Pharmacologic Treatment of SARS: Current Knowledge and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic caught the world by surprise in 2003 and spread rapidly within a relatively short period of time. Hence, randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials on the treatment of SARS were not possible. Our understanding was obtained from observational, cohort studies, case series and reports. Nevertheless, such information is useful in providing clinical management guidelines and directing future research in case SARS recurs. Early in the pandemic, a combination of ribavirin and corticosteroids was adopted as the standard treatment in Hong Kong, Canada and elsewhere because of the apparent good results of the first few patients. Subsequent reports showed that ribavirin was associated with a high rate of toxicity and lacked in vitro antiviral effect on SARS-coronavirus (SAR-CoV). The timing and dosage regimens of steroid in the treatment of SARS are controversial. Pulse methylprednisolone 250 to 500 mg/day for 3 to 6 days has been reported to have some efficacy in a subset of patients with "critical SARS", i.e., critically ill SARS patients with deteriorating radiographic consolidation, increasing oxygen requirement with PaO2 <10 kPa or SpO2 <90% on air, and respiratory distress (rate of 30/min). Prolonged therapy with high-dose steroids, in the absence of an effective antimicrobial agent, could predispose patients to complications such as disseminated fungal infection, and avascular necrosis. Kaletra (400 mg ritonavir and 100 mg lopinavir), a protease inhibitor used in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection, may be considered for early treatment of SARS patients, preferably in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial setting. Interferon (IFN) is not recommended as standard therapy in SARS. However, there are enough data on in vitro activity of IFN preparations and a few clinical studies for these products to support a controlled trial if SARS recurs. Many other experimental treatments have been tried in an uncontrolled manner, and they should not be recommended as standard therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".