Explore the vast range of titles available.

People with COVID-19 might have sustained postinfection sequelae. Known by a variety of names, including long COVID or long-haul COVID, and listed in the ICD-10 classification as post-COVID-19 condition since September, 2020, this occurrence is variable in its expression and its impact. The absence of a globally standardised and agreed-upon definition hampers progress in characterisation of its epidemiology and the development of candidate treatments. In a WHO-led Delphi process, we engaged with an international panel of 265 patients, clinicians, researchers, and WHO staff to develop a consensus definition for this condition. 14 domains and 45 items were evaluated in two rounds of the Delphi process to create a final consensus definition for adults: post-COVID-19 condition occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually 3 months from the onset, with symptoms that last for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. Common symptoms include, but are not limited to, fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction, and generally have an impact on everyday functioning. Symptoms might be new onset following initial recovery from an acute COVID-19 episode or persist from the initial illness. Symptoms might also fluctuate or relapse over time. A separate definition might be applicable for children. Although the consensus definition is likely to change as knowledge increases, this common framework provides a foundation for ongoing and future studies of epidemiology, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and therapy.

Since their widespread introduction more than half a century ago, intensive care units (ICUs) have become an integral part of the health care system. Although most ICUs are found in high-income countries, they are increasingly a feature of health care systems in low- and middle-income countries. The World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine convened a task force whose objective was to answer the question “What is an ICU?” in an internationally meaningful manner and to develop a system for stratifying ICUs on the basis of the intensity of the care they provide. We undertook a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature to assemble existing models for ICU stratification. Based on these and on discussions among task force members by teleconference and 2 face-to-face meetings, we present a proposed definition and classification of ICUs. An ICU is an organized system for the provision of care to critically ill patients that provides intensive and specialized medical and nursing care, an enhanced capacity for monitoring, and multiple modalities of physiologic organ support to sustain life during a period of life-threatening organ system insufficiency. Although an ICU is based in a defined geographic area of a hospital, its activities often extend beyond the walls of the physical space to include the emergency department, hospital ward, and follow-up clinic. A level 1 ICU is capable of providing oxygen, noninvasive monitoring, and more intensive nursing care than on a ward, whereas a level 2 ICU can provide invasive monitoring and basic life support for a short period. A level 3 ICU provides a full spectrum of monitoring and life support technologies, serves as a regional resource for the care of critically ill patients, and may play an active role in developing the specialty of intensive care through research and education. A formal definition and descriptive framework for ICUs can inform health care decision-makers in planning and measuring capacity and provide clinicians and patients with a benchmark to evaluate the level of resources available for clinical care.

Caring for critically ill patients is challenging in resource-limited settings, where the burden of disease and mortality from potentially treatable illnesses is higher than in resource-rich areas. Barriers to delivering quality critical care in these settings include lack of epidemiologic data and context-specific evidence for medical decision-making, deficiencies in health systems organization and resources, and institutional obstacles to implementation of life-saving interventions. Potential solutions include the development of common definitions for intensive care unit (ICU), intensivist, and intensive care to create a universal ICU organization framework; development of educational programs for capacity building of health care professionals working in resource-limited settings; global prioritization of epidemiologic and clinical research in resource-limited settings to conduct timely and ethical studies in response to emerging threats; adaptation of international guidelines to promote implementation of evidence-based care; and strengthening of health systems that integrates these interventions. This manuscript reviews the field of global critical care, barriers to safe high-quality care, and potential solutions to existing challenges. We also suggest a roadmap for improving the treatment of critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

Background A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition , could become a significant global health burden. Main text While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. Conclusions A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

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.

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.

A recent prospective meta-analysis demonstrated that interleukin-6 antagonists are associated with lower all-cause mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, compared with usual care or placebo. However, emerging evidence suggests that clinicians are favouring the use of tocilizumab over sarilumab. A new randomised comparison of these agents from the REMAP-CAP trial shows similar effects on in-hospital mortality. Therefore, we initiated a network meta-analysis, to estimate pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo with 28-day mortality, in COVID-19 patients receiving concomitant corticosteroids and ventilation, based on all available direct and indirect evidence. Eligible trials randomised hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that compared tocilizumab or sarilumab with usual care or placebo in the prospective meta-analysis or that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab. Data were restricted to patients receiving corticosteroids and either non-invasive or invasive ventilation at randomisation. Pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo for all-cause mortality 28 days after randomisation were estimated using a frequentist contrast-based network meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs), implementing multivariate fixed-effects models that assume consistency between the direct and indirect evidence. One trial (REMAP-CAP) was identified that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab and supplied results on all-cause mortality at 28-days. This network meta-analysis was based on 898 eligible patients (278 deaths) from REMAP-CAP and 3710 eligible patients from 18 trials (1278 deaths) from the prospective meta-analysis. Summary ORs were similar for tocilizumab [0·82 [0·71-0·95, p = 0·008]] and sarilumab [0·80 [0·61-1·04, p = 0·09]] compared with usual care or placebo. The summary OR for 28-day mortality comparing tocilizumab with sarilumab was 1·03 [95%CI 0·81-1·32, p = 0·80]. The p-value for the global test of inconsistency was 0·28. Administration of either tocilizumab or sarilumab was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality compared with usual care or placebo. The association is not dependent on the choice of interleukin-6 receptor antagonist.

Ebola transmission has been ongoing in the Democratic Republic of Congo since August 2018. In this trial of MAb114, REGN-EB3, remdesivir, and ZMapp (as the control), mortality from Ebola virus disease was lower in the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups than in the other groups.

As of November 2021, the global number of cumulative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive cases had surpassed 247 million, with a death toll of 5 million.1 While many countries have started vaccination programmes and more than 5 billion doses of available vaccines have been administered since December 2020,2 vaccine distribution has been inequitable. All parties are aiming for a wider and faster distribution worldwide; however, controlling COVID-19 will require a multifaceted, global collaboration of vaccination programmes and implementation of public health and social measures at individual and community levels.3Emerging evidence warns of the concerning long-term effects following infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2).4 According to the limited amount of available published clinical series, approximately 80% of patients with COVID-19 have symptoms that persist beyond 2 weeks.5'6 Multiple symptoms are being described by patients in an increasing number of surveys.5-7 Symptoms range from cough and shortness of breath to fatigue, exertional malaise, chest pain, j oint pain, headache, depression or other mood disorders, cognitive dysfunction and insomnia. Multiorgan system involvement might exist, including but not limited to neurological, mental, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, reproductive and renal systems. Patients who experienced hospitalization during the acute episode of COVID-19 as well as patients who had a milder disease not requiring hospitalization have reported such symptoms.In December 2020, two independent virtual forums were conducted on this topic by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness,8 and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.