Collaborative Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, and Development of Treatment Guidelines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Peck KR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8032908 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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:OBJECTIVES:The 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. METHODS:The 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. RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSION:We 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: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: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: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:Currently world is fighting with global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). At this time of uncertainty, oncologists are struggling to provide appropriate care to cancer patients. They have to weigh risk and benefit of giving cancer treatment vs chances of getting them infected with COVID-19. As cancer patients are immunocompromised and there are high chances of exposure during hospital visits and if they get infected, outcome can be fatal. So through the column of this article, we would like to provide basic guideline in management of cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7256336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims: The existing response management system for pandemic disease fell short of controlling COVID-19. This study evaluates the response management relative efficiency of 58 countries in two stages, using two models. Materials & methods: Data envelopment analysis was applied for efficiency analysis. Results: 89.6% of countries were inefficient in pandemic control and 79% were inefficient in treatment measures. Sensitivity analysis underlines resources as a critical factor. Further examination points to absence of a robust and uniform mitigation measure against the pandemic in most countries. Conclusions: Preventing spread is not only the first line of defense; it is the only line of defense. The lack of a global public health database support system and uniform response compounded inefficiency. A robust pandemic response management framework is developed based on practices of key performers. Action plans are proposed, with a recommendation for a global public health pandemic database monitoring and support system as the nucleus. Graphical abstract
| S-EPMC7740003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance and study objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has produced unprecedented changes in social, work, and leisure activities, which all have had major impact on sleep and psychological well-being. This study documented the prevalence of clinical cases of insomnia, anxiety, and depression and selected risk factors (COVID-19, confinement, financial burden, social isolation) during the first wave of the pandemic in 13 countries throughout the world.Design and participantsInternational, multi-center, harmonized survey of 22 330 adults (mean age = 41.9 years old, range 18-95; 65.6% women) from the general population in 13 countries and four continents. Participants were invited to complete a standardized web-based survey about sleep and psychological symptoms during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from May to August 2020.ResultsClinical insomnia symptoms were reported by 36.7% (95% CI, 36.0-37.4) of respondents and 17.4% (95% CI, 16.9-17.9) met criteria for a probable insomnia disorder. There were 25.6% (95% CI, 25.0-26.2) with probable anxiety and 23.1% (95% CI, 22.5-23.6) with probable depression. Rates of insomnia symptoms (>40%) and insomnia disorder (>25%) were significantly higher in women, younger age groups, and in residents of Brazil, Canada, Norway, Poland, USA, and United Kingdom compared to residents from Asian countries (China and Japan, 8% for disorder and 22%-25% for symptoms) (all Ps < 0.01). Proportions of insomnia cases were significantly higher among participants who completed the survey earlier in the first wave of the pandemic relative to those who completed it later. Risks of insomnia were higher among participants who reported having had COVID-19, who reported greater financial burden, were in confinement for a period of four to five weeks, and living alone or with more than five people in same household. These associations remained significant after controlling for age, sex, and psychological symptoms.Conclusion and relevanceInsomnia, anxiety, and depression were very prevalent during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health prevention programs are needed to prevent chronicity and reduce long-term adverse outcomes associated with chronic insomnia and mental health problems.
| S-EPMC8425785 | biostudies-literature