Evaluating patient factors, operative management and postoperative outcomes in trauma laparotomy patients worldwide: a protocol for a global observational multicentre trauma study.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma contributes to the greatest loss of disability-adjusted life-years for adolescents and young adults worldwide. In the context of global abdominal trauma, the trauma laparotomy is the most commonly performed operation. Variation likely exists in how these patients are managed and their subsequent outcomes, yet very little global data on the topic currently exists. The objective of the GOAL-Trauma study is to evaluate both patient and injury factors for those undergoing trauma laparotomy, their clinical management and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We describe a planned prospective multicentre observational cohort study of patients undergoing trauma laparotomy. We will include patients of all ages who present to hospital with a blunt or penetrating injury and undergo a trauma laparotomy within 5 days of presentation to the treating centre. The study will collect system, patient, process and outcome data, following patients up until 30 days postoperatively (or until discharge or death, whichever is first). Our sample size calculation suggests we will need to recruit 552 patients from approximately 150 recruiting centres. DISCUSSION: The GOAL-Trauma study will provide a global snapshot of the current management and outcomes for patients undergoing a trauma laparotomy. It will also provide insight into the variation seen in the time delays for receiving care, the disease and patient factors present, and patient outcomes. For current standards of trauma care to be improved worldwide, a greater understanding of the current state of trauma laparotomy care is paramount if appropriate interventions and targets are to be identified and implemented.

Does the implementation of a trauma system affect injury-related morbidity and economic outcomes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma accounts for a huge burden of disease worldwide. Trauma systems have been implemented in multiple countries across the globe, aiming to link and optimise multiple aspects of the trauma care pathway, and while they have been shown to reduce overall mortality, much less is known about their cost-effectiveness and impact on morbidity. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to explore the impact the implementation of a trauma system has on morbidity, quality of life and economic outcomes, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All comparator study types published since 2000 were included, both retrospective and prospective in nature, and no limits were placed on language. Data were reported as a narrative review. RESULTS: Seven articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria, all of which reported a pre-trauma and post-trauma system implementation comparison in high-income settings. The overall study quality was poor, with all studies demonstrating a severe risk of bias. Five studies reported across multiple types of trauma patients, the majority describing a positive impact across a variety of morbidity and health economic outcomes following trauma system implementation. Two studies focused specifically on traumatic brain injury and did not demonstrate any impact on morbidity outcomes. DISCUSSION: There is currently limited and poor quality evidence that assesses the impact that trauma systems have on morbidity, quality of life and economic outcomes. While trauma systems have a fundamental role to play in high-quality trauma care, morbidity and disability data can have large economic and cultural consequences, even if mortality rates have improved. The sociocultural and political context of the surrounding healthcare infrastructure must be better understood before implementing any trauma system, particularly in resource-poor and fragile settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022348529 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Geo-economic Influence on the Effect of Fluid Volume for Sepsis Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Sepsis management relies on fluid resuscitation avoiding fluid overload and its related organ congestion. Objectives: To explore the influence of country income group on risk-benefit balance of fluid management strategies in sepsis. Methods: We searched e-databases for all randomized controlled trials on fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis or septic shock up to January 2023, excluding studies on hypertonic fluids, colloids, and depletion-based interventions. The effect of fluid strategies (higher versus lower volumes) on mortality was analyzed per income group (i.e., low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] or high-income countries [HICs]). Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-nine studies (11,798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a numerically higher mortality in studies of LMICs as compared with those of HICs: median, 37% (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-41) versus 29% (IQR: 17-38; P = 0.06). Income group significantly interacted with the effect of fluid volume on mortality: Higher fluid volume was associated with higher mortality in LMICs but not in HICs: odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.14-1.90 versus 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87-1.16), P = 0.01 for subgroup differences. Higher fluid volume was associated with increased need for mechanical ventilation in LMICs (OR, 1.24 [95% CI: 1.08-1.43]) but not in HICs (OR, 1.02 [95% CI: 0.80-1.29]). Self-reported access to mechanical ventilation also significantly influenced the effect of fluid volume on mortality, which increased with higher volumes only in settings with limited access to mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.09-1.93] vs. 1.09 [95% CI: 0.93-1.28], P = 0.02 for subgroup differences). Conclusions: In sepsis trials, the effect of fluid resuscitation approach differed by setting, with higher volume of fluid resuscitation associated with increased mortality in LMICs and in settings with restricted access to mechanical ventilation. The precise reason for these differences is unclear and may be attributable in part to resource constraints, participant variation between trials, or other unmeasured factors.

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units.

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes. Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam. Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.

ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

The Impact of Trauma System Implementation on Patient Quality of Life and Economic Burden: A Systematic Review Study Protocol.

Background: Trauma accounts for 10% of global mortality, with increasing rates disproportionally affecting low- and middle-income countries. In an attempt to improve clinical outcomes after injury, trauma systems have been implemented in multiple countries over recent years. However, whilst many studies have subsequently demonstrated improvements in overall mortality outcomes, less is known about the impact trauma systems have on morbidity, quality of life, and economic burden. This systematic review seeks to assess the existing evidence base for trauma systems with these outcome measures. Methods: This review will include any study that assesses the impact implementation of a trauma system has on patient morbidity, quality of life, or economic burden. Any comparator study, including cohort, case-control, and randomised controlled studies, will be included, both retrospective or prospective in nature. Studies conducted from any region in the world and involving any age of patient will be included. We will collect data on any morbidity outcomes, health-related quality of life measures, or health economic assessments reported. We predict a high heterogeneity in these outcomes used and will therefore keep inclusion criteria broad. Discussion: Previous reviews have shown the significant improvements that can be achieved in mortality outcomes with the implementation of an organised trauma system, however the wider impact they can have on morbidity outcomes, quality of life measures, and the economic burden of trauma, is less well described. This systematic review will present all available data on these outcomes, helping to better characterise both the societal and economic impact of trauma system implementation. Highlights: Trauma systems are known to improve mortality rates, however less in known on the impact they have on morbidity outcomes, quality of life, and economic burdenWe aim to perform a systematic review to identify any comparator study that assesses the impact implementation of a trauma system on these outcomesUnderstanding the impact trauma systems can have on wider parameters, such as economic and quality of life outcomes, is crucial to allow governments globally to appropriately allocate often limited healthcare resources.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022348529.

Respiratory Support Techniques for COVID-19-Related ARDS in a Sub-Saharan African Country: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data from low-income countries report on respiratory support techniques in COVID-19-associated ARDS. RESEARCH QUESTION: Which respiratory support techniques are used in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS in Uganda? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted at 13 Ugandan hospitals during the pandemic and included adults with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory data, initial and most advanced respiratory support techniques, and 28-day mortality were recorded. Standard tests, log-rank tests, and logistic regression analyses were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-nine patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS (mild, n = 137; moderate, n = 247; and severe, n = 115) were included (ICU admission, 38.9%). Standard oxygen therapy (SOX), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), CPAP, noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) was used as the first-line (most advanced) respiratory support technique in 37.3% (35.3%), 10% (9.4%), 11.6% (4.8%), 23.4% (14.4%), and 17.6% (36.6%) of patients, respectively. The first-line respiratory support technique was escalated in 19.8% of patients. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 51.9% (mild ARDS, 13.1%; moderate ARDS, 62.3%; severe ARDS, 75.7%; P < .001) and was associated with respiratory support techniques as follows: SOX, 19.9%; HFNO, 31.9%; CPAP, 58.3%; NIV 61.1%; and IMV, 83.9% (P < .001). Proning was used in 79 patients (15.8%; 59 of 79 awake) and was associated with lower mortality (40.5% vs 54%; P = .03). The oxygen saturation to Fio2 ratio (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; P < .001) and respiratory rate (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12; P = .002) at admission and NIV (OR, 6.31; 95% CI, 2.29-17.37; P < .001) or IMV (OR, 8.08; 95% CI, 3.52-18.57; P < .001) use were independent risk factors for death. INTERPRETATION: SOX, HFNO, CPAP, NIV, and IMV were used as respiratory support techniques in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS in Uganda. Although these data are observational, they suggest that the use of SOX and HFNO therapy as well as awake proning are associated with a lower mortality resulting from COVID-19-associated ARDS in a resource-limited setting.

Building Critical Care Capacity in a Low-Income Country.

Critical illness is common throughout the world and is associated with high costs of care and resource intensity. The Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a sudden surge of critically ill patients, which in turn led to devastating effects on health care systems worldwide and more so in Africa. This narrative report describes how an attempt was made at bridging the existing gaps in quality of care for critically ill patients at national and regional levels for COVID and the postpandemic era in a low income country.

Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-severe COVID-19 among adults in Uganda: a randomized open label phase II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Several repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been investigated for treatment of COVID-19, but none was confirmed to be efficacious. While in vitro studies have demonstrated antiviral properties of HCQ, data from clinical trials were conflicting regarding its benefit for COVID-19 treatment. Drugs that limit viral replication may be beneficial in the earlier course of the disease thus slowing progression to severe and critical illness. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized open label Phase II clinical trial from October-December 2020. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were included in the study if they were 18 years and above and had a diagnosis of COVID-19 made in the last 3 days. Patients were randomized in blocks, to receive either HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days plus standard of care (SOC) treatment or SOC treatment alone. SARS COV-2 viral load (CT values) from RT-PCR testing of samples collected using nasal/orapharyngeal swabs was performed at baseline, day 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. The primary outcome was median time from randomization to SARS COV-2 viral clearance by day 6. RESULTS: Of the 105 participants enrolled, 55 were assigned to the intervention group (HCQ plus SOC) and 50 to the control group (SOC only). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. Viral clearance did not differ by treatment arm, 20 and 19 participants respectively had SARS COV-2 viral load clearance by day 6 with no significant difference, median (IQR) number of days to viral load clearance between the two groups was 4(3-4) vs 4(2-4): p = 0.457. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes (symptom resolution and adverse events) between the intervention group and the control group. There were no significant differences in specific adverse events such as elevated alkaline phosphatase, prolonged QTc interval on ECG, among patients in the intervention group as compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Our results show that HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days was safe but not associated with reduction in viral clearance or symptom resolution among adults with COVID-19 in Uganda. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  NCT04860284.

Epidemiology and Outcome of Sepsis in Adults and Children in a Rural, Sub-Sahara African Setting.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the epidemiology and outcome of adults and children with and without sepsis in a rural sub-Sahara African setting. DESIGN: A priori planned substudy of a prospective, before-and-after trial. SETTING: Rural, sub-Sahara African hospital. PATIENTS: One-thousand four-hundred twelve patients (adults, n = 491; children, n = 921) who were admitted to hospital because of an acute infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, clinical, laboratory data, danger signs, and the presence of sepsis (defined as a quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score count ≥ 2) at admission were extracted. Sepsis was observed in 69 adults (14.1%) and 248 children (26.9%). Sepsis patients differed from subjects without sepsis in several demographic and clinical aspects. Malaria was the most frequent type of infection in adults (66.7%) and children (63.7%) with sepsis, followed by suspected bacterial and parasitic infections other than malaria. Adults with sepsis more frequently developed respiratory failure (8.7% vs 2.1%; p = 0.01), had a higher in-hospital mortality (17.4% vs 8.3%; p < 0.001), were less often discharged home (81.2% vs 92.2%; p = 0.007), and had higher median (interquartile range) costs of care (30,300 [19,400-49,900] vs 42,500 Rwandan Francs [27,000-64,400 Rwandan Francs]; p = 0.004) than adults without sepsis. Children with sepsis were less frequently discharged home than children without sepsis (93.1% vs 96.4%; p = 0.046). Malaria and respiratory tract infections claimed the highest absolute numbers of lives. The duration of symptoms before hospital admission did not differ between survivors and nonsurvivors in adults (72 [24-168] vs 96 hr [72-168 hr]; p = 0.27) or children (48 [24-72] vs 36 [24-108 hr]; p = 0.8). Respiratory failure and coma were the most common causes of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to suspected bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, malaria and other parasitic infections are common and important causes of sepsis in adults and children admitted to a rural hospital in sub-Sahara Africa. The in-hospital mortality associated with sepsis is substantial, primarily in adults.

A Research Agenda for Precision Medicine in Sepsis and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Precision medicine focuses on the identification of therapeutic strategies that are effective for a group of patients based on similar unifying characteristics. The recent success of precision medicine in non-critical care settings has resulted from the confluence of large clinical and biospecimen repositories, innovative bioinformatics, and novel trial designs. Similar advances for precision medicine in sepsis and in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are possible but will require further investigation and significant investment in infrastructure. Methods: This project was funded by the American Thoracic Society Board of Directors. A multidisciplinary and diverse working group reviewed the available literature, established a conceptual framework, and iteratively developed recommendations for the Precision Medicine Research Agenda for Sepsis and ARDS. Results: The following six priority recommendations were developed by the working group: 1) the creation of large richly phenotyped and harmonized knowledge networks of clinical, imaging, and multianalyte molecular data for sepsis and ARDS; 2) the implementation of novel trial designs, including adaptive designs, and embedding trial procedures in the electronic health record; 3) continued innovation in the data science and engineering methods required to identify heterogeneity of treatment effect; 4) further development of the tools necessary for the real-time application of precision medicine approaches; 5) work to ensure that precision medicine strategies are applicable and available to a broad range of patients varying across differing racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and demographic groups; and 6) the securement and maintenance of adequate and sustainable funding for precision medicine efforts. Conclusions: Precision medicine approaches that incorporate variability in genomic, biologic, and environmental factors may provide a path forward for better individualizing the delivery of therapies and improving care for patients with sepsis and ARDS.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent COVID-19

Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter?There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.

Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in a low-income country: a prospective observational study of hospital prevalence and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist on the epidemiology of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in low-income countries (LICs). We sought to determine the prevalence of AHRF in critically ill adult patients admitted to a Ugandan tertiary referral hospital; determine clinical and treatment characteristics as well as assess factors associated with mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study at the Mulago National Referral and Teaching Hospital in Uganda. Critically ill adults who were hospitalised at the emergency department and met the criteria for AHRF (acute shortness of breath for less than a week) were enrolled and followed up for 90 days. Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the risk factors for death. RESULTS: A total of 7300 patients was screened. Of these, 327 (4.5%) presented with AHRF. The majority (60 %) was male and the median age was 38 years (IQR 27-52). The mean plethysmographic oxygen saturation (SpO2) was 77.6% (SD 12.7); mean SpO2/FiO2 ratio 194 (SD 32) and the mean Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) 6.7 (SD 0.8). Pneumonia (80%) was the most common diagnosis. Only 6% of the patients received mechanical ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was 77% with an average length of hospital stay of 9.2 days (SD 7). At 90 days after enrolment, the mortality increased to 85%. Factors associated with mortality were severity of hypoxaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.29 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.54), p=0.01); a high LIPS (RR 1.79 (95% CI 1.79 1.14 to 2.83), p=0.01); thrombocytopenia (RR 1.23 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.38), p=0.01); anaemia (RR 1.15 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.31), p=0.03) ; HIV co-infection (RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.97), p=0.019) and male gender (RR 1.15 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.31) p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AHRF among emergency department patients in a tertiary hospital in an LIC was low but was associated with very high mortality. Pneumonia was the most common cause of AHRF. Mortality was associated with higher severity of hypoxaemia, high LIPS, anaemia, HIV co-infection, thrombocytopenia and being male.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates: This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Clinical question: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? Context: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics. What is new?: The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19. About this guideline: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.