Adapting Management of Sarcomas in COVID-19: An Evidence-Based Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gulia A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7261215 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adapting Management of Sarcomas in COVID-19: An Evidence-Based Review.
Gulia Ashish A Arora Ramandeep Singh RS Panda Pankaj Kumar PK Raja Anand A Tiwari Akshay A Bakhshi Sameer S Salins Naveen N Goel Vineeta V Janu Amit A
Indian journal of orthopaedics 20200530 Suppl 1
With the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) being declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization, the Indian healthcare sector is at the forefront to deliver optimal care. Patients with cancer especially are at serious risk for increased chances of morbidity and mortality due to their immunocompromised state. Currently there is a paucity of definitive guidelines for the management of sarcomas during the pandemic in a resource-constrained and diverse population setting like India. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The novel coronavirus, SARs-CoV-2, causes a clinical disease known as COVID-19. Since being declared a global pandemic, a significant amount of literature has been produced and guidelines are rapidly changing as more light is shed on this subject. Decisions regarding disposition must be made with attention to comorbidities. Multiple comorbidities portend a worse prognosis. Many clinical decision tools have been postulated; however, as of now, none have been validated. Laboratory testing available to the emergency physician is nonspecific but does show promise in helping prognosticate and risk stratify. Radiographic testing can also aid in the process. Escalating oxygen therapy seems to be a safe and effective therapy; delaying intubation for only the most severe cases in which respiratory muscle fatigue or mental status demands this. Despite thrombotic concerns in COVID-19, the benefit of anticoagulation in the emergency department (ED) seems to be minimal. Data regarding adjunctive therapies such as steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories are variable with no concrete recommendations, although steroids may decrease mortality in those patients developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. With current guidelines in mind, we propose a succinct flow sheet for both the escalation of oxygen therapy as well as ED management and disposition of these patients.
| S-EPMC7673887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2, a novel coronavirus, initiated an outbreak of pneumonia from Wuhan in China, which rapidly spread worldwide. The clinical characteristics of the disease range from asymptomatic cases or mild symptoms, which include nonspecific symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, headache, and nasal congestion to severe cases such as pneumonia, respiratory failure demanding mechanical ventilation to multi-organ failure, sepsis, and death. As the transmission rate is quite alarming, we require an effective therapeutic strategy to treat symptomatic patients and adopt the preventive measures in order to contain the infection and prevent community transmission. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health emergency of international concern, hence repurposing of the drugs is an attractive and a feasible option because PK/PD profile, toxicity profile, and drug interactions are already known. This review emphasizes on the different aspects of COVID-19 such as the epidemiology, etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, and preventive measures to be adopted in order to fight this pandemic. It also highlights upon the ethics preparedness and challenges faced by a developing country like India during such an outbreak. The review focuses on the various approaches adopted till date for developing effective therapeutic strategies including combination of drugs, vaccine therapy, and convalescent plasma therapy to combat this viral outbreak.
| S-EPMC7282680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 physical distancing limited many medical schools' abilities to conduct in-person interviews for the 2020 admissions cycle. The University of Toronto (U of T) Temerty Faculty of Medicine was already in the midst of its interview process, with two-thirds of applicants having completed the in-person modified personal interview (MPI). As the university and surrounding region were shut down, the shift was made in the middle of the application cycle to a semisynchronous video-based MPI interview (vMPI) approach. U of T undertook the development, deployment, and evaluation of the 2 approaches mid-admissions cycle. Existing resources and tools were used to create a tailored interview process with the assistance of applicants. The vMPI was similar in content and process to the MPI: a 4-station interview with each station mapped to attributes relevant to medical school success. Instead of live interviews, applicants recorded 5-minute responses to questions for each station using their own hardware. These responses were later assessed by raters asynchronously. Out of 627 applicants, 232 applicants completed the vMPI. Validity evidence was generated for the vMPI and compared with the MPI on the internal structure, relationship to other variables, and consequential validity, including applicant and interviewer acceptability. Overall, the vMPI demonstrated similar reliability and factor structure to the MPI. As with the MPI, applicant performance was predicted by nonacademic screening tools but not academic measures. Applicants' acceptance of the vMPI was positive. Most interviewers found the vMPI to be acceptable and reported confidence in their ratings. Continuing physical distancing concerns will require multiple options for admissions committees to select medical students. The vMPI is an example of a customized approach that schools can implement and may have advantages for selection beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Future evaluation will examine additional validity evidence for the tool.
| S-EPMC8779599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II.ResultsA total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as "recommended" for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management.ConclusionsThe quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.
| S-EPMC8360242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The clinical spectrum of the perinatal COVID-19 and prospective data on neonatal outcomes remains largely unexplored. Most of the existing literature is in the form of case series or single-centre experience. In this review, we aim to summarize available literature on the clinical spectrum of COVID-19 in neonates and mothers and suggest a practical approach towards management of clinical scenarios. This review explores the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in neonates born to mothers who were detected with the virus during the pregnancy. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Database of Systematic Review between November 2019 and June 2020 and screened articles related to perinatal COVID-19. This review included 786 mothers, among which 64% (504) were delivered by caesarian section. There were 3 still births and 107 (14%) were delivered preterm. Out of 793 neonates born, 629 neonates (79%) were tested after birth. The commonest symptom in neonates was respiratory distress. Respiratory support was needed in 60 neonates (7.6%), with 14 babies needing mechanical ventilation (1.8%), 25 needing non-invasive ventilation and 21 needing nasal oxygen. Only 35 of the 629 tested neonates (5.5%) were positive for COVID-19. Of the 35 positive neonates, 14 (40%) were symptomatic. The COVID-19 seems to have favourable neonatal outcomes. Majority of neonates are asymptomatic. Respiratory distress is the most common manifestation. What is known: •COVID-19 affects all ages. •Neonatal disease is usually mild. What is new: •Vertical transmission is a possible route of infection in neonates. •Breast milk and skin-to-skin contact are safe in COVID-19-infected mothers if performed with appropriate use of precautions such as hand and breast hygiene and masking.
| S-EPMC7660544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread rapidly across the globe, we aimed to identify and summarize the existing evidence on epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and the effectiveness of control measures to inform policymakers and leaders in formulating management guidelines, and to provide directions for future research. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature and preprints on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak following predefined eligibility criteria. Of 317 research articles generated from our initial search on PubMed and preprint archives on 21 February 2020, 41 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Current evidence suggests that it takes about 3-7 days for the epidemic to double in size. Of 21 estimates for the basic reproduction number ranging from 1.9 to 6.5, 13 were between 2.0 and 3.0. The incubation period was estimated to be 4-6 days, whereas the serial interval was estimated to be 4-8 days. Though the true case fatality risk is yet unknown, current model-based estimates ranged from 0.3% to 1.4% for outside China. There is an urgent need for rigorous research focusing on the mitigation efforts to minimize the impact on society.
| S-EPMC7231098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and this infectious disease is termed COVID-19 in short. On a global scale, as of June 1, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) published statistics of 6,057,853 infected patients and 371,166 deaths worldwide. Despite reported observational data about the experimental use of certain drugs, there is no conclusively proven curative therapy for COVID-19 as of now; however, remdesivir received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently for use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. There are several ongoing clinical trials related to the pharmacological choices of therapy for COVID-19 patients; however, drug trials related to observational studies so far have yielded mixed results and therefore have created a sense of confusion among healthcare professionals (HCPs). In this review article, we seek to collate and provide a summary of treatment strategies for COVID-19 patients with a variable degree of illness and discuss pharmacologic and other therapies intended to be used either as experimental medicine/therapy or as part of supportive care in complicated cases of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7295552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe provision of care to pregnant persons and neonates must continue through pandemics. To maintain quality of care, while minimizing physical contact during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) pandemic, hospitals and international organizations issued recommendations on maternity and neonatal care delivery and restructuring of clinical and academic services. Early in the pandemic, recommendations relied on expert opinion, and offered a one-size-fits-all set of guidelines. Our aim was to examine these recommendations and provide the rationale and context to guide clinicians, administrators, educators, and researchers, on how to adapt maternity and neonatal services during the pandemic, regardless of jurisdiction.MethodOur initial database search used Medical subject headings and free-text search terms related to coronavirus infections, pregnancy and neonatology, and summarized relevant recommendations from international society guidelines. Subsequent targeted searches to December 30, 2020, included relevant publications in general medical and obstetric journals, and updated society recommendations.ResultsWe identified 846 titles and abstracts, of which 105 English-language publications fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included in our study. A multidisciplinary team representing clinicians from various disciplines, academics, administrators and training program directors critically appraised the literature to collate recommendations by multiple jurisdictions, including a quaternary care Canadian hospital, to provide context and rationale for viable options.InterpretationThere are different schools of thought regarding effective practices in obstetric and neonatal services. Our critical review presents the rationale to effectively modify services, based on the phase of the pandemic, the prevalence of infection in the population, and resource availability.
| S-EPMC8840792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented as a therapeutic challenge for clinicians worldwide due to its rapid spread along with evolving evidence and understanding of the disease. Internationally, recommendations to guide the management of COVID-19 have been created and updated continuously by the WHO and CDC, which have been locally adapted by different countries. Similarly, Pakistan's National Command Operation Center (NCOC), in its national COVID-19 management strategy, generated guidelines for national implementation. Keeping the guidelines updated has proved challenging globally and locally. Here, we present a summary of the process to assess the evidence, including a time-restricted systematic review based on NCOC Clinical Management Guidelines for COVID-19 Infections v4 published on 11th December 2020 version, correlating it with current recommendations and with input one of the guidelines authors, particularly noting the methodological challenges.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review synthesizing global research on treatment options for COVID-19 hospitalized patients, limiting it to pharmacological interventions for hospitalized COVID-19 patients included in Pakistan's NCOC's national guidelines v4 published on 11th December 2020. Each treatment recommendation's strength and quality of evidence was assessed based on the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. These were then compared to the most current living WHO COVID-19 pharmacological treatment guidelines v7.1. One of the authors of the NCOC guidelines reviewed and commented on the findings as well.ResultsWe note that the data from our systematic review strongly supports corticosteroids use in treating severe and critically ill COVID-19 hospitalized patients correlating with WHO v7.1 guidelines 24 September 2021. However, evidence from our review and WHO v7.1 for the use of tocilizumab had some conflicting evidence, with data from our review until December 2020 supporting only a weak recommendation for its use, compared to the strong recommendation by the WHO for the use of tocilizumab in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infection. Regarding the use of antibiotics and ivermectin use in treating COVID-19 hospitalized patients, data from our review and WHO v 7.1 recommend against their use.ConclusionResearch data about the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are rapidly evolving, and based on it, the evidence for or against recommendations changes accordingly. Our study illustrates the challenges of keeping up with the evidence; the recommendations were based on studies up till December 2021, and we have compared our recommendations with the WHO v7.1, which showed some significant changes in the use of pharmacological treatment options.
| S-EPMC9020141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThis review summarizes and provides a comprehensive narrative synthesis of the current evidence on pediatric airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic.Recent findingsThe safe care of children undergoing airway management is a primary concern for pediatric anesthesiologists. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought challenges related to airway management and the use of personal protective equipment, aerosol barriers, and the need for simulation and intubation teams. The risk of COVID-19 transmission to the health care worker may be lower in children due to the smaller volume of aerosol dispersal. The implementation of vaccinations may further reduce the risk to health care workers. Evidence demonstrating the impact of COVID-19 on airway outcomes in children is necessary to inform their care.SummaryThis review shows that pediatric airway management can be a safe procedure for both the patient and provider in the right setting. The use of appropriate personal protective equipment, particularly focusing on protection from aerosolized particles, is paramount to reduce infection risk. However, there are opportunities for future research.
| S-EPMC8302463 | biostudies-literature