Seen and not seen: How people judge ambiguous behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.

How do we judge others' behavior when they are both seen and not seen-when we observe their behavior but not the underlying traits or history that moderate the perceived riskiness of their behavior? We investigate this question in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: How people make sense of, and judge, vaccination-contingent behaviors-behaviors, such as going to the gym or a bar, which are considered to be more or less risky and appropriate, depending on the target's vaccination status. While decision theoretic models suggest that these judgments should depend on the probability that the target is vaccinated (e.g., the positivity of judgments should increase linearly with the probability of vaccination), in a large-scale pre-registered experiment (N = 936) we find that both riskiness and appropriateness judgments deviate substantially from such normative benchmarks. Specifically, when participants judge a stranger's behavior, without being asked to think about the stranger's vaccination status, they tend to judge these behaviors similarly positively to behaviors of others who are known to be fully vaccinated. By contrast, when participants are explicitly prompted to think about the vaccination status of others, they do so, leading them to view others more disparagingly, at times even more negatively than what a normative benchmark would imply. More broadly, these results suggest new directions for research on how people respond to risk and ambiguity. We demonstrate that even subtle cues can fundamentally alter what information is "top of mind," that is, what information is included or excluded when making judgments. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11166-022-09396-7.

The role of direct oral anticoagulants in the era of COVID-19: are antiviral therapy and pharmacogenetics limiting factors?

In patients with COVID-19, thromboinflammation is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality, which makes anticoagulation an integral part of treatment. However, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) limit the use of this class of anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients due to a significant interference with antiviral agents. DOACs use in COVID-19 hospitalized patients is currently not recommended. Furthermore, patients already on oral anticoagulant drugs should be switched to heparin at hospital admission. Nevertheless, outpatients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 are recommended to continue prior DOAC therapy. More studies are required to clarify the pathogenesis of COVID-19-induced derangement of the coagulation system in order to recommend an appropriate anticoagulant treatment.

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. METHODS: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). RESULTS: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.