Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 61
Filter
1.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 42(1): 89-92, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2096391
2.
Curr Treat Options Oncol ; 22(12): 117, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527505

ABSTRACT

OPINION STATEMENT: COVID-19 has transformed the care we provide to gynecologic oncology patients. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with gynecologic cancer, it has affected our patient's ability to undergo recommended surveillance and has made an impact on every caregiver providing care during this time. Herein we review the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic oncology and highlight new approaches and innovations that have resulted in gynecologic cancer care as a result of the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the field of gynecologic oncology has been profound. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with cancer, it has also challenged the very ethics with which we practice medicine. The equitable distribution of resources is paramount to upholding the Hippocratic Oath which we all invoke. The COVID-19 pandemic has stripped this oath down to its very core, forcing all medical practitioners to scrutinize who gets what resources and when. As the pandemic continues to unfold, the question remains - in the setting of a strained and overburdened healthcare system, how do we maximize beneficence to one group of patients, while maintaining non-maleficence to others? As gynecologic oncologists, we are responsible for advocating for our patients to ensure that the quality of their cancer care is not compromised, while also not overutilizing resources that are sorely needed for the care of COVID-19 victims, and not making them more likely to succumb to COVID-19 by the very nature of the treatment we provide. The effects of the pandemic are far-reaching and broad, and many of these are yet to be determined. Future studies are needed to analyze how the above-utilized strategies in GYN cancer care during the pandemic will impact the long-term outcomes of our patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Genital Neoplasms, Female/therapy , Infection Control/methods , Oncologists/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Genital Neoplasms, Female/virology , Humans
3.
Open Heart ; 8(2)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523054

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately coprescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change and associated monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe coprescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using routine clinical data from 24 million NHS patients in England. RESULTS: 20 000 of 164 000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in coprescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. International normalised ratio (INR) testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). CONCLUSIONS: Increased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people coprescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19 , Drug Substitution/standards , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , State Medicine/standards , Warfarin/administration & dosage , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation Tests , Drug Monitoring , Drug Prescriptions , Drug Substitution/adverse effects , Drug Utilization/standards , England , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Safety , Primary Health Care/standards , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Warfarin/adverse effects
4.
S Afr Med J ; 111(10): 934-937, 2021 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478412

ABSTRACT

Some clinicians prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 despite a lack of support from any credible South African professional body. They argue that when faced by clinical urgency, weak signals of efficacy should trigger action if harm is unlikely. Several recent reviews found an apparent mortality benefit by including studies at high risk of bias and with active rather than placebo controls. If these studies are discounted, the pooled mortality effect is no longer statistically significant, and evidence of benefit is very weak. Relying on this evidence could cause clinical harm if used to justify vaccine hesitancy. Clinicians remain responsible for ensuring that guidance they follow is both legitimate and reliable. In the ivermectin debate, evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles have largely been ignored under the guise thatin a pandemic the 'rules are different', probably to the detriment of vulnerable patients and certainly to the detriment of the profession's image. Medical schools and professional interest groups are responsible for transforming EBM from a taught but seldom-used tool into a process of lifelong learning, promoting a consistent call for evidence-based and unconflicted debate integral to clinical practice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Ivermectin/administration & dosage , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Vaccination Hesitancy/psychology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Research Design , South Africa
5.
Br J Surg ; 108(10): 1162-1180, 2021 10 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence. METHODS: In late 2020, BJS contacted colleagues across the global surgical community and asked them to describe how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had affected their practice. In addition to this, the Commission undertook a literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on surgery and perioperative care. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the issues most frequently encountered by the correspondents, as well as the solutions and ideas suggested to address them. RESULTS: BJS received communications for this Commission from leading clinicians and academics across a variety of surgical specialties in every inhabited continent. The responses from all over the world provided insights into multiple facets of surgical practice from a governmental level to individual clinical practice and training. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered a variety of problems in healthcare systems, including negative impacts on surgical practice. Global surgical multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively to address research questions about the future of surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. The COVID-19 pandemic is severely damaging surgical training. The establishment of a multidisciplinary ethics committee should be encouraged at all surgical oncology centres. Innovative leadership and collaboration is vital in the post-COVID-19 era.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Perioperative Care/trends , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Surgical Procedures, Operative/trends , Adult , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Education, Medical, Graduate/methods , Education, Medical, Graduate/trends , Female , Global Health , Health Resources/supply & distribution , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Humans , Infection Control/economics , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , International Cooperation , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Perioperative Care/education , Perioperative Care/methods , Perioperative Care/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Surgeons/education , Surgeons/psychology , Surgeons/trends , Surgical Procedures, Operative/education , Surgical Procedures, Operative/methods , Surgical Procedures, Operative/standards
6.
Eur J Endocrinol ; 185(4): G35-G42, 2021 Aug 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448609

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has changed the nature of medical consultations, emphasizing virtual patient counselling, with relevance for patients with diabetes insipidus (DI) or hyponatraemia. The main complication of desmopressin treatment in DI is dilutional hyponatraemia. Since plasma sodium monitoring is not always possible in times of COVID-19, we recommend to delay the desmopressin dose once a week until aquaresis occurs allowing excess retained water to be excreted. Patients should measure their body weight daily. Patients with DI admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 have a high risk for mortality due to volume depletion. Specialists must supervise fluid replacement and dosing of desmopressin. Patients after pituitary surgery should drink to thirst and measure their body weight daily to early recognize the development of postoperative SIAD. They should know hyponatraemia symptoms. Hyponatraemia in COVID-19 is common with a prevalence of 20-30% and is mostly due to SIAD or hypovolaemia. It mirrors disease severity and is an early predictor of mortality. Hypernatraemia may also develop in COVID-19 patients, with a prevalence of 3-5%, especially in ICU, and derives from different multifactorial reasons, for example, due to insensible water losses from pyrexia, increased respiration rate and use of diuretics. Hypernatraemic dehydration may contribute to the high risk of acute kidney injury in COVID-19. IV fluid replacement should be administered with caution in severe cases of COVID-19 because of the risk of pulmonary oedema.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Insipidus/therapy , Endocrinology/standards , Hyponatremia/therapy , Ambulatory Care/methods , Ambulatory Care/standards , Consensus , Diabetes Insipidus/epidemiology , Diabetes Insipidus/pathology , Distance Counseling/methods , Distance Counseling/standards , Endocrinology/history , Endocrinology/trends , Expert Testimony , History, 21st Century , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hyponatremia/epidemiology , Hyponatremia/pathology , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/history , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Telemedicine/history , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/standards
7.
J Urol ; 206(6): 1469-1479, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1410198

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Urologic Diseases/therapy , Urology/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Ambulatory Care/standards , Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Ambulatory Care/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Telemedicine/standards , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/trends , United States/epidemiology , Urologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Urologic Surgical Procedures/trends , Urology/standards , Urology/trends , Young Adult
8.
Curr Opin Neurol ; 34(1): 133-141, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1379488

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to present the latest advances in giant cell arteritis (GCA) care, and recent national and international rheumatology societies guidance which influences clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Cranial ultrasound reduces diagnostic delay and improves clinical outcomes. Immediate high dose glucocorticoids remain the standard treatment for GCA. Controlled trial evidence using Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, shows good clinical efficacy with steroid-sparing effects. SUMMARY: Improved patient outcomes require formalizing pathways to diagnosis and closer liaison with rheumatology for long-term management with second-line therapies.


Subject(s)
Giant Cell Arteritis/therapy , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Delayed Diagnosis , Giant Cell Arteritis/diagnosis , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Treatment Outcome
10.
J Neurooncol ; 153(3): 479-485, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1265544

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Neuro-oncology tumor boards (NTBs) hold an established function in cancer care as multidisciplinary tumor boards. However, NTBs predominantly exist at academic and/or specialized centers. In addition to increasing centralization throughout the healthcare system, changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have arguably resulted in advantages by conducting clinical meetings virtually. We therefore asked about the experience and acceptance of (virtualized) NTBs and their potential benefits. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed via a web-based platform. Specialized neuro-oncological centers in Germany were identified based on the number of brain tumor cases treated in the respective institution per year. Only one representative per center was invited to participate in the survey. Questions targeted the structure/organization of NTBs as well as changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 65/97 institutions participated in the survey (response rate 67%). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, regular conventions of NTBs were maintained by the respective centers and multi-specialty participation remained high. NTBs were considered valuable by respondents in achieving the most optimal therapy for the affected patient and in maintaining/encouraging interdisciplinary debate/exchange. The settings of NTBs have been adapted during the pandemic with the increased use of virtual technology. Virtual NTBs were found to be beneficial, yet administrative support is lacking in some places. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual implementation of NTBs was feasible and accepted in the centers surveyed. Therefore, successful implementation offers new avenues and may be pursued for networking between centers, thereby increasing coverage of neuro-oncology care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Plan Implementation , Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Telemedicine , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
12.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 15(6): 773-779, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1165209

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Bronchoscopy and related procedures have unambiguously been affected during the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Corona Virus-2 (SARS COV-2). Ordinary bronchoscopy practices and lung cancer services might have changed over this pandemic and for the years to come.Areas covered: This manuscript summarizes the utility of bronchoscopy in COVID-19 patients, and the impact of the pandemic in lung cancer diagnostic services, in view of possible viral spread during these We conducted a literature review of articles published in PubMed/Medline from inception to November 5th, 2020 using relevant terms.Expert opinion: Without doubt this pandemic has changed the way bronchoscopy and related procedures are being performed. Mandatory universal personal protective equipment, pre-bronchoscopy PCR tests, dedicated protective barriers and disposable bronchoscopes might be the safest and simpler way to perform even the most complicated procedures.


Subject(s)
Bronchoscopy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Bronchoscopes/microbiology , Bronchoscopes/standards , Bronchoscopes/virology , Bronchoscopy/instrumentation , Bronchoscopy/methods , Bronchoscopy/standards , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Equipment Contamination/prevention & control , History, 21st Century , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Medical Oncology/instrumentation , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/standards , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
13.
J Glob Health ; 10(2): 020507, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154782

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a surgical setting, COVID-19 patients may trigger in-hospital outbreaks and have worse postoperative outcomes. Despite these risks, there have been no consistent statements on surgical guidelines regarding the perioperative screening or management of COVID-19 patients, and we do not have objective global data that describe the current conditions surrounding this issue. This study aimed to clarify the current global surgical practice including COVID-19 screening, preventive measures and in-hospital infection under the COVID-19 pandemic, and to clarify the international gaps on infection control policies among countries worldwide. METHODS: During April 2-8, 2020, a cross-sectional online survey on surgical practice was distributed to surgeons worldwide through international surgical societies, social media and personal contacts. Main outcome and measures included preventive measures and screening policies of COVID-19 in surgical practice and centers' experiences of in-hospital COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed by country's cumulative deaths number by April 8, 2020 (high risk, >5000; intermediate risk, 100-5000; low risk, <100). RESULTS: A total of 936 centers in 71 countries responded to the survey (high risk, 330 centers; intermediate risk, 242 centers; low risk, 364 centers). In the majority (71.9%) of the centers, local guidelines recommended preoperative testing based on symptoms or suspicious radiologic findings. Universal testing for every surgical patient was recommended in only 18.4% of the centers. In-hospital COVID-19 infection was reported from 31.5% of the centers, with higher rates in higher risk countries (high risk, 53.6%; intermediate risk, 26.4%; low risk, 14.8%; P < 0.001). Of the 295 centers that experienced in-hospital COVID-19 infection, 122 (41.4%) failed to trace it and 58 (19.7%) reported the infection originating from asymptomatic patients/staff members. Higher risk countries adopted more preventive measures including universal testing, routine testing of hospital staff and use of dedicated personal protective equipment in operation theatres, but there were remarkable discrepancies across the countries. CONCLUSIONS: This large international survey captured the global surgical practice under the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted the insufficient preoperative screening of COVID-19 in the current surgical practice. More intensive screening programs will be necessary particularly in severely affected countries/institutions. STUDY REGISTRATION: Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04344197.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Procedures, Operative/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitals/standards , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Mass Screening/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Policy , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Surveys and Questionnaires
14.
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol ; 128(5): 635-641, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132864

ABSTRACT

Opioids cover a broad class of natural, synthetic and semi-synthetic drugs that act on opioid receptors to produce powerful analgesic effects. Rates of opioid use and opioid agonist maintenance treatment have increased substantially in recent years, particularly among women. Trends and outcomes of opioids use on fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding, and longer-term child developmental outcomes have not been well-described. Here, we review the existing literature on the health effects of opioid use on female fertility, pregnancy, breastmilk and the exposed infant. We find that the current literature is primarily concentrated on the impact of opioid use in pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, with little exploration of effects on fertility. Studies are limited in number, some with small sample sizes, and many are hampered by methodological challenges related to confounding and other potential biases. Opioid use is becoming more prevalent due to environmental pressures such as COVID-19. More research is needed to better elucidate its effects on reproductive health among younger women and support the development of evidence-based recommendations for safe prescription practices and public health messaging.


Subject(s)
Breast Feeding , Fertility/drug effects , Opioid-Related Disorders , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Pregnancy Complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Opioid-Related Disorders/complications , Opioid-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Opioid-Related Disorders/prevention & control , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications/prevention & control , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 42(3): 344-347, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1131957

ABSTRACT

We describe an approach to the evaluation and isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center. Only a small proportion (2.9%) of PUIs with 1 or more repeated severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) after a negative NAAT were diagnosed with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , Patient Isolation/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Academic Medical Centers , Boston , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Hospitalization , Humans , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/organization & administration , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Dig Surg ; 38(2): 158-165, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1105564

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to register changes determined by the COVID-19 pandemic on pancreatic surgery in a specific geographic area (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) to evaluate the impact of the pandemic and obtain interesting cues for the future. METHODS: An online survey was designed using Google Forms focusing on the local impact of the pandemic on pancreatic surgery. The survey was conducted at 2 different time points, during and after the lockdown. RESULTS: Twenty-five respondents (25/56) completed the survey. Many aspects of oncological care have been affected with restrictions and delays: staging, tumor board, treatment selection, postoperative course, adjuvant treatments, outpatient care, and follow-up. Overall, 60% of respondents have prioritized pancreatic cancer patients according to stage, age, and comorbidities, and 40% opted not to operate high-risk patients. However, for 96% of participants, the standards of care were guaranteed. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had an important impact on pancreatic cancer surgery in central Europe. Guidelines for prompt interventions and prevention of the spread of viral infections in the surgical environment are needed to avoid a deterioration of care in cancer patients in the event of a second wave or a new pandemic. High-volume centers for pancreatic surgery should be preferred and their activity maintained. Virtual conferences have proven to be efficient during this pandemic and should be implemented in the near future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Pancreatectomy/trends , Pancreatic Neoplasms/surgery , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Aftercare/methods , Aftercare/standards , Aftercare/trends , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , Health Care Surveys , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/trends , Neoplasm Staging , Pancreatectomy/standards , Pancreatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Pancreatic Neoplasms/pathology , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Perioperative Care/methods , Perioperative Care/standards , Perioperative Care/trends , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Time-to-Treatment/standards , Time-to-Treatment/trends
18.
Pituitary ; 24(2): 143-145, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1074463

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Side effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgias, arthralgias, chills, and fever, all of which can be early indicators of an increased need for glucocorticoid replacement in patients with adrenal insufficiency. The Pituitary Society surveyed its membership to understand planned approaches to glucocorticoid management in patients with adrenal insufficiency who will receive a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Members were asked to complete up to 3 questions regarding their planned approach for use of glucocorticoid replacement in patients with proven adrenal insufficiency. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 273 members and 103 responded. Thirty-six percent plan to recommend that patients automatically increase glucocorticoid dosage with administration of the first vaccine injection. Of these, 84% plan to increase glucocorticoid dose on the day of vaccination, and 49% plan to increase glucocorticoid dose prior to vaccination. Of the 64% who do not plan to recommend automatic glucocorticoid dose increase with vaccine administration, 88% plan to increase the dose if the patient develops a fever, and 47% plan to increase the dose if myalgias and arthralgias occur. CONCLUSIONS: Most clinicians plan to maintain the current glucocorticoid dose with vaccine administration. The vast majority plan and to increase glucocorticoid dose in case of fever, and just under half in case of arthralgias and myalgias. These survey results offer suggested management guidance for glucocorticoid management in patients with adrenal insufficiency.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Insufficiency/drug therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Adrenal Insufficiency/epidemiology , Adrenal Insufficiency/pathology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Endocrinology/organization & administration , Endocrinology/standards , Humans , Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System/drug effects , Pandemics , Pituitary Diseases/therapy , Pituitary-Adrenal System/drug effects , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Societies, Medical , Surveys and Questionnaires
19.
Gynecol Oncol ; 161(1): 236-243, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1060086

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines recommend pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza vaccination for all patients with solid organ malignancies prior to initiating chemotherapy. Baseline vaccination rates (March 2019) for pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza at our tertiary cancer centre were 8% and 40%, respectively. The aim of this study was to increase the number of gynecologic chemotherapy patients receiving pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations to 80% by March 2020. METHODS: We performed an interrupted time series study using structured quality improvement methodology. Three interventions were introduced to address vaccination barriers: an in-house vaccination program, a staff education campaign, and a patient care bundle (pre-printed prescription, information brochure, vaccine record booklet). Process and outcome data were collected by patient survey and pharmacy audit and analyzed on statistical process control charts. RESULTS: We identified 195 eligible patients. Pneumococcal and influenza vaccination rates rose significantly from 5% to a monthly mean of 61% and from 36% to a monthly mean of 67%, respectively. The 80% target was reached for both vaccines during one or more months of study. The in-house vaccination and staff education programs were major contributors to the improvement, whereas the information brochure and record booklet were minor contributors. CONCLUSIONS: Three interventions to promote pneumococcal and influenza vaccination among chemotherapy patients resulted in significantly improved vaccination rates. Lessons learned about promoting vaccine uptake may be generalizable to different populations and vaccine types. In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, initiatives to expand the program to all chemotherapy patients at our centre are underway.


Subject(s)
Genital Neoplasms, Female/complications , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Pneumococcal Vaccines , Pneumonia, Pneumococcal/prevention & control , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Cancer Care Facilities/organization & administration , Female , Genital Neoplasms, Female/drug therapy , Health Care Surveys , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Humans , Influenza, Human/etiology , Ontario , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Pneumococcal/etiology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Professional-Patient Relations , Tertiary Care Centers/organization & administration
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL