Dataset Information

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of VTE in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Emerging evidence shows that severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be complicated by a significant coagulopathy, that likely manifests in the form of both microthrombosis and VTE. This recognition has led to the urgent need for practical guidance regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE.

Methods

A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) format that addressed urgent clinical questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19. MEDLINE (via PubMed or Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials were systematically searched for relevant literature, and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, guidance was developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process.

Results

The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on 13 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions resulted in 22 statements. Very little evidence exists in the COVID-19 population. The panel thus used expert consensus and existing evidence-based guidelines to craft the guidance statements.

Conclusions

The evidence on the optimal strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat VTE in patients with COVID-19 is sparse but rapidly evolving.

SUBMITTER: Moores LK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7265858 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnexplained chronic cough (UCC) causes significant impairments in quality of life. Effective assessment and treatment approaches are needed for UCC.MethodsThis systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) asked: What is the efficacy of treatment compared with usual care for cough severity, cough frequency, and cough-related quality of life in patients with UCC? Studies of adults and adolescents aged > 12 years with a chronic cough of > 8 weeks' duration that was unexplained after systematic investigation and treatment were included and assessed for relevance and quality. Based on the systematic review, guideline suggestions were developed and voted on by using the American College of Chest Physicians organization methodology.ResultsEleven RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. The 11 RCTs reported data on 570 participants with chronic cough who received a variety of interventions. Study quality was high in 10 RCTs. The studies used an assortment of descriptors and assessments to identify UCC. Although gabapentin and morphine exhibited positive effects on cough-related quality of life, only gabapentin was supported as a treatment recommendation. Studies of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) were affected by intervention fidelity bias; when this factor was addressed, ICS were found to be ineffective for UCC. Esomeprazole was ineffective for UCC without features of gastroesophageal acid reflux. Studies addressing nonacid gastroesophageal reflux disease were not identified. A multimodality speech pathology intervention improved cough severity.ConclusionsThe evidence supporting the diagnosis and management of UCC is limited. UCC requires further study to establish agreed terminology and the optimal methods of investigation using established criteria for intervention fidelity. Speech pathology-based cough suppression is suggested as a treatment option for UCC. This guideline presents suggestions for diagnosis and treatment based on the best available evidence and identifies gaps in our knowledge as well as areas for future research.

Project description:BackgroundThe decision to treat a suspected case of pertussis with antibiotics is usually based on a clinical diagnosis rather than waiting for laboratory confirmation. The current guideline focuses on making the clinical diagnosis of pertussis-associated cough in adults and children.MethodsThe American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodologic guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework were used. The Expert Cough Panel based their recommendations on findings from a systematic review that was recently published on the topic; final grading was reached by consensus according to Delphi methodology. The systematic review was carried out to answer the Key Clinical Question: In patients presenting with cough, how can we most accurately diagnose from clinical features alone those who have pertussis-associated cough as opposed to other causes of cough?ResultsIn adults, after pre-specified meta-analysis exclusions, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated for only 4 clinical features: paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, inspiratory whooping, and absence of fever. Both paroxysmal cough and absence of fever had high sensitivity (93.2% [95% CI, 83.2-97.4] and 81.8% [95% CI, 72.2-88.7], respectively) and low specificity (20.6% [95% CI, 14.7-28.1] and 18.8% [95% CI, 8.1-37.9]). Inspiratory whooping and posttussive vomiting had a low sensitivity (32.5% [95% CI, 24.5-41.6] and 29.8% [95% CI, 18.0-45.2]) but high specificity (77.7% [95% CI, 73.1-81.7] and 79.5% [95% CI, 69.4-86.9]). In children, after pre-specified meta-analysis exclusions, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated for only 1 clinical feature in children (0-18 years): posttussive vomiting. Posttussive vomiting in children was only moderately sensitive (60.0% [95% CI, 40.3-77.0]) and specific (66.0% [95% CI, 52.5-77.3]).ConclusionsIn adults with acute (< 3 weeks) or subacute (3-8 weeks) cough, the presence of whooping or posttussive vomiting should rule in a possible diagnosis of pertussis, whereas the lack of a paroxysmal cough or the presence of fever should rule it out. In children with acute (< 4 weeks) cough, posttussive vomiting is suggestive of pertussis but is much less helpful as a clinical diagnostic test. Guideline suggestions are made based upon these findings and conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundSince the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings.MethodsBy following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.ResultsWe recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.ConclusionsValidated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

Project description:BackgroundPatients commonly present to primary care services with upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and guidelines to help physicians investigate and treat acute cough due to suspected pneumonia and influenza are needed.MethodsA systematic search was carried out with eight patient, intervention, comparison, outcome questions related to acute cough due to suspected pneumonia or influenza.ResultsThere was a lack of randomized controlled trials in the setting of outpatients presenting with acute cough due to suspected pneumonia or influenza who were not hospitalized. Both clinical suggestions and research recommendations were made on the evidence available and CHEST Expert Cough Panel advice.ConclusionsFor outpatient adults with acute cough due to suspected pneumonia, we suggest the following clinical symptoms and signs are suggestive of pneumonia: cough; dyspnea; pleural pain; sweating, fevers, or shivers; aches and pains; temperature ? 38°C; tachypnea; and new and localizing chest examination signs. Those suspected of having pneumonia should undergo chest radiography to improve diagnostic accuracy. Although the measurement of C-reactive protein levels strengthens both the diagnosis and exclusion of pneumonia, there was no added benefit of measuring procalcitonin levels in this setting. We suggest that there is no need for routine microbiological testing. We suggest the use of empiric antibiotics according to local and national guidelines when pneumonia is suspected in settings in which imaging cannot be performed. Where there is no clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, we do not suggest the routine use of antibiotics. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against specific nonantibiotic, symptomatic therapies. Finally, for outpatient adults with acute cough and suspected influenza, we suggest that initiating antiviral treatment (according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice) within 48 hours of symptoms could be associated with decreased antibiotic use and hospitalization and improved outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed systematic reviews using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) format to answer the following key clinical question: Are the CHEST 2006 classifications of acute, subacute and chronic cough and associated management algorithms in adults that were based on durations of cough useful?MethodsWe used the CHEST Expert Cough Panel's protocol for the systematic reviews and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodological guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Data from the systematic reviews in conjunction with patient values and preferences and the clinical context were used to form recommendations or suggestions. Delphi methodology was used to obtain the final grading.ResultsWith respect to acute cough (< 3 weeks), only three studies met our criteria for quality assessment, and all had a high risk of bias. As predicted by the 2006 CHEST Cough Guidelines, the most common causes were respiratory infections, most likely of viral cause, followed by exacerbations of underlying diseases such as asthma and COPD and pneumonia. The subjects resided on three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. With respect to subacute cough (duration, 3-8 weeks), only two studies met our criteria for quality assessment, and both had a high risk of bias. As predicted by the 2006 guidelines, the most common causes were postinfectious cough and exacerbation of underlying diseases such as asthma, COPD, and upper airway cough syndrome (UACS). The subjects resided in countries in Asia. With respect to chronic cough (> 8 weeks), 11 studies met our criteria for quality assessment, and all had a high risk of bias. As predicted by the 2006 guidelines, the most common causes were UACS from rhinosinus conditions, asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis, combinations of these four conditions, and, less commonly, a variety of miscellaneous conditions and atopic cough in Asian countries. The subjects resided on four continents: North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.ConclusionsAlthough the quality of evidence was low, the published literature since 2006 suggests that CHEST's 2006 Cough Guidelines and management algorithms for acute, subacute, and chronic cough in adults appeared useful in diagnosing and treating patients with cough around the globe. These same algorithms have been updated to reflect the advances in cough management as of 2017.