GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

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

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • American Medical Association (AMA)  (7)
  • 1
    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
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    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
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 329, No. 22 ( 2023-06-13), p. 1934-
    Abstract: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with persistent, relapsing, or new symptoms or other health effects occurring after acute infection, termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID . Characterizing PASC requires analysis of prospectively and uniformly collected data from diverse uninfected and infected individuals. Objective To develop a definition of PASC using self-reported symptoms and describe PASC frequencies across cohorts, vaccination status, and number of infections. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective observational cohort study of adults with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection at 85 enrolling sites (hospitals, health centers, community organizations) located in 33 states plus Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. Participants who were enrolled in the RECOVER adult cohort before April 10, 2023, completed a symptom survey 6 months or more after acute symptom onset or test date. Selection included population-based, volunteer, and convenience sampling. Exposure SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures PASC and 44 participant-reported symptoms (with severity thresholds). Results A total of 9764 participants (89% SARS-CoV-2 infected; 71% female; 16% Hispanic/Latino; 15% non-Hispanic Black; median age, 47 years [IQR, 35-60]) met selection criteria. Adjusted odds ratios were 1.5 or greater (infected vs uninfected participants) for 37 symptoms. Symptoms contributing to PASC score included postexertional malaise, fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, palpitations, changes in sexual desire or capacity, loss of or change in smell or taste, thirst, chronic cough, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Among 2231 participants first infected on or after December 1, 2021, and enrolled within 30 days of infection, 224 (10% [95% CI, 8.8%-11%] ) were PASC positive at 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance A definition of PASC was developed based on symptoms in a prospective cohort study. As a first step to providing a framework for other investigations, iterative refinement that further incorporates other clinical features is needed to support actionable definitions of PASC.
    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
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 329, No. 5 ( 2023-02-07), p. 376-
    Abstract: Anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown. Objective To compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53) without CI-DME. Interventions Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss. Main Outcomes and Measures Development of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years. Results Among participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57] ; P   & amp;lt; .001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was −2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and −2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, −0.5 letters [97.5% CI, −2.3 to 1.3]; P  = .52). Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with NPDR but without CI-DME, at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333
    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
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: JAMA Ophthalmology, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 141, No. 3 ( 2023-03-01), p. 268-
    Abstract: The DRCR Retina Network Protocol AC showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes over 2 years between treatment with aflibercept monotherapy and bevacizumab first with switching to aflibercept for suboptimal response in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). Understanding the estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of these approaches is important. Objective To evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept monotherapy vs bevacizumab-first strategies for DME treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation was a preplanned secondary analysis of a US randomized clinical trial of participants aged 18 years or older with center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320 enrolled from December 15, 2017, through November 25, 2019. Interventions Aflibercept monotherapy or bevacizumab first, switching to aflibercept in eyes with protocol-defined suboptimal response. Main Outcomes and Measures Between February and July 2022, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over 2 years was assessed. Efficacy and resource utilization data from the randomized clinical trial were used with health utility mapping from the literature and Medicare unit costs. Results This study included 228 participants (median age, 62 [range, 34-91 years; 116 [51%] female and 112 [49%] male; 44 [19%] Black or African American, 60 [26%] Hispanic or Latino, and 117 [51%] White) with 1 study eye. The aflibercept monotherapy group included 116 participants, and the bevacizumab-first group included 112, of whom 62.5% were eventually switched to aflibercept. Over 2 years, the cost of aflibercept monotherapy was $26 504 (95% CI, $24 796-$28 212) vs $13 929 (95% CI, $11 984-$15 874) for the bevacizumab-first group, a difference of $12 575 (95% CI, $9987-$15 163). The aflibercept monotherapy group gained 0.015 (95% CI, −0.011 to 0.041) QALYs using the better-seeing eye and had an ICER of $837 077 per QALY gained compared with the bevacizumab-first group. Aflibercept could be cost-effective with an ICER of $100 000 per QALY if the price per dose were $305 or less or the price of bevacizumab was $1307 per dose or more. Conclusions and Relevance Variability in individual needs will influence clinician and patient decisions about how to treat specific eyes with DME. While the bevacizumab-first group costs still averaged approximately $14 000 over 2 years, this approach, as used in this study, may confer substantial cost savings on a societal level without sacrificing visual acuity gains over 2 years compared with aflibercept monotherapy.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6165
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 325, No. 18 ( 2021-05-11), p. 1841-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2958-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2018410-4
    SSG: 5,21
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 330, No. 6 ( 2023-08-08), p. 512-
    Abstract: There are limited efficacious treatments for Alzheimer disease. Objective To assess efficacy and adverse events of donanemab, an antibody designed to clear brain amyloid plaque. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter (277 medical research centers/hospitals in 8 countries), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 18-month phase 3 trial that enrolled 1736 participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia) with amyloid and low/medium or high tau pathology based on positron emission tomography imaging from June 2020 to November 2021 (last patient visit for primary outcome in April 2023). Interventions Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive donanemab (n = 860) or placebo (n = 876) intravenously every 4 weeks for 72 weeks. Participants in the donanemab group were switched to receive placebo in a blinded manner if dose completion criteria were met. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was change in integrated Alzheimer Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) score from baseline to 76 weeks (range, 0-144; lower scores indicate greater impairment). There were 24 gated outcomes (primary, secondary, and exploratory), including the secondary outcome of change in the sum of boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR-SB) score (range, 0-18; higher scores indicate greater impairment). Statistical testing allocated α of .04 to testing low/medium tau population outcomes, with the remainder (.01) for combined population outcomes. Results Among 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. Of the 24 gated outcomes, 23 were statistically significant. The least-squares mean (LSM) change in iADRS score at 76 weeks was −6.02 (95% CI, −7.01 to −5.03) in the donanemab group and −9.27 (95% CI, −10.23 to −8.31) in the placebo group (difference, 3.25 [95% CI, 1.88-4.62] ; P   & amp;lt; .001) in the low/medium tau population and −10.2 (95% CI, −11.22 to −9.16) with donanemab and −13.1 (95% CI, −14.10 to −12.13) with placebo (difference, 2.92 [95% CI, 1.51-4.33]; P   & amp;lt; .001) in the combined population. LSM change in CDR-SB score at 76 weeks was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.00-1.41) with donanemab and 1.88 (95% CI, 1.68-2.08) with placebo (difference, −0.67 [95% CI, −0.95 to −0.40]; P   & amp;lt; .001) in the low/medium tau population and 1.72 (95% CI, 1.53-1.91) with donanemab and 2.42 (95% CI, 2.24-2.60) with placebo (difference, −0.7 [95% CI, −0.95 to −0.45]; P   & amp;lt; .001) in the combined population. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of edema or effusion occurred in 205 participants (24.0%; 52 symptomatic) in the donanemab group and 18 (2.1%; 0 symptomatic during study) in the placebo group and infusion-related reactions occurred in 74 participants (8.7%) with donanemab and 4 (0.5%) with placebo. Three deaths in the donanemab group and 1 in the placebo group were considered treatment related. Conclusions and Relevance Among participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease and amyloid and tau pathology, donanemab significantly slowed clinical progression at 76 weeks in those with low/medium tau and in the combined low/medium and high tau pathology population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04437511
    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
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...