In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200 countries, leading to over 1.6 million cases and over 99,000 deaths. Given that there is neither a vaccine nor proven treatment for COVID-19, there is currently an urgent need for effective pharmacotherapy. To address the need for an effective treatment of SARS-CoV-2 during the worldwide pandemic, this systematic review of intravenous (IV) remdesivir was performed. Remdesivir, an anti-viral prodrug originally developed to treat Ebola virus disease, has shown broad spectrum activity against the Coronavirus family. A recent case report reported improvement of clinical symptoms with remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19. After conducting a systematic search of 18 clinical trial registries and three large scientific databases, we identified 86 potentially eligible items. Following removal of duplicates (n = 21), eligible studies were reviewed independently by two authors. After the first round of screening, inter-rater agreement was 98.5% (κ = 0.925). After the second round of full-text screening, inter-rater agreement was 100%. A total of seven ongoing and recruiting clinical trials of remdesivir (100–200 milligrams, intravenous [IV]) were included. We identified the following primary outcomes: patients discharged (n = 2); time to clinical status improvement (n = 2); improved O2 saturation (n = 2); body temperature normalization (n = 2); and clinical status (n = 1). Secondary outcomes in all identified studies included documentation of adverse events. Phase 3 trials are expected to be completed between April 2020–2023. Therefore, despite supportive data from in vitro and in vivo studies, the clinical effectiveness of IV remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 and potential side effects remain incompletely defined in the human population.

Objectives: Human patient simulation (HPS), utilizing computerized, physiologically responding mannequins, has become the latest innovation in medical education. However, no substantive outcome data exist validating the advantage of HPS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of simulation training as compared with case-based learning (CBL) among fourth-year medical students as measured by observable behavioral actions.Methods: A chest pain curriculum was presented during a one-month mandatory emergency medicine clerkship in 2005. Each month, students were randomized to participate in either the CBL-based or the HPS-based module. All students participated in the same end-of-clerkship chest pain objective structured clinical examination that measured 43 behaviors. Three subscales were computed: history taking, acute coronary syndrome evaluation and management, and cardiac arrest management. Mean total and subscale scores were compared across groups using a multivariate analysis of variance, with significance assessed from Hotelling's T 2 statistic.Results: Students were randomly assigned to CBL (n = 52) or HPS (n = 50) groups. The groups were well balanced after random assignment, with no differences in mean age (26.7 years; range, 22-44 years), gender (male, 52.0%), or emergency medicine preference for specialty training (28.4%). Self-ratings of learning styles were similar overall: 54.9% were visual learners, 7.8% auditory learners, and 37.3% kinetic learners.Results of the multivariate analysis of variance indicated no significant effect (Hotelling's T 2 [3,98] = 0.053; p = 0.164) of education modality (CBL or HPS) on any subscale or total score difference in performance.Conclusions: HPS training offers no advantage to CBL as measured by medical student performance on a chest pain objective structured clinical examination.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2007; 14:130-137 ª

HPS training offers no advantage to CBL as measured by medical student performance on a chest pain objective structured clinical examination.

By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.

Introduction: Emergency medicine milestones suggest skill performance expectations for graduating medical students. The objective of this study is to examine differences between student's perceived proficiency and faculty expectations relative to Level 1 EM milestones, identifying opportunities for curriculum development.Methods: Using ACGME milestone language, the authors developed a survey that measures student perceived skill proficiency with 22 skills, which was administered to fourth year medical students at 6 institutions. Similar surveys were sent to faculty to determine their expectations of students' skill proficiency. Differences between student and faculty responses were calculated.Results: There were 608 student and 114 faculty responses. There was a statistically significant difference between mean student and faculty responses for 13 of the 22 skills. For 10 of these skills, students rated their own skill proficiency higher than faculty expectations. For 3 of the skills, faculty rated their expectations higher than students' perceived proficiency. Conclusions:For pharmacology skills, student ratings were low, indicating an area to focus curriculum development. Items where student ratings are higher than faculty may be a result of overconfidence or a lack of understanding by faculty of students' abilities. Formal assessment of skills in these areas would help clarify the reason and direct faculty and curriculum development.