No abstract

Clinical questionWhat is the role of drug interventions in the treatment and prevention of covid-19?RecommendationsThe first version on this living guidance focuses on corticosteroids. It contains a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19. Corticosteroids are inexpensive and are on the World Health Organisation list of essential medicines.Howthis guideline was created This guideline reflects an innovative collaboration between the WHO and the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, driven by an urgent need for global collaboration to provide trustworthy and living covid-19 guidance. A standing international panel of content experts, patients, clinicians, and methodologists, free from relevant conflicts of interest, produce recommendations for clinical practice. The panel follows standards, methods, processes, and platforms for trustworthy guideline development using the GRADE approach. We apply an individual patient perspective while considering contextual factors (that is, resources, feasibility, acceptability, equity) for countries and healthcare systems.The evidenceA living systematic review and network meta-analysis, supported by a prospective meta-analysis, with data from eight randomised trials (7184 participants) found that systemic corticosteroids probably reduce 28 day mortality in patients with critical covid-19 (moderate certainty evidence; 87 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval 124 fewer to 41 fewer)), and also in those with severe disease (moderate certainty evidence; 67 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (100 fewer to 27 fewer)). In contrast, systemic corticosteroids may increase the risk of death in patients without severe covid-19 (low certainty evidence; absolute effect estimate 39 more per 1000 patients, (12 fewer to 107 more)). Systemic corticosteroids probably reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and harms are likely to be minor (indirect evidence).Understanding the recommendationsThe panel made a strong recommendation for use of corticosteroids in severe and critical covid-19 because there is a lower risk of death among people treated with systemic corticosteroids (moderate certainty evidence), and they believe that all or almost all fully informed patients with severe and critical covid-19 would choose this treatment. In contrast, the panel concluded that patients with non-severe covid-19 would decline this treatment because they would be unlikely to benefit and may be harmed. Moreover, taking both a public health and a patient perspective, the panel warned that indiscriminate use of any therapy for covid-19 would potentially rapidly deplete global resources and deprive patients who may benefit from it most as potentially lifesaving therapy.UpdatesThis is a living guideline. Work is under way to evaluate other interventions. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline.Readers noteThis is version 1 of the living guideline, published on 4 September (BMJ 2020;370:m3379) version 1. Updates will be labelled as version 2, 3 etc. When citing this article, please cite the version number.SubmittedAugust 28AcceptedAugust 31

NEWS has equivalent or superior value for most test characteristics relative to SIRS and qSOFA, calling into question the rationale of adopting qSOFA in institutions where NEWS is already in use.

SummaryBackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18–45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference −1·4%, 95% CI −7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68–1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3–4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Table of contentsP001 - Sepsis impairs the capillary response within hypoxic capillaries and decreases erythrocyte oxygen-dependent ATP effluxR. M. Bateman, M. D. Sharpe, J. E. Jagger, C. G. EllisP002 - Lower serum immunoglobulin G2 level does not predispose to severe flu.J. Solé-Violán, M. López-Rodríguez, E. Herrera-Ramos, J. Ruíz-Hernández, L. Borderías, J. Horcajada, N. González-Quevedo, O. Rajas, M. Briones, F. Rodríguez de Castro, C. Rodríguez GallegoP003 - Brain protective effects of intravenous immunoglobulin through inhibition of complement activation and apoptosis in a rat model of sepsisF. Esen, G. Orhun, P. Ergin Ozcan, E. Senturk, C. Ugur Yilmaz, N. Orhan, N. Arican, M. Kaya, M. Kucukerden, M. Giris, U. Akcan, S. Bilgic Gazioglu, E. TuzunP004 - Adenosine a1 receptor dysfunction is associated with leukopenia: A possible mechanism for sepsis-induced leukopeniaR. Riff, O. Naamani, A. DouvdevaniP005 - Analysis of neutrophil by hyper spectral imaging - A preliminary reportR. Takegawa, H. Yoshida, T. Hirose, N. Yamamoto, H. Hagiya, M. Ojima, Y. Akeda, O. Tasaki, K. Tomono, T. ShimazuP006 - Chemiluminescent intensity assessed by eaa predicts the incidence of postoperative infectious complications following gastrointestinal surgeryS. Ono, T. Kubo, S. Suda, T. Ueno, T. IkedaP007 - Serial change of c1 inhibitor in patients with sepsis – A prospective observational studyT. Hirose, H. Ogura, H. Takahashi, M. Ojima, J. Kang, Y. Nakamura, T. Kojima, T. ShimazuP008 - Comparison of bacteremia and sepsis on sepsis related biomarkersT. Ikeda, S. Suda, Y. Izutani, T. Ueno, S. OnoP009 - The changes of procalcitonin levels in critical patients with abdominal septic shock during blood purificationT. Taniguchi, M. OP010 - Validation of a new sensitive point of care device for rapid measurement of procalcitoninC. Dinter, J. Lotz, B. Eilers, C. Wissmann, R. LottP011 - Infection biomarkers in primary care patients with acute respiratory tract infections – Comparison of procalcitonin and C-reactive proteinM. M. Meili, P. S. SchuetzP012 - Do we need a lower procalcitonin cut off?H. Hawa, M. Sharshir, M. Aburageila, N. SalahuddinP013 - The predictive role of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin biomarkers in central nervous system infections with extensively drug resistant bacteriaV. Chantziara, S. Georgiou, A. Tsimogianni, P. Alexandropoulos, A. Vassi, F. Lagiou, M. Valta, G. Micha, E. Chinou, G. MichaloudisP014 - Changes in endotoxin activity assay and procalcitonin levels after direct hemoperfusion with polymyxin-b immobilized fiberA. Kodaira, T. Ikeda, S. Ono, T. Ueno, S. Suda, Y. Izutani, H. ImaizumiP015 - Diagnostic usefullness of combination biomarkers on ICU admissionM. V. De la Torre-Prados, A. Garcia-De la Torre, A. Enguix-Armada, A. Puerto-Morlan, V. Perez-Valero, A. Garcia-AlcantaraP016 - Platelet function analysis utilising the PFA-100 does not predict infection, bacteraemia, sepsis or outcome in critically ill patientsN. Bolton, J. Dudziak, S. Bonney, A. Tridente, P. NeeP017 - Extracellular histone H3 levels are in...

Clinical question What 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. Recommendation The 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 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 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 recommendation The 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. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. Readers note This 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.

No abstract

Increasing antibiotic resistance makes choosing antibiotics for suspected Gram-negative infection challenging. This study set out to identify key determinants of mortality among patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia, focusing particularly on the importance of appropriate empiric antibiotic treatment. We conducted a prospective observational study of 679 unselected adults with Gram-negative bacteraemia at ten acute english hospitals between October 2013 and March 2014. Appropriate empiric antibiotic treatment was defined as intravenous treatment on the day of blood culture collection with an antibiotic to which the cultured organism was sensitive in vitro. Mortality analyses were adjusted for patient demographics, co-morbidities and illness severity. The majority of bacteraemias were community-onset (70%); most were caused by Escherichia coli (65%), Klebsiella spp. (15%) or Pseudomonas spp. (7%). Main foci of infection were urinary tract (51%), abdomen/biliary tract (20%) and lower respiratory tract (14%). The main antibiotics used were co-amoxiclav (32%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (30%) with 34% receiving combination therapy (predominantly aminoglycosides). Empiric treatment was inappropriate in 34%. All-cause mortality was 8% at 7 days and 15% at 30 days. Independent predictors of mortality (p <0.05) included older age, greater burden of co-morbid disease, severity of illness at presentation and inflammatory response. Inappropriate empiric antibiotic therapy was not associated with mortality at either time-point (adjusted OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35-1.94 and adjusted OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.50-1.66, respectively). Although our study does not exclude an impact of empiric antibiotic choice on survival in Gram-negative bacteraemia, outcome is determined primarily by patient and disease factors.