PMC:7195088 / 71579-73086 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"1903","span":{"begin":29,"end":37},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A1903","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"1903","obj":"MESH:C000657245"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"Tax","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy/"},{"prefix":"MESH","uri":"https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/"},{"prefix":"Gene","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"CVCL","uri":"https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_"}],"text":"In these first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, where there are no clearly supported and approved treatments, there are two apparently mutually exclusive forces driving therapeutic choices supported only by preclinical and/or low-level clinical evidence: the willingness to administer potentially active therapies to COVID-19 patients; and the willingness not to harm by administering potentially inactive therapies that may unfavourably influence the outcome because of either expected or unexpected toxicity. Finding the right balance between these two forces is certainly not simple, but it remains more necessary than ever if we want to rapidly find effective and safe treatment. For this reason, RCT should always be the first option to be proposed to patients because RCT are the only way to provide high-level efficacy and safety information for optimizing the treatment of future patients. However, even when rapidly implemented during evolving pandemics, RCT are usually not immediately available (e.g. even if accelerated, local approval still and correctly requires time to guarantee ethical standards), and also many patients are usually excluded from RCT because of strict selection criteria [86,87]. For some of these patients, off-label uses (for drugs approved for other indications) and compassionate-use/expanded-access programmes (for investigational drugs) may represent an ethically justifiable option in the case of worsening conditions and unlikely survival with only supportive care."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-MONDO","denotations":[{"id":"T395","span":{"begin":29,"end":37},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T396","span":{"begin":317,"end":325},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A395","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T395","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0100096"},{"id":"A396","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T396","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0100096"}],"text":"In these first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, where there are no clearly supported and approved treatments, there are two apparently mutually exclusive forces driving therapeutic choices supported only by preclinical and/or low-level clinical evidence: the willingness to administer potentially active therapies to COVID-19 patients; and the willingness not to harm by administering potentially inactive therapies that may unfavourably influence the outcome because of either expected or unexpected toxicity. Finding the right balance between these two forces is certainly not simple, but it remains more necessary than ever if we want to rapidly find effective and safe treatment. For this reason, RCT should always be the first option to be proposed to patients because RCT are the only way to provide high-level efficacy and safety information for optimizing the treatment of future patients. However, even when rapidly implemented during evolving pandemics, RCT are usually not immediately available (e.g. even if accelerated, local approval still and correctly requires time to guarantee ethical standards), and also many patients are usually excluded from RCT because of strict selection criteria [86,87]. For some of these patients, off-label uses (for drugs approved for other indications) and compassionate-use/expanded-access programmes (for investigational drugs) may represent an ethically justifiable option in the case of worsening conditions and unlikely survival with only supportive care."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CLO","denotations":[{"id":"T386","span":{"begin":297,"end":303},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001658"},{"id":"T387","span":{"begin":1246,"end":1251},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0007225"}],"text":"In these first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, where there are no clearly supported and approved treatments, there are two apparently mutually exclusive forces driving therapeutic choices supported only by preclinical and/or low-level clinical evidence: the willingness to administer potentially active therapies to COVID-19 patients; and the willingness not to harm by administering potentially inactive therapies that may unfavourably influence the outcome because of either expected or unexpected toxicity. Finding the right balance between these two forces is certainly not simple, but it remains more necessary than ever if we want to rapidly find effective and safe treatment. For this reason, RCT should always be the first option to be proposed to patients because RCT are the only way to provide high-level efficacy and safety information for optimizing the treatment of future patients. However, even when rapidly implemented during evolving pandemics, RCT are usually not immediately available (e.g. even if accelerated, local approval still and correctly requires time to guarantee ethical standards), and also many patients are usually excluded from RCT because of strict selection criteria [86,87]. For some of these patients, off-label uses (for drugs approved for other indications) and compassionate-use/expanded-access programmes (for investigational drugs) may represent an ethically justifiable option in the case of worsening conditions and unlikely survival with only supportive care."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CHEBI","denotations":[{"id":"T14062","span":{"begin":1246,"end":1251},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T26421","span":{"begin":1262,"end":1267},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T69721","span":{"begin":1370,"end":1375},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A13519","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T14062","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_35209"},{"id":"A70757","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T26421","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_23888"},{"id":"A76037","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T69721","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_23888"}],"text":"In these first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, where there are no clearly supported and approved treatments, there are two apparently mutually exclusive forces driving therapeutic choices supported only by preclinical and/or low-level clinical evidence: the willingness to administer potentially active therapies to COVID-19 patients; and the willingness not to harm by administering potentially inactive therapies that may unfavourably influence the outcome because of either expected or unexpected toxicity. Finding the right balance between these two forces is certainly not simple, but it remains more necessary than ever if we want to rapidly find effective and safe treatment. For this reason, RCT should always be the first option to be proposed to patients because RCT are the only way to provide high-level efficacy and safety information for optimizing the treatment of future patients. However, even when rapidly implemented during evolving pandemics, RCT are usually not immediately available (e.g. even if accelerated, local approval still and correctly requires time to guarantee ethical standards), and also many patients are usually excluded from RCT because of strict selection criteria [86,87]. For some of these patients, off-label uses (for drugs approved for other indications) and compassionate-use/expanded-access programmes (for investigational drugs) may represent an ethically justifiable option in the case of worsening conditions and unlikely survival with only supportive care."}

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T494","span":{"begin":0,"end":510},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T495","span":{"begin":511,"end":683},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T496","span":{"begin":684,"end":897},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T497","span":{"begin":898,"end":1213},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T498","span":{"begin":1214,"end":1507},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"In these first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, where there are no clearly supported and approved treatments, there are two apparently mutually exclusive forces driving therapeutic choices supported only by preclinical and/or low-level clinical evidence: the willingness to administer potentially active therapies to COVID-19 patients; and the willingness not to harm by administering potentially inactive therapies that may unfavourably influence the outcome because of either expected or unexpected toxicity. Finding the right balance between these two forces is certainly not simple, but it remains more necessary than ever if we want to rapidly find effective and safe treatment. For this reason, RCT should always be the first option to be proposed to patients because RCT are the only way to provide high-level efficacy and safety information for optimizing the treatment of future patients. However, even when rapidly implemented during evolving pandemics, RCT are usually not immediately available (e.g. even if accelerated, local approval still and correctly requires time to guarantee ethical standards), and also many patients are usually excluded from RCT because of strict selection criteria [86,87]. For some of these patients, off-label uses (for drugs approved for other indications) and compassionate-use/expanded-access programmes (for investigational drugs) may represent an ethically justifiable option in the case of worsening conditions and unlikely survival with only supportive care."}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"32360444-29240890-22369826","span":{"begin":1206,"end":1208},"obj":"29240890"},{"id":"32360444-31607179-22369827","span":{"begin":1209,"end":1211},"obj":"31607179"}],"text":"In these first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, where there are no clearly supported and approved treatments, there are two apparently mutually exclusive forces driving therapeutic choices supported only by preclinical and/or low-level clinical evidence: the willingness to administer potentially active therapies to COVID-19 patients; and the willingness not to harm by administering potentially inactive therapies that may unfavourably influence the outcome because of either expected or unexpected toxicity. Finding the right balance between these two forces is certainly not simple, but it remains more necessary than ever if we want to rapidly find effective and safe treatment. For this reason, RCT should always be the first option to be proposed to patients because RCT are the only way to provide high-level efficacy and safety information for optimizing the treatment of future patients. However, even when rapidly implemented during evolving pandemics, RCT are usually not immediately available (e.g. even if accelerated, local approval still and correctly requires time to guarantee ethical standards), and also many patients are usually excluded from RCT because of strict selection criteria [86,87]. For some of these patients, off-label uses (for drugs approved for other indications) and compassionate-use/expanded-access programmes (for investigational drugs) may represent an ethically justifiable option in the case of worsening conditions and unlikely survival with only supportive care."}