Clinical questionWhat is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020.Current practiceRemdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice.RecommendationsThe guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir.How this guideline was createdAn international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems.The evidenceThe linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay.Understanding the recommendationMost patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.

AimA deadly nosocomial outbreak in a Philippine hospital drew nationwide attention to neonatal sepsis. Together with specific infection control measures, interventions that protect newborns against infection-related mortality include drying, skin-to-skin contact, delayed cord clamping, breastfeeding initiation and delayed bathing. This evaluation characterized hospital care in the first hours of life with the intent to drive policy change, strategic planning and hospital reform.MethodsTrained physicians observed 481 consecutive deliveries in 51 hospitals using a standardized tool to record practices and timing of immediate newborn care procedures.ResultsDrying, weighing, eye care and vitamin K injections were performed in more than 90% of newborns. Only 9.6% were allowed skin-to-skin contact. Interventions were inappropriately sequenced, e.g. immediate cord clamping (median 12 sec), delayed drying (96.5%) and early bathing (90.0%). While 68.2% were put to the breast, they were separated two minutes later. Unnecessary suctioning was performed in 94.9%. Doctors trained in neonatal resuscitation were 2.5 (1.1–5.7) times more likely to unnecessarily suction vigorous newborns. Two per cent died and 5.7% developed sepsis/pneumonia.ConclusionsThis minute-by-minute observational assessment revealed that performance and timing of immediate newborn care interventions are below WHO standards and deprive newborns of basic protections against infection and death.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo explore the association between early essential newborn care (EENC) policy, practice and environmental interventions and breastfeeding outcomes.DesignCross-sectional observational study.Setting150 national, provincial and district hospitals implementing EENC in eight countries in East Asia and the Pacific.Participants1383 maternal interviews, chart reviews and environmental assessments during 2016 and 2017.Main outcome measuresExclusive breastfeeding (EBF), that is, feeding only breastmilk without other food or fluids since birth and before discharge, and, early breastfeeding initiation, that is, during skin-to-skin contact (SSC) with the mother without separation.ResultsFifty-nine per cent of newborns initiated breastfeeding early and 83.5% were EBF. Duration of SSC showed a strong dose–response relationship with early breastfeeding initiation. SSC of at least 90 min was associated with 368.81 (95% CI 88.76 to 1532.38, p<0.001) times higher early breastfeeding. EBF was significantly associated with SSC duration of 30–59 min (OR 3.54, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.66, p<0.001), 60–89 min (OR 5.61, 95% CI 2.51 to 12.58, p<0.001) and at least 90 min (OR 3.78, 95% CI 2.12 to 6.74, p<0.001) regardless of delivery mode. Non-supine position (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.90 to 4.11, p<0.001), rooming-in (OR 5.85, 95% CI 3.46 to 9.88, p<0.001), hospital breastfeeding policies (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.97 to 4.02, p<0.001), quality improvement mechanisms (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.49, p=0.02) and no formula products (OR 17.50, 95% CI 5.92 to 51.74, p<0.001) were associated with EBF.ConclusionEENC policy, practice and environmental interventions were associated with breastfeeding outcomes. To maximise the likelihood of early and EBF, newborns, regardless of delivery mode, should receive immediate and uninterrupted SSC for at least 90 min.