Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is characterised by the presence of immune responses to previously acquired Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection without clinical evidence of active tuberculosis (TB). Here we report evidence based guidelines from the World Health Organization for a public health approach to the management of LTBI in high risk individuals in countries with high or middle upper income and TB incidence of <100 per 100 000 per year. The guidelines strongly recommend systematic testing and treatment of LTBI in people living with HIV, adult and child contacts of pulmonary TB cases, patients initiating anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment, patients receiving dialysis, patients preparing for organ or haematological transplantation, and patients with silicosis. In prisoners, healthcare workers, immigrants from high TB burden countries, homeless persons and illicit drug users, systematic testing and treatment of LTBI is conditionally recommended, according to TB epidemiology and resource availability. Either commercial interferon gamma release assays or Mantoux tuberculin skin testing could be used to test for LTBI. Chest radiography should be performed before LTBI treatment to rule out active TB disease. Recommended treatment regimens for LTBI include: 6 or 9 month isoniazid; 12 week rifapentine plus isoniazid; 3–4 month isoniazid plus rifampicin; or 3–4 month rifampicin alone.

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

One of the main causes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is cytokine storm, although the exact cause is still unknown. Umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) influence proinflammatory T-helper 2 (Th 2 ) cells to shift to an anti-inflammatory agent. To investigate efficacy of UC-MSC administration as adjuvant therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19, we conducted a double-blind, multicentered, randomized controlled trial at four COVID-19 referral hospitals in Jakarta, Indonesia. This study included 40 randomly allocated critically ill patients with COVID-19; 20 patients received an intravenous infusion of 1 Â 10 6 /kg body weight UC-MSCs in 100 ml saline (0.9%) solution (SS) and 20 patients received 100 ml 0.9% SS as the control group. All patients received standard therapy. The primary outcome was measured by survival rate and/or length of ventilator usage. The secondary outcome was measured by clinical and laboratory improvement, with serious adverse events. Our study showed the survival rate in the UC-MSCs group was 2.5 times higher than that in the control group (P = .047), which is 10 patients and 4 patients in the UC-MSCs and control groups, respectively. In patients with comorbidities, UC-MSC administration increased the survival rate by 4.5 times compared with controls. The length of stay in the intensive care unit and ventilator usage were not statistically significant, and no adverse events were reported. The application of infusion UC-MSCs significantly decreased interleukin 6 in the recovered patients (P = .023). Therefore, application of intravenous UC-MSCs as adjuvant treatment for critically ill patients with COVID-19 increases the survival rate by modulating the immune system toward an antiinflammatory state.

Background Data on COVID-19-related mortality and associated factors from low-resource settings are scarce. This study examined clinical characteristics and factors associated with in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients in Jakarta, Indonesia, from March 2 to July 31, 2020. Methods This retrospective cohort included all hospitalised patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in 55 hospitals. We extracted demographic and clinical data, including hospital outcomes (discharge or death). We used logistic regression to examine factors associated with mortality. Findings Of 4265 patients with a definitive outcome by July 31, 3768 (88%) were discharged and 497 (12%) died. The median age was 46 years (IQR 32–57), 5% were children, and 31% had >1 comorbidity. Age-specific mortalities were 11% (7/61) for <5 years; 4% (1/23) for 5–9; 2% (3/133) for 10–19; 2% (8/638) for 20–29; 3% (26/755) for 30–39; 7% (61/819) for 40–49; 17% (155/941) for 50–59; 22% (132/611) for 60–69; and 34% (96/284) for ≥70. Risk of death was associated with higher age, male sex; pre-existing hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease; clinical diagnosis of pneumonia; multiple (>3) symptoms; immediate ICU admission, or intubation. Across all ages, risk of death was higher for patients with >1 comorbidity compared to those without; notably the risk was six-fold increased among patients <50 years (adjusted odds ratio 5.87, 95%CI 3.28–10.52; 27% vs 3% mortality). Interpretation Overall in-hospital mortality was lower than reported in high-income countries, probably due to younger age distribution and fewer comorbidities. Deaths occurred across all ages, with >10% mortality among children <5 years and adults >50 years.

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.

f Numerous studies have reported low concentrations of antituberculosis drugs in tuberculosis (TB) patients, but few studies have examined whether low drug concentrations affect TB treatment response. We examined steady-state plasma concentrations of isoniazid, rifampin, and pyrazinamide at 2 h after the administration of drugs (C 2 h ) among 181 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Indonesia and related these to bacteriological response during treatment. C 2 h values below reference values for either isoniazid, rifampin, or pyrazinamide were found in 91% of patients; 60% had at least two low C 2 h concentrations. The isoniazid C 2 h was noticeably lower in fast versus slow acetylators (0.9 mg/liter versus 2.2 mg/liter, P < 0.001). At the end of treatment, 82% of the patients were cured, whereas 30 patients (17%) had dropped out during the study, and 2 patients (1%) failed treatment. No association was found between C 2 h concentrations and sputum culture results at 8 weeks of treatment. Post hoc analysis showed that patients with low pyrazinamide C 2 h (P ‫؍‬ 0.01) and patients with large extensive lung lesions (P ‫؍‬ 0.01) were at risk of at least one positive culture at week 4, 8, or 24/32. Antituberculosis drug concentrations were often low, but treatment response was nevertheless good. No association was found between drug concentrations and 8 weeks culture conversion, but low pyrazinamide drug concentrations may be associated with a less favorable bacteriological response. The use of higher doses of pyrazinamide may warrant further investigation. G enerally, first-line treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) is highly effective. However, a number of patients do not respond adequately to treatment, develop drug resistance or experience a relapse of TB after completion of treatment. Inadequate exposure to anti-TB drugs may constitute one of the factors underlying suboptimal treatment response (1, 2). Among adults, low plasma concentrations of anti-TB drugs have been found in patients with HIV infection, gastrointestinal tract disorders, high body weight, male gender, or diabetes mellitus (DM) (3-11) and in fast acetylators for isoniazid (12). Low plasma concentrations can also result from interindividual variability in drug absorption, metabolism, or excretion (3, 13). Some studies have reported associations between low concentrations of anti-TB drugs and poor treatment response (1-3, 14), although this was not found in other studies (7,15). In a recent study performed in a preclinical model, pharmacokinetic variability appeared to be more important in the emergence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) than nonadherence (16). Furthermore, a systematic review showed that pharmacokinetic variability to isoniazid in multi-drug TB regimens is significantly associated with therapy failure and acquired drug resistance (17).Nevertheless, the number of studies examining the relation between plasma concentrations of anti-TB drugs and treatment response remains limited and the majority of them inves...

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new name given by World Health Organization (WHO) of 2019 novel corona virus infection, reported at the end of 2019 from Wuhan, Cina. The spread of infection occurs rapidly and creates a new pandemic threat. Etiology of COVID-19 was identified in 10 January 2020, a betacorona virus, similar with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS CoV). The clue diagnosis pathway of COVID-19 were history of travel from Wuhan or others infected countries within 14 days prior, and symptoms of acute respiratory illness (ARI) or lower respiratory infection (pneumonia) with the result of real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) specific for COVID-19. The WHO classified COVID-19 into suspect case, probable case and confirmed case. Indonesia Ministry of Health classified the case into in monitoring (ODP), patient under surveillance (PDP), people without symptom (OTG) and confirmed case. Specimens for detection COVID-19 could be acquired from nasal and nasopharynx swab, sputum and another lower respiratory aspirate including broncoalveolar lavage (BAL). Management of COVID-19 consist of isolation and infection control, supportive treatment according to the disease severity which could be mild (acute respiratory infection) to severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Disease transmission is via droplets and contact with droplets. Currently, there is no antiviral and vaccine. Prevention is very important for this disease by limitation of transmission, identification and isolate patients. Prognosis is determined by severity of the disease and patient comorbidity. Information about this novel disease remains very few, studies are still ongoing and is needing further research to fight with this new virus. (J Respir Indo. 2020; 40(2): 120-30)

BackgroundThe World Health Organization’s End Tuberculosis Strategy states that no tuberculosis (TB)-affected households should endure catastrophic costs due to TB. To achieve this target, it is essential to provide adequate social protection. As only a few studies in many countries have evaluated social-protection programs to determine whether the target is being reached, we assessed the effect of financial support on reducing the incidence of catastrophic costs due to TB in Indonesia.MethodsFrom July to September 2016, we interviewed adult patients receiving treatment for TB in 19 primary health centres in urban, sub-urban and rural area of Indonesia, and those receiving multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB treatment in an Indonesian national referral hospital. Based on the needs assessment, we developed eight scenarios for financial support. We assessed the effect of each simulated scenario by measuring reductions in the incidence of catastrophic costs.ResultsWe analysed data of 282 TB and 64 MDR-TB patients. The incidences of catastrophic costs in affected households were 36 and 83%, respectively. Patients’ primary needs for social protection were financial support to cover costs related to income loss, transportation, and food supplements. The optimum scenario, in which financial support would be provided for these three items, would reduce the respective incidences of catastrophic costs in TB and MDR-TB-affected households to 11 and 23%. The patients experiencing catastrophic costs in this scenario would, however, have to pay high remaining costs (median of USD 910; [interquartile range (IQR) 662] in the TB group, and USD 2613; [IQR 3442] in the MDR-TB group).ConclusionsIndonesia’s current level of social protection is not sufficient to mitigate the socioeconomic impact of TB. Financial support for income loss, transportation costs, and food-supplement costs will substantially reduce the incidence of catastrophic costs, but financial support alone will not be sufficient to achieve the target of 0% TB-affected households facing catastrophic costs. This would require innovative social-protection policies and higher levels of domestic and external funding.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40249-019-0519-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.