Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 330, No. 4 ( 2023-07-25), p. 328-
    Abstract: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28] ; P  = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P  = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P  = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94] ), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90] ). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2958-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2018410-4
    SSG: 5,21
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2020
    In:  Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology Vol. 41, No. S1 ( 2020-10), p. s328-s329
    In: Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 41, No. S1 ( 2020-10), p. s328-s329
    Abstract: Background: Antimicrobial use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can play a major role in the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In many LMICs, antimicrobials can be dispensed without prescriptions; they often available in pharmacies and nonpharmacy stores alike. We conducted a nationwide survey to describe the availability and antimicrobial dispensation practices in pharmacies and nonpharmacy stores in the Dominican Republic. Methods: A survey was administered to staff responsible for dispensing antimicrobials at pharmacies and nonpharmacy stores in the Dominican Republic. Stores were randomly selected from March through November 2019 in 7 cities representing all geographic regions of the Dominican Republic. Data on availability of antimicrobials and staff education on antimicrobial use were obtained. Case scenarios with commons symptoms were used to survey staff on antimicrobial use recommendations. Symptoms included dysuria, throat pain, diarrhea, fever, and cough. The availability of antimicrobials ordering by phone and via online delivery was assessed for each store. Results: Staff from 125 stores were invited to participate; 34 pharmacies and 48 nonpharmacy stores participated and 43 refused to participate. Overall, 200 antimicrobial use recommendations were given in pharmacies and 43 in nonpharmacy stores. The most common type of antimicrobial use recommendations were aminopenicillins (Fig. 1). Staff received prior training or education on antimicrobials in 61% of pharmacies and 0% of nonpharmacy stores. Antimicrobial recommendations by case scenario in pharmacies and nonpharmacy stores are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Antimicrobials are available for phone order in 80% of pharmacies and 90% of nonpharmacy stores. No antimicrobials were available via online delivery apps. Conclusions: Antimicrobials are widely available in the Dominican Republic and can be obtained without a prescription, in person or via delivery. Staff at pharmacy stores recommended different antimicrobials by symptom, whereas staff at nonpharmacy stores commonly recommended aminopenicillins for all symptoms. Training or education on antimicrobial use was common for staff at pharmacy stores but nonexistent for staff at nonpharmacy stores. In LMICs with easy access to antimicrobials, frontline staff in pharmacies and nonpharmacy stores are gatekeepers for antimicrobial use and may represent an important target for outpatient antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. Funding: None Disclosures: None
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0899-823X , 1559-6834
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2106319-9
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 5, No. suppl_1 ( 2018-11-26), p. S515-S515
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2328-8957
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2757767-3
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 8, No. Supplement_1 ( 2021-12-04), p. S305-S306
    Abstract: The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, has caused a global public health crisis. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) caused by COVID-19 has led to an increase in hospitalizations. Disease severity and concerns for bacterial co-infections can increase antimicrobial pressure. Our aim is to define and compare the impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial use (AU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the Dominican Republic (DR) and the United States (US). Methods We performed a retrospective review of AU and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns from 2019-20 at a hospital in the US (H-US) and the DR (H-DR). Our sites are community teaching hospitals with 151 beds in H-US and 295 beds in H-DR. After AU was tabulated, percent changes between 2019-20 were calculated. Resistance patterns for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing (ESBL) E coli, ESBL Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-Kp), carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CR-PSAR) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (CR-Kp) were tabulated and percent changes between 2019-20 were calculated. Results AU increased by 10% in H-US and 25% in H-DR, with carbapenem use increasing by 268% and 144% respectively. Ceftriaxone use increased by 30% in H-US and 33% in H-DR. Azithromycin increased 54% in H-US and 338% in the H-DR. Resistance increased from 10% to 28% for ESBL-Kp and from 10% to 12% for ESBL E coli at H-US. CR-PSAR decreased from 20% to 12%, while cefepime and piperacillin resistance increased from 5% to 20% and 3% to 16% respectively (Figure 1). At H-DR, ESBL-Kp resistance decreased from 68% to 64% and increased from 58% to 59% for ESBL E coli. CR-PSAR and cefepime resistance increased from 5% to 19% and from 9% to 29% respectively (Figure 2). Figure 1. Antimicrobial resistance (%) for select organisms at H-US in 2019 and 2020 Figure 2. Antimicrobial resistance (%) for select organisms at H-DR in 2019 and 2020 Conclusion COVID-19 had a major impact on antimicrobial consumption and resistance in the US and DR. A greater impact was seen on ESBL rates in the US whilst a greater impact on carbapenem resistance was seen in the DR. The rise in carbapenem use in H-US reflected a rise in ESBL rates. In the DR, ESBL producing organisms were common prior to COVID-19 and carbapenem use was more widespread. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AU may accelerate AMR worldwide. The scale up of antimicrobial stewardship across the globe is urgently needed to curb AMR. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2328-8957
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2757767-3
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Oxford University Press (OUP) ; 2018
    In:  Open Forum Infectious Diseases Vol. 5, No. suppl_1 ( 2018-11-26), p. S503-S504
    In: Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 5, No. suppl_1 ( 2018-11-26), p. S503-S504
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2328-8957
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2757767-3
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 7, No. Supplement_1 ( 2020-12-31), p. S440-S440
    Abstract: Numerous studies have identified comorbidities that are associated with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but current CDC and CMS models for risk adjusting hospital CDI rates do not include patient comorbid conditions. Incorporating patient-level data could improve CDI risk adjustment, but comorbidities would need to be easily electronically available for widescale implementation. Ideally, they would also be causally related to CDI — i.e., true risk factors, not confounders — to facilitate more unbiased inter-hospital comparisons. The current study aimed to determine which comorbid conditions are causally related to CDI based upon expert consensus. Methods We used Delphi methodology to administer an iterative, two-round survey with an intervening teleconference, to eight infectious disease experts. Experts evaluated 40 comorbid conditions included in Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices (and thus validated for electronic capture through administrative data), as well as other comorbidities commonly associated with CDI. Experts rated comorbid conditions from 1 (not at all related) to 5 (strongly related), based upon perceived relatedness with CDI. To assign causal relatedness, the following criteria had to be met at the end of round two: 1) majority ( & gt; 50%) of experts rating the condition at 3 (somewhat related) or higher; 2) inter-quartile range (IQR) & lt; = 1; and 3) standard deviation (SD) & lt; = 1. Results 8/40 (20%) comorbid conditions were ranked as causally related to CDI, including patient age, three malignancy comorbidities, two transplant-related comorbidities, HIV/AIDS, and inflammatory bowel disease. A further 18/40 (45%) qualified as indeterminately related, and 14/40 (35%) were ranked as not causally related to CDI (Table). Three of the eight causally related factors were not components of Elixhauser or Charlson indices. Table Conclusion We identified comorbid conditions that may be appropriate candidates to consider for inclusion in patient-level risk adjustment models. Some causal factors did not originate from established comorbidity indices. Thus, future work to validate electronic capture of these conditions could further reduce barriers to risk-adjustment implementation. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2328-8957
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2757767-3
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 41, No. S1 ( 2020-10), p. s31-s32
    Abstract: Background: Hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB) may be a preventable hospital-acquired condition and a potential healthcare quality measure. We developed and evaluated a tool to assess the preventability of HOB and compared it to a more traditional consensus panel approach. Methods: A 10-member healthcare epidemiology expert panel independently rated the preventability of 82 hypothetical HOB case scenarios using a 6-point Likert scale (range, 1= “Definitively or Almost Certainly Preventable” to 6= “Definitely or Almost Certainly Not Preventable”). Ratings on the 6-point scale were collapsed into 3 categories: Preventable (1–2), Uncertain (3–4), or Not preventable (5–6). Consensus was defined as concurrence on the same category among ≥70% expert raters. Cases without consensus were deliberated via teleconference, web-based discussion, and a second round of rating. The proportion meeting consensus, overall and by predefined HOB source attribution, was calculated. A structured HOB preventability rating tool was developed to explicitly account for patient intrinsic and extrinsic healthcare-related risks (Fig. 1). Two additional physician reviewers independently applied this tool to adjudicate the same 82 case scenarios. The tool was iteratively revised based on reviewer feedback followed by repeat independent tool-based adjudication. Interrater reliability was evaluated using the Kappa statistic. Proportion of cases where tool-based preventability category matched expert consensus was calculated. Results: After expert panel round 1, consensus criteria were met for 29 cases (35%), which increased to 52 (63%) after round 2. Expert consensus was achieved more frequently for respiratory or surgical site infections than urinary tract and central-line–associated bloodstream infections (Fig. 2a). Most likely to be rated preventable were vascular catheter infections (64%) and contaminants (100%). For tool-based adjudication, following 2 rounds of rating with interim tool revisions, agreement between the 2 reviewers was 84% for cases overall (κ, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64–0.88]), and 87% for the 52 cases with expert consensus (κ, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.94). Among c ases with expert consensus, tool-based rating matched expert consensus in 40 of 52 (77%) and 39 of 52 (75%) cases for reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively. The proportion of cases rated “uncertain“ was lower among tool-based adjudicated cases with reviewer agreement (15 of 69) than among cases with expert consensus (23 of 52) (Fig. 2b). Conclusions: Healthcare epidemiology experts hold varying perspectives on HOB preventability. Structured tool-based preventability rating had high interreviewer reliability, matched expert consensus in most cases, and rated fewer cases with uncertain preventability compared to expert consensus. This tool is a step toward standardized assessment of preventability in future HOB evaluations. Funding: None Disclosures: None
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0899-823X , 1559-6834
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2106319-9
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ; 2018
    In:  Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 24, No. 7 ( 2018-07), p. 1382-1383
    In: Emerging Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Vol. 24, No. 7 ( 2018-07), p. 1382-1383
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1080-6040 , 1080-6059
    Language: English
    Publisher: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2004375-2
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene ; 2014
    In:  The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Vol. 90, No. 1 ( 2014-01-08), p. 169-172
    In: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Vol. 90, No. 1 ( 2014-01-08), p. 169-172
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0002-9637 , 1476-1645
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
    Publication Date: 2014
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1491674-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: JAMA Network Open, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 6, No. 7 ( 2023-07-13), p. e2323349-
    Abstract: Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders. Objective To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023. Exposures Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65] ; P   & amp;lt; .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32] ; P   & amp;lt; .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P   & amp;lt; .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age & amp;lt;65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P   & amp;lt; .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P  = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20] ; P   & amp;lt; .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P  = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P  = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs & amp;lt;65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P   & amp;lt; .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14] ; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P  = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P  = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P   & amp;lt; .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P   & amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2574-3805
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2931249-8
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages