Explore the vast range of titles available.

AbstractUpdatesThis 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 questionWhat is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?ContextThe 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 guidelineThis 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 recommendationsRecommendations 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.

Globally, cryptococcal meningitis is a leading cause of mortality among people with AIDS, despite the availability of effective amphotericin B–based therapy. In this trial in sub-Saharan Africa, the efficacy of two simpler treatment regimens was assessed.

Cryptococcus gattii is an environmental pathogen that causes severe systemic infection in immunocompetent individuals more often than in immunocompromised humans. Over the past 2 decades, researchers have shown that C. gattii falls within four genetically distinct major lineages. By combining field work from an understudied ecological region (the Central Miombo Woodlands of Zambia, Africa), genome sequencing and assemblies, phylogenetic and population genetic analyses, and phenotypic characterization (morphology, histopathological, drug-sensitivity, survival experiments), we discovered a hitherto unknown lineage, which we name VGV (variety gattii five). The discovery of a new lineage from an understudied ecological region has far-reaching implications for the study and understanding of fungal pathogens and diseases they cause.

The Xpert MTB/RIF test for tuberculosis is being rolled out in many countries, but evidence is lacking regarding its implementation outside laboratories, ability to inform same-day treatment decisions at the point of care, and clinical effect on tuberculosis-related morbidity. We aimed to assess the feasibility, accuracy, and clinical effect of point-of-care Xpert MTB/RIF testing at primary-care health-care facilities in southern Africa. In this pragmatic, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre trial, we recruited adults with symptoms suggestive of active tuberculosis from five primary-care health-care facilities in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania. Eligible patients were randomly assigned using pregenerated tables to nurse-performed Xpert MTB/RIF at the clinic or sputum smear microscopy. Participants with a negative test result were empirically managed according to local WHO-compliant guidelines. Our primary outcome was tuberculosis-related morbidity (measured with the TBscore and Karnofsky performance score [KPS]) in culture-positive patients who had begun anti-tuberculosis treatment, measured at 2 months and 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01554384. Between April 12, 2011, and March 30, 2012, we randomly assigned 758 patients to smear microscopy (182 culture positive) and 744 to Xpert MTB/RIF (185 culture positive). Median TBscore in culture-positive patients did not differ between groups at 2 months (2 [IQR 0–3] in the smear microscopy group vs 2 [0·25–3] in the MTB/RIF group; p=0·85) or 6 months (1 [0–3] vs 1 [0–3]; p=0·35), nor did median KPS at 2 months (80 [70–90] vs 90 [80–90]; p=0·23) or 6 months (100 [90–100] vs 100 [90–100]; p=0·85). Point-of-care MTB/RIF had higher sensitivity than microscopy (154 [83%] of 185 vs 91 [50%] of 182; p=0·0001) but similar specificity (517 [95%] 544 vs 540 [96%] of 560; p=0·25), and had similar sensitivity to laboratory-based MTB/RIF (292 [83%] of 351; p=0·99) but higher specificity (952 [92%] of 1037; p=0·0173). 34 (5%) of 744 tests with point-of-care MTB/RIF and 82 (6%) of 1411 with laboratory-based MTB/RIF failed (p=0·22). Compared with the microscopy group, more patients in the MTB/RIF group had a same-day diagnosis (178 [24%] of 744 vs 99 [13%] of 758; p<0·0001) and same-day treatment initiation (168 [23%] of 744 vs 115 [15%] of 758; p=0·0002). Although, by end of the study, more culture-positive patients in the MTB/RIF group were on treatment due to reduced dropout (15 [8%] of 185 in the MTB/RIF group did not receive treatment vs 28 [15%] of 182 in the microscopy group; p=0·0302), the proportions of all patients on treatment in each group by day 56 were similar (320 [43%] of 744 in the MTB/RIF group vs 317 [42%] of 758 in the microscopy group; p=0·6408). Xpert MTB/RIF can be accurately administered by a nurse in primary-care clinics, resulting in more patients starting same-day treatment, more culture-positive patients starting therapy, and a shorter time to treatment. However, the benefits did not translate into lower tuberculosis-related morbidity, partly because of high levels of empirical-evidence-based treatment in smear-negative patients. European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, National Research Foundation, and Claude Leon Foundation.

Mortality in people in Africa with HIV infection starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) is high, particularly in those with advanced disease. We assessed the effect of a short period of community support to supplement clinic-based services combined with serum cryptococcal antigen screening. We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial in six urban clinics in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Lusaka, Zambia. From February, 2012, we enrolled eligible individuals with HIV infection (age ≥18 years, CD4 count of <200 cells per μL, ART naive) and randomly assigned them to either the standard clinic-based care supplemented with community support or standard clinic-based care alone, stratified by country and clinic, in permuted block sizes of ten. Clinic plus community support consisted of screening for serum cryptococcal antigen combined with antifungal therapy for patients testing antigen positive, weekly home visits for the first 4 weeks on ART by lay workers to provide support, and in Tanzania alone, re-screening for tuberculosis at 6–8 weeks after ART initiation. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISCRTN 20410413. Between Feb 9, 2012, and Sept 30, 2013, 1001 patients were randomly assigned to clinic plus community support and 998 to standard care. 89 (9%) of 1001 participants in the clinic plus community support group did not receive their assigned intervention, and 11 (1%) of 998 participants in the standard care group received a home visit or a cryptococcal antigen screen rather than only standard care. At 12 months, 25 (2%) of 1001 participants in the clinic plus community support group and 24 (2%) of 998 participants in the standard care group had been lost to follow-up, and were censored at their last visit for the primary analysis. At 12 months, 134 (13%) of 1001 participants in the clinic plus community support group had died compared with 180 (18%) of 998 in the standard care group. Mortality was 28% (95% CI 10–43) lower in the clinic plus community support group than in standard care group (p=0·004). Screening and pre-emptive treatment for cryptococcal infection combined with a short initial period of adherence support after initiation of ART could substantially reduce mortality in HIV programmes in Africa. European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

AbstractClinical questionWhat 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.RecommendationThe 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 createdThis 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 recommendationThe 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.UpdatesThis is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.Readers noteThis 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.

HIV-associated tuberculosis is difficult to diagnose and results in high mortality. Frequent extra-pulmonary presentation, inability to obtain sputum, and paucibacillary samples limits the usefulness of nucleic-acid amplification tests and smear microscopy. We therefore assessed a urine-based, lateral flow, point-of-care, lipoarabinomannan assay (LAM) and the effect of a LAM-guided anti-tuberculosis treatment initiation strategy on mortality. We did a pragmatic, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre trial in ten hospitals in Africa—four in South Africa, two in Tanzania, two in Zambia, and two in Zimbabwe. Eligible patients were HIV-positive adults aged at least 18 years with at least one of the following symptoms of tuberculosis (fever, cough, night sweats, or self-reported weightloss) and illness severity necessitating admission to hospital. Exclusion criteria included receipt of any anti-tuberculosis medicine in the 60 days before enrolment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either LAM plus routine diagnostic tests for tuberculosis (smear microscopy, Xpert-MTB/RIF, and culture; LAM group) or routine diagnostic tests alone (no LAM group) using computer-generated allocation lists in blocks of ten. All patients were asked to provide a urine sample of at least 30 mL at enrolment, and trained research nurses did the LAM test in patients allocated to this group using the Alere Determine tuberculosis LAM Ag lateral flow strip test (Alere, USA) at the bedside on enrolment. On the basis of a positive test result, the nurses made a recommendation for initiating anti-tuberculosis treatment. The attending physician made an independent decision about whether to start treatment or not. Neither patients nor health-care workers were masked to group allocation and test results. The primary endpoint was 8-week all-cause mortality assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (those who received their allocated intervention). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01770730. Between Jan 1, 2013, and Oct 2, 2014, we screened 8728 patients and randomly assigned 2659 to treatment (1336 to LAM, 1323 to no LAM). 108 patients did not receive their allocated treatment, mainly because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 23 were excluded from analysis, leaving 2528 in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis (1257 in the LAM group, 1271 in the no LAM group). Overall all-cause 8-week mortality occurred in 578 (23%) patients, 261 (21%) in LAM and 317 (25%) in no LAM, an absolute reduction of 4% (95% CI 1–7). The risk ratio adjusted for country was 0·83 (95% CI 0·73–0·96), p=0·012, with a relative risk reduction of 17% (95% CI 4–28). With the time-to-event analysis, there were 159 deaths per 100 person-years in LAM and 196 per 100 person-years in no LAM (hazard ratio adjusted for country 0·82 [95% CI 0·70–0·96], p=0·015). No adverse events were associated with LAM testing. Bedside LAM-guided initiation of anti-tuberculosis treatment in HIV-positive hospital inpatients with suspected tuberculosis was associated with reduced 8-week mortality. The implementation of LAM testing is likely to offer the greatest benefit in hospitals where diagnostic resources are most scarce and where patients present with severe illness, advanced immunosuppression, and an inability to self-expectorate sputum. The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, the South African Medical Research Council, and the South African National Research Foundation.

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing global health concern. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) curbs resistance rates by encouraging rational antimicrobial use. However, data on antimicrobial stewardship in developing countries is scarce. The objective of this study was to characterize antimicrobial use at the University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Lusaka, Zambia as a guiding step in the development of an AMS program. This was a cross-sectional, observational study evaluating antimicrobial appropriateness and consumption in non-critically ill adult medicine patients admitted to UTH. Appropriateness was defined as a composite measure based upon daily chart review. Sixty percent (88/146) of all adult patients admitted to the general wards had at least one antimicrobial ordered and were included in this study. The most commonly treated infectious diseases were tuberculosis, pneumonia, and septicemia. Treatment of drug sensitive tuberculosis is standardized in a four-drug combination pill of rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide and ethambutol, therefore appropriateness of therapy was not further evaluated. The most common antimicrobials ordered were cefotaxime (n = 45), ceftriaxone (n = 28), and metronidazole (n = 14). Overall, 67% of antimicrobial orders were inappropriately prescribed to some extent, largely driven by incorrect dose or frequency in patients with renal dysfunction. Antimicrobial prescribing among hospitalized patients at UTH is common and there is room for optimization of a majority of antimicrobial orders. Availability of certain antimicrobials must be taken into consideration during AMS program development.

A number of seroprevalence studies in Zambia document the extent of spread of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, yet knowledge gaps still exist on symptoms and conditions that continue or develop after acute COVID-19 (long COVID). This is an important gap given the estimated prevalence of long COVID in other African countries. We assessed factors associated with long COVID at the initial visit to a post-acute COVID-19 (PAC-19) clinic and longitudinally among a cohort of patients with ≥2 review visits. We implemented a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of PAC-19 clinic patients from Aug-2020 to Jan-2023. The study outcome was long COVID; defined as the presence of new, relapsing, or persistent COVID-19 symptoms that interfere with the ability to function at home or work. Explanatory variables were demographic and clinical characteristics of patients which included sex, age group, presence of new onset medical conditions, presence of pre-existing comorbidities, vaccination status and acute COVID-19 episode details. We fitted logistic and mixed effects regression models to assess for associated factors and considered statistical significance at p<0.05. Out of a total 1,359 PAC-19 clinic patients in the cross-sectional analysis, 548 (40.3%) patients with ≥2 PAC-19 clinic visits were in the longitudinal analysis. Patients' median age was 53 (interquartile range [IQR]: 41-63) years, 919 (67.6%) were hospitalized for acute COVID-19, and of whom 686 (74.6%) had severe acute COVID-19. Overall, 377 (27.7%) PAC-19 clinic patients had long COVID. Patients with hospital length of stay ≥15 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 5.37; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.99-10.0), severe acute COVID-19 (aOR: 3.22; 95% CI: 1.68-6.73), and comorbidities (aOR:1.50; 95% CI: 1.02-2.21) had significantly higher chance of long COVID. Longitudinally, long COVID prevalence significantly (p<0.001) declined from 75.4% at the initial PAC-19 visit to 26.0% by the final visit. The median follow-up time was 7 (IQR: 4-12) weeks. Factors associated with long COVID in Zambia were consistent both cross-sectionally at the initial visit to PAC-19 clinics and longitudinally across subsequent review visits. This highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring and tailored interventions for patients with comorbidities and severe COVID-19 to mitigate the long-term impacts of COVID-19.

Introduction: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) can improve the rational use of antibiotics in hospitals. This study assessed the impact of a multifaceted AMS intervention on antibiotic use and prescribing patterns at three tertiary hospitals in Zambia. Methods: Point Prevalence Surveys (PPS) were conducted in three tertiary hospitals in August 2022 and in October 2023. It was part of a 3-year AMS demonstration project that aimed to optimize the use of antibiotics in treating urinary tract infections (UTIs) and bloodstream infections (BSIs) in various health sector settings in Zambia. Up to 170 medical records in 2022 and 265 in 2023 were included in the assessment. Results: Overall, the prevalence of antibiotic use in this PPS was 75%. Eighty-one percent (81%) and 71% of patients assessed were on at least one antibiotic in 2022 and 2023, respectively, indicating a decrease of 10%. Similarly, prescribing ceftriaxone, the most prescribed antibiotic, declined from an average of 48% in 2022 to 38% in 2023. Adherence to Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) slightly increased from 42% in 2022 to 45% in 2023. Additionally, antibiotic prescribing was reduced from 1.38 to 1.21. Conclusions: Antimicrobial stewardship had an early positive impact on antibiotic use and adherence to Standard Treatment Guidelines.