Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals.

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Remdesivir for severe COVID-19: a clinical practice guideline

Clinical question: What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020.Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice. The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir.How this guideline was created: An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems.The evidence: The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay.Understanding the recommendation: Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.