RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those aged 60 years and older. Using real-world data, the period during which the BN.1 Omicron variant was dominant was compared to the period dominated by the BA.5 variant. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data were collected regarding 2,665,281 patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 between July 24, 2022, and March 31, 2023. Propensity score matching was utilized to match patients who received nirmatrelvir/ ritonavir in a 1:4 ratio between BN.1 and BA.5 variant groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir within these groups. RESULTS: Compared to the prior period, the efficacy of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir did not significantly differ during the interval of Omicron BN.1 variant dominance in the Republic of Korea. Among patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, a significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in the BN.1 group (odds ratio [OR], 0.698; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.557-0.875) compared to the BA.5 group. However, this treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of severe or critical illness, including death, for those in the BN.1 group (OR, 0.856; 95% CI, 0.728-1.007). CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has maintained its effectiveness against COVID-19, even with the emergence of the BN.1 Omicron subvariant. Consequently, we strongly recommend the administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to patients exhibiting COVID-19-related symptoms, irrespective of the dominant Omicron variant or their vaccination status, to mitigate disease severity and decrease the risk of mortality.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric emergencies require timely intervention because of the risk of harm to individuals and society, including others. The aim of the present study was to test the content validity of a psychiatric triage algorithm developed for use in South Korea. METHODS: The initial algorithm was developed through systematic literature review. Its validity was then verified by 10 experts. Based on results of expert validity, the algorithm was modified and the final algorithm was developed. RESULTS: Its clinical validity was then verified by 37 emergency room nurses who had used triage. Four questions of expert validity results with a CVI of 0.8 or less were revised to reflect expert opinion. The usefulness, adequacy, and convenience of the final modified algorithm was 2.98 ~ 3.53. CONCLUSION: After sufficiently validated by follow-up studies, it is expected that the use of psychiatric classification algorithms in emergency room nurses will not only improve the quality of care, but also can improve patient outcomes and experience.
RESUMO
AIM OF THE REVIEW: Use of smart devices to provide real-time cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback in the context of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has considerable potential for improving survival. However, the findings of previous studies evaluating the effectiveness of these devices have been conflicting. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the utility of smart devices for improving the quality of CPR during CPR training. DATA SOURCES: Thirteen electronic databases were searched. The articles were reviewed according to the eligibility criteria. CPR quality was evaluated based on the rates and depths of chest compression, and the proportion of adequate depth of chest compressions. RESULTS: Ultimately, 11 studies (5 randomised controlled trials, 1 randomised trial, and 5 randomised cross-over trials) were selected for this systematic review. Eight of these studies used smartphones and three used smartwatches. This review did not find an apparent benefit from smart device use during CPR in terms of maintaining the recommended compression rates and depths of chest compressions. However, all three smartwatch studies reported that the proportion of chest compressions of adequate depth was significantly improved with smartwatch use (smartwatch group vs. non-smartwatch group in the three studies: 65.01% vs. 45.15%, pâ¯=â¯0.01; 64.6% vs. 43.1%, pâ¯=â¯0.049; 98.7% vs. 79.3%, pâ¯=â¯0.002). CONCLUSION: This review does not find durable evidence for usefulness of smart devices in CPR training. However, the smartwatches may improve the accuracy of chest compression depth. Future studies with larger sample sizes might be necessary before reaching a firm conclusion.