ABSTRACT
Background: Subcutaneous desmopressin (DDAVP) can be more easily administered than intravenous DDAVP and may be an efficacious alternative for the currently unavailable intranasal DDAVP to treat mild bleedings or for minor invasive procedures in von Willebrand disease (VWD) and hemophilia A. Aim(s): To compare the one-hour response to subcutaneous and intravenous DDAVP in patients with VWD or hemophilia A. Method(s): Patients with hemophilia A (FVIII <=10 IU/dl) or VWD (VWF activity <=10 IU/dl) whose treatment plans include DDAVP and who were to receive a COVID-19 vaccination were eligible to participate. For COVID-19 vaccination, FVIII or VWF activity target levels of >10 IU/dl were pursued according to international guidelines (ISTH). DDAVP was administered subcutaneously 1.5 h before vaccination. FVIII (in hemophilia and VWD) and VWF activity levels (in VWD) were determined prior to (t = 0) and 1 h after DDAVP (t = 1). All patients had a positive historical routine challenge test with intravenous DDAVP. For each participant, absolute and relative changes of FVIII and VWF activity levels 1 h after subcutaneous and intravenous DDAVP (both 0.3 mug/kg) were compared. Result(s): Eleven patients were included: Six with hemophilia A, three with VWD type 2M and two with VWD type 2A. Both intravenous and subcutaneous DDAVP increased FVIII and VWF activity levels in all patients. In hemophilia patients, intravenous and subcutaneous DDAVP increased FVIII levels by an average of 3.8-fold and 3.4-fold respectively. Peak FVIII activity levels at t = 1 ranged from 25-62 IU/ dl and 29-51 IU/dl. In VWD patients, intravenous and subcutaneous DDAVP was associated with a 11.4-fold and 5.1-fold mean increase in VWF activity levels respectively. Corresponding peak VWF activity levels ranged from 18-100 IU/dl and 28-74 IU/dl. No bleeding after vaccination was reported. Conclusion(s): Subcutaneous DDAVP appears to be an effective alternative for intravenous DDAVP. Moreover, like intranasal DDAVP, subcutaneous DDAVP allows the possibility of self-administration at home.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The European Open Platform for Prescribing Education (EurOP2E) aims to improve and harmonize European clinical pharmacology and therapeutics education by facilitating international collaboration and sharing open educational resources. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced teachers to switch to online teaching, highlighting the need for high-quality online teaching materials. Objectives: The goal of this study was to establish the resources needed to sustain prescribing education during the pandemic and thereafter. Methods: A nominal group technique study was conducted with prescribing teachers from several European countries and combined with thematic analysis. Results: In four meetings, 20 teachers from 15 countries ranked 35 teaching materials. Ten themes were identified: prescribing scenarios;interactivity & gamification;re-usable materials;online case discussions;practical aspects of prescribing;teaching the teacher;knowledge multimedia;topical issues;personalized & evidence-based prescribing;and essential formularies. Conclusion: By making teaching materials related to the learning outcomes of CPT, format of teaching and resource and faculty development openly available, EurOP2E will help to make high-quality prescribing education available to all. The role of the platform will range from facilitating collaboration to educating the teachers and/or providing ready-touse teaching materials.
ABSTRACT
Not all physicians advocate for large-scale vaccination programmes against COVID-19. In this article, we respond on some of their reflections. Moreover, we explain that there are strong arguments for these large-scale vaccination programmes, aimed to prevent COVID-19 associated morbidity, mortality and overwhelmed health care systems, and to hinder the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 by reducing the virus transmission.
ABSTRACT
Not all physicians advocate for large-scale vaccination programmes against COVID-19. In this article, we respond on some of their reflections. Moreover, we explain that there are strong arguments for these large-scale vaccination programmes, aimed to prevent COVID-19 associated morbidity, mortality and overwhelmed health care systems, and to hinder the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 by reducing the virus transmission.
ABSTRACT
In the middle of the worldwide COVID-19 crisis, the whole of Europe was alarmed about a possible side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID-19. Consequently, the use of this AstraZeneca vaccine was temporarily suspended in many European nations including the Netherlands. In this article, we chronologically describe the decisions that were made about the use of this vaccine in the Netherlands and we discuss the risk-benefit ratios of these actions as well as possible non-medical reasons that may explain why these actions were taken.
ABSTRACT
In March the CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk, posted a Tweet about the possible effects of chloroquine for COVID-19. Celebrities and mainstream media joined the discussion and promoted (hydroxy-)chloroquine to a true hype and the miracle cure for COVID-19. Police surveillance was needed to protect the producer of chloroquine in the Netherlands. Was (hydroxy-)chloroquine just a hype? The first European study had many methodological issues, a misleading conclusion and was published without the peer review process. It took several weeks before better designed studies showed that (hydroxy-)chloroquine was not effective for COVID-19, after which the use of this medicine was no longer recommended. It is understandable that in a pandemic there is a high need for an effective cure, but physicians should have waited until effectiveness was demonstrated. In our opinion, the use of (hydroxy-)chloroquine for COVID-19 was indeed a hype.