Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 10(14): e021046, 2021 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463078

ABSTRACT

Background Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in the context of COVID-19 has received considerable attention for its propensity to affect patients of all ages. We aimed to evaluate the effect of age on functional outcome and mortality following an acute ischemic event. Methods and Results A prospectively maintained database from comprehensive stroke centers in Canada and the United States was analyzed for patients with AIS from March 14 to September 30, 2020 who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The primary outcome was Modified Rankin Scale score at discharge, and the secondary outcome was mortality. Baseline characteristics, laboratory values, imaging, and thrombectomy workflow process times were assessed. Among all 126 patients with COVID-19 who were diagnosed with AIS, the median age was 63 years (range, 27-94). There were 35 (27.8%) patients with AIS in the aged ≤55 years group, 47 (37.3%) in the aged 56 to 70 group, and 44 (34.9%) in the aged >70 group. Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and thrombectomy rates were comparable across these groups, (P=0.331 and 0.212, respectively). There was a significantly lower rate of mortality between each group favoring younger age (21.9% versus 45.0% versus 48.8%, P=0.047). After multivariable adjustment for possible confounders, a 1-year increase in age was significantly associated with fewer instances of a favorable outcome of Modified Rankin Scale 0 to 2 (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95 CI%, 0.90-0.99; P=0.048) and higher mortality (OR, 1.06; 95 CI%, 1.02-1.10; P=0.007). Conclusions AIS in the context of COVID-19 affects young patients at much greater rates than pre-pandemic controls. Nevertheless, instances of poor functional outcome and mortality are closely tied to increasing age.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Ischemic Stroke/etiology , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Canada , Female , Humans , Ischemic Stroke/mortality , Ischemic Stroke/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , United States
2.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ; 28(13): 16682-16689, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241701

ABSTRACT

Heat-related illnesses (HRIs), mainly heat exhaustion (HE) and heat stroke (HS), are characterized by an elevation of core body temperature. In this study, we aimed to explore the HRIs' types and patient characteristics among a sample taken from various representative in-field points in the Hajj season. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2018 at 80 data collection points distributed in the field. Data related to demographics, features and risk factors were collected and analyzed from all encountered cases with suspected HRIs. Moreover, we developed a diagnostic tree for HRIs by using the XGBoost model. Out of the 1200 persons encountered during the study period, 231 fulfilled the criteria of HRIs spectrum and were included in this study. Around 6% had HS and 20% had HE. All HS cases (100%) were from outside of Saudi Arabia as compared with 72.5% diagnosed with HE (27.5% were from Saudi Arabia). In addition, 16% were considered as heat-induced muscle spasms, and 7% had limb heat edema. Additionally, most of HRIs cases were reported between 11 am and 1 pm. The HRIs diagnostic tree model gave a diagnostic accuracy of 93.6%. This study highlights the magnitude of HRIs among pilgrims in Hajj and provides a diagnostic tree that can aid in the risk stratification and diagnosis of these patients. We advise the implementation of more educational campaigns to pilgrims regarding preventable measures especially for the vulnerable groups (e.g. from outside Saudi Arabia, those with comorbidities and light-skinned people).


Subject(s)
Heat Stroke , Hot Temperature , Cross-Sectional Studies , Heat Stroke/diagnosis , Humans , Saudi Arabia , Travel
3.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(20): e25719, 2021 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1236278

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. RESULTS: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Odds Ratio , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
4.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 15(10): 1347-1354, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196938

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often leads to mortality. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 is not well characterized. AREAS COVERED: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and MedRxiv 11/1/2019 to 3/1/2021, including studies comparing outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS (COVID-19 group) and ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (ARDS group). Outcomes investigated were duration of mechanical ventilation-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Random effects models were fit for each outcome measure. Effect sizes were reported as pooled median differences of medians (MDMs), mean differences (MDs), or odds ratios (ORs). EXPERT OPINION: Ten studies with 2,281 patients met inclusion criteria (COVID-19: 861 [37.7%], ARDS: 1420 [62.3%]). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 and ARDS groups for median number of mechanical ventilator-free days (MDM: -7.0 [95% CI: -14.8; 0.7], p = 0.075), ICU LOS (MD: 3.1 [95% CI: -5.9; 12.1], p = 0.501), hospital LOS (MD: 2.5 [95% CI: -5.6; 10.7], p = 0.542), or all-cause mortality (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.78; 1.99], p = 0.361). Compared to the general ARDS population, results did not suggest worse outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
5.
J Clin Apher ; 36(3): 470-482, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1064370

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Length of Stay , Plasma , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Risk , Treatment Outcome
6.
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther ; 19(6): 679-687, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-927085

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19.Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events.Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment.Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Drug Combinations , Humans , Lopinavir/administration & dosage , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Ritonavir/administration & dosage , Ritonavir/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...