Discordance of COVID-19 guidelines for patients with cancer: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Garg PK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7405271 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsIndividuals taking immunosuppressants are at increased susceptibility to viral infections in general. However, due to the novel nature of the COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence about the specific risks of the disease in this patient group. This systematic review aims to summarize the current international clinical guidelines to highlight areas where research is needed through critical appraisal of the evidence base of these guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines about the usage of immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and the websites of relevant professional bodies were searched for English language guidelines that were published or updated between March 2020 and May 2020 in this area. We assessed the quality and consistency of guidelines. The evidence base underpinning these guidelines was critically appraised using GRADE criteria.ResultsTwenty-three guidelines were included. Most guidelines (n = 15, 65.2%) informed and updated evidence based on expert opinion. The methodological quality of the guidelines varied, ranging from 'very low' to 'moderate'. Guidelines consistently recommended that high-risk patients, including those who are taking high doses of steroids for more than a month, or a combination of two or more immunosuppressants, should be shielding during the outbreak. Most guidelines stated that steroids usage should not be stopped abruptly and advised on individualized risk-benefit analysis considering the risk of the effect of COVID-19 infection and the relapse of the autoimmune condition in patients.DiscussionClinical practice guidelines on taking immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 outbreak vary in quality. The level of evidence informing the available guidelines was generally low. Given the novel nature of COVID-19, the guidelines draw on existing knowledge and data, refer to the use of immunosuppressants and risks of serious infections of other aetiologies and have extrapolated these to form their evidence base.
| S-EPMC7882764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high incidence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preoperative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a robust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability.
| S-EPMC7714635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNearly a year after COVID-19 was initially detected, guidance for pregnant and new mothers remains varied.ObjectiveThe goal of this systematic review is to summarize recommendations for three areas of maternal and fetal care-breastfeeding, post-partum social distancing, and decontamination.Search strategyWe searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science spanning from inception to November 9, 2020.Selection criteriaArticles were included if they focused on COVID-positive mothers, commented on at least one of the three areas of interest, and were published in English.Data collection and analysisOur combined database search yielded 385 articles. After removing duplicates and articles that did not cover the correct populations or subject matter, a total of 74 articles remained in our analysis.Main resultsMost articles recommended direct breastfeeding with enhanced precaution measures. Recommendations regarding post-partum social distancing varied, although articles published more recently often recommended keeping the mother and newborn in the same room when possible. Decontamination recommendations emphasized mask wearing, good hand hygiene, and proper cleaning of surfaces.ConclusionIn general, there was a focus on shared decision making when approaching topics such as breastfeeding and post-partum social distancing. Guidelines for decontamination were fairly uniform.
| S-EPMC9087670 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8554423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected >210 million people worldwide. An optimal therapeutic approach for COVID-19 remains uncertain, to date. Since the history of cancer was linked to higher mortality rates due to COVID-19, the establishment of a safe and effective vaccine coverage is crucial in these patients. However, patients with cancer (PsC) were mostly excluded from vaccine candidates' clinical trials. This systematic review aims to investigate the current available evidence about the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in PsC.Patients and methodsAll prospective studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were included, with immunogenicity after the first and the second dose as the primary endpoint, when available.ResultsVaccination against COVID-19 for PsC seems overall safe and immunogenic after well-conducted vaccination schedules. Yet the seroconversion rate remains lower, lagged or both compared to the general population. Patients with hematologic malignancies, especially those receiving B-cell-depleting agents in the past 12 months, are the most at risk of poor seroconversion.ConclusionA tailored approach to vaccination may be proposed to PsC, especially on the basis of the type of malignancy and of the specific oncologic treatments received.
| S-EPMC8552625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment management of cancer patients in the radiation oncology departments during the current COVID-19 pandemic is challenging. A systematic review of published consensus/guidelines on the role of radiotherapy prioritization, suggested treatment protocols, and set up management was undertaken based on the PRISMA protocol and through PubMed/PMC, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science databases until 01/20/2021. One hundred and sixty-eight publications or regional consensus were included. Summary of recommendations contained: (1) using hypo-fractionated (Hypo-F) regimens for therapeutic/palliative indications, (2) delaying radiotherapy for several weeks or until pandemic over, (3) omitting radiotherapy by replacement of alternative therapies or active surveillance, (4) applying safer patients' setup and preparation protocols, (5) developing telemedicine/telehealth service. To conclude, it is essential to carefully weigh the risk of exposure to COVID-19 infection and the benefit of treating cancer patients during the pandemic. Trying to have a global guideline facing this or any other probable crisis is crucial for health care service.
| S-EPMC8242203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies summarizing the clinical picture of COVID-19 in children are lacking. This review characterizes clinical symptoms, laboratory, and imaging findings, as well as therapies provided to confirmed pediatric cases of COVID-19.MethodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, we searched four medical databases (PubMed, LitCovid, Scopus, WHO COVID-19 database) between December 1, 2019 to May 14, 2020 using the keywords "novel coronavirus", "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2". We included published or in press peer-reviewed cross-sectional, case series, and case reports providing clinical signs, imaging findings, and/or laboratory results of pediatric patients who were positive for COVID-19. Risk of bias was appraised through the quality assessment tool published by the National Institutes of Health. PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182261.FindingsWe identified 131 studies across 26 countries comprising 7780 pediatric patients. Although fever (59·1%) and cough (55·9%) were the most frequent symptoms 19·3% of children were asymptomatic. Patchy lesions (21·0%) and ground-glass opacities (32·9%) depicted lung radiograph and computed tomography findings, respectively. Immunocompromised children or those with respiratory/cardiac disease comprised the largest subset of COVID-19 children with underlying medical conditions (152 of 233 individuals). Coinfections were observed in 5.6% of children and abnormal laboratory markers included serum D-dimer, procalcitonin, creatine kinase, and interleukin-6. Seven deaths were reported (0·09%) and 11 children (0·14%) met inclusion for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.InterpretationThis review provides evidence that children diagnosed with COVID-19 have an overall excellent prognosis. Future longitudinal studies are needed to confirm our findings and better understand which patients are at increased risk for developing severe inflammation and multiorgan failure.FundingParker B. Francis and pilot grant from 2R25-HL126140. Funding agencies had no involvement in the study.
| S-EPMC7318942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGrowing evidence of neurologic involvement seen in COVID-19 infection necessitates the pooling of neurodiagnostic findings like electroencephalography (EEG) that may guide clinical management. The objective of this study was to review the EEG findings in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection through a systematic review of published articles.MethodsWe systematically searched until July 25, 2020 for published articles that reported on descriptive EEG findings in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in PUBMED by Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL by the Cochrane Library.ResultsFrom a total of 94 identified records, 29 relevant articles were included in this review. A total of 177 patients with COVID-19 with descriptive EEG reports were analyzed. The most common indication for EEG was unexplained altered mental status. Disturbances of background activity such as generalized and focal slowing were seen as well epileptiform abnormalities and rhythmic or periodic discharges. There were no consistent EEG findings specific to COVID-19 infection.ConclusionThe EEG findings in COVID-19 appear to be non-specific. Further research on the relationship of the EEG findings to the clinical state and short- or long-term prognosis of COVID-19 patients may be conducted to help clinicians discern which patients would necessitate an EEG procedure and would eventually require treatment.
| S-EPMC7490625 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST416 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) not only affects the respiratory tract but also influence the central nervous system (CNS), resulting in neurological symptoms such as loss of smell and taste. Growing literature indicates largely distributed brain alterations encompassing subcortical micro- and macro-bleeds, cerebral swelling and haemorrhage in gray and white matter tissue. A systematic review was performed to synthesise the potential evidence of the brain correlates of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsA literature search was conducted using electronic databases for studies reporting neuroimaging abnormalities in SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. Identified case series, cohort studies, and case control studies on SARS-CoV-2 effects on the brain were critically appraised for methodological quality. A narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies is presented.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included in the review, including 5 case series, 8 cohort studies and 14 case control studies. The findings revealed predominant involvement of the olfactory system with disruptions across four olfactory structures. Abnormalities also extended to the corpus callosum, cingulate cortex, and insula, jointly implicating the olfactory brain network.ConclusionAlterations in olfactory areas, along with neighbouring brain regions, including prefrontal and limbic regions were associated to contraction of SARS-CoV-2. Viral infection could either trigger systemic reactions, or use the olfactory's unique anatomical organisation as an environmental entry zone to directly impact on the CNS.
| S-EPMC8249107 | biostudies-literature