Dataset Information

Open-source institutional guideline recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the search for ways in which to provide the best available care have created unprecedented times in terms of rapidly evolving reports of available treatment options. The primary objective of our analysis was to categorize online, open-source guidance to determine how US institutions approached their recommendations for management of patients with COVID-19 in the early weeks of the pandemic.

Methods

A search for open-source, online institutional guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 was conducted using predefined criteria. The search was limited to the United States and conducted from April 12 through 14, 2020, and again on April 22, 2020. Searches were conducted at 2 points in time in order to identify changes in treatment recommendations due to evolving literature or institutional experience. Treatment recommendations, including guidance on antiviral therapy, corticosteroid and interleukin-6 inhibitor use, and nutritional supplementation were compared.

Results

Of the 105 institutions that met initial screening criteria, 14 institutions (13.3%) had online COVID-19 guidance available. Supportive care and clinical trial enrollment were the primary recommendations in all evaluated guidance. Recommendations to consider antimicrobial and adjunctive therapy varied. Eighty-six percent of guidelines contained recommendations for use, or consideration of use, of hydroxychloroquine. Guidance from 2 institutions mentioned use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in combination. Of the 13 institutions listing hydroxychloroquine dosing recommendations, 62% recommended maintenance dosing of 200 mg twice daily. Infectious diseases or other specialty consultation was required by 89% of institutions using interleukin-6 inhibitors for COVID-19 management.

Conclusion

Overall, the analysis revealed variability in treatment or supplemental pharmacologic therapy for the management of COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Collins CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7454286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCancer screening tests are recommended to prevent cancer-associated mortality by detecting precancerous and cancerous lesions in early stages. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the use of preventive health care services. Although there was an increase in the number of cancer screening tests beginning in late 2020, screenings remained 29% to 36% lower than in the prepandemic era.ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to assist health care providers in identifying approaches for prioritizing patients and increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used the scoping review framework to identify articles on PubMed and EBSCO databases. A total of 403 articles were identified, and 23 articles were selected for this review. The literature review ranged from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021.ResultsThe articles included two primary categories of recommendations: (1) risk stratification and triage to prioritize screenings and (2) alternative methods to conduct cancer screenings. Risk stratification and triage recommendations focused on prioritizing high-risk patients with an abnormal or suspicious result on the previous screening test, patients in certain age groups and sex, patients with a personal medical or family cancer history, patients that are currently symptomatic, and patients that are predisposed to hereditary cancers and cancer-causing mutations. Other recommended strategies included identifying areas facing the most disparities, creating algorithms and using artificial intelligence to create cancer risk scores, leveraging in-person visits to assess cancer risk, and providing the option of open access screenings where patients can schedule screenings and can be assigned a priority category by health care staff. Some recommended using telemedicine to categorize patients and determine screening eligibility for patients with new complaints. Several articles noted the importance of implementing preventive measures such as COVID-19 screening prior to the procedures, maintaining hygiene measures, and social distancing in waiting rooms. Alternative screening methods that do not require an in-person clinic visit and can effectively screen patients for cancers included mailing self-collection sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancers, and implementing or expanding mobile screening units.ConclusionsAlthough the COVID-19 pandemic had devastating effects on population health globally, it could be an opportunity to adapt and evolve cancer screening methods. Disruption often creates innovation, and focus on alternative methods for cancer screenings may help reach rural and underresourced areas after the pandemic has ended.