Pandemics, intellectual property and 'our economy': A worldview analysis of Canada's role in compromising global access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite self-congratulatory rhetoric, Canada compromised COVID-19 vaccine equity with policies impeding a proposed global waiver of vaccine intellectual property (IP) rules. To learn from Canada's vaccine nationalism we explore the worldview - a coherent textual picture of the world - in a sample of Government of Canada communications regarding global COVID-19 vaccine sharing. Analysed documents portray risks and disparities as unrelated to the dynamics and power relations of the Canadian and international economies. Against this depoliticised backdrop, economic growth fueled by strict IP rules and free trade is advanced as the solution to inequities. Global vaccine access and distribution are pursued via a charity-focused public-private-partnership approach, with proposals to relax international IP rules dismissed as unhelpful. Rather than a puzzling lapse by a good faith 'middle power', Canada's obstruction of global COVID-19 vaccine equity is a logical and deliberate extension of dominant neoliberal economic policy models. Health sector challenges to such models must prioritise equity in global pandemic governance via politically assertive and less conciliatory stances towards national governments and multilateral organisations. Mobilisation for health equity should transform the overall health-damaging macroeconomic model, complementing efforts based on specific individual health determinants or medical technologies.

Addressing health care inequities in Canadian critical care through inclusive science: a pilot tool for standardized data collection.

PURPOSE: Sociodemographic risks contributing to health inequities are often inadequately captured and reported in critical care studies. To address the lack of standardized terms and definitions, we sought to develop a practical and convenient resource of questions and response options for collecting sociodemographic variables for critical care research. SOURCE: To identify domains and variables that impact health equity, we searched: 1) PubMed for critical care randomized trials (2010 to 2021); 2) high-impact critical care and general medicine journals for special issues relating to equity; and 3) governmental and nongovernmental resources. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 23 domains associated with health equity, including pronouns, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, visible minorities, language, household income, marital/relationship status, education, disabilities, immigrant and refugee status, employment, primary care access, expanded health insurance, internet access, housing security, food security, dependents, religion, and postal code. For each domain we provided standardized questions and response options; for 13/23 domains, we included more than one version of the question and response categories. CONCLUSION: We developed a standardized, practical, and convenient demographic data collection tool for critical care research studies. Questions and response options can be adapted by researchers for inclusion in individual study questionnaires or case report forms.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les risques sociodémographiques qui contribuent aux inégalités en matière de santé sont souvent mal saisis et rapportés dans les études de soins intensifs. Pour remédier au manque de termes et de définitions normalisés, nous avons cherché à élaborer une ressource à la fois pratique et utile de questions et d'options de réponse pour le recueil des variables sociodémographiques pour la recherche en soins intensifs. SOURCES: Pour identifier les domaines et les variables qui ont une incidence sur l'équité en santé, nous avons effectué des recherches dans : 1) PubMed, pour en extraire les études randomisées en soins intensifs (2010 à 2021); 2) des revues de soins intensifs et de médecine générale à impact élevé pour identifier les numéros spéciaux liés à l'équité; et 3) les ressources gouvernementales et non gouvernementales. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Nous avons identifié 23 domaines associés à l'équité en santé, y compris les pronoms, l'âge, le sexe, l'identité de genre, l'orientation sexuelle, la race et l'origine ethnique, les minorités visibles, la langue, le revenu du ménage, l'état matrimonial / relationnel, l'éducation, les handicaps, le statut d'immigrant·e et de réfugié·e, l'emploi, l'accès aux soins primaires, l'assurance maladie élargie, l'accès à l'internet, la sécurité du logement, la sécurité alimentaire, les personnes à charge, la religion et le code postal. Pour chaque domaine, nous avons fourni des questions et des options de réponse normalisées; pour 13/23 domaines, nous avons inclus plus d'une version des catégories de questions et réponses. CONCLUSION: Nous avons mis au point un outil de collecte de données démographiques normalisé, pratique et utile pour la recherche en soins intensifs. Les options de questions et de réponses peuvent être adaptées par les chercheuses et chercheurs pour être incluses dans des questionnaires d'étude individuels ou des formulaires de présentation de cas.

Dose optimisation and scarce resource allocation: two sides of the same coin.

OBJECTIVE: A deep understanding of the relationship between a scarce drug's dose and clinical response is necessary to appropriately distribute a supply-constrained drug along these lines. SUMMARY OF KEY DATA: The vast majority of drug development and repurposing during the COVID-19 pandemic - an event that has made clear the ever-present scarcity in healthcare systems -has been ignorant of scarcity and dose optimisation's ability to help address it. CONCLUSIONS: Future pandemic clinical trials systems should obtain dose optimisation data, as these appear necessary to enable appropriate scarce resource allocation according to societal values.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

Assessment of 28-Day In-Hospital Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: An International Cohort Study.

Factors associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation are still not fully elucidated. OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-level parameters, readily available at the bedside, associated with the risk of in-hospital mortality within 28 days from commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation or coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational cohort study by the global Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium. Patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation from February 2, 2020, to May 15, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient characteristics and clinical data were assessed upon ICU admission, the commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation and for 28 days thereafter. We primarily aimed to identify time-independent and time-dependent risk factors for 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality. RESULTS: One-thousand five-hundred eighty-seven patients were included in the survival analysis; 588 patients died in hospital within 28 days of commencing invasive mechanical ventilation (37%). Cox-regression analysis identified associations between the hazard of 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality with age (hazard ratio, 1.26 per 10-yr increase in age; 95% CI, 1.16-1.37; p < 0.001), positive end-expiratory pressure upon commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.81 per 5 cm H2O increase; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97; p = 0.02). Time-dependent parameters associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality were serum creatinine (hazard ratio, 1.28 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41; p < 0.001), lactate (hazard ratio, 1.22 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.11-1.34; p < 0.001), Paco2 (hazard ratio, 1.63 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.19-2.25; p < 0.001), pH (hazard ratio, 0.89 per 0.1 increase; 95% CI, 0.8-14; p = 0.041), Pao2/Fio2 (hazard ratio, 0.58 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66; p < 0.001), and mean arterial pressure (hazard ratio, 0.92 per 10 mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This international study suggests that in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on invasive mechanical ventilation, older age and clinically relevant variables monitored at baseline or sequentially during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation are associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality hazard. Further investigation is warranted to validate any causative roles these parameters might play in influencing clinical outcomes.

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

Epidemiology of intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a retrospective cohort analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database.

PURPOSE: Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) may improve survival in people with septic shock. Current utilization patterns of IVIG are unknown. We sought to characterize adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors who received IVIG, describes IVIG regimens, and evaluate determinants of IVIG use in patients with septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database study of adult patients with septic shock admitted to US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database (from July 2010 to June 2013). We described the proportion of patients with septic shock receiving IVIG, examined IVIG regimens across sites and employed random-effects multivariable regression techniques to identify predictors of IVIG use. RESULTS: Intravenous immune globulin was administered to 0.3% (n = 685) of patients with septic shock; with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] dose of 1 [0.5-1.8] g·kg-1 for a median [IQR] of 1 [1-2] day. Receipt of IVIG was less likely for Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.72) and patients without private insurance (Medicare OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; Medicaid OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57) and more likely for patients with immunocompromise (OR, 6.83; 95% CI 5.47 to 8.53), necrotizing fasciitis (OR, 9.78; 95% CI 6.97 to 13.72), and toxic shock (OR, 56.9; 95% CI 38.7 to 83.7). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous immune globulin is used infrequently across the US in patients with septic shock. Regimens of IVIG in septic shock may be less intensive than those associated with a survival benefit in meta-analyses. Observed infrequent use supports apparent clinical equipoise, perhaps secondary to limitations of the primary literature. A clinical trial evaluating the role of IVIG in septic shock is needed.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'immunoglobuline intraveineuse (IGIV) peut améliorer la survie chez les personnes atteintes de choc septique. Les pratiques actuelles d'utilisation de l'IGIV sont inconnues. Nous avons cherché à caractériser les patients adultes en état de choc septique et nécessitant des vasopresseurs qui ont reçu de l'IGIV, à décrire les dosages administrés d'IGIV, et à évaluer les causes déterminantes d'une utilisation d'IGIV chez ces patients. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude rétrospective de base de données portant sur des patients adultes atteints de choc septique admis dans des hôpitaux américains et inclus dans la base de données Premier Healthcare (de juillet 2010 à juin 2013). Nous avons décrit la proportion de patients en choc septique recevant de l'IGIV, examiné les posologies utilisées d'IGIV à travers les sites et employé des techniques de régression multivariable à effets aléatoires pour identifier les prédicteurs de l'utilisation d'IGIV. RéSULTATS: L'IGIV a été administrée à 0,3 % (n = 685) des patients présentant un choc septique, avec une dose médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 1 [0,5­1,8] g·kg-1 pour une médiane [ÉIQ] de 1 [1­2] jour. L'administration d'IGIV était moins probable chez les patients noirs (rapport de cotes [RC], 0,54; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,41 à 0,72) et les patients sans assurance privée (RC Medicare, 0,73; IC 95 %, 0,59 à 0,90; RC Medicaid, 0,41; IC 95 %, 0,30 à 0,57) et plus probable chez les patients immunodéprimés (RC, 6,83; IC 95 %, 5,47 à 8,53), atteints de fasciite nécrosante (RC, 9,78; IC 95 %, 6,97 à 13,72), et en choc toxique (RC, 56,9; IC 95 %, 38,7 à 83,7). CONCLUSION: L'IGIV est rarement utilisée aux États-Unis chez les patients en choc septique. Les dosages d'IGIV utilisés en cas de choc septique pourraient être moins intensifs que ceux associés à un effet bénéfique en matière de survie dans les méta-analyses. L'utilisation peu fréquente observée appuie une équivalence clinique apparente, peut-être secondaire aux limites de la littérature princeps. Une étude clinique évaluant le rôle de l'IGIV dans le choc septique est nécessaire.

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect. RESULTS: We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs. REGISTRATION: CRD42020192095.

Pediatric Emergency and Critical Care Resources and Infrastructure in Resource-Limited Settings: A Multicountry Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the infrastructure and resources for pediatric emergency and critical care delivery in resource-limited settings worldwide. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey with survey items developed through literature review and revised following piloting. SETTING: The electronic survey was disseminated internationally in November 2019 via e-mail directories of pediatric intensive care societies and networks and using social media. PATIENTS: Healthcare providers who self-identified as working in resource-limited settings. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Results were summarized using descriptive statistics and resource availability was compared across World Bank country income groups. We received 328 responses (238 hospitals, 60 countries), predominantly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 161, 67.4%). Hospitals were in low-income (28, 11.7%), middle-income (166, 69.5%), and high-income (44, 18.4%) countries. Across 174 PICU and adult ICU admitting children, there were statistically significant differences in the proportion of hospitals reporting consistent resource availability ("often" or "always") between country income groups (p < 0·05). Resources with limited availability in lower income countries included advanced ventilatory support, invasive and noninvasive monitoring, central venous access, renal replacement therapy, advanced imaging, microbiology, biochemistry, blood products, antibiotics, parenteral nutrition, and analgesic/sedative drugs. Seventy-seven ICUs (52.7%) were staffed 24/7 by a pediatric intensivist or anesthetist. The nurse-to-patient ratio was less than 1:2 in 71 ICUs (49.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary data demonstrate significant disparity in the availability of essential and advanced human and material resources for the care of critically ill children in resource-limited settings. Minimum standards for essential pediatric emergency and critical care in resource-limited settings are needed.

Mortality Risk Using a Pediatric Quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment Varies With Vital Sign Thresholds.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated adapting the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment score (fast respiratory rate, altered mental status, low blood pressure) for pediatric use by selecting thresholds from three commonly used definitions: Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2, Pediatric Advanced Life Support, and International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference. We examined their respective performance in identifying children who had a discharge diagnosis of infection at high risk of mortality using PICU registry data, with additional focus on the influence of age on performance. DESIGN: Analysis of retrospective data obtained from the Virtual Pediatric Systems PICU database. The performance in predicting observed mortality was assessed for the three candidate approaches using receiver operating characteristics analysis, including age group effects. SETTING: The Virtual Pediatric Systems database contains data on diagnosis, clinical markers, and outcomes in prospectively collected clinical records from 130 participating PICUs in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Children who had a discharge diagnosis of infection in a participating PICU between 2009 and 2014, for which all required data were available. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data from 40,228 children revealed an overall mortality of 4.22%. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (95% CI) was 0.760 (0.749-0.771) for Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 with mechanical ventilation, 0.700 (0.689-0.712) for Pediatric Advanced Life Support, and 0.709 (0.696-0.721) for International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference. When split by age group, the performance of Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 with mechanical ventilation was lowest in the youngest neonates (under 1 wk old), with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (95% CI) of 0.724 (0.656-0.791), and in the teenagers (13-18 yr), with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.710 (0.682-0.738), yet it still outperformed Pediatric Advanced Life Support and International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill children who had a discharge diagnosis of infection in the PICU, quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment score performs best when using the Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 age thresholds with mechanical ventilation, while all definitions performed worse at extremes of pediatric age. Thus, mortality risk varies with vital sign thresholds, and although Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 with mechanical ventilation performed marginally better, it is unlikely to be of use to clinicians. More work is needed to develop a robust and relevant pediatric sepsis risk score.

Current challenges in the management of sepsis in ICUs in resource-poor settings and suggestions for the future.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource-poor settings. ICUs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. AIM: To describe differences between resource-poor and resource-rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. FINDINGS: Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high-income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing both disease-specific and setting-specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost-effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro- and micro-economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource-limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement.

Industry-sponsored clinical research outside high-income countries: an empirical analysis of registered clinical trials from 2006 to 2013.

BACKGROUND: Industry-sponsored clinical trials, in the past performed almost exclusively in more developed countries, now often recruit participants globally. However, recruitment from outside high-income countries may not represent the ultimate target population for the intervention. Clinical trial registries provide an opportunity to quantify and examine the type of clinical research performed in various geographic regions. We sought to characterize industry-sponsored randomized controlled trials conducted in high-income countries and to compare these trials to those performed outside high-income countries. METHODS: Clinical trial data on all industry-funded randomized controlled trials conducted between 2006 and 2014 were obtained from the registry ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were classified according to their study sites as conducted in high or non-high income countries, and data on trial characteristics were collected. RESULTS: Of 22,511 relevant trials, a total of 6,085 (27.0 %) trials included study sites outside a high-income country, and 2,045 (9.1 %) were conducted exclusively outside high-income countries. Of country groups, Central Europe had the greatest number of trials (3,127), followed by Eastern Europe (2,075). The percentage of trials with study sites outside high-income countries remained relatively constant over the study period. Studies with sites outside high-income countries tended to recruit more participants (median enrolled participants 265 vs. 71, P <0.001), to be longer (median study duration 20 vs. 13 months, P <0.05), and to study more advanced phase interventions (Phase 3 or 4 trial 58 % vs. 33 %, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of industry-sponsored trials include participants from outside high-income countries and this rate remained stable over the 7-year study period. Trials conducted outside high-income countries tend to be larger, have a longer duration, and study later phase interventions compared to studies performed exclusively in high-income countries.

Being ready to treat Ebola virus disease patients.

As the outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa continues, clinical preparedness is needed in countries at risk for EVD (e.g., United States) and more fully equipped and supported clinical teams in those countries with epidemic spread of EVD in Africa. Clinical staff must approach the patient with a very deliberate focus on providing effective care while assuring personal safety. To do this, both individual health care providers and health systems must improve EVD care. Although formal guidance toward these goals exists from the World Health Organization, Medecin Sans Frontières, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups, some of the most critical lessons come from personal experience. In this narrative, clinicians deployed by the World Health Organization into a wide range of clinical settings in West Africa distill key, practical considerations for working safely and effectively with patients with EVD.

Global health care of the critically ill in low-resource settings.

The care of the critically ill patient in low-resource settings is challenging because of many factors, including limitations in the existing infrastructure, lack of disposables, and low numbers of trained healthcare workers. Although cost constraints in low-resource settings have traditionally caused critical care to be relegated to a low priority, ethical issues and the potential for mitigation of the lethal effects of often reversible acute conditions, such as sepsis and traumatic hemorrhage, argue for prudent deployment of critical care resources. Given these challenges, issues that require prioritization include timely and reliable delivery of evidence-based or generally accepted interventions to acutely ill patients before the development of organ failure, context-specific adaptation and evaluation of clinical evidence, and sustained investments in quality improvement and health systems strengthening. Specific examples include fluid resuscitation algorithms for patients with sepsis and reliable, low-cost, high-flow oxygen concentrators for patients with pneumonia. The lessons from new research on clinical management and sustainable education and quality improvement approaches will likely improve the care of critically ill patients worldwide.