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
  • 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
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Clinical Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 75, No. 7 ( 2022-09-30), p. 1187-1193
    Abstract: Inappropriate Clostridioides difficile testing has adverse consequences for patients, hospitals, and public health. Computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) systems in the electronic health record (EHR) may reduce C. difficile test ordering; however, effectiveness of different approaches, ease of use, and best fit into healthcare providers’ (HCP) workflow are not well understood. Methods Nine academic and 6 community hospitals in the United States participated in this 2-year cohort study. CCDS (hard stop or soft stop) triggered when a duplicate C. difficile test order was attempted or if laxatives were recently received. The primary outcome was the difference in testing rates pre– and post–CCDS interventions, using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and mixed-effect Poisson regression models. We performed qualitative evaluation (contextual inquiry, interviews, focus groups) based on a human factors model. We identified themes using a codebook with primary nodes and subnodes. Results In 9 hospitals implementing hard-stop CCDS and 4 hospitals implementing soft-stop CCDS, C. difficile testing incidence rate (IR) reduction was 33% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 30%–36%) and 23% (95% CI: 21%–25%), respectively. Two hospitals implemented a non-EHR-based human intervention with IR reduction of 21% (95% CI: 15%–28%). HCPs reported generally favorable experiences and highlighted time efficiencies such as inclusion of the patient’s most recent laxative administration on the CCDS. Organizational factors, including hierarchical cultures and communication between HCPs caring for the same patient, impact CCDS acceptance and integration. Conclusions CCDS systems reduced unnecessary C. difficile testing and were perceived positively by HCPs when integrated into their workflow and when displaying relevant patient-specific information needed for decision making.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1058-4838 , 1537-6591
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2002229-3
    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...