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.

Identifying patients at risk of futile resuscitation: palliative care indicators in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with indicators for palliative care, such as those with advanced life-limiting conditions, are at risk of futile cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if they suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Patients at risk of futile CPR could benefit from anticipatory care planning (ACP); however, the proportion of OHCA patients with indicators for palliative care is unknown. This study quantifies the extent of palliative care indicators and risk of CPR futility in OHCA patients. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was performed on all OHCA patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) in Edinburgh, Scotland in 2015. The risk of CPR futility was stratified using the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool. Patients with 0-2 indicators had a 'low risk' of futile CPR; 3-4 indicators had an 'intermediate risk'; 5+ indicators had a 'high risk'. RESULTS: Of the 283 OHCA patients, 12.4% (35) had a high risk of futile CPR, while 16.3% (46) had an intermediate risk and 71.4% (202) had a low risk. 84.0% (68) of intermediate-to-high risk patients were pronounced dead in the ED or ED step-down ward; only 2.5% (2) of these patients survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 30% of OHCA patients are being subjected to advanced resuscitation despite having at least three indicators for palliative care. More than 80% of patients with an intermediate-to-high risk of CPR futility are dying soon after conveyance to hospital, suggesting that ACP can benefit some OHCA patients. This study recommends optimising emergency treatment planning to help reduce inappropriate CPR attempts.

Reporting of health estimates prior to GATHER: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Generating estimates of health indicators at the global, regional, and country levels is increasingly in demand in order to meet reporting requirements for global and country targets, such as the sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, such estimates are sensitive to availability of input data, underlying analytic assumptions, variability in statistical techniques, and often have important limitations. From a user perspective, there is often a lack of transparency and replicability. In order to define best practices in reporting data and methods used to calculate health estimates, the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) working group developed a minimum checklist of 18 items that must be reported within each study publishing health estimates, so that users may make an assessment of the quality of the estimate. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to assess the state of reporting amongst a cross-sectional sample of studies published prior to the publication of GATHER. METHODS: We generated a sample of UN reports and journal articles through a combination of a Medline search and hand-searching published health estimates. From these studies we extracted the percentage of studies correctly reporting each item on the checklist, the proportion of items reported per study (the GATHER performance score), and how this score varied depending on study type. RESULTS: The average proportion of items reported per study was 0.47, and the poorest-performing items related to documentation and availability of input data, availability of the statistical code used and the subsequent output data, and a complete detailed description of all the steps of the data analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for health estimates are not currently fully reported, and the implementation of the GATHER guidelines will improve the availability of information required to make an assessment of study quality.