Pappashammond3481

A variety of treatment modalities have been investigated since the beginning of the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. The use of antimalarials (hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine) for COVID-19 treatment and prevention has proven to be a cautionary tale for widespread, off-label use of a medication during a crisis. The investigation of antimalarials for COVID-19 has also been a driver for a deluge of scientific output in a short amount of time. In this narrative review, we detail the evidence for and against antimalarial use in COVID-19, starting with the early small observational studies that influenced strategies worldwide. We then contrast these findings to later published larger observational studies and randomized controlled trials. We detail the emerging possible cardiovascular risks associated with antimalarial use in COVID-19 and whether COVID-19-related outcomes and cardiovascular risks may differ for antimalarials used in rheumatic diseases.

Reduction or prevention of violence is one of the fields of preventive interventions in nursing homes. To prove the effectiveness of appropriate interventions, valid instruments are crucial to measure violence.

Between November 2019 and May 2020, a systematic search for studies and instruments was conducted in relevant databases and reference directories assessing violent behaviour by employees towards residents, by residents towards employees and resident-to-resident abuse.

24 instruments were identified. 8 instruments capture staff-to-resident violence, 14 capture resident-to-staff violence, 3 resident-to-resident aggression, and 5 instruments are not exactly attributable to the constellation of violence. No instrument covers all three situations of violence. Four of the instruments used to capture violence by staff cover all forms of personal violence. Validity and reliability data are inadequate.

At present, there is no tool that fully depicts violence in resident homes and is suitable for measuring the effectiveness of interventions. There are sufficient tools for the individual constellations of violence that represent all forms of violence. Not all instruments could be procured in their original form, and even available instruments did not always provide information on the development of the instruments and a possible review of their quality.

There is a lack of an internationally comparable instrument representing elder abuse in the inpatient setting with sufficient validity and reliability.

There is a lack of an internationally comparable instrument representing elder abuse in the inpatient setting with sufficient validity and reliability.

Recommendations of evidence- and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a valuable source of quality indicators (QIs). Nevertheless, a standardized methodological procedure for developing QIs in the context of CPGs does not yet exist in Germany for all CPGs. For this reason, a methodological standard for the guideline-based development of QIs (QI Standard) was developed based on a structured consensus process involving multiple key stakeholders.

The proposed content of the QI Standard was derived from evidence, drawing upon results of reviews and qualitative studies, and considered German manuals for guideline-based QI development of two guideline programs. A multi-perspective consensus panel, broadly representing key stakeholders from the German healthcare system with expertise in CPGs and/or quality management, was nominated to vote on recommendations for guideline-based development of QIs. The iterative, structured consensus process included a two-stage online survey bassuccessfully tested in selected German CPG projects. In addition to methodological requirements for the QI development, it must be ensured that guideline groups have adequate resources for the implementation of the QI Standard.

By using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.

By using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.Plerixafor (Mozobil, Sanofi) is approved for using in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma when steady-state mobilization strategies fail. Although off-label use of plerixafor in healthy related donors (HRD) is known, limited data are available and no recommendations exist to guide its use in this setting. With the aim of collecting data from HRDs who received plerixafor in our country, we designed an observational case series study within the Spanish Group of Hematopoietic Transplant and Cell Therapy (GETH). Plerixafor was administered subcutaneously to 30 HRDs at a median dose of 0.24 mg/Kg (interquartile range (IQR) 0.23-0.25) because mobilization failure after using mobilization with G-CSF (mobilization failure was defined as collection of less then 4.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg recipient). All HRDs received G-CSF at a median dose of 11 μg/Kg/day (IQR 10-12) for 4-5 days. Leukocytapheresis after G-CSF mobilization was performed in 23 (77 %) HRDs collecting a median of 1.6 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg recipient weight (IQR 0.9-2.5). Addition of plerixafor allowed the collection of a higher median number of CD34 cells (4.98 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg recipient weight (IQR 3.5-5.8)) when compared with the collection of CD34+ cells with G-CSF alone (p less then 0.01). read more The final median total number of CD34+ cells collected was 6.1 × 106/Kg recipient weight (IQR 4.8-7.3). Mild adverse events related with plerixafor administration were reported in 8 (27 %) donors. In conclusion, addition of plerixafor after G-CSF mobilization failure in HRDs allowed collecting higher number of CD34+ cells in comparison with steady-state mobilization.

Stem cell transplantation has been a therapeutic option for increasingly older patients but the search for the donor is an additional question in this context. Currently the ideal donor is a sibiling with fully compatible human leukocyte antigens, but when it is an elderly patient there is a high probability that this donor is also elderly, and the donor age has been related to worse outcomes and the possible comorbidities may render the donor ineligible.

To compare, in patients aged 50 years or older, the overall survival of patients whose donor had haploidentical HLA compatibility and under 50 years of age ("young" donor) versus patients whose donor had a total HLA compatibility and 50 years of age or older ("elderly" donor).

This is a consecutive retrospective descriptive observational epidemiological study. All patients were treated during the period from January, 2010 to April, 2019. Overall survival of patients 50 years of age and older was the primary outcome of the study.

We included 53 patients.