Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is currently unknown whether immunosuppressive drugs are advantageous or detrimental in patients with COVID-19. Immunosuppressive drugs could be harmful in the initial phase of COVID-19. In this phase, the host immune response is necessary to inhibit viral replication. However, immunosuppressive drugs might have a beneficial effect in the later, more severe phase of COVID-19. In this phase, an overshoot of the host immune response (the “cytokine storm”) can cause ARDS, multiorgan failure and mortality. Aim To summarize the available evidence on the effect of immunosuppressive drugs on infection with SARS-CoV-2. The effects of immunosuppressive drugs on similar pandemic coronaviruses may resemble the effects on SARS-CoV-2. Thus, we also included studies on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Methods The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020181137). We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies with a control group and case-control studies concerning humans ≥ 18 years old. We also included in-vitro studies and animal studies with a control group. Results and Conclusion Sixty-nine studies were included. Interestingly, MPA inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication in-vitro . Clinical studies are needed to confirm the inhibitory effect of MPA on SARS-CoV-2 replication in-vivo . There are indications that corticosteroids and IL-6 inhibitors, like tocilizumab, can reduce mortality and prevent mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. However, observational studies have contradictory results and the risk of bias is high. Thus, these results have to be confirmed in high-quality clinical trials before these drugs can be implemented as standard care. Based on the positive results of CNIs, mTOR inhibitors and thiopurine analogues in in-vitro studies with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, it would be interesting to investigate their effects on SARS-CoV-2 replication.
BackgroundCuffless blood pressure (BP) monitoring devices, based on pulse transit time, are being developed as an easy-to-use, more convenient, fast, and relatively cheap alternative to conventional BP measuring devices based on cuff occlusion. Thereby they may provide a great alternative to BP self-measurement.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate the performance of the first release of the Checkme Health Monitor (Viatom Technology), a cuffless BP monitor, in a real-life setting. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate whether the posture of the volunteer and the position of the device relative to the heart level would influence its outcomes.MethodsStudy volunteers fell into 3 BP ranges: high (>160 mmHg), normal (130–160 mmHg), and low (<130 mmHg). All requirements for test environment, observer qualification, volunteer recruitment, and BP measurements were met according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) for the validation of BP measurement devices. After calibrating the Checkme device, we measured systolic BP with Checkme and a validated, oscillometric reference BP monitor (RM). Measurements were performed in randomized order both in supine and in sitting position, and with Checkme at and above heart level.ResultsWe recruited 52 volunteers, of whom we excluded 15 (12 due to calibration failure with Checkme, 3 due to a variety of reasons). The remaining 37 volunteers were divided into low (n=14), medium (n=13), and high (n=10) BP ranges. There were 18 men and 19 women, with a mean age of 54.1 (SD 14.5) years, and mean recruitment systolic BP of 141.7 (SD 24.7) mmHg. BP results obtained by RM and Checkme correlated well. In the supine position, the difference between the RM and Checkme was >5 mmHg in 17 of 37 volunteers (46%), of whom 9 of 37 (24%) had a difference >10 mmHg and 5 of 37 (14%) had a difference >15 mmHg.ConclusionsBP obtained with Checkme correlated well with RM BP, particularly in the position (supine) in which the device was calibrated. These preliminary results are promising for conducting further research on cuffless BP measurement in the clinical and outpatient settings.
Background In older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the choice between kidney transplantation (KT) and dialysis may be more complex than in younger patients because of a higher prevalence of comorbidities and frailty. This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process by exploring the expectations, experiences, and health outcome priorities of all stakeholders. Methods We performed semi-structured interviews with patients ≥65 years with ESKD (eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73m2, KT recipient, or treated with dialysis), patients’ relatives, and healthcare professionals (nephrologists, nurses, and medical social workers). Interviews were conducted until data saturation and thematically analysed. Results We performed 36 interviews (patients n = 18, relatives n = 5, healthcare professionals n = 13). Thematic analysis revealed five themes. They showed that individual older patients show marked differences in the preferred level of engagement during the decision-making process (varying from ‘wants to be in the lead’ to ‘follows the nephrologist’) and in informational needs (varying from evidence-based to experience-based). Older patients’ health outcome priorities were mostly related to quality of life. On the contrary, healthcare professionals were quite unanimous on all aspects. They focused on determining eligibility for KT as start of the decision-making process, on clear and extensive information provision, and on classical, medical outcomes. Conclusions The decision-making process could benefit from early identification of older patients’ values, needs, and health outcome priorities, in parallel with assessment of KT eligibility and before discussing the treatment options, and the explicit use of this information in further steps of the decision-making process.
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.