2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)浪潮、治疗范围和管理变化

A. Rapose, R. Davaro
{"title":"2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)浪潮、治疗范围和管理变化","authors":"A. Rapose, R. Davaro","doi":"10.33425/2639-944x.1295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) global pandemic commenced at the end of 2019 and continues into 2022. Throughout the world, countries have seen spikes of an increased number of cases followed by a period of decrease, a phenomenon now referred to as “waves.” Recommendations for management of this infection have changed, guided by new experiences, an ever-increasing plethora of medical publications, and rapid developments in vaccines and therapeutics. Some treatments are recommended only in the outpatient setting, while others are indicated for patients admitted to the hospital, creating mutually exclusive “enclaves” for patients to receive recommended therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast medication use, as well as outcomes between the first two waves of COVID-19 infection. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 infection at a community hospital in Massachusetts, USA. Consecutive adult patients admitted to the hospital with consultation by the authors were included. The first wave extended from March 2020 to June 2020, the second wave was from October 2020 to January 2021. Patient demographics, medications used, and outcomes were abstracted from the electronic medical records. Results: Of the 238 patients evaluated, 109 (45.7%) were admitted in the first wave and 129 (54.2%) were admitted in the second wave. A large number of patients received hydroxychloroquine (50%), azithromycin (17%) and tocilizumab (22%) in the first wave, but none of these medications were used during the second wave. Remdesivir was used in 15% patients in the first wave. No patient in the first wave received corticosteroid therapy. In contrast, the majority of patients in the second wave received corticosteroids (70%) and remdesivir (63%). There were marked differences in overall mortality (25% v/s 6%), admission to intensive care unit (48% v/s 8%), and use of mechanical ventilation (31% v/s 5%) between the first and second waves respectively. Monoclonal antibody therapy was not available for use in hospitalized patients. Conclusions: There were remarkable differences in medications used, need for intensive care admission and need for mechanical ventilation for patients with COVID-19 infection between the first two waves of this pandemic. There was an improvement in outcomes in terms of overall mortality, need of intensive care unit admission, and need for mechanical ventilation during the second wave compared to the first. Further research is needed to determine whether the improved outcomes are a reflection exclusively of better therapeutics or a combination of therapeutics and other early interventions and the role of the COVID-19 variant (beta) in second wave compared to the original wild-type virus in both waves.","PeriodicalId":443242,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical – Clinical Research & Reviews","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Waves, Treatment Enclaves and Changes in Management\",\"authors\":\"A. Rapose, R. Davaro\",\"doi\":\"10.33425/2639-944x.1295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) global pandemic commenced at the end of 2019 and continues into 2022. Throughout the world, countries have seen spikes of an increased number of cases followed by a period of decrease, a phenomenon now referred to as “waves.” Recommendations for management of this infection have changed, guided by new experiences, an ever-increasing plethora of medical publications, and rapid developments in vaccines and therapeutics. Some treatments are recommended only in the outpatient setting, while others are indicated for patients admitted to the hospital, creating mutually exclusive “enclaves” for patients to receive recommended therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast medication use, as well as outcomes between the first two waves of COVID-19 infection. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 infection at a community hospital in Massachusetts, USA. Consecutive adult patients admitted to the hospital with consultation by the authors were included. The first wave extended from March 2020 to June 2020, the second wave was from October 2020 to January 2021. Patient demographics, medications used, and outcomes were abstracted from the electronic medical records. Results: Of the 238 patients evaluated, 109 (45.7%) were admitted in the first wave and 129 (54.2%) were admitted in the second wave. A large number of patients received hydroxychloroquine (50%), azithromycin (17%) and tocilizumab (22%) in the first wave, but none of these medications were used during the second wave. Remdesivir was used in 15% patients in the first wave. No patient in the first wave received corticosteroid therapy. In contrast, the majority of patients in the second wave received corticosteroids (70%) and remdesivir (63%). There were marked differences in overall mortality (25% v/s 6%), admission to intensive care unit (48% v/s 8%), and use of mechanical ventilation (31% v/s 5%) between the first and second waves respectively. Monoclonal antibody therapy was not available for use in hospitalized patients. Conclusions: There were remarkable differences in medications used, need for intensive care admission and need for mechanical ventilation for patients with COVID-19 infection between the first two waves of this pandemic. There was an improvement in outcomes in terms of overall mortality, need of intensive care unit admission, and need for mechanical ventilation during the second wave compared to the first. Further research is needed to determine whether the improved outcomes are a reflection exclusively of better therapeutics or a combination of therapeutics and other early interventions and the role of the COVID-19 variant (beta) in second wave compared to the original wild-type virus in both waves.\",\"PeriodicalId\":443242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical – Clinical Research & Reviews\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical – Clinical Research & Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-944x.1295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical – Clinical Research & Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-944x.1295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:冠状病毒病(COVID-19)全球大流行始于2019年底,将持续到2022年。在世界各地,各国都出现了病例数量增加的高峰,然后是一段时间的减少,这种现象现在被称为“波浪”。在新的经验、越来越多的医学出版物以及疫苗和治疗方法的快速发展的指导下,对这种感染管理的建议已经发生了变化。有些治疗方法仅在门诊推荐,而其他治疗方法则适用于住院患者,为接受推荐治疗的患者创造了相互排斥的“飞地”。本研究的目的是比较和对比药物使用情况,以及前两波COVID-19感染的结果。方法:对美国马萨诸塞州一家社区医院的COVID-19感染患者进行回顾性队列研究。经作者咨询后连续入院的成年患者被纳入研究对象。第一波从2020年3月持续到2020年6月,第二波从2020年10月持续到2021年1月。从电子病历中提取患者的人口统计资料、使用的药物和结果。结果:238例患者中,109例(45.7%)在第一波入院,129例(54.2%)在第二波入院。大量患者在第一波中接受了羟氯喹(50%)、阿奇霉素(17%)和托珠单抗(22%),但在第二波中没有使用这些药物。在第一波中,15%的患者使用了Remdesivir。第一波没有患者接受皮质类固醇治疗。相比之下,第二波中的大多数患者接受了皮质类固醇(70%)和瑞德西韦(63%)。第一波和第二波患者的总死亡率(25% v/s 6%)、入住重症监护病房(48% v/s 8%)和使用机械通气(31% v/s 5%)分别有显著差异。单克隆抗体治疗不能用于住院患者。结论:前两波疫情期间COVID-19感染患者用药、重症监护住院需求和机械通气需求存在显著差异。与第一波相比,第二波在总体死亡率、重症监护病房入住需求和机械通气需求方面的结果有所改善。需要进一步的研究来确定改善的结果是否仅仅反映了更好的治疗方法,还是治疗方法和其他早期干预措施的结合,以及与两波中原始野生型病毒相比,COVID-19变体(β)在第二波中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Waves, Treatment Enclaves and Changes in Management
Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) global pandemic commenced at the end of 2019 and continues into 2022. Throughout the world, countries have seen spikes of an increased number of cases followed by a period of decrease, a phenomenon now referred to as “waves.” Recommendations for management of this infection have changed, guided by new experiences, an ever-increasing plethora of medical publications, and rapid developments in vaccines and therapeutics. Some treatments are recommended only in the outpatient setting, while others are indicated for patients admitted to the hospital, creating mutually exclusive “enclaves” for patients to receive recommended therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast medication use, as well as outcomes between the first two waves of COVID-19 infection. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 infection at a community hospital in Massachusetts, USA. Consecutive adult patients admitted to the hospital with consultation by the authors were included. The first wave extended from March 2020 to June 2020, the second wave was from October 2020 to January 2021. Patient demographics, medications used, and outcomes were abstracted from the electronic medical records. Results: Of the 238 patients evaluated, 109 (45.7%) were admitted in the first wave and 129 (54.2%) were admitted in the second wave. A large number of patients received hydroxychloroquine (50%), azithromycin (17%) and tocilizumab (22%) in the first wave, but none of these medications were used during the second wave. Remdesivir was used in 15% patients in the first wave. No patient in the first wave received corticosteroid therapy. In contrast, the majority of patients in the second wave received corticosteroids (70%) and remdesivir (63%). There were marked differences in overall mortality (25% v/s 6%), admission to intensive care unit (48% v/s 8%), and use of mechanical ventilation (31% v/s 5%) between the first and second waves respectively. Monoclonal antibody therapy was not available for use in hospitalized patients. Conclusions: There were remarkable differences in medications used, need for intensive care admission and need for mechanical ventilation for patients with COVID-19 infection between the first two waves of this pandemic. There was an improvement in outcomes in terms of overall mortality, need of intensive care unit admission, and need for mechanical ventilation during the second wave compared to the first. Further research is needed to determine whether the improved outcomes are a reflection exclusively of better therapeutics or a combination of therapeutics and other early interventions and the role of the COVID-19 variant (beta) in second wave compared to the original wild-type virus in both waves.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Case of a Cambodian man with Disabilities who Received Rehabilitative Education Support (Dohsa-hou) and Realized Social Participation Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Waves, Treatment Enclaves and Changes in Management Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis with Physiotherapy during a Clinical Trial: Comparison of Mobilization Technique and Shock Wave Ability of MRI Diagnostic Value to Detect the Evidence of Physiotherapy Outcome Measurements in Dealing with Calf Muscles Tearing Faculty Scholarship at an Academic Health System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1