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

Oral glycerol therapy prevents severe neurological sequelae in patients with childhood meningitis. Safety, availability, low cost, and oral administration also add to its usefulness, especially in resource-limited settings.

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.

A post hoc analysis of 654 children with bacterial meningitis showed that the level of consciousness is the most important predictor of death and/or neurological sequelae, more than is etiology per se. This finding emphasizes the need of including a measurement of the presenting status in all studies examining treatment efficacy.

No abstract

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT:Adjuvant dexamethsasone is believed to prevent or relieve hearing impairment, especially in Hib meningitis if instituted before antimicrobial treatment, but no single study has documented this effect. All information derives from metaanalyses in which profoundly different populations have been combined. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:This randomized, double-blind clinical trial, the largest in pediatrics, revealed no significant relief in hearing impairment by adjuvant intravenous dexamethsone, oral glycerol, or their combination. Instead, the child's presenting status and age were the most important predictors of hearing loss. abstract OBJECTIVE. Several studies have evaluated dexamethasone for prevention of hearing loss in childhood bacterial meningitis, but results have varied. We compared dexamethasone and/or glycerol recipients with placebo recipients, and measured hearing at 3 threshold levels. METHODS. Children aged 2 months to 16 years with meningitis were treated with ceftriaxone but were double-blindly randomly assigned to receive adjuvant dexamethasone intravenously, glycerol orally, both agents, or neither agent. We used the Glasgow coma scale to grade the presenting status. The end points were the better ear's ability to detect sounds of Ͼ40 dB, Ն60 dB, and Ն80 dB, with these thresholds indicating any, moderate-to-severe, or severe impairment, respectively. All tests were interpreted by an external audiologist. Influence of covariates in the treatment groups was examined by binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 383 children, mostly with meningitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b or Streptococcus pneumoniae, 101 received dexamethasone, 95 received dexamethasone and glycerol, 92 received glycerol, and 95 received placebo. Only the presenting condition and young age predicted impairment independently through all threshold levels. Each lowering point in the Glasgow scale increased the risk by 15% to 21% (odds ratio: 1.20, 1.21, and 1.15 [95% confidence interval: 1.06 -1.35, 1.07-1.37, and 1.01-1.31]; P ϭ .005, .003, and .039) for any, moderate-to-severe, or severe impairment, respectively. Each increasing month of age decreased the risk by 2% to 6% (P ϭ .0001, .0007, and .041, respectively). Neither dexamethasone nor glycerol prevented hearing loss at these levels regardless of the causative agent or timing of antimicrobial agent. CONCLUSIONS: With bacterial meningitis, the child's presenting status and young age are the most important predictors of hearing impairment. Little relief is obtained from current adjuvant medications.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is the leading cause of mortality in young children globally, and factors that affect tissue delivery of oxygen may affect outcomes of pneumonia. We studied whether altitude and anemia influence disease severity and outcomes in young children with World Health Organization–defined severe pneumonia. METHODS: We analyzed data from the SPEAR (Severe Pneumonia Evaluation Antimicrobial Research) study, a World Health Organization– and USAID-sponsored multinational randomized controlled trial of antibiotics for severe pneumonia among children aged 2 to 59 months in resource-poor settings. The trial enrolled 958 children in 8 sites at varying elevations, classified as high (≥2000 m) or low (<2000 m) altitude. We compared illness severity and assessed the effect of anemia on treatment outcome at high and low altitudes, adjusting for potential confounders and study site. RESULTS: Children at high altitudes had significantly lower oxygen saturation on presentation, more cyanosis, lower systolic blood pressure, and higher hemoglobin. After adjusting for potential confounders, anemia predicted treatment failure in children living at high altitude (relative risk: 4.07; 95% confidence interval: 2.60–6.38) but not at low altitude (relative risk: 1.12; 95% confidence interval: 0.96–1.30). Children at high altitude took longer to reach normoxemia than did children at lower altitudes (5.25 vs 0.75 days; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Children at high altitude present with more severe disease, and children with anemia at high altitude are at greater risk of poor outcome when being treated for severe pneumonia. Given the high global prevalence of anemia among young children, prevention and treatment of anemia should be a priority in children living at high altitude and could improve outcomes of pneumonia.

Background Existing scores to identify children at risk of hospitalized pneumonia-related mortality lack broad external validation. Our objective was to externally validate three such risk scores. Methods We applied the Respiratory Index of Severity in Children (RISC) for HIV-negative children, the RISC-Malawi, and the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) scores to hospitalized children in the Pneumonia REsearch Partnerships to Assess WHO REcommendations (PREPARE) data set. The PREPARE data set includes pooled data from 41 studies on pediatric pneumonia from across the world. We calculated test characteristics and the area under the curve (AUC) for each of these clinical prediction rules. Results The RISC score for HIV-negative children was applied to 3574 children 0-24 months and demonstrated poor discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58-0.73) in the identification of children at risk of hospitalized pneumonia-related mortality. The RISC-Malawi score had fair discriminatory value (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.74-0.77) among 17 864 children 2-59 months. The PERCH score was applied to 732 children 1-59 months and also demonstrated poor discriminatory value (AUC = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.37-0.73). Conclusions In a large external application of the RISC, RISC-Malawi, and PERCH scores, a substantial number of children were misclassified for their risk of hospitalized pneumonia-related mortality. Although pneumonia risk scores have performed well among the cohorts in which they were derived, their performance diminished when externally applied. A generalizable risk assessment tool with higher sensitivity and specificity to identify children at risk of hospitalized pneumonia-related mortality may be needed. Such a generalizable risk assessment tool would need context-specific validation prior to implementation in that setting.