Dataset Information

Decision-making on management of ms and nmosd patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latin american survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The emergence of COVID-19 and its vertiginous spreading speed represents a unique challenge to neurologists managing multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). The need for data on the impact of the virus on these patients grows rapidly. There is an urgent necessity of sharing information to enable evidence-based decision making on the clinical management. There are no data on what physicians are doing on clinical practice in Latin American countries.

Aim

to investigate current management opinion of Latin American MS and/or NMOSD expert neurologists based on their experience and recommendations.

Methods

we developed a voluntary web-based survey based on hypothetical situations that these patients may encounter, while taking into account the potential risk of developing severe COVID-19 infection.

Results

60% of the experts had the possibility of monitoring their patients by telemedicine. Most neurologists postpone magnetic resonance. Laboratory blood tests delay is associated with the type of treatment. Platform therapies, dimethyl-fumarate and natalizumab are considered safe options to initiate in naive patients.

Conclusion

decision-making about MS and NMOSD patients has become even more complex in order to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. Risks and benefits should be taken into consideration throughout the patient follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Ricardo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7837246 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decision-making on management of ms and nmosd patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latin american survey.

Ricardo Alonso A Carnero Contentti Edgar E Anabel Silva Berenice SB Adrian López Pablo LP Orlando Garcea G Fernando Hamuy H Víctor Rivera R Fernando Gracia G Ignacio Rojas Juan RJ

Multiple sclerosis and related disorders 20200620

<h4>Background</h4>The emergence of COVID-19 and its vertiginous spreading speed represents a unique challenge to neurologists managing multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). The need for data on the impact of the virus on these patients grows rapidly. There is an urgent necessity of sharing information to enable evidence-based decision making on the clinical management. There are no data on what physicians are doing on clinical practice in Latin American co ...[more]

PMID: 32590314

Similar Datasets

Project description:RationaleGuidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation suggest a variety of strategies, reflecting the lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating the superiority of any one approach. It is unclear whether clinicians agree that multiple management options are appropriate at different levels of risk and whether this impacts their decision-making approaches with patients.ObjectivesTo assess clinicians' perceptions of the appropriateness of various diagnostic strategies, approach to decision-making, and perceived clinical equipoise in pulmonary nodule evaluation.MethodsWe developed and administered a web-based survey in March and April, 2014 to clinician members of the American Thoracic Society. The primary outcome was perceived appropriateness of pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies in three clinical vignettes with different malignancy risk. We compared responses to guideline recommendations and analyzed clinician characteristics associated with a reported shared decision-making approach. We also assessed clinicians' likelihood to enroll patients in hypothetical randomized trials comparing nodule evaluation strategies.ResultsOf 5,872 American Thoracic Society members e-mailed, 1,444 opened the e-mail and 428 eligible clinicians participated in the survey (response rate, 30.0% among those who opened the invitation; 7% overall). The mean number of options considered appropriate increased with pretest probability of cancer, ranging from 1.8 (SD, 1.2) for the low-risk case to 3.5 (1.1) for the high-risk case (P < 0.0001). As recommended by guidelines, the proportion that deemed surgical resection as an appropriate option also increased with cancer risk (P < 0.0001). One-half of clinicians (50.4%) reported engaging in shared decision-making with patients for pulmonary nodule management; this was more commonly reported by clinicians with more years of experience (P = 0.01) and those who reported greater comfort in managing pulmonary nodules (P = 0.005). Although one-half (49.9%) deemed the evidence for pulmonary nodule evaluation to be strong, most clinicians were willing to enroll patients in randomized trials to compare nodule management strategies in all risk categories (low risk, 87.6%; moderate risk, 89.7%; high risk, 63.0%).ConclusionsConsistent with guideline recommendations, clinicians embrace multiple options for pulmonary nodule evaluation and many are open to shared decision-making. Clinicians support the need for randomized clinical trials to strengthen the evidence for nodule evaluation, which will further improve decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundThe pace of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to the evidence-to-decision process. Latin American countries have responded to COVID-19 by introducing interventions to both mitigate the risk of infection and to treat cases. Understanding how evidence is used to inform government-level decision-making at a national scale is crucial for informing country and regional actors in ongoing response efforts.ObjectivesThis study was undertaken between February-May 2021 and aims to characterise the best available evidence (BAE) and assess the extent to which it was used to inform decision-making in 21 Latin American countries, in relation to pharmaceutical (PI) and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) related to COVID-19, including the use of therapeutics (corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and ivermectin), facemask use in the community setting and the use of diagnostic tests as a requirement for international travel.MethodA three-phase methodology was used to; (i) characterise the BAE for each intervention using an umbrella review, (ii) identify government-level decisions for each intervention through a document review and (iii) assess the use of evidence to inform decisions using a novel adapted framework analysis.FindingsThe BAE is characterized by 17 living and non-living systematic reviews as evolving, and particularly uncertain for NPIs. 107 country-level documents show variation in both content and timing of decision outcomes across intervention types, with the majority of decisions taken at a time of evidence uncertainty, with only 5 documents including BAE. Seven out of eight key indicators of an evidence-to-decision process were identified more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or testing prior to travel. Overall evidence use was reported more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or travel testing (92%, 28% and 29%, respectively).InterpretationThere are limitations in the extent to which evidence use in decision-making is reported across the Latin America region. Institutionalising this process and grounding it in existing and emerging methodologies can facilitate the rapid response in an emergency setting.FundingNo funding was sourced for this work.

Project description:ObjectivesPressures on healthcare systems due to COVID-19 has impacted patients without COVID-19 with surgery disproportionally affected. This study aims to understand the impact on the initial management of patients with brain tumours by measuring changes to normal multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making.DesignA prospective survey performed in UK neurosurgical units performed from 23 March 2020 until 24 April 2020.SettingRegional neurosurgical units outside London (as the pandemic was more advanced at time of study).ParticipantsRepresentatives from all units were invited to collect data on new patients discussed at their MDT meetings during the study period. Each unit decided if management decision for each patient had changed due to COVID-19.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures included number of patients where the decision to undergo surgery changed compared with standard management usually offered by that MDT. Secondary outcome measures included changes in surgical extent, numbers referred to MDT, number of patients denied surgery not receiving any treatment and reasons for any variation across the UK.Results18 units (75%) provided information from 80 MDT meetings that discussed 1221 patients. 10.7% of patients had their management changed-the majority (68%) did not undergo surgery and more than half of this group not undergoing surgery had no active treatment. There was marked variation across the UK (0%-28% change in management). Units that did not change management could maintain capacity with dedicated oncology lists. Low volume units were less affected.ConclusionCOVID-19 has had an impact on patients requiring surgery for malignant brain tumours, with patients receiving different treatments-most commonly not receiving surgery or any treatment at all. The variations show dedicated cancer operating lists may mitigate these pressures.Study registrationThis study was registered with the Royal College of Surgeons of England's COVID-19 Research Group (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/rcs-covid-research-group/).

Dataset Information

Decision-making on management of ms and nmosd patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latin american survey.

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Decision-making on management of ms and nmosd patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latin american survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets