Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 181
Filter
2.
Crit Care Med ; 48(6): e440-e469, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2152192

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/therapy
5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2136263, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1565151

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid and urgent guidance for clinicians to manage COVID-19 among patients and prevent transmission. Objective: To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria. Evidence Review: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 14, 2020, and a search of related articles to February 28, 2021, that included CPGs developed by societies or by government or nongovernment organizations that reported pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed CPG quality using the 15-item National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument. Findings: Thirty-two CPGs were included in the review. Of these, 25 (78.1%) were developed by professional societies and emanated from a single World Health Organization (WHO) region. Overall, the CPGs were of low quality. Only 7 CPGs (21.9%) reported funding sources, and 12 (37.5%) reported conflicts of interest. Only 5 CPGs (15.6%) included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized the evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 of 32 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 of 32 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of the recommendations (5 of 32 [15.6%]). External review, patient or public perspectives, or a process for updating were rare. High-quality CPGs included a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborations involving investigators from 2 or more WHO regions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this review, few COVID-19 CPGs met NAM standards for trustworthy guidelines. Approaches that prioritize engagement of a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborators from at least 2 WHO regions may lead to the production of fewer, high-quality CPGs that are poised for updates as new evidence emerges. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021245239.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Hospitalization , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Academies and Institutes , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical , Trust
7.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0260041, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533420

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have implemented a range of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) to reduce transmission and minimise morbidity and mortality, whilst maintaining social and economic activities. The perceptions of public health workers (PHWs) and healthcare workers (HCWs) are essential to inform future COVID-19 strategies as they are viewed as trusted sources and are at the forefront of COVID-19 response. The objectives of this study were to 1) describe the practicality of implementing NPIs and PIs and 2) identify potential barriers to implementation, as perceived by HCWs and PHWs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of PHWs and HCWs perceptions of the implementation, practicality of, and barriers to implementation of NPIs and PIs using an online survey (28/9/2020-1/11/2020) available in English, French and Portuguese. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to analyse quantitative and qualitative responses. RESULTS: In total, 226 respondents (67 HCWs and 159 PHWs) from 52 countries completed the survey and 222 were included in the final analysis. Participants from low and middle-income countries (LMICs) accounted for 63% of HCWs and 67% of PHWs, with the remaining from high-income (HICs). There was little difference between the perceptions of PHWs and HCWs in HICs and LMICs, with the majority regarding a number of common NPIs as difficult to implement. However, PHWs in HICs perceived restrictions on schools and educational institutions to be more difficult to implement, with a lack of childcare support identified as the main barrier. Additionally, most contact tracing methods were perceived to be more difficult to implement in HICs than LMICs, with a range of barriers reported. A lack of public support was the most commonly reported barrier to NPIs overall across both country income and professional groups. Similarly, public fear of vaccine safety and lack of vaccine supply were the main reported barriers to implementing a COVID-19 vaccine. However, PHWs and HCWs in LMICs perceived a lack of financial support and the vaccine being manufactured in another country as additional barriers. CONCLUSION: This snapshot provides insight into the difficulty of implementing interventions as perceived by PHWs and HCWs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to implementing interventions, and barriers in different contexts do vary. Barriers to implementing a vaccine programme expressed here by HCWs and PHCWs have subsequently come to the fore internationally.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Developing Countries , Female , Humans , Immunization Programs/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
8.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0259981, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528721

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Somalia is considered severely underprepared to contain an outbreak of COVID-19, with critical shortages in healthcare personnel and treatment resources. In limited-resource settings such as Somalia, providing healthcare workers with adequate information on COVID-19 is crucial to improve patient outcomes and mitigate the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study assessed the knowledge of, preparedness for, and perceptions toward COVID-19 prevention and treatment among Somali healthcare workers. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was completed by 364 Somali healthcare workers in summer of 2020 utilizing a convenience sampling method. RESULTS: Participants' most accessed sources of COVID-19 information were from social media (64.8%), official government and international health organization websites (51.1%,), and traditional media sources such as radio, TV, and newspapers (48.1%). A majority of participants demonstrated strong knowledge of treatment of COVID-19, the severity of COVID-19, and the possible outcomes of COVID-19, but only 5 out of 10 symptoms listed were correctly identified by more than 75% of participants. Although participants indicated seeing a median number of 10 patients per week with COVID-19 related symptoms, access to essential medical resources, such as N95 masks (30.2%), facial protective shields (24.5%), and disposable gowns (21.4%), were limited. Moreover, 31.3% agreed that Somalia was in a good position to contain an emerging outbreak of COVID-19. In addition, 40.4% of participants agreed that the Somali government's response to the pandemic was sufficient to protect Somali healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the need to equip Somali healthcare providers with more information, personal protective equipment, and treatment resources such that they can safely and adequately care for COVID-19 patients and contain the spread of the virus. Social media and traditional news outlets may be effective outlets to communicate information regarding COVID-19 and the Somali government's response to frontline healthcare workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Protective Clothing/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Somalia/epidemiology , Young Adult
9.
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
10.
STAR Protoc ; 2(4): 100943, 2021 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510407

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Health Care Rationing/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Standard of Care/ethics , Triage/standards , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care/ethics , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Triage/ethics , Triage/methods
12.
Lancet Haematol ; 8(12): e934-e946, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486371

ABSTRACT

Patients with multiple myeloma frequently present with substantial immune impairment and an increased risk for infections and infection-related mortality. The risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus and resulting mortality is also increased, emphasising the importance of protecting patients by vaccination. Available data in patients with multiple myeloma suggest a suboptimal anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response, meaning a proportion of patients are unprotected. Factors associated with poor response are uncontrolled disease, immunosuppression, concomitant therapy, more lines of therapy, and CD38 antibody-directed and B-cell maturation antigen-directed therapy. These facts suggest that monitoring the immune response to vaccination in patients with multiple myeloma might provide guidance for clinical management, such as administration of additional doses of the same or another vaccine, or even temporary treatment discontinuation, if possible. In those who do not exhibit a good response, prophylactic treatment with neutralising monoclonal antibody cocktails might be considered. In patients deficient of a SARS-CoV-2 immune response, adherence to measures for infection risk reduction is particularly recommended. This consensus was generated by members of the European Multiple Myeloma Network and some external experts. The panel members convened in virtual meetings and conducted an extensive literature research and evaluated recently published data and work presented at meetings, as well as findings from their own studies. The outcome of the discussions on establishing consensus recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple myeloma was condensed into this Review.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Multiple Myeloma/complications , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Consensus , Humans , Multiple Myeloma/drug therapy , Multiple Myeloma/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
14.
Anesth Analg ; 133(4): 876-890, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1412364

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), often results in severe hypoxemia requiring airway management. Because SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread via respiratory droplets, bag-mask ventilation, intubation, and extubation may place health care workers (HCW) at risk. While existing recommendations address airway management in patients with COVID-19, no guidance exists specifically for difficult airway management. Some strategies normally recommended for difficult airway management may not be ideal in the setting of COVID-19 infection. To address this issue, the Society for Airway Management (SAM) created a task force to review existing literature and current practice guidelines for difficult airway management by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. The SAM task force created recommendations for the management of known or suspected difficult airway in the setting of known or suspected COVID-19 infection. The goal of the task force was to optimize successful airway management while minimizing exposure risk. Each member conducted a literature review on specific clinical practice section utilizing standard search engines (PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar). Existing recommendations and evidence for difficult airway management in the COVID-19 context were developed. Each specific recommendation was discussed among task force members and modified until unanimously approved by all task force members. Elements of Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Reporting Checklist for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines were utilized to develop this statement. Airway management in the COVID-19 patient increases HCW exposure risk. Difficult airway management often takes longer and may involve multiple procedures with aerosolization potential, and strict adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols is mandatory to reduce risk to providers. When a patient's airway risk assessment suggests that awake tracheal intubation is an appropriate choice of technique, and procedures that may cause increased aerosolization of secretions should be avoided. Optimal preoxygenation before induction with a tight seal facemask may be performed to reduce the risk of hypoxemia. Unless the patient is experiencing oxygen desaturation, positive pressure bag-mask ventilation after induction may be avoided to reduce aerosolization. For optimal intubating conditions, patients should be anesthetized with full muscle relaxation. Videolaryngoscopy is recommended as a first-line strategy for airway management. If emergent invasive airway access is indicated, then we recommend a surgical technique such as scalpel-bougie-tube, rather than an aerosolizing generating procedure, such as transtracheal jet ventilation. This statement represents recommendations by the SAM task force for the difficult airway management of adults with COVID-19 with the goal to optimize successful airway management while minimizing the risk of clinician exposure.


Subject(s)
Airway Management/standards , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/standards , Infection Control/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Societies, Medical/standards , Adult , Advisory Committees/standards , Airway Extubation/methods , Airway Extubation/standards , Airway Management/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards
18.
Curr Opin Hematol ; 28(6): 394-400, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377996

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the clinical experience of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hematopoietic cell transplant and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy recipients over the past year and to identify key knowledge gaps for future research. RECENT FINDINGS: Immunocompromised individuals and those with chronic health conditions are especially susceptible to infections, which have had a disproportionate impact on health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several studies have evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of transplant and cellular therapy (TCT) recipients who developed COVID-19. Age, sex, comorbid conditions, and social determinants of health are important predictors of the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and of the eventual severity of the disease. Various treatment approaches have been investigated over the last year. The paradigm of management strategies continues to evolve as more experience is accumulated. SUMMARY: In this review, we summarize some important findings as they relate to the clinical characteristics of TCT recipients who develop COVID-19. We also discuss some treatment approaches that are currently recommended and opine on vaccination in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/standards , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/standards , Immunocompromised Host , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Receptors, Chimeric Antigen/immunology , Transplant Recipients/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
19.
Curr Opin Hematol ; 28(6): 389-393, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377995

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) impacted every facet of hematopoietic cell transplantation. This article reviews the adjustments to recipient and donor care that occurred in response to this unprecedented event. RECENT FINDINGS: Transplant centers modified algorithms, patient flow, education, and how we provided care. Our donor center partners reworked how donors were evaluated and products delivered to the transplant center. Our professional societies provided guidelines for patient and donor care and rapidly modified these based upon the never-ending stream of new data learned about SARS-CoV-2. Our research organizations provided rapid analyses to ensure the care modifications necessitated did not have a profound negative impact on our patients or donors. SUMMARY: The efforts of transplant providers and donor centers worldwide allowed patients to receive the transplant needed with assurances that they were receiving the best care available despite the worldwide challenge.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Tissue Donors/supply & distribution , Transplant Recipients/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/virology , Humans
20.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 20(5): e154-e159, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1360886

ABSTRACT

There is disagreement between international guidelines on the level of personal protective equipment (PPE) required for chest compressions for patients with suspected COVID-19. This discrepancy centres on whether they are considered to be an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP), thus requiring airborne protection to prevent transmission to healthcare workers (HCWs). The need to don higher-level PPE has to be weighed against the resulting delay to emergency treatment.We performed a literature search on this topic which found eight relevant studies. All were observational with low patient numbers and multiple confounding factors, but describe cases of acute respiratory infection transmission during chest compressions. One systematic review concluded that chest compressions were not an AGP. Two simulated studies (released as preprints) potentially demonstrate aerosol generation. Given that there is evidence for infection transmission during chest compressions, we conclude that a precautionary approach with appropriate PPE is necessary to protect HCW from contracting a potentially fatal infection.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/adverse effects , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Aerosols/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Occupational Health , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL