Showing papers by "McMaster University published in 2020"
TL;DR: Global health has steadily improved over the past 30 years as measured by age-standardised DALY rates, and there has been a marked shift towards a greater proportion of burden due to YLDs from non-communicable diseases and injuries.
5,802 citations
Christopher J L Murray1, Christopher J L Murray2, Christopher J L Murray3, Aleksandr Y. Aravkin2 +2269 more•Institutions (286)
TL;DR: The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure.
3,059 citations
TL;DR: The optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission is investigated and the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses is assessed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye Protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care settings.
2,900 citations
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital1, University of Insubria2, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston3, Chinese PLA General Hospital4, University of Vermont Medical Center5, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center6, Harvard University7, Loyola University Medical Center8, University of Chicago9, University of Milan10, Auckland City Hospital11, St Thomas' Hospital12, Hofstra University13, University of Michigan14, Hamilton Health Sciences15, Population Health Research Institute16, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute17, Brigham and Women's Hospital18, Vanderbilt University19, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia20, University of Mainz21, McMaster University22, University of Liverpool23, Aalborg University24
TL;DR: The current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, and of those with preexistingThrombotic disease who develop CO VID-19 are reviewed.
2,222 citations
TL;DR: This rapid advice guideline is suitable for the first frontline doctors and nurses, managers of hospitals and healthcare sections, community residents, public health persons, relevant researchers, and all person who are interested in the 2019-nCoV.
Abstract: In December 2019, a new type viral pneumonia cases occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province; and then named “2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)” by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 12 January 2020. For it is a never been experienced respiratory disease before and with infection ability widely and quickly, it attracted the world’s attention but without treatment and control manual. For the request from frontline clinicians and public health professionals of 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia management, an evidence-based guideline urgently needs to be developed. Therefore, we drafted this guideline according to the rapid advice guidelines methodology and general rules of WHO guideline development; we also added the first-hand management data of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. This guideline includes the guideline methodology, epidemiological characteristics, disease screening and population prevention, diagnosis, treatment and control (including traditional Chinese Medicine), nosocomial infection prevention and control, and disease nursing of the 2019-nCoV. Moreover, we also provide a whole process of a successful treatment case of the severe 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia and experience and lessons of hospital rescue for 2019-nCoV infections. This rapid advice guideline is suitable for the first frontline doctors and nurses, managers of hospitals and healthcare sections, community residents, public health persons, relevant researchers, and all person who are interested in the 2019-nCoV.
1,783 citations
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Rhode Island Hospital6, Brown University7, Utrecht University8, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences9, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital10, Peking Union Medical College Hospital11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Humanitas University13, University of Ulsan14, National Institutes of Health15, Imperial College London16, United Arab Emirates University17, Population Health Research Institute18, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust19, Emory University Hospital20, University at Buffalo21, Baylor College of Medicine22, University of Milano-Bicocca23, King Abdulaziz Medical City24, King Saud Medical City25, The George Institute for Global Health26, Royal North Shore Hospital27, University of Virginia28, University of Washington29
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign CO VID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
Abstract: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.
We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
1,762 citations
F. Kyle Satterstrom1, F. Kyle Satterstrom2, Jack A. Kosmicki, Jiebiao Wang3 +198 more•Institutions (53)
TL;DR: The largest exome sequencing study of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to date, using an enhanced analytical framework to integrate de novo and case-control rare variation, identifies 102 risk genes at a false discovery rate of 0.1 or less, consistent with multiple paths to an excitatory-inhibitory imbalance underlying ASD.
1,169 citations
TL;DR: The presented conceptual framework is based on systemic models of human development and family functioning and links social disruption due to COVID-19 to child adjustment through a cascading process involving caregiver well-being and family processes (i.e., organization, communication, and beliefs).
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic poses an acute threat to the well-being of children and families due to challenges related to social disruption such as financial insecurity, caregiving burden, and confinement-related stress (e.g., crowding, changes to structure, and routine). The consequences of these difficulties are likely to be longstanding, in part because of the ways in which contextual risk permeates the structures and processes of family systems. The current article draws from pertinent literature across topic areas of acute crises and long-term, cumulative risk to illustrate the multitude of ways in which the well-being of children and families may be at risk during COVID-19. The presented conceptual framework is based on systemic models of human development and family functioning and links social disruption due to COVID-19 to child adjustment through a cascading process involving caregiver well-being and family processes (i.e., organization, communication, and beliefs). An illustration of the centrality of family processes in buffering against risk in the context of COVID-19, as well as promoting resilience through shared family beliefs and close relationships, is provided. Finally, clinical and research implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
1,105 citations
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, University of California, Davis2, City of Hope National Medical Center3, University of Chicago4, Harvard University5, Monash University6, University of Ulm7, University of Paris8, Université catholique de Louvain9, McMaster University10, University of Barcelona11, Peking Union Medical College12, University of Zagreb13, University of Ostrava14, University of Helsinki15, University of Debrecen16, University of Genoa17, Seoul National University18, Sungkyunkwan University19, China Medical University (Taiwan)20, Ondokuz Mayıs University21, Genentech22, AbbVie23, University of Pennsylvania24
TL;DR: In previously untreated patients with confirmed AML who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received zsitidine alone.
Abstract: Background Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a dismal prognosis, even after treatment with a hypomethylating agent. Azacitidine added to venetoclax had promising effica...
1,097 citations
TL;DR: A deep neural network capable of predicting molecules with antibacterial activity is trained and a molecule from the Drug Repurposing Hub-halicin- is discovered that is structurally divergent from conventional antibiotics and displays bactericidal activity against a wide phylogenetic spectrum of pathogens.
1,002 citations
University of Pennsylvania1, Boston University2, University of Maryland, Baltimore3, Arcadia University4, McMaster University5, Rush University Medical Center6, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill7, University of Chicago8, University of Michigan9, Tufts Medical Center10, University of Toronto11, University of Arizona12, New York University13, University of Delaware14, University of California, Davis15, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center16, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine17, ECRI Institute18, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center19, American College of Rheumatology20, University of Minnesota21
TL;DR: An evidence‐based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) is developed as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology and the Arthritis Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA.
Abstract: Objective To develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA. Methods We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind-body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations. Results Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self-efficacy and self-management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill1, Cleveland Clinic2, University of Washington3, American Society of Clinical Oncology4, BC Cancer Agency5, University of Granada6, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center7, Penn State Cancer Institute8, Emory University9, University of Rochester10, University College London11, McMaster University12, University of Southern California13, University of California, San Francisco14, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center15, University of Milan16
TL;DR: An Expert Panel convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed to provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.
Abstract: PURPOSETo provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.METHODSPubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized...
TL;DR: It is recommended that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that the authors could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.
Abstract: Background There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of COVID-19. There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. Objective Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians and other health-care professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations. Conclusions The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.
University of California, San Francisco1, University of Alabama at Birmingham2, University of Alabama3, Stanford University4, University of Washington5, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria6, University of Otago7, Boston Children's Hospital8, Harvard University9, McMaster University10, HealthPartners11, University of Queensland12, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital13
TL;DR: It is found that glucocorticoid exposure of ≥10 mg/day is associated with a higher odds of hospitalisation and anti-TNF with a decreased odds ofospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease.
Abstract: Objectives COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic diseases remain poorly understood. The aim was to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation status in people with rheumatic disease. Methods Case series of individuals with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry: 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs of hospitalisation. Age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities and rheumatic disease medications taken immediately prior to infection were analysed. Results A total of 600 cases from 40 countries were included. Nearly half of the cases were hospitalised (277, 46%) and 55 (9%) died. In multivariable-adjusted models, prednisone dose ≥10 mg/day was associated with higher odds of hospitalisation (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.96). Use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) alone or in combination with biologics/Janus Kinase inhibitors was not associated with hospitalisation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.17 and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46, respectively). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use was not associated with hospitalisation status (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) use was associated with a reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.81), while no association with antimalarial use (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.57) was observed. Conclusions We found that glucocorticoid exposure of ≥10 mg/day is associated with a higher odds of hospitalisation and anti-TNF with a decreased odds of hospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease. Neither exposure to DMARDs nor NSAIDs were associated with increased odds of hospitalisation.
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Brown University6, Utrecht University7, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital8, Peking Union Medical College Hospital9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Ulsan11, National Institutes of Health12, Imperial College London13, United Arab Emirates University14, Humanitas University15, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust16, Emory University Hospital17, University at Buffalo18, Baylor College of Medicine19, University of Milano-Bicocca20, King Abdulaziz Medical City21, King Saud Medical City22, The George Institute for Global Health23, University of Virginia24, University of Washington25
TL;DR: A panel of 36 experts from 12 countries issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
Joan B. Soriano1, Parkes J Kendrick2, Katherine R. Paulson2, Vinay Gupta2 +311 more•Institutions (178)
TL;DR: It is shown that chronic respiratory diseases remain a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with growth in absolute numbers but sharp declines in several age-standardised estimators since 1990.
TL;DR: The immunological principles that need to be taken into consideration in the development of COVID-19 vaccine strategies are discussed and their strengths and potential shortfalls are examined, and inferences about their chances of success are made.
Abstract: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the most formidable challenge to humanity in a century. It is widely believed that prepandemic normalcy will never return until a safe and effective vaccine strategy becomes available and a global vaccination programme is implemented successfully. Here, we discuss the immunological principles that need to be taken into consideration in the development of COVID-19 vaccine strategies. On the basis of these principles, we examine the current COVID-19 vaccine candidates, their strengths and potential shortfalls, and make inferences about their chances of success. Finally, we discuss the scientific and practical challenges that will be faced in the process of developing a successful vaccine and the ways in which COVID-19 vaccine strategies may evolve over the next few years.
TL;DR: The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO 2 , water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe, and is detailed in this paper.
Abstract: The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO2, water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.
Sadaf G. Sepanlou1, Saeid Safiri2, Catherine Bisignano3, Kevin S Ikuta4 +198 more•Institutions (106)
TL;DR: Mortality, prevalence, and DALY estimates are compared with those expected according to the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) as a proxy for the development status of regions and countries, and a significant increase in age-standardised prevalence rate of decompensated cirrhosis between 1990 and 2017.
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.
McMaster University1, Lanzhou University2, Cochrane Collaboration3, Chosun University4, Chongqing Medical University5, University of Toronto6, Norwegian Institute of Public Health7, University of Oslo8, Toronto General Hospital9, University of Western Ontario10, Hull York Medical School11, University of British Columbia12, University of Kansas13, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile14, Mayo Clinic15, Monash University16, University Health Network17, Utrecht University18
TL;DR: Glucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care and the effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations.
Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
01 Aug 2020
TL;DR: This Viewpoint provides a framework for the application of digital technologies in pandemic management and response, highlighting ways in which successful countries have adopted these technologies for pandemic planning, surveillance, testing, contact tracing, quarantine, and health care.
Abstract: Summary With high transmissibility and no effective vaccine or therapy, COVID-19 is now a global pandemic Government-coordinated efforts across the globe have focused on containment and mitigation, with varying degrees of success Countries that have maintained low COVID-19 per-capita mortality rates appear to share strategies that include early surveillance, testing, contact tracing, and strict quarantine The scale of coordination and data management required for effective implementation of these strategies has—in most successful countries—relied on adopting digital technology and integrating it into policy and health care This Viewpoint provides a framework for the application of digital technologies in pandemic management and response, highlighting ways in which successful countries have adopted these technologies for pandemic planning, surveillance, testing, contact tracing, quarantine, and health care
Humanitas University1, University College Dublin2, Autonomous University of Madrid3, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust4, Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library5, University of Basel6, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart7, Aarhus University Hospital8, University of Copenhagen9, Royal Liverpool University Hospital10, Aalborg University11, Mater Dei Hospital12, University of Bologna13, Barts Health NHS Trust14, Comenius University in Bratislava15, Sheba Medical Center16, University of Porto17, McMaster University18, Linköping University19, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli20, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven21, University of Padua22, Maastricht University Medical Centre23, Beaujon Hospital24, University of Zurich25, Imperial College London26
TL;DR: The present article addresses surgical management, including preoperative aspects and drug management before surgery, and provides technical advice for a variety of common clinical situations.
Abstract: This article is the second in a series of two publications relating to the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the management of Crohn's disease. The first article covers medical management; the present article addresses surgical management, including preoperative aspects and drug management before surgery. It also provides technical advice for a variety of common clinical situations. Both articles together represent the evidence-based recommendations of the ECCO for Crohn's disease and an update of previous guidelines.
NanoString Technologies1, Ghent University2, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven3, Cornell University4, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center5, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research6, Charles University in Prague7, Istituto Superiore di Sanità8, National Institutes of Health9, Institute of Cancer Research10, Merck & Co.11, University of Manchester12, University of California, San Diego13, Harvard University14, University of Navarra15, University of Pittsburgh16, McMaster University17, University of Tromsø18, Humanitas University19, University of Turin20, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute21, Université de Montréal22, University of São Paulo23, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center24, Yale University25
TL;DR: An updated operational definition of immunogenic cell death is provided, the key factors that dictate the ability of dying cells to drive an adaptive immune response are discussed, and experimental assays that are currently available for the assessment of ICD in vitro and in vivo are summarized.
Abstract: Cells succumbing to stress via regulated cell death (RCD) can initiate an adaptive immune response associated with immunological memory, provided they display sufficient antigenicity and adjuvanticity. Moreover, multiple intracellular and microenvironmental features determine the propensity of RCD to drive adaptive immunity. Here, we provide an updated operational definition of immunogenic cell death (ICD), discuss the key factors that dictate the ability of dying cells to drive an adaptive immune response, summarize experimental assays that are currently available for the assessment of ICD in vitro and in vivo, and formulate guidelines for their interpretation.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia1, Great Ormond Street Hospital2, McMaster University3, Boston Children's Hospital4, St Mary's Hospital5, University of Queensland6, University of Cape Town7, University of Liverpool8, Durham University9, South University10, French Institute of Health and Medical Research11, University of Cambridge12, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust13, Nationwide Children's Hospital14, Erasmus University Medical Center15, All India Institute of Medical Sciences16, Radboud University Nijmegen17, Royal Children's Hospital18, Children's Hospital Los Angeles19, New York University20, Stony Brook University21, Apollo Hospitals22, Johns Hopkins University23, University of the West of England24, University of Iowa25, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital26, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center27, Seattle Children's28, University of British Columbia29, Centre national de la recherche scientifique30
TL;DR: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.
Lenox Hill Hospital1, Duke University2, University of Insubria3, Brigham and Women's Hospital4, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust5, Juntendo University6, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust7, University of Paris8, University of Manchester9, The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research10, McMaster University11
TL;DR: Early reports suggest a high incidence of VTE in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients, particularly those with severe illness, that is similar to the high VTE rates observed in patients with other viral pneumonias, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory Syndrome (MERS‐CoV).
University of Sharjah1, McMaster University2, Kuwait Cancer Control Center3, University of Toronto4, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center5, Min Sheng General Hospital6, National University of Singapore7, University of Western Ontario8, Vanderbilt University9, University of Tennessee Health Science Center10, Wuhan University11
TL;DR: The potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID‐19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches.
Abstract: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread globally since being identified as a public health emergency of major international concern and has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). In December 2019, an outbreak of atypical pneumonia, known as COVID-19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The newly identified zoonotic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by rapid human-to-human transmission. Many cancer patients frequently visit the hospital for treatment and disease surveillance. They may be immunocompromised due to the underlying malignancy or anticancer therapy and are at higher risk of developing infections. Several factors increase the risk of infection, and cancer patients commonly have multiple risk factors. Cancer patients appear to have an estimated twofold increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. With the WHO declaring the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, there is an urgent need to address the impact of such a pandemic on cancer patients. This include changes to resource allocation, clinical care, and the consent process during a pandemic. Currently and due to limited data, there are no international guidelines to address the management of cancer patients in any infectious pandemic. In this review, the potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID-19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The main management strategies for treating cancer patients during the COVID-19 epidemic include clear communication and education about hand hygiene, infection control measures, high-risk exposure, and the signs and symptoms of COVID-19. Consideration of risk and benefit for active intervention in the cancer population must be individualized. Postponing elective surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy for cancer patients with low risk of progression should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Minimizing outpatient visits can help to mitigate exposure and possible further transmission. Telemedicine may be used to support patients to minimize number of visits and risk of exposure. More research is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 virology and epidemiology.
Duke University1, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile2, University of Florida3, Veterans Health Administration4, Kaiser Permanente5, University of Pennsylvania6, University of Amsterdam7, Harvard University8, University of California, Davis9, McMaster University10, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University11, Washington University in St. Louis12, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven13, University of Utah14, University of Antioquia15
TL;DR: Recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range, and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.
McMaster University1, University of Pennsylvania2, University of Calgary3, Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta4, Dalhousie University5, University of Alberta6, Alexandra Hospital7, Laval University8, University of Ottawa9, Concordia University10, Ottawa Hospital11, University of British Columbia12, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada13, Florida International University14, Queen's University15, University of Toronto16, Alberta Health Services17, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health18, University Health Network19, University of Minnesota20, York University21, Université de Sherbrooke22, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke23, Simon Fraser University24, Vancouver Island Health Authority25, Foothills Medical Centre26, University of Saskatchewan27, Population Health Research Institute28, St. Michael's Hospital29, St. John's University30, Memorial University of Newfoundland31
TL;DR: Obesity is a complex chronic disease in which abnormal or excess body fat (adiposity) impairs health, increases the risk of long-term medical complications and reduces lifespan.
Abstract: KEY POINTS
Obesity is a complex chronic disease in which abnormal or excess body fat (adiposity) impairs health, increases the risk of long-term medical complications and reduces lifespan.[1][1] Epidemiologic studies define obesity using the body mass index (BMI; weight/height2), which can stratify
TL;DR: The results of this cohort study of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were isolated in a community treatment center in Cheonan, Republic of Korea showed that viral loads in asymPTomatic patients from diagnosis to discharge tended to decrease more slowly in the time interaction trend than those in symptomatic (including presymptonomatic) patients.
Abstract: Importance There is limited information about the clinical course and viral load in asymptomatic patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Objective To quantitatively describe SARS-CoV-2 molecular viral shedding in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective evaluation was conducted for a cohort of 303 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 6 and March 26, 2020. Participants were isolated in a community treatment center in Cheonan, Republic of Korea. Main Outcomes and Measures Epidemiologic, demographic, and laboratory data were collected and analyzed. Attending health care personnel carefully identified patients’ symptoms during isolation. The decision to release an individual from isolation was based on the results of reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay from upper respiratory tract specimens (nasopharynx and oropharynx swab) and lower respiratory tract specimens (sputum) for SARS-CoV-2. This testing was performed on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of isolation. On days 10, 17, 18, and 19, RT-PCR assays from the upper or lower respiratory tract were performed at physician discretion. Cycle threshold (Ct) values in RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection were determined in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Results Of the 303 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the median (interquartile range) age was 25 (22-36) years, and 201 (66.3%) were women. Only 12 (3.9%) patients had comorbidities (10 had hypertension, 1 had cancer, and 1 had asthma). Among the 303 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 193 (63.7%) were symptomatic at the time of isolation. Of the 110 (36.3%) asymptomatic patients, 21 (19.1%) developed symptoms during isolation. The median (interquartile range) interval of time from detection of SARS-CoV-2 to symptom onset in presymptomatic patients was 15 (13-20) days. The proportions of participants with a negative conversion at day 14 and day 21 from diagnosis were 33.7% and 75.2%, respectively, in asymptomatic patients and 29.6% and 69.9%, respectively, in symptomatic patients (including presymptomatic patients). The median (SE) time from diagnosis to the first negative conversion was 17 (1.07) days for asymptomatic patients and 19.5 (0.63) days for symptomatic (including presymptomatic) patients (P = .07). The Ct values for the envelope (env) gene from lower respiratory tract specimens showed that viral loads in asymptomatic patients from diagnosis to discharge tended to decrease more slowly in the time interaction trend than those in symptomatic (including presymptomatic) patients (β = −0.065 [SE, 0.023];P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were isolated in a community treatment center in Cheonan, Republic of Korea, the Ct values in asymptomatic patients were similar to those in symptomatic patients. Isolation of asymptomatic patients may be necessary to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.