Comparison of WHO versus national COVID-19 therapeutic guidelines across the world: not exactly a perfect match.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic affected all WHO member states. We compared and contrasted the COVID-19 treatment guidelines of each member state with the WHO COVID-19 therapeutic guidelines. METHODS: Ministries of Health or accessed National Infectious Disease websites and other relevant bodies and experts were contacted to obtain national guidelines (NGs) for COVID-19 treatment. NGs were included only if they delineated specific pharmacological treatments for COVID-19, which were stratified by disease severity. We conducted a retrospective review using the adapted Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines (RIGHT-PVG) survey checklist and a derived comparative metric based on the WHO guidelines was performed. RESULTS: COVID-19 therapeutics NGs could be obtained from 109 of the 194 WHO member states. There was considerable variation in guidelines and in disease severity stratifications. Therapeutic recommendations in many NGs differed substantially from the WHO guidelines. Overall in late 2022, 93% of NGs were recommending at least one treatment which had proved to be ineffective in large randomised trials, and was not recommended by WHO. Corticosteroids were not recommended in severe disease in nearly 10% of NGs despite overwhelming evidence of their benefit. NGs from countries with low-resource settings showed the greatest divergence when stratified by gross domestic product per year, Human Development Index and the Global Health Security Index. DISCUSSION: Our study is limited to NGs that were readily accessible, and it does not reflect the availability of recommended medicines in the field. Three years after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, available COVID-19 NGs vary substantially in their therapeutic recommendations, often differ from the WHO guidelines, and commonly recommend ineffective, unaffordable or unavailable medicines.

Computational clustering reveals differentiated coronary artery calcium progression at prevalent levels of pulse wave velocity by classifying high-risk patients.

Many studies found that increased arterial stiffness is significantly associated with the presence and progression of Coronary Calcium Score (CCS). However, none so far have used machine learning algorithms to improve their value. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the association between carotid-femoral Pulse Wave Velocity (cfPWV) and CCS score through computational clustering. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from a cardiovascular risk screening program that included 377 participants. We used an unsupervised clustering algorithm using age, weight, height, blood pressure, heart rate, and cfPWV as input variables. Differences between cluster groups were analyzed through Chi-square and T-student tests. The association between (i) cfPWV and age groups, (ii) log (CCS) and age groups, and (iii) cfPWV and log(CCS) were addressed through linear regression analysis. Clusters were labeled post hoc based on cardiovascular risk. A "higher-risk group" had significantly higher left (0.76 vs. 0.70 mm, P < 0.001) and right (0.71 vs. 0.66 mm, P = 0.003) intima-media thickness, CCS (42 vs. 4 Agatston units, P = 0.012), and ascending (3.40 vs. 3.20 cm, P < 0.001) and descending (2.60 vs. 2.37 cm, P < 0.001) aorta diameters. Association with age appeared linear for cfPWV and exponential for log (CCS). The progression of the log (CCS) and cfPWV through age groups was steeper in the "higher-risk group" than in the "lower-risk group". cfPWV strongly correlated with CCS, and CCS progression over cfPWV differed among clusters. This finding could improve PWV as a "gate-keeper" of CCS testing and potentially enhance cardiovascular risk stratification.