Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Respir Investig ; 61(3): 314-320, 2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2250625

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Validating the information recorded in administrative databases is essential. However, no study has comprehensively validated the accuracy of Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) data on various respiratory diseases. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases in the DPC database. METHODS: We conducted chart reviews of 400 patients hospitalized in the departments of respiratory medicine in two acute-care hospitals in Tokyo, between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2021, and used them as reference standards. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of DPC data on 25 respiratory diseases were determined. RESULTS: Sensitivity ranged from 22.2% (aspiration pneumonia) to 100% (chronic eosinophilic pneumonia and malignant pleural mesothelioma) and was <50% for eight diseases, while specificity was >90% for all diseases. PPV ranged from 40.0% (aspiration pneumonia) to 100% (coronavirus disease 2019, bronchiectasis, chronic eosinophilic pneumonia, pulmonary hypertension, squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, lung cancer of other histological types, and malignant pleural mesothelioma) and was >80% for 16 diseases. Except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (82.9%) and interstitial pneumonia (other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) (85.4%), NPV was >90% for all diseases. These validity indices were similar in both hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases in the DPC database was high in general, thereby providing an important basis for future studies.


Subject(s)
Databases, Factual , Respiratory Tract Diseases , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/standards , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , East Asian People/statistics & numerical data , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Mesothelioma, Malignant/diagnosis , Mesothelioma, Malignant/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Aspiration/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Aspiration/epidemiology , Pulmonary Eosinophilia/diagnosis , Pulmonary Eosinophilia/epidemiology , Respiration Disorders/diagnosis , Respiration Disorders/epidemiology , Japan/epidemiology , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Respiratory Tract Diseases/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Diseases/epidemiology
2.
IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst ; 32(11): 4781-4792, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455468

ABSTRACT

Accurate and rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 using chest X-ray (CXR) plays an important role in large-scale screening and epidemic prevention. Unfortunately, identifying COVID-19 from the CXR images is challenging as its radiographic features have a variety of complex appearances, such as widespread ground-glass opacities and diffuse reticular-nodular opacities. To solve this problem, we propose an adaptive attention network (AANet), which can adaptively extract the characteristic radiographic findings of COVID-19 from the infected regions with various scales and appearances. It contains two main components: an adaptive deformable ResNet and an attention-based encoder. First, the adaptive deformable ResNet, which adaptively adjusts the receptive fields to learn feature representations according to the shape and scale of infected regions, is designed to handle the diversity of COVID-19 radiographic features. Then, the attention-based encoder is developed to model nonlocal interactions by self-attention mechanism, which learns rich context information to detect the lesion regions with complex shapes. Extensive experiments on several public datasets show that the proposed AANet outperforms state-of-the-art methods.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Neural Networks, Computer , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/classification , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/standards , Humans , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , X-Rays
3.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 30(6): 707-715, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1137058

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of adverse event reporting in the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We included all FAERS reports from the US and Canada from November 7, 2019 to July 15, 2020 and divided the study period into three equal time intervals (pre-pandemic, first pandemic, second pandemic). We focused on methotrexate, a broadly used drug unrelated to COVID-19, and (hydroxy)chloroquine, another broadly used drug implicated in COVID-19 treatment. Using descriptive statistics, we compared reporting characteristics before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. RESULTS: During the study period, 366 998 cases (60% female, median age: 59 years) were submitted to FAERS. The daily median number of reports (1796 in the pre-pandemic, 1810 in the second pandemic time interval) and other characteristics remained stable. The daily median number of reports for methotrexate decreased from 28 in the pre-pandemic to 15 in the second pandemic time interval, with no considerable differences in other characteristics. The daily median number of reports for (hydroxy)chloroquine increased slightly from 1 in the pre-pandemic to 3 in the second pandemic time interval, while there were also changes in the demographics of cases and an increase in the proportion of cases reported by health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The overall reporting to FAERS did not change after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some stimulated reporting was observed for (hydroxy)chloroquine, highlighting the need for caution when conducting pharmacovigilance analyses with substances related to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/standards , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , United States Food and Drug Administration/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Canada/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Databases, Factual/standards , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Methotrexate/adverse effects , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
4.
Ann Fam Med ; 19(2): 135-140, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1123691

ABSTRACT

The use of big data containing millions of primary care medical records provides an opportunity for rapid research to help inform patient care and policy decisions during the first and subsequent waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Routinely collected primary care data have previously been used for national pandemic surveillance, quantifying associations between exposures and outcomes, identifying high risk populations, and examining the effects of interventions at scale, but there is no consensus on how to effectively conduct or report these data for COVID-19 research. A COVID-19 primary care database consortium was established in April 2020 and its researchers have ongoing COVID-19 projects in overlapping data sets with over 40 million primary care records in the United Kingdom that are variously linked to public health, secondary care, and vital status records. This consensus agreement is aimed at facilitating transparency and rigor in methodological approaches, and consistency in defining and reporting cases, exposures, confounders, stratification variables, and outcomes in relation to the pharmacoepidemiology of COVID-19. This will facilitate comparison, validation, and meta-analyses of research during and after the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Consensus , Databases, Factual/standards , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/standards , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Public Health Surveillance , Big Data , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Pharmacoepidemiology , Public Health , United Kingdom/epidemiology
5.
Drug Saf ; 44(1): 95-105, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1092875

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based clinical data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pharmacotherapies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study documented and characterized COVID-19 cases reported in individuals receiving treatment with Pfizer pharmaceutical products and cases that reported use of Pfizer pharmaceutical products for COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: This retrospective observational review leveraged the Pfizer safety database containing adverse event data collected in association with use of Pfizer products between 1 October, 2019, and 25 June, 2020; the database includes worldwide adverse event data from various sources. Selected Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) Preferred Terms and subsequent clinical review were used to characterize COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: Over 1500 relevant cases were identified over an 8-month period. In cases that reported COVID-19, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, followed by anticoagulant/antithrombic agents and corticosteroids, were the most frequently reported agents. The frequent reporting of immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents among cases of COVID-19 suggests increased vulnerability to infection among treated patients, either because of immunosuppressive effects of certain agents or the nature of the underlying treated condition. In cases involving off-label pharmacotherapy use for the treatment of COVID-19-related conditions, the most frequently reported therapeutic classes included antibiotics, antimalarial agents, antivirals/antiretroviral agents, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and immunoglobulin/interferons. The most frequently reported pharmacotherapeutic agents were azithromycin and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, followed by lopinavir-ritonavir, ceftriaxone, and tofacitinib. The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with azithromycin (as sole therapy or combined with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) include electrocardiogram QT prolonged, drug interaction, hepatitis, diarrhea, and hepatitis acute. Regarding cardiac-related events, 19% (120/645) of azithromycin cases reported events associated with QT prolongation/torsade de pointes (which included seven fatal cardiac events). The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with other commonly used agents are also presented. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance surveillance study provides a unique characterization of cases in which a broad range of pharmaceutical products was reported in relation to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , Drug Industry/trends , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Global Health/trends , Pharmacovigilance , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/standards , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Antimalarials/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Databases, Factual/standards , Databases, Factual/trends , Drug Industry/standards , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/diagnosis , Global Health/standards , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
9.
Clin Neuropsychol ; 34(7-8): 1411-1452, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-592009

ABSTRACT

Objective: Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the field of neuropsychology must rapidly evolve to incorporate assessments delivered via telehealth, or teleneuropsychology (TNP). Given the increasing demand to deliver services electronically due to public health concerns, it is important to review available TNP validity studies. This systematic review builds upon the work of Brearly and colleagues' (2017) meta-analysis and provides an updated review of the literature, with special emphasis on test-level validity data.Method: Using similar methodology as Brearly and colleagues (2017) three internet databases (PubMed, EBSCOhost, PsycINFO) were searched for relevant articles published since 2016. Studies with older adults (aged 65+) who underwent face-to-face and TNP assessments in a counterbalanced cross-over design were included. After review, 10 articles were retained. Combined with nine articles from Brearly's analysis, a total of 19 studies were included in the systematic review.Results: Retained studies included samples from 5 different countries, various ethnic/cultural backgrounds, and diverse diagnostic populations. Test-level analysis suggests there are cognitive screeners (MMSE, MoCA), language tests (BNT, Letter Fluency), attention/working memory tasks (Digit Span Total), and memory tests (HVLT-R) with strong support for TNP validity. Other measures are promising but lack sufficient support at this time. Few TNP studies have done in-home assessments and most studies rely on a PC or laptop.Conclusions: Overall, there appears to be good support for TNP assessments in older adults. Challenges to TNP in the current climate are discussed. Finally, a provisional outline of viable TNP procedures used in our clinic is provided.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Neuropsychological Tests/standards , Neuropsychology/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Telemedicine/standards , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/standards , Female , Humans , Male , Neuropsychology/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL