RESUMEN
Objectives This study aimed to determine which method to triage intensive care patients using chronic comorbidity in a pandemic was perceived to be the fairest by the general public. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the public perceived it fair to provide preferential intensive care triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers. Methods A postal survey of 2000 registered voters randomly selected from the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll was performed. The main outcome measures were respondents' fairness rating of four hypothetical intensive care triage methods that assess comorbidity (chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty); and respondents' fairness rating of providing preferential triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers. Results The proportion of respondents who considered it fair to triage based on chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty, was 52.1, 56.1, 65.0 and 62.4%, respectively. The proportion of respondents who considered it unfair to triage based on these four comorbidities was 31.9, 30.9, 23.8 and 23.2%, respectively. More respondents considered it unfair to preferentially triage vulnerable or disadvantaged people, than fair (41.8% versus 21.2%). More respondents considered it fair to preferentially triage frontline healthcare workers, than unfair (44.2% versus 30.0%). Conclusion Respondents in this survey perceived all four hypothetical methods to triage intensive care patients based on comorbidity in a pandemic disaster to be fair. However, the sizable minority who consider this to be unfair indicates that these triage methods could encounter significant opposition if they were to be enacted in health policy.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Comorbilidad , Opinión Pública , Triaje , Humanos , Triaje/métodos , Australia , Femenino , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiología , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Cuidados Críticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto JovenAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados IntensivosRESUMEN
AIM: To describe the first Australian cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) disease (COVID-19) pneumonia treated with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab. METHODS: Retrospective, open-label, real-world, uncontrolled, single-arm case series conducted in 2 tertiary hospitals in NSW, Australia and 1 tertiary hospital in Victoria, Australia. Five adult male patients aged between 46 and 74 years with type 1 respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission and biochemical evidence of systemic hyperinflammation (C-reactive protein greater than 100 mg/L; ferritin greater than 700 µg/L) were administered variable-dose tocilizumab. RESULTS: At between 13 and 26 days follow-up, all patients are alive and have been discharged from ICU. Two patients have been discharged home. Two patients avoided endotracheal intubation. Oxygen therapy has been ceased in three patients. Four adverse events potentially associated with tocilizumab therapy occurred in three patients: ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacteremia associated with central venous catheterization, myositis and hepatitis. All patients received broad-spectrum antibiotics, 4 received corticosteroids and 2 received both lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine. The time from first tocilizumab administration to improvement in ventilation, defined as a 25% reduction in fraction of inspired oxygen required to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation greater than 92%, ranged from 7 hours to 4.6 days. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab use was associated with favorable clinical outcome in our patients. We recommend tocilizumab be included in randomized controlled trials of treatment for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, and be considered for compassionate use in such patients pending the results of these trials.
Asunto(s)
Antiinflamatorios/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Betacoronavirus/efectos de los fármacos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Viral/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Antiinflamatorios/efectos adversos , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/efectos adversos , Betacoronavirus/patogenicidad , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Interacciones Microbiota-Huesped , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nueva Gales del Sur , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/diagnóstico , Neumonía Viral/virología , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Victoria , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Guías como Asunto , Máscaras/provisión & distribución , Máscaras/normas , Exposición Profesional/estadística & datos numéricos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Personal de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Máscaras/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
We report a case of dengue fever with features of encephalitis. The diagnosis of dengue was confirmed by the serum antibodies to dengue and the presence of a dengue antigen in the cerebrospinal fluid. This patient had characteristic magnetic resonance imaging brain findings, mainly involving the bilateral thalami, with hemorrhage. Dengue is not primarily a neurotropic virus and encephalopathy is a common finding in Dengue. Hence various other etiological possibilities were considered before concluding this as a case of Dengue encephalitis. This case explains the importance of considering the diagnosis of dengue encephalitis in appropriate situations.