5 results on '"Charan Thej Reddy Vegivinti"'
Search Results
2. Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Author
-
John M. Pederson, Nitin Gupta, Kevin M. Kallmes, Amber R. Davis, Kirk W. Evanson, Charan Thej Reddy Vegivinti, Averi Barrett, and Kavitha Saravu
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ,medicine.medical_treatment ,SARS virus ,Review Article ,law.invention ,Odds ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Internal medicine ,Hospital discharge ,medicine ,Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ,In patient ,Mechanical ventilation ,business.industry ,Therapeutic uses ,General Medicine ,Coronavirus ,Antiviral agents ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Meta-analysis ,030211 gastroenterology & hepatology ,Surgery ,business - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2021
3. Assessment of the Utilization of Validated Diagnostic Predictive Tools and D-Dimer in the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study from a Public Hospital in New York City
- Author
-
Amrin Kharawala, Jiyoung Seo, Diego Barzallo, Gabriel Hernandez Romero, Yunus Emre Demirhan, Gustavo J. Duarte, Charan Thej Reddy Vegivinti, Manuel Hache-Marliere, Prasanth Balasubramanian, Heitor Tavares Santos, Sanjana Nagraj, Majd Al Deen Alhuarrat, Dimitrios Karamanis, Dimitrios Varrias, and Leonidas Palaiodimos
- Subjects
pulmonary embolism ,computed tomography ,CT angiography ,D-dimer ,Well’s score ,revised Geneva score ,years algorithm ,General Medicine - Abstract
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
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID ‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
- Author
-
Kavitha Saravu, Kevin M. Kallmes, Rewanth R. Katamreddy, Spandana Chittajallu, Betsy Joseph, Shelby Kamrowski, Nick Mikoff, Nitin Gupta, Manashree Malpe, Natalie L. Reierson, Adam A Dmytriw, Megan Schmidt, Sailaja Pisipati, Praneeth Reddy Keesari, Charan Thej Reddy Vegivinti, Waleed Brinjikji, Yashwitha Sai Pulakurthi, Amber R. Davis, Richa Chibbar, Varsha Sriram, John M. Pederson, Hemant K. Mishra, Ameer E Hassan, Pragadeesh Thamarai Selvan, Kirk W. Evanson, Mahmoud Dibas, Averi Barrett, and Hannah Trent
- Subjects
Risk ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Convalescent plasma ,Web of science ,Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ,Quality Assurance, Health Care ,coronavirus ,Length of hospitalization ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,Plasma ,0302 clinical medicine ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,COVID‐19 ,Internal medicine ,medicine ,Humans ,COVID-19 Serotherapy ,business.industry ,Concise Review ,Immunization, Passive ,COVID-19 ,Hematology ,General Medicine ,Length of Stay ,Treatment Outcome ,meta‐analysis ,Meta-analysis ,convalescent plasma ,business ,030215 immunology - Abstract
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
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19
- Author
-
Kirk W. Evanson, Sailaja Pisipati, John M. Pederson, Manashree Malpe, Richa Chibbar, Megan Schmidt, Betsy Joseph, Kavitha Saravu, Amber R. Davis, Rewanth R. Katamreddy, Nitin Gupta, Spandana Chittajallu, Prasanth Balasubramanian, Waleed Brinjikji, Praneeth Reddy Keesari, Hemant K. Mishra, Yashwitha Sai Pulakurthi, Shelby Kamrowski, Kevin M. Kallmes, Natalie L. Reierson, Adam A Dmytriw, Varsha Sriram, Ameer E Hassan, Pragadeesh Thamarai Selvan, Mahmoud Dibas, and Charan Thej Reddy Vegivinti
- Subjects
Mechanical ventilation ,medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,medicine.drug_class ,medicine.medical_treatment ,General Medicine ,Odds ratio ,Placebo ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Pharmacotherapy ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Meta-analysis ,Internal medicine ,Medicine ,Corticosteroid ,030212 general & internal medicine ,business ,Adverse effect - Abstract
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]â=â0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], Pâ=â.003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (ORâ=â0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], Pâ=â.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.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.