McMaster University

About: McMaster University is a education organization based out in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 41361 authors who have published 101269 publications receiving 4251422 citations.

Canadian Guidelines for the Initial Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: An Evidence-Based Update by the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society and the Canadian Thoracic Society

Abstract: Lionel A Mandell MD FRCPC1, Thomas J Marrie MD FRCPC2, Ronald F Grossman MD FRCPC FACP3, Anthony W Chow MD FRCPC FACP4, Robert H Hyland MD FRCPC5, and the Canadian CAP Working Group* McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia; QEII Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia; St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

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.

Common Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Measurements in Cardiovascular Risk Prediction A Meta-analysis

Abstract: Context: The evidence that measurement of the common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) improves the risk scores in prediction of the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is inconsistent. Objective: To determine whether common CIMT has added value in 10-year risk prediction of first-time myocardial infarctions or strokes, above that of the Framingham Risk Score. Data Sources: Relevant studies were identified through literature searches of databases (PubMed from 1950 to June 2012 and EMBASE from 1980 to June 2012) and expert opinion. Study Selection: Studies were included if participants were drawn from the general population, common CIMT was measured at baseline, and individuals were followed up for first-time myocardial infarction or stroke. Data Extraction: Individual data were combined into 1 data set and an individual participant data meta-analysis was performed on individuals without existing cardiovascular disease. Results: We included 14 population-based cohorts contributing data for 45 828 individuals. During a median follow-up of 11 years, 4007 first-time myocardial infarctions or strokes occurred. We first refitted the risk factors of the Framingham Risk Score and then extended the model with common CIMT measurements to estimate the absolute 10-year risks to develop a first-time myocardial infarction or stroke in both models. The C statistic of both models was similar (0.757; 95% CI, 0.749-0.764; and 0.759; 95% CI, 0.752-0.766). The net reclassification improvement with the addition of common CIMT was small (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.6%). In those at intermediate risk, the net reclassification improvement was 3.6% in all individuals (95% CI, 2.7%-4.6%) and no differences between men and women. Conclusion: The addition of common CIMT measurements to the Framingham Risk Score was associated with small improvement in 10-year risk prediction of first-time myocardial infarction or stroke, but this improvement is unlikely to be of clinical importance.