Author
Janet V. Diaz
Other affiliations: University of California, San Francisco
Bio: Janet V. Diaz is an academic researcher from World Health Organization. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Intensive care. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 28 publications receiving 2188 citations. Previous affiliations of Janet V. Diaz include University of California, San Francisco.
Topics: Population, Intensive care, Public health, Lung injury, Medicine
Papers
More filters
University of Bristol1, University of British Columbia2, World Health Organization3, University of Toronto4, Carlos III Health Institute5, University of Pittsburgh6, Université Paris-Saclay7, François Rabelais University8, French Institute of Health and Medical Research9, Peking Union Medical College Hospital10, University of Oxford11, University College London12, Imperial College London13, University of Copenhagen14, Monash University15, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust16, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust17, Federal University of São Paulo18, Auckland City Hospital19, University of São Paulo20
TL;DR: A prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19 found that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with Cohen's disease who required respiratory support.
Abstract: Importance Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using theI2statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as “low” for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as “some concerns” in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82];P Conclusions and Relevance In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.
1,764 citations
University of Ottawa1, World Health Organization2, University of Pittsburgh3, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences4, University of Edinburgh5, University of Jena6, Utrecht University7, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation8, Monash University9, Public Health England10, University of Liverpool11, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine12, University of Oxford13, The Chinese University of Hong Kong14, Imperial College London15, Sungkyunkwan University16, Trinity College, Dublin17, Queen's University Belfast18, Johns Hopkins University19, Radboud University Nijmegen20, University of Bonn21, Seoul National University22, University of Brescia23, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine24, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention25, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine26
TL;DR: A minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19, which includes a measure of viral burden, patient survival, and patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale are urged.
Abstract: Summary Clinical research is necessary for an effective response to an emerging infectious disease outbreak. However, research efforts are often hastily organised and done using various research tools, with the result that pooling data across studies is challenging. In response to the needs of the rapidly evolving COVID-19 outbreak, the Clinical Characterisation and Management Working Group of the WHO Research and Development Blueprint programme, the International Forum for Acute Care Trialists, and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium have developed a minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19. This set includes three elements: a measure of viral burden (quantitative PCR or cycle threshold), a measure of patient survival (mortality at hospital discharge or at 60 days), and a measure of patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale, which reflects patient trajectory and resource use over the course of clinical illness. We urge investigators to include these key data elements in ongoing and future studies to expedite the pooling of data during this immediate threat, and to hone a tool for future needs.
882 citations
Université de Sherbrooke1, World Health Organization2, McMaster University3, University of Indonesia4, Geneva College5, University of California, San Francisco6, Peking Union Medical College Hospital7, Royal Melbourne Hospital8, Ziauddin University9, St Thomas' Hospital10, All India Institute of Medical Sciences11, Aga Khan University12, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust13, St. George's University14, University of Colombo15, University of São Paulo16, Charité17, Ghent University18, Andrés Bello National University19, King's College London20, Hanoi Medical University21, Stellenbosch University22, University of Oxford23, Lanzhou University24, University of Liverpool25
TL;DR: A standing international panel of content experts, patients, clinicians, and methodologists, free from relevant conflicts of interest, produce recommendations for clinical practice, containing a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic cortiosteroids for non-severe patients.
Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. 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 group (GDG) 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 There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
660 citations
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust1, University College London2, University of Bristol3, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust4, University of Paris5, Hebrew University of Jerusalem6, Turku University Hospital7, Ghent University8, Utrecht University9, University of Malaya10, Imperial College London11, University of Oxford12, Harvard University13, Medanta14, Regeneron15, Université Paris-Saclay16, Ministry of Health (Malaysia)17, Genentech18, University Medical Center Groningen19, University of Chicago20, The Queen's Medical Center21, Karolinska University Hospital22, University of Córdoba (Spain)23, Genzyme24, Albert Schweitzer Hospital25, University of British Columbia26, World Health Organization27, University of Toronto28
TL;DR: In this article, a prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.
Abstract: Importance Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using theI2statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95];P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92;P Conclusions and Relevance In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration PROSPERO Identifier:CRD42021230155
417 citations
TL;DR: A practical, evidence-based review of several therapies that can be used for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome with an emphasis on the potential risks and the indications and benefits is provided to offer practical guidelines for implementation of these therapies.
Abstract: Objective
In the management of patients with severe Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ALI/ARDS), clinicians are sometimes challenged to maintain acceptable gas exchange while avoiding harmful mechanical ventilation practices. In some of these patients, physicians may consider the use of “rescue therapies” to sustain life. Our goal is to provide a practical, evidence-based review to assist critical care physicians’ care for patients with severe ALI/ARDS.
153 citations
Cited by
More filters
University of Oxford1, Federal University of São Paulo2, University of the Witwatersrand3, Stellenbosch University4, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine5, University of Sheffield6, University of London7, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust8, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust9, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust10, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust11, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust12, St George's, University of London13, AstraZeneca14, North Bristol NHS Trust15, University College Hospital16, University of Hull17, Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública18, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte19, Northwest University (China)20, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria21, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School22, Boston Children's Hospital23, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul24, Western General Hospital25, University of Glasgow26, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust27, University of Cambridge28, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust29, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board30
TL;DR: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.
3,741 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the long-term health consequences of patients with COVID-19 who have been discharged from hospital and investigate the associated risk factors, in particular disease severity.
2,933 citations
Monash University1, University of Ottawa2, University of Amsterdam3, University of Paris4, Bond University5, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, Johns Hopkins University12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA 2020) as mentioned in this paper was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and has been updated to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology.
Abstract: The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
2,217 citations
[...]
TL;DR: From the Department of Medicine, Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory, and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract: From the Department of Medicine, Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory (D.C.F.), and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy (C.H.J.), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Address reprint requests to Dr. Fajgenbaum at davidfa@ pennmedicine . upenn . edu or to Dr. June at cjune@ upenn . edu.
1,517 citations
TL;DR: Progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms responsible for the pathogenesis and the resolution of lung injury, including the contribution of environmental and genetic factors, and on developing novel therapeutics that can facilitate and enhance lung repair.
Abstract: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an important cause of acute respiratory failure that is often associated with multiple organ failure. Several clinical disorders can precipitate ARDS, including pneumonia, sepsis, aspiration of gastric contents, and major trauma. Physiologically, ARDS is characterized by increased permeability pulmonary edema, severe arterial hypoxemia, and impaired carbon dioxide excretion. Based on both experimental and clinical studies, progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms responsible for the pathogenesis and the resolution of lung injury, including the contribution of environmental and genetic factors. Improved survival has been achieved with the use of lung-protective ventilation. Future progress will depend on developing novel therapeutics that can facilitate and enhance lung repair.
1,506 citations