Dataset Information

Perioperative use of intra-articular steroids during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

There are growing concerns with the widely used glucocorticoids during the Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic due to the associated immunosuppressive effects, which may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and worsen COVID-19 patient outcome. Heavily affecting orthopaedics, the pandemic led to delay and cancellation of almost all surgical cases, and procedures including perioperative intra-articular corticosteroid injections (ICIs) saw similar decreases. However, the benefits of ICI treatments during the pandemic may outweigh these potential risks, and their continued use may be warranted.

Methods

A literature search was conducted, and all relevant articles including original articles and reviews were identified and considered in full for inclusion, and analysed with expert opinion. Epidemiological statistics and medical guidelines were consulted from relevant authorities.

Results

ICIs allow a targeted approach on the affected joint and are effective in reducing pain while improving functional outcome and patient quality-of-life. ICIs delay the requirement for surgery, accommodating for the increased healthcare burden during the pandemic, while reducing postoperative hospital stay, bringing significant financial benefits. However, ICIs can exert systemic effects and suppress the immune system. ICIs may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and reduce the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations, leading to important public health implications.

Conclusion

Perioperative ICI treatments may bring significant, multifaceted benefits during the pandemic. However, ICIs increase the risk of infection, and perioperative COVID-19 is associated with mortality. The use of ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic should therefore be considered carefully on an individual patient basis, weighing the associated risks and benefits.

SUBMITTER: Jou E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8408365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused tremendous disruptions to non-COVID-19 clinical research. However, there has been little investigation on how patients themselves have responded to clinical trial recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on rates of patient consent to enrollment into non-COVID-19 clinical trials, we carried out a cross-sectional study using data from the Nitric Oxide/Acute Kidney Injury (NO/AKI) and Minimizing ICU Neurological Dysfunction with Dexmedetomidine-Induced Sleep (MINDDS) trials. All patients eligible for the NO/AKI or MINDDS trials who came to the hospital for cardiac surgery and were approached to gain consent to enrollment were included in the current study. We defined "Before COVID-19" as the time between the start of the relevant clinical trial and the date when efforts toward that clinical trial were deescalated by the hospital due to COVID-19. We defined "During COVID-19" as the time between trial de-escalation and trial completion. 5,015 patients were screened for eligibility. 3,851 were excluded, and 1,434 were approached to gain consent to enrollment. The rate of consent to enrollment was 64% in the "Before COVID-19" group and 45% in the "During COVID-19" group (n = 1,334, P<0.001) (RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80, P<0.001). Thus, we found that rates of consent to enrollment into the NO/AKI and MINDDS trials dropped significantly with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient demographic and socioeconomic status data collected from electronic medical records and patient survey data did not shed light on possible explanations for this observed drop, indicating that there were likely other factors at play that were not directly measured in the current study. Increased patient hesitancy to enroll in clinical trials can have detrimental effects on clinical science, patient health, and patient healthcare experience, so understanding and addressing this issue during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial.

Project description:PurposeNumerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists.SourceMember society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations that focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 were included. Accelerated screening was used; data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data were organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care.Principal findingsThirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed among recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended videolaryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%.ConclusionRecommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent but also show significant differences. Given the paucity of data early in the pandemic, it is not surprising that identified publications largely reflected expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. We suggest future efforts should promote coordinated responses and provide suggestions for studying and establishing best practices in perioperative patients.Study registrationOpen Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date created, 26 March 2020.

Project description:BackgroundWith over 37.8 million cases and over 1 million deaths worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a societal and economic upheaval of unparalleled magnitude. A positive transformation has been brought about by innovative solutions in the health care sector that aim to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on human health. For instance, the use of telehealth has been on the rise amidst this public health emergency.ObjectiveGiven the unprecedented scale of the pandemic with no definitive endpoint, we aimed to scope the existing telehealth-related literature during a defined period of the ongoing pandemic (ie, January to June 2020).MethodsOur scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase databases with specific eligibility criteria. Data extracted from the shortlisted articles included first author and affiliation, journal title, publication type, terminologies used to describe telehealth and their accompanying definitions, health discipline or medical specialties and subspecialties wherein telehealth had been applied, the purpose of telehealth use, and the authors' overall sentiment on telehealth use. We collated the available information and used descriptive statistics to analyze the synthesized data.ResultsIn all, 543 articles published across 331 different journals were included in this scoping review. The Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals featured the highest number of articles (25/543, 4.6%). Nearly all (533/543, 98.2%) articles were in English. The majority of the articles were opinions, commentaries, and perspectives (333/543, 61.3%). Most authors of the articles reviewed were from high-income countries (470/543, 86.6%), especially from the United States of America (237/543, 43.6%). In all, 39 different definitions were used to describe terms equivalent to telehealth. A small percentage (42/543, 7.7%) of the articles focused on the provision of COVID-19-related care. Moreover, 49.7% (270/543) of the articles primarily focused on the provision of multiple components of clinical care, and 23% (125/543) of the articles focused on various specialties and subspecialties of internal medicine. For a vast majority (461/543, 84.9%) of the articles, the authors expressed a celebratory sentiment about the use of telehealth.ConclusionsThis review identified considerable emerging literature on telehealth during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit mostly from high-income countries. There is compelling evidence to suggest that telehealth may have a significant effect on advancing health care in the future. However, the feasibility and application of telehealth in resource-limited settings and low- and middle-income countries must be established to avail its potential and transform health care for the world's population. Given the rapidity with which telehealth is advancing, a global consensus on definitions, boundaries, protocols, monitoring, evaluation, and data privacy is urgently needed.