αβ T-cell-depleted haploidentical transplantation may be a good alternative for high-risk patients if there are no human leukocyte antigen matched donors.
OBJECTIVES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus-2 binds and inhibits angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. The frequency of acute cardiac injury in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is unknown. The objective was to compare the rates of cardiac injury by angiotensin-converting enzyme-2–binding viruses from viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic review of coronavirus disease 2019 literature on PubMed and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies with ten or more hospitalized adults with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 or other viral pathogens that described the occurrence of acute cardiac injury. This was defined by the original publication authors or by: 1) myocardial ischemia, 2) new cardiac arrhythmia on echocardiogram, or 3) new or worsening heart failure on echocardiogram. DATA EXTRACTION: We compared the rates of cardiac injury among patients with respiratory infections with viruses that down-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including H1N1, H5N1, H7N9, and severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus-1, to those with respiratory infections from other influenza viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including Influenza H3N2 and influenza B. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 57 studies including 34,072 patients, acute cardiac injury occurred in 50% (95% CI, 44–57%) of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The overall risk of acute cardiac injury was 21% (95% CI, 18–26%) among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. In comparison, 37% (95% CI, 26–49%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p = 0.061) and 12% (95% CI, 7–22%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p < 0.001) experienced a cardiac injury. CONCLUSIONS: Acute cardiac injury may be associated with whether the virus binds angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. Acute cardiac injury occurs in half of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, but only 12% of patients infected by viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2.
Background Medical assistance in dying (MAID) was legalized in Canada in 2016. As of July 2017, approximately 2149 patients have accessed MAID. There remains no national-level data on the perspectives of future physicians about MAID or its changing legal status. We provide evidence from a national survey of Canadian medical students about their opinions, intentions, and concerns about MAID. Methods From October 2016 to July 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to all students at 15 of Canada’s 17 medical schools. The survey collected data on respondent socio-demographic characteristics, features of their medical education, intentions for medical practice, and perspectives on MAID. We analyzed responses using univariate descriptive and stepwise multivariate logistic regression. Results In 1210 completed surveys, 71% of respondents reported being willing to provide MAID under a legal framework that permits it. Non-religious respondents reported greater willingness to participate in MAID than respondents of any religious affiliation ( p < 0.001). Frequency of religious attendance was inversely associated with willingness to provide MAID ( p < 0.001). Medical students born in Québec were more willing to provide MAID than respondents from other provinces (OR 2.21; p < 0.001). Age, sex, socioeconomic status, year of medical study, previous academic major, and rural/urban city of birth were not associated with willingness to provide MAID. Conclusion As the current class of medical students becomes the first cohort of new physicians to enter Canada’s changing medical and legal landscape around MAID, our findings inform the public debate by examining attributes associated with support or opposition to the practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-019-0356-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background + Objectives The echinocandins, amphotericin B preparations, voriconazole and fluconazole are approved for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, though it remains unclear which agent is most effective. In order to answer this question, we performed a systematic review and network meta‐analysis of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated these agents in comparison. Methods Four electronic databases were searched from database inception to 8 October 2020. RCTs comparing triazoles, echinocandins or amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive candidiasis or candidemia were included. Random effect Bayesian network meta‐analysis methods were used to compare treatment outcomes. Results Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. Of the 3528 patients included from these trials, 1531 were randomised to receive an echinocandin, 944 to amphotericin B and 1053 to a triazole. For all forms of invasive candidiasis, echinocandins were associated with the highest rate of treatment success when compared to amphotericin B (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04–1.92) and the triazoles (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35–2.51). Rank probability analysis favoured echinocandins as the most effective choice 98% of the time. Overall survival did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusions Among patients with invasive candidiasis, echinocandins had the best clinical outcomes and should remain the first‐line agents in the treatment of invasive candidiasis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.