Search

Introduction: A significant increase in the use of computed tomography with pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) has been observed in the past twenty years. We aimed to investigate whether the validated diagnostic predictive tools and D-dimers were adequately utilized in a large public hospital in New York City. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent CTPA for the specific indication of ruling out PE over a period of one year. Two independent reviewers, blinded to each other and to the CTPA and D-dimer results, estimated the clinical probability (CP) of PE using Well’s score, the YEARS algorithm, and the revised Geneva score. Patients were classified based on the presence or absence of PE in the CTPA. Results: A total of 917 patients were included in the analysis (median age: 57 years, female: 59%). The clinical probability of PE was considered low by both independent reviewers in 563 (61.4%), 487 (55%), and 184 (20.1%) patients based on Well’s score, the YEARS algorithm, and the revised Geneva score, respectively. D-dimer testing was conducted in less than half of the patients who were deemed to have low CP for PE by both independent reviewers. Using a D-dimer cut-off of 95%. Conclusion: All three validated diagnostic predictive tools were found to have significant diagnostic value in ruling out PE when combined with a D-dimer cut-off of

Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined remdesivir treatment for COVID-19. Materials and methods A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies published up to October 25, 2020 that examined COVID-19 treatment with remdesivir. A total of 3 randomized controlled trials that consisted of 1691 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Results The odds for mechanical ventilation (MV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) following treatment was significantly lower in the remdesivir group compared to the control group (OR = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.34; 0.69], p, Highlights • Remdesivir reduces the odds for mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 patients. • Remdesivir improves the odds for hospital discharge. • Remdesivir does not lower the odds for mortality. • Remdesivir can attenuate COVID-19 progression, but it is less effective in treating critically-ill patients.

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events. Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID‐19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID‐19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full‐text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta‐analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. RESULTS: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.