Management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections and of patients with chronic lung diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic (as of 9 May 2020) : Statement of the Austrian Society of Pneumology (ASP).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Flick H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7291190 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic is currently a challenge worldwide. In Austria, a crisis within the health care system has so far been avoided. The treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including SARS-CoV?2 infections, should continue to be based on evidence-based CAP guidelines during the pandemic. However, COVID-19-specific adjustments are useful. The treatment of patients with chronic lung diseases must be adapted during the pandemic, but must still be guaranteed.
| S-EPMC7232599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung ultrasound has the potential to enable standardized follow-up without radiation exposure and with lower associated costs in comparison to CT scans. It is a valuable tool to follow up on patients after a COVID-19 infection and evaluate if there is pulmonary fibrosis developing. Echocardiography, including strain imaging, is a proven tool to assess various causes of dyspnea and adds valuable information in the context of long COVID care. Including two-dimensional (2D) strain imaging, a better comprehension of myocardial damage in post-COVID syndrome can be made. Especially 2D strain imaging (left and the right ventricular strain) can provide information about prognosis.
| S-EPMC9353420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Workplace inhalational hazards remain common worldwide, even though they are ameliorable. Previous American Thoracic Society documents have assessed the contribution of workplace exposures to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on a population level, but not to other chronic respiratory diseases. The goal of this document is to report an in-depth literature review and data synthesis of the occupational contribution to the burden of the major nonmalignant respiratory diseases, including airway diseases; interstitial fibrosis; hypersensitivity pneumonitis; other noninfectious granulomatous lung diseases, including sarcoidosis; and selected respiratory infections. Methods: Relevant literature was identified for each respiratory condition. The occupational population attributable fraction (PAF) was estimated for those conditions for which there were sufficient population-based studies to allow pooled estimates. For the other conditions, the occupational burden of disease was estimated on the basis of attribution in case series, incidence rate ratios, or attributable fraction within an exposed group. Results: Workplace exposures contribute substantially to the burden of multiple chronic respiratory diseases, including asthma (PAF, 16%); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PAF, 14%); chronic bronchitis (PAF, 13%); idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (PAF, 26%); hypersensitivity pneumonitis (occupational burden, 19%); other granulomatous diseases, including sarcoidosis (occupational burden, 30%); pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (occupational burden, 29%); tuberculosis (occupational burden, 2.3% in silica-exposed workers and 1% in healthcare workers); and community-acquired pneumonia in working-age adults (PAF, 10%). Conclusions: Workplace exposures contribute to the burden of disease across a range of nonmalignant lung conditions in adults (in addition to the 100% burden for the classic occupational pneumoconioses). This burden has important clinical, research, and policy implications. There is a pressing need to improve clinical recognition and public health awareness of the contribution of occupational factors across a range of nonmalignant respiratory diseases.
| S-EPMC6543721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeThe recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has posed multiple challenges to the practice of clinical neurology including recognition of emerging neurological complications and management of coexistent neurological diseases. In a fast-evolving pandemic, evidence-based studies are lacking in many areas. This paper presents European Academy of Neurology (EAN) expert consensus statements to guide neurologists caring for patients with COVID-19.MethodsA refined Delphi methodology was applied. In round 1, statements were provided by EAN scientific panels (SPs). In round 2, these statements were circulated to SP members not involved in writing them, asking for agreement/disagreement. Items with agreement >70% were retained for round 3, in which SP co-chairs rated importance on a five-point Likert scale. Results were graded by importance and reported as consensus statements.ResultsIn round one, 70 statements were provided by 23 SPs. In round two, 259/1061 SP member responses were received. Fifty-nine statements obtained >70% agreement and were retained. In round three, responses were received from 55 co-chairs of 29 SPs. Whilst general recommendations related to prevention of COVID-19 transmission had high levels of agreement and importance, opinion was more varied concerning statements related to therapy.ConclusionThis is the first structured consensus statement on good clinical practice in patients with neurological disease during the COVID-19 pandemic that provides immediate guidance for neurologists. In this fast-evolving pandemic, a rapid response using refined Delphi methodology is possible, but guidance may be subject to change as further evidence emerges.
| S-EPMC7675361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRheumatologists must contend with COVID-19 pandemic in the management of their patients and many questions have been raised on the use of both anti-inflammatory drugs and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD). The French Society of Rheumatology (SFR) selected the most critical ones to the daily practice of a rheumatologist and a group of 10 experts from SFR and Club Rheumatism and Inflammation (CRI) boards proposed responses based on the current knowledge of May 2020.MethodsFollowing the availability of the first 18 questions and statements, 1400 individuals consulted the frequently asked questions between the March 31, 2020 and April 12, 2020. As a result, 16 additional questions were forwarded to the SFR, and answered by the board. An additional round of review by email and video conference was organized, which included updates of the previous statements. The scientific relevance of 5 of the questions led to their inclusion in this document. Each response received a final assessment on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning no agreement whatsoever and 10 being in complete agreement. The mean values of these votes for each question are presented as the levels of agreement (LoA) at the end of each response. This document was last updated on April 17, 2020.ResultsBased on current scientific literature already published, in most circumstances, there is no contraindication to the initiation or continuation of anti-inflammatory drugs as well as DMARDs. If signs suggestive of infection (coronavirus or other) occur, treatments should be discontinued and resumed, if necessary, after 2 weeks without any symptoms. Only, some signals suggest that people taking an immunosuppressive dose of corticosteroid therapy are at greater risk of developing severe COVID-19. Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are allowed when there is no reasonable therapeutic alternative, and providing that precautions to protect the patient and the practitioner from viral contamination are adopted, included appropriate information to the patient.ConclusionsCurrently available data on managing patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic are reassuring and support continuing or initiating symptomatic as well as specific treatments of these diseases, the main target of their management remaining their appropriate control, even during this pandemic.
| S-EPMC7255274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize the incidence, type, and risk factors of severe infections (SI) in patients with autoimmune kidney diseases treated with rituximab (RTX).MethodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adult patients with immune-related kidney diseases treated with at least one course of RTX between 2015 and 2019. As a part of the ABCDE Registry, detailed data on RTX application and SI were collected. SI were defined by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 as infectious complications grade 3 and above. Patients were dichotomized between "nephrotic" and "nephritic" indications. The primary outcome was the incidence of SI within 12 months after the first RTX application.ResultsA total of 144 patients were included. Twenty-five patients (17.4%) presented with SI, mostly within the first 3 months after RTX administration. Most patients in the nephritic group had ANCA-associated vasculitis, while membranous nephropathy was the leading entity in the nephrotic group. Respiratory infections were the leading SI (n= 10, 40%), followed by urinary tract (n=3, 12%) and gastrointestinal infections (n=2, 8%). On multivariable analysis, body mass index (BMI, 24.6 kg/m2 versus 26.9 kg/m2, HR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.79-0.99; p=0.039) and baseline creatinine (HR: 1.25; 95%CI: 1.04-1.49; p=0.017) were significantly associated with SI. All patients in the nephritic group (n=19; 100%) who experienced a SI received oral glucocorticoid (GC) treatment at the time of infection. Hypogammaglobulinemia was frequent (58.5%) but not associated with SI.ConclusionsAfter RTX administration, impaired kidney function and lower BMI are independent risk factors for SI. Patients with nephritic glomerular diseases having concomitant GC treatment might be at higher risk of developing SI.
| S-EPMC8586204 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7667899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bloodstream infection (BSI) is defined by positive blood cultures in a patient with systemic signs of infection and may be either secondary to a documented source or primary-that is, without identified origin. Community-acquired BSIs in immunocompetent adults usually involve drug-susceptible bacteria, while healthcare-associated BSIs are frequently due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains. Early adequate antimicrobial therapy is a key to improve patient outcomes, especially in those with criteria for sepsis or septic shock, and should be based on guidelines and direct examination of available samples. Local epidemiology, suspected source, immune status, previous antimicrobial exposure, and documented colonization with MDR bacteria must be considered for the choice of first-line antimicrobials in healthcare-associated and hospital-acquired BSIs. Early genotypic or phenotypic tests are now available for bacterial identification and early detection of resistance mechanisms and may help, though their clinical impact warrants further investigations. Initial antimicrobial dosing should take into account the pharmacokinetic alterations commonly observed in ICU patients, with a loading dose in case of sepsis or septic shock. Initial antimicrobial combination attempting to increase the antimicrobial spectrum should be discussed when MDR bacteria are suspected and/or in the most severely ill patients. Source identification and control should be performed as soon as the hemodynamic status is stabilized. De-escalation from a broad-spectrum to a narrow-spectrum antimicrobial may reduce antibiotic selection pressure without negative impact on mortality. The duration of therapy is usually 5-8 days though longer durations may be discussed depending on the underlying illness and the source of infection. This narrative review covers the epidemiology, diagnostic workflow and therapeutic aspects of BSI in ICU patients and proposed up-to-date expert statements.
| S-EPMC7223992 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7667911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to provide a scholarly review of the published literature on menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT), make scientifically valid assessments of the available data, and grade the level of evidence available for each clinically important endpoint. PARTICIPANTS IN DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT: The 12-member Scientific Statement Task Force of The Endocrine Society selected the leader of the statement development group (R.J.S.) and suggested experts with expertise in specific areas. In conjunction with the Task Force, lead authors (n = 25) and peer reviewers (n = 14) for each specific topic were selected. All discussions regarding content and grading of evidence occurred via teleconference or electronic and written correspondence. No funding was provided to any expert or peer reviewer, and all participants volunteered their time to prepare this Scientific Statement.EvidenceEach expert conducted extensive literature searches of case control, cohort, and randomized controlled trials as well as meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, and Position Statements from other professional societies in order to compile and evaluate available evidence. No unpublished data were used to draw conclusions from the evidence.Consensus processA consensus was reached after several iterations. Each topic was considered separately, and a consensus was achieved as to content to be included and conclusions reached between the primary author and the peer reviewer specific to that topic. In a separate iteration, the quality of evidence was judged using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system in common use by The Endocrine Society for preparing clinical guidelines. The final iteration involved responses to four levels of additional review: 1) general comments offered by each of the 25 authors; 2) comments of the individual Task Force members; 3) critiques by the reviewers of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism; and 4) suggestions offered by the Council and members of The Endocrine Society. The lead author compiled each individual topic into a coherent document and finalized the content for the final Statement. The writing process was analogous to preparation of a multiauthored textbook with input from individual authors and the textbook editors.ConclusionsThe major conclusions related to the overall benefits and risks of MHT expressed as the number of women per 1000 taking MHT for 5 yr who would experience benefit or harm. Primary areas of benefit included relief of hot flashes and symptoms of urogenital atrophy and prevention of fractures and diabetes. Risks included venothrombotic episodes, stroke, and cholecystitis. In the subgroup of women starting MHT between ages 50 and 59 or less than 10 yr after onset of menopause, congruent trends suggested additional benefit including reduction of overall mortality and coronary artery disease. In this subgroup, estrogen plus some progestogens increased the risk of breast cancer, whereas estrogen alone did not. Beneficial effects on colorectal and endometrial cancer and harmful effects on ovarian cancer occurred but affected only a small number of women. Data from the various Women's Health Initiative studies, which involved women of average age 63, cannot be appropriately applied to calculate risks and benefits of MHT in women starting shortly after menopause. At the present time, assessments of benefit and risk in these younger women are based on lower levels of evidence.
| S-EPMC6287288 | biostudies-literature