Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-294726

ABSTRACT

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Design Pragmatic randomized clinical trial of prone positioning of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. Settings Patients were eligible is they had a laboratory-confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of COVID-19, required supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2]), and were able to independently prone with verbal instruction. ( NCT04383613 ). Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as requiring at least 60% FiO2 for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to FiO2 (S/F ratio). Results A total of 248 patients were included. The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomization was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 45,65), 36% were female, and 90% of patients were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomization. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 hours total (IQR 1.5,12.8) for the prone arm compared to 0 hours (0,2) in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 [14.3%] events) and the standard care group (17 [13.9%] events), odds ratio 0.92 (95% CI 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the S/F ratio after 72 hours was similar for patients randomized to prone compared to standard of care. Conclusion Among hypoxic but not critically patients with COVID-19 in hospital, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. What is already known on this topic Prone positioning is considered standard of care for mechanically ventilated patients who have severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recent data suggest prone positioning is beneficial for patients with COVID-19 who are requiring high flow oxygen. It is unknown of prone positioning is beneficial for patients not on high flow oxygen. What this study adds Prone positioning is generally not well tolerated and innovative approaches are needed to improve adherence. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were not improved with prone positioning among hypoxic but not critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

3.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) ; 33(10): 667-675, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1202177

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The proportion of UK oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroprevalence rates among HCPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-facing oncology HCPs working at three large UK hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody testing [Luminex and point-of-care (POC) tests] on two occasions 28 days apart (June-July 2020). RESULTS: In total, 434 HCPs were recruited: nurses (58.3%), doctors (21.2%), radiographers (10.4%), administrators (10.1%); 26.3% reported prior symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2. All participants were PCR negative during the study, but 18.4% were Luminex seropositive on day 1, of whom 42.5% were POC seropositive. Nurses had the highest seropositive prevalence trend (21.3%, P = 0.2). Thirty-eight per cent of seropositive HCPs reported previous SARS-CoV-2 symptoms: 1.9 times higher odds than seronegative HCPs (P = 0.01). Of 400 participants retested on day 28, 13.3% were Luminex seropositive (92.5% previously, 7.5% newly). Thirty-two per cent of initially seropositive HCPs were seronegative on day 28. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of PCR-negative patient-facing oncology HCPs, almost one in five were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive at the start of the pandemic's first wave. Our findings that one in three seropositive HCPs retested 28 days later became seronegative support regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing until widespread immunity is achieved by effective vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Neoplasms , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Delivery of Health Care , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
5.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) ; 33(1): e61-e63, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-676124
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL