GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

X

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)  (10)
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Vol. 329, No. 5 ( 2023-02-07), p. 376-
    Details
    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
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.25029
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    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 ...
    Online Resource
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept Monotherapy vs Bevacizumab First Followed by Aflibercept If Needed for Diabetic Macular Edema
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Ophthalmology Vol. 141, No. 3 ( 2023-03-01), p. 268-
    Details
    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
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.6142
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With COVID-19, Severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults : A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Network Open Vol. 6, No. 7 ( 2023-07-13), p. e2323349-
    Details
    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
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.23349
    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 ...
    Online Resource
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Global Incidence and Risk Factors Associated With Postoperative Urinary Retention Following Elective Inguinal Hernia Repair : The Retention of Urine After Inguinal Hernia Elective Repair (RETAINER I) Study
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Surgery Vol. 158, No. 8 ( 2023-08-01), p. 865-
    Details
    In: JAMA Surgery, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 158, No. 8 ( 2023-08-01), p. 865-
    Abstract: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a well-recognized complication of inguinal hernia repair (IHR). A variable incidence of POUR has previously been reported in this context, and contradictory evidence surrounds potential risk factors. Objective To ascertain the incidence of, explore risk factors for, and determine the health service outcomes of POUR following elective IHR. Design, Setting, and Participants The Retention of Urine After Inguinal Hernia Elective Repair (RETAINER I) study, an international, prospective cohort study, recruited participants between March 1 and October 31, 2021. This study was conducted across 209 centers in 32 countries in a consecutive sample of adult patients undergoing elective IHR. Exposure Open or minimally invasive IHR by any surgical technique, under local, neuraxial regional, or general anesthesia. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the incidence of POUR following elective IHR. Secondary outcomes were perioperative risk factors, management, clinical consequences, and health service outcomes of POUR. A preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score was measured in male patients. Results In total, 4151 patients (3882 male and 269 female; median [IQR] age, 56 [43-68] years) were studied. Inguinal hernia repair was commenced via an open surgical approach in 82.2% of patients (n = 3414) and minimally invasive surgery in 17.8% (n = 737). The primary form of anesthesia was general in 40.9% of patients (n = 1696), neuraxial regional in 45.8% (n = 1902), and local in 10.7% (n = 446). Postoperative urinary retention occurred in 5.8% of male patients (n = 224), 2.97% of female patients (n = 8), and 9.5% (119 of 1252) of male patients aged 65 years or older. Risk factors for POUR after adjusted analyses included increasing age, anticholinergic medication, history of urinary retention, constipation, out-of-hours surgery, involvement of urinary bladder within the hernia, temporary intraoperative urethral catheterization, and increasing operative duration. Postoperative urinary retention was the primary reason for 27.8% of unplanned day-case surgery admissions (n = 74) and 51.8% of 30-day readmissions (n = 72). Conclusions The findings of this cohort study suggest that 1 in 17 male patients, 1 in 11 male patients aged 65 years or older, and 1 in 34 female patients may develop POUR following IHR. These findings could inform preoperative patient counseling. In addition, awareness of modifiable risk factors may help to identify patients at increased risk of POUR who may benefit from perioperative risk mitigation strategies.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6254
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.2137
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support–Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Clinical Trial
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Vol. 329, No. 14 ( 2023-04-11), p. 1183-
    Details
    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
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.4480
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    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 ...
    Online Resource
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Vol. 329, No. 1 ( 2023-01-03), p. 39-
    Details
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 329, No. 1 ( 2023-01-03), p. 39-
    Abstract: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90] ) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR & amp;gt;0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14] ), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29] ) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month surviva l across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.23257
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    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 ...
    Online Resource
  • 7
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Timing of Cholecystectomy After Moderate and Severe Acute Biliary Pancreatitis
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Surgery Vol. 158, No. 10 ( 2023-10-11), p. e233660-
    Details
    In: JAMA Surgery, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 158, No. 10 ( 2023-10-11), p. e233660-
    Abstract: Considering the lack of equipoise regarding the timing of cholecystectomy in patients with moderately severe and severe acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), it is critical to assess this issue. Objective To assess the outcomes of early cholecystectomy (EC) in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP. Design, Settings, and Participants This cohort study retrospectively analyzed real-life data from the MANCTRA-1 (Compliance With Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines in the Management of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis) data set, assessing 5304 consecutive patients hospitalized between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, for ABP from 42 countries. A total of 3696 patients who were hospitalized for ABP and underwent cholecystectomy were included in the analysis; of these, 1202 underwent EC, defined as a cholecystectomy performed within 14 days of admission. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality and morbidity. Data analysis was performed from January to February 2023. Main Outcomes Mortality and morbidity after EC. Results Of the 3696 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [17.8] years; 1907 [51.5%] female) included in the analysis, 1202 (32.5%) underwent EC and 2494 (67.5%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy (DC). Overall, EC presented an increased risk of postoperative mortality (1.4% vs 0.1%, P   & amp;lt; .001) and morbidity (7.7% vs 3.7%, P   & amp;lt; .001) compared with DC. On the multivariable analysis, moderately severe and severe ABP were associated with increased mortality (odds ratio [OR], 361.46; 95% CI, 2.28-57 212.31; P  = .02) and morbidity (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.35-5.19; P  = .005). In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with an increased risk of mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 0 [0%] , P   & amp;lt; .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 57 [5.5%] , P   & amp;lt; .001), bile leakage (2 [2.4%] vs 4 [0.4%] , P  = .02), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 4 [0.4%] , P   & amp;lt; .001) compared with patients with mild ABP who underwent EC. In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with higher mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 2 [1.2%] , P   & amp;lt; .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 17 [10.3%] , P   & amp;lt; .001), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 2 [1.3%] , P   & amp;lt; .001) compared with patients with moderately severe and severe ABP who underwent DC. On the multivariable analysis, the patient’s age (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36; P  = .03) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.06-32.78; P  = .04) were associated with mortality; severe complications of ABP were associated with increased mortality (OR, 50.04; 95% CI, 2.37-1058.01; P  = .01) and morbidity (OR, 33.64; 95% CI, 3.19-354.73; P  = .003). Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study’s findings suggest that EC should be considered carefully in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP, as it was associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, older and more fragile patients manifesting severe complications related to ABP should most likely not be considered for EC.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6254
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.3660
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 8
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Association of FDA Mandate Limiting Acetaminophen (Paracetamol) in Prescription Combination Opioid Products and Subsequent Hospitalizations and Acute Liver Failure
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Vol. 329, No. 9 ( 2023-03-07), p. 735-
    Details
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 329, No. 9 ( 2023-03-07), p. 735-
    Abstract: In January 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a mandate to limit acetaminophen (paracetamol) to 325 mg/tablet in combination acetaminophen and opioid medications, with manufacturer compliance required by March 2014. Objective To assess the odds of hospitalization and the proportion of acute liver failure (ALF) cases with acetaminophen and opioid toxicity prior to and after the mandate. Design, Setting, and Participants This interrupted time-series analysis used hospitalization data from 2007-2019 involving ICD-9 / ICD-10 codes consistent with both acetaminophen and opioid toxicity from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a large US hospitalization database, and ALF cases from 1998-2019 involving acetaminophen and opioid products from the Acute Liver Failure Study Group (ALFSG), a cohort of 32 US medical centers. For comparison, hospitalizations and ALF cases consistent with acetaminophen toxicity alone were extracted from the NIS and ALFSG. Exposures Time prior to and after the FDA mandate limiting acetaminophen to 325 mg in combination acetaminophen and opioid products. Main Outcomes and Measures Odds of hospitalization involving acetaminophen and opioid toxicity and percentage of ALF cases from acetaminophen and opioid products prior to and after the mandate. Results In the NIS, among 474 047 585 hospitalizations from Q1 2007 through Q4 2019, there were 39 606 hospitalizations involving acetaminophen and opioid toxicity; 66.8% of cases were among women; median age, 42.2 (IQR, 28.4-54.1). In the ALFSG, from Q1 1998 through Q3 2019, there were a total of 2631 ALF cases, of which 465 involved acetaminophen and opioid toxicity; 85.4% women; median age, 39.0 (IQR, 32.0-47.0). The predicted incidence of hospitalizations 1 day prior to the FDA announcement was 12.2 cases/100 000 hospitalizations (95% CI, 11.0-13.4); by Q4 2019, it was 4.4/100 000 hospitalizations (95% CI, 4.1-4.7) (absolute difference, 7.8/100 000 [95% CI, 6.6-9.0]; P   & amp;lt; .001). The odds of hospitalizations with acetaminophen and opioid toxicity increased 11%/y prior to the announcement (odds ratio [OR], 1.11 [95% CI, 1.06-1.15] ) and decreased 11%/y after the announcement (OR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.88-0.90]). The predicted percentage of ALF cases involving acetaminophen and opioid toxicity 1 day prior to the FDA announcement was 27.4% (95% CI, 23.3%-31.9%); by Q3 2019, it was 5.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-8.8%) (absolute difference, 21.8% [95% CI, 15.5%-32.4%] ; P   & amp;lt; .001). The percentage of ALF cases involving acetaminophen and opioid toxicity increased 7% per year prior to the announcement (OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03-1.1]; P   & amp;lt; .001) and decreased 16% per year after the announcement (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92]; P   & amp;lt; .001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Conclusions and Relevance The FDA mandate limiting acetaminophen dosage to 325 mg/tablet in prescription acetaminophen and opioid products was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the yearly rate of hospitalizations and proportion per year of ALF cases involving acetaminophen and opioid toxicity.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.1080
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    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 ...
    Online Resource
  • 9
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19 : A Randomized Clinical Trial
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2023
    In:  JAMA Vol. 329, No. 11 ( 2023-03-21), p. 888-
    Details
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 329, No. 11 ( 2023-03-21), p. 888-
    Abstract: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P  = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P  = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.1650
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    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 ...
    Online Resource
  • 10
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Consensus-Based Recommendations on the Prevention of Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients : A Delphi Consensus Statement
    American Medical Association (AMA) ; 2021
    In:  JAMA Dermatology Vol. 157, No. 10 ( 2021-10-01), p. 1219-
    Details
    In: JAMA Dermatology, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 157, No. 10 ( 2021-10-01), p. 1219-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2168-6068
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3180
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2021
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...