Hypersensitivity to Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Children and Adolescents: Cross-Intolerance Reactions.

Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review;Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used worldwide and are responsible for several types of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) in all age groups. The 2 major groups of DHRs to NSAIDs are those induced by immunological mechanisms (selective reactions) and those where inflammatory mediators are released through activation of the prostaglandin-leukotriene pathway without specific immunological recognition (cross-intolerance). In the present review, we focus on cross-intolerance reactions, which are the most frequent DHRs and are becoming a topic of major interest in children and adolescents. Paracetamol and ibuprofen are the drugs that most frequently cause DHRs in children; other NSAIDs are responsible for reactions in adolescents. In vivo and in vitro tests are of limited diagnostic value, with some exceptions for the less common selective reactions. In cross-intolerance, the clinical history and controlled administration are in many instances the only way to establish a diagnosis and look for alternatives. The clinical history is diagnostic when consistent symptoms occur repeatedly after exposure to NSAIDs with different chemical structures. Cutaneous and respiratory symptoms often co-occur in young children. The natural history of these reactions in children is unknown, and some patients can develop tolerance over time. Atopy remains a major risk factor for cross-intolerant reactions. The increasing interest in hypersensitivity to NSAIDs with improvements in patient phenotyping and the information provided by pharmacogenetics will improve our understanding and management of these reactions in the near future.The present study was supported by grants from the Carlos III National Health Institute RD12/0013 (RIRAAF Network), FIS PI12/02247, and FIS PI13/02598. It was also supported by Marie Curie (IAPP 7th Framework Program Mr. SymBioMath, no. 324554) and the Andalusian Public Health Service (PI-0279-2012 and PI-0463-2013).YesLos antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINEs) son ampliamente utilizados en todo el mundo y en todos los tramos de edad. Son responsables de un número importante de reacciones de hipersensibilidad a fármacos (RHFs), que no sólo afectan a adultos sino también a niños y adolescentes. Existen dos grandes grupos: reacciones selectivas, inducidas por mecanismos inmunológicos específicos, y de intolerancia cruzada (IC), donde se liberan mediadores inflamatorios en ausencia de reconocimiento inmunológico específico. En esta revisión nos ocuparemos de la IC, que es la causa más frecuente de RHFs y resulta de gran interés en niños y adolescentes. El paracetamol y el ibuprofeno son los medicamentos más frecuentemente implicados en las RHFs en niños. El uso diagnóstico de los tests in vivo e in vitro es muy limitado, con algunas excepciones en las reacciones selectivas. En las de IC, la historia clínica y la administración controlada son en ocasiones la única vía para confirmar el diagnóstico y determinar las alternativas terapéuticas más adecuadas. La historia clínica tiene valor diagnóstico cuando se reproducen síntomas consistentes repetidamente tras la exposición a AINEs no relacionados estructuralmente. En niños de corta edad es especialmente frecuente la combinación de síntomas cutáneos y respiratorios. Aunque se desconoce la historia natural de la IC en niños, es probable que se desarrolle tolerancia a lo largo de la vida. El fenotipado detallado junto con la información proporcionada por la fármaco-genética no sólo proporcionarán un conocimiento más preciso de la IC sino que también facilitará el manejo clínico de estos pacientes

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed

Clonal chromosomal mosaicism and loss of chromosome Y in elderly men increase vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) had an estimated overall case fatality ratio of 1.38% (pre-vaccination), being 53% higher in males and increasing exponentially with age. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, we found 133 cases (1.42%) with detectable clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations (mCA) and 226 males (5.08%) with acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY). Individuals with clonal mosaic events (mCA and/or LOY) showed a 54% increase in the risk of COVID-19 lethality. LOY is associated with transcriptomic biomarkers of immune dysfunction, pro-coagulation activity and cardiovascular risk. Interferon-induced genes involved in the initial immune response to SARS-CoV-2 are also down-regulated in LOY. Thus, mCA and LOY underlie at least part of the sex-biased severity and mortality of COVID-19 in aging patients. Given its potential therapeutic and prognostic relevance, evaluation of clonal mosaicism should be implemented as biomarker of COVID-19 severity in elderly people. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, individuals with clonal mosaic events (clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations and/or loss of chromosome Y) showed an increased risk of COVID-19 lethality

Disease: A Hitherto Unexplored Constraint on the Spread of Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in Pre-Columbian South America

Although debate continues, there is agreement that dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were first domesticated in Eurasia, spreading from there to other parts of the world. However, while that expansion already extended as far as Europe, China, and North America by the early Holocene, dogs spread into (and south of) the tropics only much later. In South America, for example, the earliest well attested instances of their presence do not reach back much beyond 3000 cal. BC, and dogs were still absent from large parts of the continent – Amazonia, the Gran Chaco, and much of the Southern Cone – at European contact. Previous explanations for these patterns have focused on cultural choice, the unsuitability of dogs for hunting certain kinds of tropical forest prey, and otherwise unspecified environmental hazards, while acknowledging that Neotropical lowland forests witness high rates of canine mortality. Building on previous work in Sub-Saharan Africa (Mitchell 2015) and noting that the dog’s closest relatives, the grey wolf (C. lupus) and the coyote (C. latrans), were likewise absent from South and most of Central America in Pre- Columbian times, this paper explores instead the possibility that infectious disease constrained the spread of dogs into Neotropical environments. Four diseases are considered, all likely to be native and/or endemic to South America: canine distemper, canine trypanosomiasis, canine rangeliosis, and canine visceral leishmaniasis caused by infection with Leishmania amazonensis and L. colombiensis. The paper concludes by suggesting ways in which the hypothesis that disease constrained the expansion of dogs into South America can be developed further

XX Semana de la Enseñanza de la Física

25 a 29 de septiembre de 2017Facultad de Ciencias y EducaciónProyecto Curricular de Licenciatura en FísicaUniversidad Distrital Francisco José de Calda