Collaborative Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, and Development of Treatment Guidelines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Peck KR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8032908 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Collaborative Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, and Development of Treatment Guidelines.
Infection & chemotherapy 20210301 1
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8418319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.
| S-EPMC8252833 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has been changing the world since December 2019. A comprehensive search into many COVID-19 treatment guidelines was conducted and reported in this article. This is a review paper to probe differences in COVID-19 managing strategies and explore the most common treatment plans among countries. Published guidelines from 23 countries and three references guidelines-until the end of 2020-were included in this article. The majority of COVID-19 treatment options were reported in this review and it includes antiviral drugs, antimalarial drugs, antibiotics, corticosteroids, immunotherapy, anticoagulants, and other pharmacological treatment. The presence of such information from different countries in a single comprehensive review article could help in understanding and speculation of variation in the recommended treatment in each country. This might be related to the cost of medications, the access to the medications, availability of medication that could potentially be useful in managing COVID-19 cases, and the availability/capacity of healthcare facilities. Finally, although there are various treatment groups listed in the published therapeutic guidelines worldwide, unfortunately, there is no evidence for effectiveness of most of these medications in reducing the COVID-19 mortality curve over more than one year of this global pandemic.
| S-EPMC8167744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of these guidelines is to produce a framework to facilitate the partial and gradual resumption of intervention activity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe group has endeavoured to produce a minimum number of recommendations to highlight the strengths to be retained in the 7 predefined areas: (1) protection of staff and patients; (2) benefit/risk and patient information; (3) preoperative assessment and decision on intervention; (4) modalities of the preanaesthesia consultation; (5) specificity of anaesthesia and analgesia; (6) dedicated circuits and (7) containment exit type of interventions.ResultsThe SFAR Guideline panel provides 51 statements on anaesthesia management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. After one round of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of the recommendations and algorithms.ConclusionWe present suggestions for how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists can be minimised and how personal protective equipment policies relate to COVID-19 pandemic context.
| S-EPMC7274119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To understand and analyse the global impact of COVID-19 on outpatient services, inpatient care, elective surgery, and perioperative colorectal cancer care, a DElayed COloRectal cancer surgery (DECOR-19) survey was conducted in collaboration with numerous international colorectal societies with the objective of obtaining several learning points from the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on our colorectal cancer patients which will assist us in the ongoing management of our colorectal cancer patients and to provide us safe oncological pathways for future outbreaks.
| 2346925 | ecrin-mdr-crc
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:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic yielded a substantial increase in worldwide prevalence and severity of anxiety, but less is known about effects on anxiety treatment.ObjectiveWe evaluated effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on responses to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for anxiety, in a clinically heterogeneous sample of patients.MethodsA sample of 764 outpatients were separated into four groups: (1) Pre-pandemic (start date on or prior to 12/31/2019), (2) Pandemic-Onset (start date from 01/01/2020 to 03/31/2020), (3) During-Pandemic (start date from 04/01/2020 through 12/31/2020), and (4) Post-Pandemic (start date on or after 01/01/2021). We subsequently compared treatment trajectories and effects within and between these groups over 5621 total time points (mean of 7.38 measurements per patient).ResultsOverall, patients presented with moderate levels of anxiety (M = 13.25, 95%CI: 12.87, 13.62), which rapidly decreased for 25 days (M = 9.46, 95%CI: 9.09, 9.83), and thereafter slowly declined into the mild symptom range over the remainder of the study period (M = 7.36, 95%CI: 6.81, 7.91), representing clinically as well as statistically significant change. A series of conditional multilevel regression models indicated that there were no substantive differences between groups, and no increase in anxiety during the acute pandemic phase.ConclusionsOur results suggest that responses to treatment for anxiety were equivalent before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Among patients who were in treatment prior to the pandemic, we failed to detect an increase in anxiety during the pandemic's acute phase (March 20th, 2020 through July 1st, 2020).
| S-EPMC10936764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.
| S-EPMC9349907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): The incidence of obstructive colorectal cancer
| 2656898 | ecrin-mdr-crc