Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 570
Filter
1.
Curr Opin Rheumatol ; 32(5): 441-448, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314245

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Assimilating and disseminating information during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been challenging. The purpose of this review is to identify specific threats to the validity of the COVID-19 literature and to recommend resources for practicing rheumatologists and their patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The COVID-19 literature has rapidly expanded and includes 17 998 publications through May of 2020, 1543 of which also address rheumatic disease-related topics. Specific obstacles to acquiring high-quality information have arisen, including 'pandemic research exceptionalism' and a 'parallel pandemic' of misinformation. Unique challenges to rheumatologists include specific interest in antirheumatic disease therapies and a paucity of rheumatology-specific information. Patients with rheumatic diseases have faced shortages of critical medications and a lack of information tailored to their health conditions and medications. SUMMARY: We recommend rheumatologists develop a system to acquire high-quality information and offer guiding principles for triaging specific resources, which include relevance, accessibility, credibility, timeliness, and trustworthiness. The same principles can be applied to selecting patient oriented resources. Specific trustworthy resources are recommended.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Rheumatic Diseases , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Humans , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Rheumatic Diseases/complications , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 129: 107198, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2300100

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since 1983, the Orphan Product Grants Program, administered by the US Food and Drug Administration, provides funding for clinical trials and natural history studies in rare diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges in rare disease product development. This study sought to determine the effects of the pandemic on rare disease studies using data from grantees of this program, and determine lessons learned that can potentially be applied to future trials in rare diseases. METHODS: All grants that were being funded by the Orphan Products Grants Program between March 2020 and March 2021 were included in the study. Data was gathered from grantees and described the effects of the pandemic on multiple aspects of the studies including enrollment, patient follow-up, protocol, and budget. RESULTS: There were 62 grants active during the study period, and of these 54 (87%) were clinical trials and 8 (13%) were natural history studies. 94% of the grantees reported their studies being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the addition of virtual capabilities was reported by 34 (55%) of grantees. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested two important lessons learned. First, virtual capabilities, when appropriate, can be an important component of trials because they decrease the travel burden on participants and reduce in-person risks, which should increase patient recruitment and retention. Second, building in flexibility in clinical trials is critical in the post-COVID era and could include increasing the use of multi-site trials, clinical networks, and innovative designs and collaborations to speed up trials without compromising study data.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Selection , Rare Diseases/drug therapy , Rare Diseases/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , United States Food and Drug Administration , Clinical Trials as Topic
3.
Iran J Immunol ; 20(1): 1-15, 2023 03 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2296028

ABSTRACT

The most effective method to minimize the prevalence of infectious diseases is vaccination. Vaccines enhance immunity and provide protection against different kinds of infections. Subunit vaccines are safe and less toxic, but due to their lower immunogenicity, they need adjuvants to boost the immune system. Adjuvants are small particles/molecules integrated into a vaccine to enhance the immunogenic feedback of antigens. They play a significant role to enhance the potency and efficiency of vaccines. There are several types of adjuvants with different mechanisms of action; therefore, improved knowledge of their immunogenicity will help develop a new generation of adjuvants. Many trials have been designed using different kinds of vaccine adjuvants to examine their safety and efficacy, but in practice, only a few have entered in animal and human clinical trials. However, for the development of safe and effective vaccines, it is important to have adequate knowledge of the side effects and toxicity of different adjuvants. The current review discussed the adjuvants which are available for producing modern vaccines as well as some new classes of adjuvants in clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Adjuvants, Immunologic , Adjuvants, Vaccine , Animals , Humans , Patient Selection , Adjuvants, Immunologic/pharmacology , Vaccines, Subunit , Immunity
4.
Int J Public Health ; 68: 1605640, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2294369

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Compare patient selection and postoperative outcomes after surgical treatment for gastrointestinal disorders before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: We assessed gastrointestinal surgeries conducted at a tertiary center from 2017-2021 for differences in patient populations and procedures before (up to February 2020) and during the pandemic (March 2020 to December 2021). We analyzed mortality, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) length of stay, admission to ICU and postoperative complications for complex procedures using descriptive statistics and regression models. Results: 7309 procedures were analyzed, showing a caseload reduction in March and October 2020, but no statistical evidence for fewer overall procedures overall. Population characteristics differed with lower Body Mass Indices in 2020 and 2021, more patients smoking and with diabetes treated in 2020. There was no increased mortality, ICU length of stay and in 1,144 complex procedures assessed low overall morbidity at 90 days postoperative. Conclusion: Delivering surgical care while treating patients for COVID-19 in the same hospital was safe. Healthcare officials should consider continuing surgical care during future health crises as consequences of limiting surgical treatment for gastrointestinal disorders may be fatal for patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Tertiary Care Centers , Patient Selection , SARS-CoV-2 , Patient Care , Length of Stay , Retrospective Studies
5.
Curr Opin Pulm Med ; 27(3): 169-175, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2286794

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Investigations are ongoing in the search for effective therapeutics, with clinical approaches evolving based upon such evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: The antiviral agent, remdesivir, and the immunomodulator, dexamethasone, are the first therapeutics for which there is evidence of efficacy from randomized trials. Subgroup analyses suggest remdesivir is beneficial in hospitalized patients whose severity of illness falls at the lower end of the spectrum, while dexamethasone is more beneficial in hospitalized patients whose severity of illness falls at the higher end of the spectrum. We recommend that inpatients who require supplemental oxygen but are not mechanically ventilated receive both remdesivir and dexamethasone, and inpatients who require mechanical ventilation receive dexamethasone monotherapy. Additional evidence regarding anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma, and a variety of antiinterleukin therapies is forthcoming. SUMMARY: The body of evidence related to COVID-19 therapeutics continues to evolve and, as a result, management is likely to change with time. As new evidence is generated and published, the optimal approach to managing patients with COVID-19 should be reconsidered.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , COVID-19/therapy , Dexamethasone/pharmacology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Adenosine Monophosphate/pharmacology , Alanine/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/immunology , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunologic Factors/pharmacology , Patient Selection , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , COVID-19 Serotherapy
6.
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg ; 115(4): 397-405, 2021 04 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2274935

ABSTRACT

Mycetoma is a chronic disease caused either by fungi (eumycetoma) or bacteria (actinomycetoma). Treatment remains suboptimal and based on personal clinical experience. Recently, the Mycetoma Research Centre (MRC), a WHO Collaborating Centre on mycetoma, began the first-ever double-blind clinical trial. Here, we report the challenges and barriers faced in the recruitment and retention of patients in the MRC experience. Patient recruitment and retention are critical determinants of clinical trial success and yet a substantial number of trials fail to reach their recruitment goals. Recruitment challenges are identified throughout the different stages of the clinical trial, starting from planning, participant screening and intervention, through to retaining participants for the entire study duration. The MRC made efforts to address these challenges to ensure the constant flow of patients. The recruitment committee at the MRC conducted training workshops for the medical staff in the endemic areas, along with regular meetings with health authorities and local leaders. Moreover, telemedicine technology was used to examine patients in endemic areas. Challenges and barriers facing clinical trial conduct need to be examined thoroughly to ensure actionable, evidence-based recommendations for improving patient recruitment and retention. In conclusion, effective patient recruitment and retention are based on three pillars, which are proper clinical trial design and protocol development, realistic and feasible trial site selection, and objective communication with the trial stakeholders.


Subject(s)
Mycetoma , Developing Countries , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Mycetoma/therapy , Patient Selection
8.
PLoS One ; 18(4): e0283621, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2284820

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Cohort studies must implement effective retention strategies to produce internally valid and generalizable results. Ensuring all study participants are retained, particularly those involved in the criminal legal system, ensures study findings and future interventions will be relevant to this group, who are often lost to follow-up: critical to achieving health equity. Our objective was to characterize retention strategies and describe overall retention among an 18-month longitudinal cohort study of persons on community supervision prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We implemented various retention strategy best-practices (e.g., multiple forms of locator information, training study staff on rapport building, study-branded items). During the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and describe new retention strategies. We calculated overall retention and analyzed differences between those retained and lost to follow-up by demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 227 participants enrolled across three sites (N = 46 North Carolina; N = 99 Kentucky; N = 82 Florida). Of these, 180 completed the final 18-month visit, 15 were lost to follow-up, and 32 were ineligible. This resulted in an overall retention of 92.3% (180/195). While most participant characteristics did not differ by retention status, a greater proportion of those experiencing unstable housing were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that when retention strategies are flexible, particularly during a pandemic, high retention is still achievable. In addition to retention best-practices (e.g., frequent requests for updated locator information) we suggest other studies consider retention strategies beyond the study participant (e.g., paying participant contacts) and incentivize on-time study visit completion (e.g., providing a bonus when completed the study visit on time).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , Cohort Studies , Patient Selection
10.
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry ; 31(5): 366-371, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2220915

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of online recruitment for a clinical trial of pharmacotherapy for late-life depression during COVID-19. METHODS: The authors calculated the yield, defined as recruitment leading to randomization (enrollment), from provider referrals versus Facebook self-referrals; compared characteristics and drop-out rates of participants from each source; and analyzed correlations between stringency of public health restrictions and referrals from each source over time. RESULTS: Provider referrals had a significantly higher yield (10 of 33 referrals; 30.3%) versus Facebook self-referrals (14 of 323; 4.3%) (p <0.00001). Participants self-referred from Facebook had significantly more education; otherwise, both groups had similar characteristics and drop-out rates. While public health stringency was negatively correlated with provider referrals (ρ = -0.32) and positively correlated with Facebook self-referrals (ρ = 0.39), neither association reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Online recruitment may improve access to clinical research for older depressed adults. Future studies should evaluate cost-effectiveness and potential barriers such as computer literacy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Humans , Depression , Patient Selection , Referral and Consultation
13.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 28(6): 674-680, 2022 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2152246

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic changed the way we had to approach hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU)-related resource management, especially for demanding techniques required for advanced support, including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). RECENT FINDINGS: Availability of ICU beds and ECMO machines widely varies around the world. In critical conditions, such a global pandemic, the establishment of contingency capacity tiers might help in defining to which conditions and subjects ECMO can be offered. A frequent reassessment of the resource saturation, possibly integrated within a regional healthcare coordination system, may be of help to triage the patients who most likely will benefit from advanced techniques, especially when capacities are limited. SUMMARY: Indications to ECMO during the pandemic should be fluid and may be adjusted over time. Candidacy of patients should follow the same prepandemic rules, taking into account the acute disease, the burden of any eventual comorbidity and the chances of a good quality of life after recovery; but the current capacity of healthcare system should also be considered, and frequently reassessed, possibly within a wide hub-and-spoke healthcare system. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/COCC/A43.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Triage , SARS-CoV-2 , Patient Selection , Quality of Life
14.
BMC Res Notes ; 15(1): 368, 2022 Dec 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2162415

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Competition among trials for patient enrollment can impede recruitment. We hypothesized that this occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, when an unprecedented number of clinical trials were launched. We performed a simple and multivariable regression analysis evaluating the relationship between the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 investigational trial sites within each USA state with unsuccessful patient-participant recruitment and: (i) the proportion of cases required to reach state recruitment goals; (ii) state population based on data from the US Census; and, (iii) number of trial sites per state. RESULTS: Our study included 151 clinical trials. The proportion of trials with successful recruitment was 72.19% (109 of 151 trials). We did not find a significant relationship between unsuccessful patient-participant recruitment, state recruitment goals, state population or the number of trial sites per state in both our simple and multivariable regression analyses. Our results do not suggest that early in the COVID-19 pandemic, competition for patient-participants impeded successful recruitment in SARS-CoV-2 trials. This may reflect the unique circumstances of the first few months of the pandemic in the United States, in which the number and location of SARS-CoV-2 cases was sufficient to meet trial recruitment requirements, despite the large number of trials launched.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Patient Selection , Cohort Studies
16.
Lancet Oncol ; 23(2): 270-278, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2115061

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with Barrett's oesophagus because, although the progression risk is low, endoscopic intervention is highly effective for high-grade dysplasia and cancer. However, repeated endoscopy has associated harms and access has been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the role of a non-endoscopic device (Cytosponge) coupled with laboratory biomarkers and clinical factors to prioritise endoscopy for Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: We first conducted a retrospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study in patients older than 18 years who were having endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus (with intestinal metaplasia confirmed by TFF3 and a minimum Barrett's segment length of 1 cm [circumferential or tongues by the Prague C and M criteria]). All patients had received the Cytosponge and confirmatory endoscopy during the BEST2 (ISRCTN12730505) and BEST3 (ISRCTN68382401) clinical trials, from July 7, 2011, to April 1, 2019 (UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio 9461). Participants were divided into training (n=557) and validation (n=334) cohorts to identify optimal risk groups. The biomarkers evaluated were overexpression of p53, cellular atypia, and 17 clinical demographic variables. Endoscopic biopsy diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was the primary endpoint. Clinical feasibility of a decision tree for Cytosponge triage was evaluated in a real-world prospective cohort from Aug 27, 2020 (DELTA; ISRCTN91655550; n=223), in response to COVID-19 and the need to provide an alternative to endoscopic surveillance. FINDINGS: The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer determined by the current gold standard of endoscopic biopsy was 17% (92 of 557 patients) in the training cohort and 10% (35 of 344) in the validation cohort. From the new biomarker analysis, three risk groups were identified: high risk, defined as atypia or p53 overexpression or both on Cytosponge; moderate risk, defined by the presence of a clinical risk factor (age, sex, and segment length); and low risk, defined as Cytosponge-negative and no clinical risk factors. The risk of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer in the high-risk group was 52% (68 of 132 patients) in the training cohort and 41% (31 of 75) in the validation cohort, compared with 2% (five of 210) and 1% (two of 185) in the low-risk group, respectively. In the real-world setting, Cytosponge results prospectively identified 39 (17%) of 223 patients as high risk (atypia or p53 overexpression, or both) requiring endoscopy, among whom the positive predictive value was 31% (12 of 39 patients) for high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer and 44% (17 of 39) for any grade of dysplasia. INTERPRETATION: Cytosponge atypia, p53 overexpression, and clinical risk factors (age, sex, and segment length) could be used to prioritise patients for endoscopy. Further investigation could validate their use in clinical practice and lead to a substantial reduction in endoscopy procedures compared with current surveillance pathways. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Innovate UK.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Barrett Esophagus/pathology , COVID-19 , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Patient Selection , Watchful Waiting/methods , Adenocarcinoma/diagnostic imaging , Adenocarcinoma/metabolism , Aged , Barrett Esophagus/diagnostic imaging , Barrett Esophagus/metabolism , Barrett Esophagus/therapy , Biomarkers/metabolism , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Decision-Making , Clinical Trials as Topic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Decision Trees , Disease Progression , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Esophageal Neoplasms/metabolism , Esophagoscopy , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Trefoil Factor-3/metabolism , Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/metabolism
18.
Surg Endosc ; 36(11): 7898-7914, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2085378

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have continued to evolve, the length of hospitalization (LOS) following elective minimally invasive colorectal surgery has continued to decline. Further refinements in multimodal perioperative pain management strategies have resulted in reduced opioid consumption. The interest in ambulatory colectomy has dramatically accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Severe restrictions in hospital capacity and fear of COVID transmission forced surgical teams to rethink strategies to further reduce length of inpatient stay. METHODS: Members of the SAGES Colorectal Surgery Committee began reviewing the emergence of SDD protocols and early publications for SDD in 2019. The authors met at regular intervals during 2020-2022 period reviewing SDD protocols, safe patient selection criteria, surrogates for postoperative monitoring, and early outcomes. RESULTS: Early experience with SDD protocols for elective, minimally invasive colorectal surgery suggests that SDD is feasible and safe in well-selected patients and procedures. SDD protocols are associated with reduced opioid use and prescribing. Patient perception and experience with SDD is favourable. For early adopters, SDD has been the natural evolution of well-developed ERPs. Like all ERPs, SDD begins in the office setting, identifying the correct patient and procedure, aligning goals and objectives, and the perioperative education of the patient and their supporting significant others. A thorough discussion with the patient regarding expected activity levels, oral intake, and pain control post operatively lays the foundation for a successful application of SDD programs. These observations may not apply to all patient populations, institutions, practice types, or within the scope of an existing ERP. However, if the underlying principles of SDD can be incorporated into an existing institutional ERP, it may further reduce the incidence of post operative ileus, prolonged LOS, and improve the effectiveness of oral analgesia for postoperative pain management and reduced opioid use and prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGES Colorectal Surgery Committee has performed a comprehensive review of the early experience with SDD. This manuscript summarizes SDD early results and considerations for safe and stepwise implementation of SDD with a specific focus on ERP evolution, patient selection, remote monitoring, and other relevant considerations based on hospital settings and surgical practices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Colorectal Surgery , Humans , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Colectomy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Surgery/methods , Length of Stay , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Patient Selection , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
20.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Sep 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2065925

ABSTRACT

In this article, we describe the approaches taken to recruit adult migrants living in Australia for a sexual health and blood-borne virus survey (paper and online) and present data detailing the outcomes of these approaches. The purpose was to offer guidance to redress the under-representation of migrants in public health research. Methods of recruitment included directly contacting people in individual/organizational networks, social media posts/advertising, promotion on websites, and face-to-face recruitment at public events/venues. Search query strings were used to provide information about an online referral source, and project officers kept records of activities and outcomes. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to determine respondent demographic characteristics, proportions recruited to complete the paper and online surveys, and sources of referral. Logistic regression analyses were run to predict online participation according to demographic characteristics. The total sample comprised 1454 African and Asian migrants, with 59% identifying as female. Most respondents (72%) were recruited to complete the paper version of the survey. Face-to-face invitations resulted in the highest number of completions. Facebook advertising did not recruit large numbers of respondents. Same-sex attraction and age (40-49 years) were statistically significant predictors of online completion. We encourage more researchers to build the evidence base on ways to produce research that reflects the needs and perspectives of minority populations who often bear the greatest burden of disease.


Subject(s)
Sexual Health , Social Media , Adult , Advertising/methods , Female , Humans , Internet , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL