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)  (104)
  • 1
    In: JAMA Pediatrics, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 177, No. 10 ( 2023-10-01), p. 1073-
    Abstract: Multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants have emerged over the COVID-19 pandemic. The implications for COVID-19 severity in children worldwide are unclear. Objective To determine whether the dominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) were associated with differences in COVID-19 severity among hospitalized children. Design, Setting, and Participants Clinical data from hospitalized children and adolescents (younger than 18 years) who were SARS-CoV-2 positive were obtained from 9 countries (Australia, Brazil, Italy, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, UK, and the US) during 3 different time frames. Time frames 1 (T1), 2 (T2), and 3 (T3) were defined to represent periods of dominance by the ancestral virus, pre-Omicron VOCs, and Omicron, respectively. Age groups for analysis were younger than 6 months, 6 months to younger than 5 years, and 5 to younger than 18 years. Children with an incidental positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded. Exposures SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization during the stipulated time frame. Main Outcomes and Measures The severity of disease was assessed by admission to intensive care unit (ICU), the need for ventilatory support, or oxygen therapy. Results Among 31 785 hospitalized children and adolescents, the median age was 4 (IQR 1-12) years and 16 639 were male (52.3%). In children younger than 5 years, across successive SARS-CoV-2 waves, there was a reduction in ICU admission (T3 vs T1: risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.75 [younger than 6 months] ; RR, 0.61, 95% CI; 0.47-0.79 [6 months to younger than 5 years]), but not ventilatory support or oxygen therapy. In contrast, ICU admission (T3 vs T1: RR, 0.39, 95% CI, 0.32-0.48), ventilatory support (T3 vs T1: RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.51), and oxygen therapy (T3 vs T1: RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.70) decreased across SARS-CoV-2 waves in children 5 years to younger than 18 years old. The results were consistent when data were restricted to unvaccinated children. Conclusions and Relevance This study provides valuable insights into the impact of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs on the severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized children across different age groups and countries, suggesting that while ICU admissions decreased across the pandemic in all age groups, ventilatory and oxygen support generally did not decrease over time in children aged younger than 5 years. These findings highlight the importance of considering different pediatric age groups when assessing disease severity in COVID-19.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6203
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: JAMA Neurology, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 80, No. 9 ( 2023-09-01), p. 980-
    Abstract: Polymicrogyria is the most commonly diagnosed cortical malformation and is associated with neurodevelopmental sequelae including epilepsy, motor abnormalities, and cognitive deficits. Polymicrogyria frequently co-occurs with other brain malformations or as part of syndromic diseases. Past studies of polymicrogyria have defined heterogeneous genetic and nongenetic causes but have explained only a small fraction of cases. Objective To survey germline genetic causes of polymicrogyria in a large cohort and to consider novel polymicrogyria gene associations. Design, Setting, and Participants This genetic association study analyzed panel sequencing and exome sequencing of accrued DNA samples from a retrospective cohort of families with members with polymicrogyria. Samples were accrued over more than 20 years (1994 to 2020), and sequencing occurred in 2 stages: panel sequencing (June 2015 to January 2016) and whole-exome sequencing (September 2019 to March 2020). Individuals seen at multiple clinical sites for neurological complaints found to have polymicrogyria on neuroimaging, then referred to the research team by evaluating clinicians, were included in the study. Targeted next-generation sequencing and/or exome sequencing were performed on probands (and available parents and siblings) from 284 families with individuals who had isolated polymicrogyria or polymicrogyria as part of a clinical syndrome and no genetic diagnosis at time of referral from clinic, with sequencing from 275 families passing quality control. Main Outcomes and Measures The number of families in whom genetic sequencing yielded a molecular diagnosis that explained the polymicrogyria in the family. Secondarily, the relative frequency of different genetic causes of polymicrogyria and whether specific genetic causes were associated with co-occurring head size changes were also analyzed. Results In 32.7% (90 of 275) of polymicrogyria-affected families, genetic variants were identified that provided satisfactory molecular explanations. Known genes most frequently implicated by polymicrogyria-associated variants in this cohort were PIK3R2, TUBB2B, COL4A1, and SCN3A . Six candidate novel polymicrogyria genes were identified or confirmed: de novo missense variants in PANX1 , QRICH1 , and SCN2A and compound heterozygous variants in TMEM161B , KIF26A, and MAN2C1, each with consistent genotype-phenotype relationships in multiple families. Conclusions and Relevance This study’s findings reveal a higher than previously recognized rate of identifiable genetic causes, specifically of channelopathies, in individuals with polymicrogyria and support the utility of exome sequencing for families affected with polymicrogyria.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6149
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: JAMA Network Open, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 3, No. 10 ( 2020-10-15), p. e2016869-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2574-3805
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2931249-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: JAMA Surgery, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 156, No. 12 ( 2021-12-01), p. 1131-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6254
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2021
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: JAMA Surgery, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 155, No. 2 ( 2020-02-19), p. e195085-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6254
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2020
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 1998
    In:  JAMA Vol. 280, No. 13 ( 1998-10-07), p. 1192-
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 280, No. 13 ( 1998-10-07), p. 1192-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 1998
    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 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 ...
  • 8
    In: JAMA Cardiology, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 7, No. 10 ( 2022-10-01), p. 1000-
    Abstract: In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P  =   .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P   & amp;lt; .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P   & amp;lt; .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%] ; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P  = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%] ; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P   & amp;lt; .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%] ; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P  = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2380-6583
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2022
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 329, No. 14 ( 2023-04-11), p. 1183-
    Abstract: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707
    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 ...
  • 10
    In: JAMA Ophthalmology, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 141, No. 6 ( 2023-06-01), p. 554-
    Abstract: Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated. Objective To investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021. Interventions Bevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6). Main Outcomes and Measures Incremental cost-utility ratio. Results The simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health. Conclusions and Relevance While there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.
    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 ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...