Search

Background: The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use., Objectives: To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements., Data Sources: Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022., Study Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials; all languages., Participants: All hospitalized adults with COVID-19., Interventions: Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care., Assessment of Risk of Bias: We used the ROB-2 criteria., Methods of Data Synthesis: The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important., Results: We identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen., Conclusions: Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated., (Copyright © 2022 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

(1) Background: Several brands of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) carry voluntary health warning messages. This study examined how potential exposure to ENDS magazine ads with these voluntary health warnings were associated with the perceived harmfulness of ENDS. (2) Methods: Risk perception measures and self-reported exposure to ENDS ads were obtained from the 2014 Georgia State University (GSU) Tobacco Products and Risk Perceptions Survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. We examined the association between potential exposure to magazine ads with warnings and the perceived harms of ENDS relative to cigarettes, using binary logistic regressions and controlling for general ENDS ad exposure and socio-demographic characteristics. (3) Results: Potential exposure to ENDS magazine ads with warnings was associated with a lower probability of considering ENDS to be more or equally harmful compared to cigarettes, particularly among non-smokers (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.77). In addition, ad exposure, ENDS use history, race/ethnicity, gender, education, and income were also associated with harm perceptions. (4) Conclusions: This study did not find evidence that magazine ads with warnings increased misperceptions that ENDS are equally or more harmful than cigarettes. With more ENDS advertisements carrying warnings, more research is needed to determine how the warnings in advertisements convey relative harm information to consumers and the public., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.