carried out a systematic literature search using the main online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, UpToDate, Embase and Web of Science) with the following keywords: 'COVID-19', '2019-nCoV', 'coronavirus' and 'SARS-CoV-2'. We included publications from 1 January 2019 to 3 April 2020 which focused on clinical features and treatments. We found that infection is transmitted from human to human and through contact with contaminated environmental surfaces. Hand hygiene is fundamental to prevent contamination. Wearing personal protective equipment is recommended in specific environments. The main symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, cough, fatigue, slight dyspnoea, sore throat, headache, conjunctivitis and gastrointestinal issues. Real-time PCR is used as a diagnostic tool using nasal swab, tracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Computed tomography findings are important for both diagnosis and follow-up. To date, there is no evidence of any effective treatment for COVID-19. The main therapies being used to treat the disease are antiviral drugs, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and respiratory therapy. In conclusion, although many therapies have been proposed, quarantine is the only intervention that appears to be effective in decreasing the contagion rate. Specifically designed randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the most appropriate evidence-based treatment modality.

900 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A panel of 36 experts from 12 countries issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

832 citations