Sequential or Combination Treatments as Rescue Therapies in Immunocompromised Patients with Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Omicron Era: A Case Series

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections are widely described in immunosuppressed patients, but safe and effective treatment strategies are lacking. We aimed to outline our approach to treating persistent COVID-19 in patients with immunosuppression from different causes. In this case series, we retrospectively enrolled all immunosuppressed patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infections treated at our centers between March 2022 and February 2023. Patients received different sequential or combination regimens, including antivirals (remdesivir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, or molnupiravir) and/or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (tixagevimab/cilgavimab or sotrovimab). The main outcome was a complete virological response (negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs) at the end of treatment. Fifteen patients were included as follows: eleven (11/15; 73%) with hematological disease and four (4/15; 27%) with recently diagnosed HIV/AIDS infection. Six patients (6/15; 40%) received a single antiviral course, four patients (4/15; 27%) received an antiviral and mAbs sequentially, and two patients (13%) received three lines of treatment (a sequence of three antivirals or two antivirals and mAbs). A combination of two antivirals or one antiviral plus mAbs was administered in three cases (3/15, 20%). One patient died while still positive for SARS-CoV-2, while fourteen (14/15; 93%) tested negative within 16 days after the end of treatment. The median time to negativization since the last treatment was 2.5 days. Both sequential and combination regimens used in this study demonstrated high efficacy and safety in the high-risk group of immunosuppressed patients

Understanding Factors Associated With Psychomotor Subtypes of Delirium in Older Inpatients With Dementia

Objectives: Few studies have analyzed factors associated with delirium subtypes. In this study, we investigate factors associated with subtypes of delirium only in patients with dementia to provide insights on the possible prevention and treatments. Design: This is a cross-sectional study nested in the “Delirium Day” study, a nationwide Italian point-prevalence study. Setting and Participants: Older patients admitted to 205 acute and 92 rehabilitation hospital wards. Measures: Delirium was evaluated with the 4-AT and the motor subtypes with the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale. Dementia was defined by the presence of a documented diagnosis in the medical records and/or prescription of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine prior to admission. Results: Of the 1057 patients with dementia, 35% had delirium, with 25.6% hyperactive, 33.1% hypoactive, 34.5% mixed, and 6.7% nonmotor subtype. There were higher odds of having venous catheters in the hypoactive (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.18-2.81) and mixed type of delirium (OR 2.23, CI 1.43-3.46), whereas higher odds of urinary catheters in the hypoactive (OR 2.91, CI 1.92-4.39), hyperactive (OR 1.99, CI 1.23-3.21), and mixed types of delirium (OR 2.05, CI 1.36-3.07). We found higher odds of antipsychotics both in the hyperactive (OR 2.87, CI 1.81-4.54) and mixed subtype (OR 1.84, CI 1.24-2.75), whereas higher odds of antibiotics was present only in the mixed subtype (OR 1.91, CI 1.26-2.87). Conclusions and Implications: In patients with dementia, the mixed delirium subtype is the most prevalent followed by the hypoactive, hyperactive, and nonmotor subtype. Motor subtypes of delirium may be triggered by clinical factors, including the use of venous and urinary catheters, and the use of antipsychotics. Future studies are necessary to provide further insights on the possible pathophysiology of delirium in patients with dementia and to address the optimization of the management of potential risk factors