Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
3.
J Ultrasound Med ; 41(7): 1677-1687, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482152

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Safety precautions limit the clinical assessment of hospitalized Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The minimal exposure required to perform lung ultrasound (LUS) paired with its high accuracy, reproducibility, and availability make it an attractive solution for initial assessment of COVID-19 patients. We aim to evaluate whether the association between sonographic findings and clinical outcomes among COVID 19 patients is comparable between the validated 12-zone protocol and a shorter, 8-zone protocol, in which the posterior lung regions are omitted. METHODS: One hundred and one COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a dedicated COVID-19 ward in a tertiary referral hospital were examined upon admission and scored by 2 LUS protocols. The association between the scores and a composite outcome consisting of death, transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) or initiation of invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was estimated and compared. RESULTS: LUS scores in both the 8- and the 12-zone protocols were associated with the composite outcome during hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21 [1.03-1.42, P = .022] and HR 1.13 [1.01-1.27, P = .037], respectively). The observed difference in the discriminatory ROC-AUC values for the 8- and 12-zone scores was not significant (0.767 and 0.754 [P = .647], respectively). CONCLUSION: A short 8-zone LUS protocol is as accurate as the previously validated, 12-zone protocol for prognostication of clinical deterioration in nonventilated COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Ultrasonography/methods
4.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 76(9): 2415-2418, 2021 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1254772

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether results of observational studies of potential anti-COVID-19 drugs were reproduced in subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, including studies published online between 1 January and 27 October 2020 that evaluated potential COVID-19 treatments and reported all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 133 comparisons included in 117 studies, most were non-randomized (104/133, 78%). Hydroxychloroquine was the most common drug type, combined with azithromycin (n = 27, 20%) or alone (n = 22, 16%), followed by IL-6 inhibitors (n = 36, 27%) and corticosteroids (n = 26, 20%). Seventy-one percent (74/104) of non-randomized studies reported adjusted survival results and only 8% (8/104) adjusted for immortal time bias. Only two RCTs (2/29, 7%) reported significant survival benefit, both reporting treatment with corticosteroids, while 32/104 (31%) non-randomized studies showed statistically significant survival benefit associated with the intervention arm. The results of the majority (28/32, 88%) of non-randomized studies reporting survival benefit were not replicated by large-scale RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of most non-randomized studies reporting survival benefit of potential anti-COVID-19 drugs were not replicated by large RCTs. Regulators and healthcare professionals should exercise caution and resist the pressure to approve and prescribe drugs of unproven efficacy and potential toxicity to optimize patient care and maintain public trust in medical science.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 17(5): 1322-1325, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1010287

ABSTRACT

Vaccines have changed modern medicine, and are a mainstay in reducing morbidity and mortality from infections. Our research group recently published a study in which we found that vaccines approved by the US Food and Drugs Administration were safe with few clinically important post-approval adverse effects. The current COVID-19 pandemic presents regulators with the unprecedented challenge of balancing a public demand for the rapid development and approval of a safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine without compromising the strict pre-marketing requirements used for previous vaccines. Here, we review the approval process and safety profiles of FDA approved vaccines and discuss some of the challenges currently facing the FDA regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine approval.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Patient Safety , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL