NEW NORMAL TOURISM BEHAVIOR OF FREE INDEPENDENT TRAVELERS IN THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Purpose: This research intended to investigate the motivation and behavior of free independent travelers (FITs) who traveled to Southern Thailand in the Covid-19 pandemic. Theoretical framework: Studies on tourist motivation and behavior would provide more insightful implications and Covid-19 safeguards for tourism businesses especially in Southern Thailand – a dominant destination for domestic tourism demand. Design/methodology/approach: Data was collected from 400 domestic FITs using a questionnaire survey, processed in SPSS software, and analyzed with descriptive statistics, Chi-square, and One-way ANOVA. Findings: The highest level of overall pull and push motivations of domestic FITs while traveling to Southern Thailand. The highest level of pull motivation identified in this study was a promotional scheme, called "WE TRAVEL TOGETHER” the government-subsidized 40% of accommodation expenses to increase tourism demand. Research, Practical & Social implications: Comparative responses to SHA Plus standard between domestic and international tourists using both qualitative and quantitative data from all stakeholders involved would provide a variety of insightful and beneficial perspectives on NNT in the Covid-19 pandemic. Originality/value: CCSA should pay more attention on this particular behavior of tourists which might easily spread the disease to others. Everyone should be more aware of this risk and show their greater responsible practice in society. © 2022 AOS-Estratagia and Inovacao. All rights reserved.

Risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and mortality in psoriasis patients treated with interleukin-17 inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have brought great disaster to mankind, and there is currently no globally recognized specific drug or treatment. Severe COVID-19 may trigger a cytokine storm, manifested by increased levels of cytokines including interleukin-17 (IL-17), so a new strategy to treat COVID-19 may be to use existing IL-17 inhibitors, which have demonstrated efficacy, safety and tolerability in the treatment of psoriasis. However, the use of IL-17 inhibitors in patients with psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic remains controversial due to reports that IL-17 inhibitors may increase the risk of respiratory tract infections. Objectives: The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of IL-17 inhibitors on the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality in patients with psoriasis. Methods: Databases (including Embase, PubMed, SCI-Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to August 23, 2022, for studies exploring differences in COVID-19 outcomes between psoriasis patients using IL-17 inhibitors and those using non-biologics. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in a double-blind manner. The risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and heterogeneities were determined by the Q test and I 2 statistic. And the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were calculated to assess the clinical value of IL-17 inhibitors in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and treating COVID-19. Results: Nine observational studies involving 7,106 participants were included. The pooled effect showed no significant differences in the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (P = 0.94; I 2 = 19.5%), COVID-19 hospitalization (P = 0.64; I 2 = 0.0%), and COVID-19 mortality (P = 0.32; I 2 = 0.0%) in psoriasis patients using IL-17 inhibitors compared with using non-biologics. Subgroup analyses grouped by age and COVID-19 cases, respectively, revealed consistent results as above. Meanwhile, the pooled NNTs showed no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical value of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and treating COVID-19. Conclusion: The use of IL-17 inhibitors in patients with psoriasis does not increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or worsen the course of COVID-19. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022335195.

Relative risk reduction: Misinformative measure in clinical trials and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials are often reported in the media and medical journals as the relative risk reduction. The present article explains why the relative risk reduction is a misinformative measure that promotes disinformation when reporting efficacy in clinical research studies such as randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines. The relative risk reduction is based on the relative risk, a proportional measure or ratio used in epidemiologic studies to estimate the probability of a disease associated with an exposure. The present article demonstrates how the relative risk reduction and relative risk obscure the magnitude of disease risk reduction in clinical research. The absolute risk reduction is shown to be a more precise and reliable measure of treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical research studies. The absolute risk reduction reciprocal also measures the number needed to treat or vaccinate, and is a more accurate measure than the relative risk reduction for comparing risk reductions of clinical studies. Additionally, the present article reviews consequences of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy misinformation disseminated through media reports. The article concludes that relative risk reduction should not be used to measure treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials. What is new?: •Unreliability of relative measures in clinical trials is graphically illustrated, demonstrating constant relative measures as absolute measures change.•Misuse of relative measures in clinical research is historically linked to misinterpretation of Jerome Cornfield's advice on measuring causative and associative effects.•Consequences of disinformation and misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and modern clinical medicine are described.•The proper use of absolute measures in meta-analyses is explained.

Dexamethasone in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: Whether, When and to Whom.

A clinical interpretation of the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) study was performed to provide a useful tool to understand whether, when, and to whom dexamethasone should be administered during hospitalization for COVID-19. A post hoc analysis of data published in the preliminary report of the RECOVERY study was performed to calculate the person-based number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) of 6 mg dexamethasone once daily for up to 10 days vs. usual care with respect to mortality. At day 28, the NNT of dexamethasone vs. usual care was 36.0 (95%CI 24.9-65.1, p < 0.05) in all patients, 8.3 (95%CI 6.0-13.1, p < 0.05) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and 34.6 (95%CI 22.1-79.0, p < 0.05) in patients receiving oxygen only (with or without noninvasive ventilation). Dexamethasone increased mortality compared with usual care in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation, leading to a NNH value of 26.7 (95%CI 18.1-50.9, p < 0.05). NNT of dexamethasone vs. usual care was 17.3 (95%CI 14.9-20.6) in subjects <70 years, 27.0 (95%CI 18.5-49.8) in men, and 16.2 (95%CI 13.2-20.8) in patients in which the onset of symptoms was >7 days. Dexamethasone is effective in male subjects < 70 years that require invasive mechanical ventilation experiencing symptoms from >7 days and those patients receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation; it should be avoided in patients not requiring respiratory support.

Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma in Elderly COVID-19 Patients: The RESCUE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) transfusion in elderly people with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) living in a long-term care facility (LTCF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive elderly patients with COVID-19 infection living in an LTCF in Lombardy, Italy, who were given CP during May 15 to July 31, 2020, were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Their clinical, instrumental, and laboratory parameters were assessed following the CP treatment. The overall mortality rate in this group was compared with that recorded in other LTCFs in Lombardy during the 3-month period from March to May 2020. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients enrolled, 68.2% (n=15) received 1 CP unit, 27.3% (n=6) received 2 units, and 4.5% (n=1) received 3 units. Of the CP units transfused, 76.7% (23/30) had a neutralizing antibody titer of 1:160 or greater. No adverse reactions were recorded during or after CP administration. Improvements in clinical, functional, radiologic, and laboratory parameters during the 14 days after CP transfusion were observed in all 19 patients who survived. Viral clearance was achieved in all patients by the end of follow-up (median, 66 days; interquartile range, 48-80 days). The overall mortality rate was 13.6% (3/22), which compared favorably with that in the control group (38.3% [281/733]; P=.02) and corresponded to a 65% reduction in mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Early administration of CP with an adequate anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody titer to elderly symptomatic patients with COVID-19 infection in an LTCF was safe and effective in eliminating the virus, restoring patients' immunity, and blocking the progression of COVID-19 infection, thereby improving patients' survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04569188.