Dataset Information

A comparison between virus- versus patients-centred therapeutic attempts to reduce COVID-19 mortality.

ABSTRACT: Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has changed our lives. Elderly and those with comorbidities represent the vast majority of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 symptoms, including acute respiratory disease syndrome and cardiac dysfunction. Despite a huge effort of the scientific community, improved treatment modalities limiting the severity and mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients are still required. Here, we compare the effectiveness of virus- and patients-centred strategies to reduce COVID-19 mortality. We also discuss the therapeutic options that might further reduce death rates associated with the disease in the future. Unexpectedly, extensive review of the literature suggests that SARS-CoV-2 viral load seems to be associated neither with the severity of symptoms nor with mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This may explain why, so far, virus-centred strategies using antivirals aiming to inhibit the viral replicative machinery have failed to reduce COVID-19 mortality in patients with respiratory failure. By contrast, anti-inflammatory treatments without antiviral capacities but centred on patients, such as dexamethasone or Tocilizumab^®, reduce COVID-19 mortality. Finally, since the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 binds to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 and inhibits its function, we explore the different treatment options focussing on rebalancing the renin-angiotensin system. This new therapeutic strategy could hopefully further reduce the severity of respiratory failure and limit COVID-19 mortality in elderly patients.

SUBMITTER: Camelo S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8648031 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison between virus- versus patients-centred therapeutic attempts to reduce COVID-19 mortality.

Camelo Serge S Latil Mathilde M Agus Sam S Dioh Waly W Veillet Stanislas S Lafont René R Dilda Pierre J PJ

Emerging microbes & infections 20211201 1

Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has changed our lives. Elderly and those with comorbidities represent the vast majority of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 symptoms, including acute respiratory disease syndrome and cardiac dysfunction. Despite a huge effort of the scientific community, improved treatment modalities limiting the severity and mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 ...[more]

PMID: 34783636

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFamily-centred care (FCC) is an approach to promote family and health care provider partnership. This has been incorporated into neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) worldwide. However, FCC in low resource health settings, such as Thailand, is challenging and further impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).AimsTo evaluate FCC innovations to improve respect, collaboration and support in a Thai NICU.Study designA quasi-experimental study was conducted in an NICU in southern Thailand. Pre-implementation was prior to COVID-19, and parental and staff perceptions of FCC were measured via Perceptions of Family Centred Care-Parent (PFCC-P) and -Staff (PFCC-S) survey. The FCC innovations were developed by stakeholders based on the COVID-19 restrictions, pre-survey results, parents' and clinicians' interviews and integrative review, then implemented via a flowchart. Post-implementation evaluation was via repeated surveys. Comparisons were made pre-and post-implementation, with Mann-Whitney U-test statistics for parents and Wilcoxon's Rank Sum for staff.ResultsA total of 185 (85 pre; 100 post) parents and 20 (pre and post; paired group) health care professionals participated. Because of COVID-19, many planned interventions were unfeasible, however, other innovations achieved (e.g., structured telephone updates, information booklet revision). There was an increase in parents' perception of respect ([median] 2.50-3.50), collaboration (2.33-3.33) and support (2.60-3.60) domains and overall (2.50-3.43; p < .001; 95% CI: 2.93-3.11). Interdisciplinary professionals' perception of FCC did not significantly change pre-and post-implementation/COVID-19 pandemic for respect (3.00-2.92), collaboration (3.22-3.33), support (3.20-3.20) and overall (3.15-3.20; 95% CI: 3.10-3.25).ConclusionDespite the challenges of COVID-19 restricting NICU access, the provision of FCC was maintained and even improved.Relevance to clinical practiceFurther research is necessary to develop FCC practice innovations associated with communication, across diverse health care systems and resources.

Project description:Rationale: The outcomes of survivors of critical illness due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) compared with non-COVID-19 are yet to be established. Objectives: We aimed to investigate new disability at 6 months in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to Australian ICUs with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Methods: We included critically ill patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 from two prospective observational studies. Patients were eligible if they were adult (age ⩾ 8 yr) and received ⩾24 hours of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were eligible with a positive laboratory PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Measurements and Main Results: Demographic, intervention, and hospital outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Survivors were contacted by telephone for functional outcomes with trained outcome assessors using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Between March 6, 2020, and April 21, 2021, 120 critically ill patients with COVID-19, and between August 2017 and January 2019, 199 critically ill patients without COVID-19, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients with COVID-19 were older (median [interquartile range], 62 [55-71] vs. 58 [44-69] yr; P = 0.019) with a lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (17 [13-20] vs. 19 [15-23]; P = 0.011). Although duration of ventilation was longer in patients with COVID-19 than in those without COVID-19 (12 [5-19] vs. 4.8 [2.3-8.8] d; P < 0.001), 180-day mortality was similar between the groups (39/120 [32.5%] vs. 70/199 [35.2%]; P = 0.715). The incidence of death or new disability at 180 days was similar (58/93 [62.4%] vs. 99/150 [66/0%]; P = 0.583). Conclusions: At 6 months, there was no difference in new disability for patients requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04401254).

Dataset Information

A comparison between virus- versus patients-centred therapeutic attempts to reduce COVID-19 mortality.

Publications

A comparison between virus- versus patients-centred therapeutic attempts to reduce COVID-19 mortality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets