Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 6 de 6
1.
IDCases ; 32: e01777, 2023.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37159573

We present a case of phlegmonous gastritis, which is a rare, life-threatening infection involving transmural inflammation of the stomach of multiple possible etiologies. Historically this disease has required surgical management, including gastrectomy, which is quite morbid. Evolving literature suggests that antimicrobial therapy alone may be adequate treatment for this infection. The diagnosis of phlegmonous gastritis was suggested by radiology but confirmed by endoscopic pathology. This particular case is unique given the patient's age, lack of co-morbidities and being the first description of Helicobacter pylori with phlegmonous gastritis. We report on a specific successful antimicrobial regimen and duration of therapy, which has not been well documented elsewhere in the literature, which may be helpful to clinicians.

2.
Chest ; 162(5): 982-994, 2022 11.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35780813

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for < 14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n = 487) or placebo (n = 473). The primary outcome was clinical status (disease severity) 14 days following study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) < 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than with placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified according to the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR, 1.04; one-seventh support interval [1/7 SI], 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR, 1.15; 1/7 SI, 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR, 0.96; 1/7 SI, 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89 of 482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80 of 465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR, 1.04; 1/7 SI, 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION: Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04362176; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.


COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Hospitalization , Treatment Outcome , COVID-19 Serotherapy
3.
Trials ; 22(1): 221, 2021 Mar 20.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33743799

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is being used widely as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is unclear. METHODS: The Passive Immunity Trial for Our Nation (PassITON) is a multicenter, placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized clinical trial being conducted in the USA to provide high-quality evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma as a treatment for adults hospitalized with symptomatic disease. Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms for less than 14 days are eligible. Enrolled patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1 unit (200-399 mL) of COVID-19 convalescent plasma that has demonstrated neutralizing function using a SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus neutralization assay. Study treatments are administered in a blinded fashion and patients are followed for 28 days. The primary outcome is clinical status 14 days after study treatment as measured on a 7-category ordinal scale assessing mortality, respiratory support, and return to normal activities of daily living. Key secondary outcomes include mortality and oxygen-free days. The trial is projected to enroll 1000 patients and is designed to detect an odds ratio ≤ 0.73 for the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the most robust data available to date on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the treatment of adults hospitalized with acute moderate to severe COVID-19. These data will be useful to guide the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the current pandemic and for informing decisions about whether developing a standardized infrastructure for collecting and disseminating convalescent plasma to prepare for future viral pandemics is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362176 . Registered on 24 April 2020.


COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States , COVID-19 Serotherapy
4.
Res Sq ; 2021 Mar 02.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33688640

Background: Convalescent plasma is being used widely as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is unclear. Methods: The Pass ive I mmunity T rial for O ur N ation (PassITON), is a multicenter, placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized clinical trial being conducted in the United States to provide high-quality evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma as a treatment for adults hospitalized with symptomatic disease. Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms for less than 14 days are eligible. Enrolled patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1 unit (200-399 mL) of COVID-19 convalescent plasma that has demonstrated neutralizing function using a SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus neutralization assay. Study treatments are administered in a blinded fashion and patients are followed for 28 days. The primary outcome is clinical status 14 days after study treatment as measured on a 7-category ordinal scale assessing mortality, respiratory support, and return to normal activities of daily living. Key secondary outcomes include mortality and oxygen-free days. The trial is projected to enroll 1000 patients and is designed to detect an odds ratio ≤ 0.73 for the primary outcome. Discussion: This trial will provide the most robust data available to date on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the treatment of adults hospitalized with acute moderate to severe COVID-19. These data will be useful to guide the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the current pandemic and for informing decisions about whether developing a standardized infrastructure for collecting and disseminating convalescent plasma to prepare for future viral pandemics is indicated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04362176. Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04362176.

5.
J Med Ethics ; 47(1): 7-11, 2021 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33046590

Clinical trials emerged in rapid succession as the COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for life-saving therapies. Fair and equitable subject selection in clinical trials offering investigational therapies ought to be an urgent moral concern. Subject selection determines the distribution of risks and benefits, and impacts the applicability of the study results for the larger population. While Research Ethics Committees monitor fair subject selection within each trial, no standard oversight exists for subject selection across multiple trials for the same disease. Drawing on the experience of multiple clinical trials at a single academic medical centre in the USA, we posit that concurrent COVID-19 trials are liable to unfair and inequitable subject selection on account of scientific uncertainty, lack of transparency, scarcity and, lastly, structural barriers to equity compounded by implicit bias. To address the critical gap in the current literature and international regulation, we propose new ethical guidelines for research design and conduct that bolsters fair and equitable subject selection. Although the proposed guidelines are tailored to the research design and protocol of concurrent trials in the COVID-19 pandemic, they may have broader relevance to single COVID-19 trials.


COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Patient Selection/ethics , Bias , Bioethics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Ann Emerg Med ; 58(1 Suppl 1): S85-8.e1, 2011 Jul.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21684415

OBJECTIVE: Various HIV testing models have been described, but widespread implementation has lagged. We describe a clinical HIV testing program notable for its use of conventional (nonrapid) assays, native hospital personnel, and an electronic system to aid targeted patient selection. METHODS: Clinical HIV testing program records and hospital emergency department (ED) and laboratory records were reviewed and linked for the period from January 2007 until November 5, 2008. RESULTS: There were 103,475 visits to the ED, for which 1,258 (1.2%) resulted in HIV testing, and 54 (4.3%) were positive for HIV antibody. Result notification was successful for 52 (96%) individuals with positive test results. After reporting to the health department, it was determined that 28 (2.2%) individuals had received a new diagnosis, of whom 89% were linked with care. Mean baseline CD4 counts for new diagnoses for periods 1 through 3, respectively, were (1) unavailable, (2) 138 cells/µL (95% confidence interval [CI] 34 to 242 cells/µL), and (3) 222 cells/µL (95% CI 119 to 325 cells/µL). Overall, mean calculated to be 180 cells/µL (95% CI 16 to 345 cells/µL). CONCLUSION: This ED HIV testing model successfully expanded new patient identification, result notification, and linkage to care. Although this effort falls short of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the model can be implemented widely without external funding for parallel staffing or rapid assays.


AIDS Serodiagnosis/methods , Emergency Service, Hospital , AIDS Serodiagnosis/statistics & numerical data , Chicago/epidemiology , Continuity of Patient Care , Electronic Health Records , HIV Seropositivity/diagnosis , HIV Seropositivity/epidemiology , Hospitals, Urban , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Retrospective Studies
...