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

Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is the most widespread, tick-borne viral disease affecting humans. The disease is endemic in many regions, such as Africa, Asia, Eastern and Southern Europe, and Central Asia. Recently, the incidence of CCHF has increased rapidly in the countries of the World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region (WHO EMR), with sporadic human cases and outbreaks of CCHF being reported from a number of countries in the region. Despite the rapidly growing incidence of the disease, there are currently no accurate data on the burden of the disease in the region due to the different surveillance systems used for CCHF in these countries. In an effort to increase our understanding of the epidemiology and risk factors for the transmission of the CCHF virus (CCHFV; a Nairovirus of the family Bunyaviridae) in the WHO EMR, and to identify the current knowledge gaps that are hindering effective control interventions, a sub-regional meeting was organized in Muscat, Oman, from December 7 to 9, 2015. This article summarizes the current knowledge of the disease in the region, identifies the knowledge gaps that present challenges for the prevention and control of CCHFV, and details a strategic framework for research and development activities that would be necessary to curb the ongoing and new threats posed by CCHFV.

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.

The Arctic, even more so than other parts of the world, has warmed substantially over the past few decades. Temperature and humidity influence the rate of development, survival and reproduction of pathogens and thus the incidence and prevalence of many infectious diseases. Higher temperatures may also allow infected host species to survive winters in larger numbers, increase the population size and expand their habitat range. The impact of these changes on human disease in the Arctic has not been fully evaluated. There is concern that climate change may shift the geographic and temporal distribution of a range of infectious diseases. Many infectious diseases are climate sensitive, where their emergence in a region is dependent on climate-related ecological changes. Most are zoonotic diseases, and can be spread between humans and animals by arthropod vectors, water, soil, wild or domestic animals. Potentially climate-sensitive zoonotic pathogens of circumpolar concern include Brucella spp., Toxoplasma gondii, Trichinella spp., Clostridium botulinum, Francisella tularensis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Bacillus anthracis, Echinococcus spp., Leptospira spp., Giardia spp., Cryptosporida spp., Coxiella burnetti, rabies virus, West Nile virus, Hantaviruses, and tick-borne encephalitis viruses.

The article presents the results of the prospective study of 266 patients with dirofilariasis who received medical and diagnostic assistance in Rostov Scientific Research Institute of Microbiology and Parasitology in Rostov-on-Don, Russia from 2000 to 2016. We have assessed the features of the dynamics of epidemiology of this infection in several territories of the Russian Federation, depending on the social structure of patients. Immature females of dirofilaria were found most commonly in humans (82.9 ± 2.6%), the proportion of maturity females and adult males of worms respectively was 10.5 ± 2.1% and 0.9 ± 0.6%. All mature worms were localized inside a capsule. Peripheral blood eosinophilia was detected only in patients with the migration of helminths (19 of 116 persons – 16.4%). Blood samples of patients examined by the method of concentration in 3% acetic acid for detection of microfilariae, showed negative result in all patients.Our data are consistent with the opinion of KI Skriabin about that human as «dual facultative host» for dirofiliaria. It is rare that parasite in human body is able to develop to the imago stage (according to our observations – 11.4%). The immune response to invasion by dirofiliaria in human is manifested as dense connective tissue which forms a capsule. According to our study the rare cases (22) of detection the sexual mature D. repens (10.4%) were localized inside the capsule. Observations of patients with D. repens infection allowed concluding that human for this helminth is «a biological deadend».

In spite of vaccination was recommended by the World Health Organization, the main strategy of influenza is antiviral drugs treatment, one of which is umifenovir. Aim. The aim of the study is to obtain additional data on safety and therapeutic efficacy of the antiviral drug Arbidol (umifenovir) in patients with a diagnosis of influenza and common cold. Materials and methods. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study investigating efficacy and safety of Arbidol (umifenovir) in Treatment and Prophylaxis of Influenza and Common Cold (ARBITR) IV phase started in November 2011 and completed in April 2016 on the basis of 15 research centers in various regions of the Russian Federation. A total of 359 patients, aged 18 to 65 years with influenza or acute respiratory tract infection, of no more than 36 hours' duration were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: a group of patients (therapy group) treated by Arbidol (umifenovir) at a dosage of 800 mg/day (2 capsules) for 5 days (n=181), and a group of patients receiving placebo 4 times a day for 5 days (n=178). The primary outcome measures of the study were the duration of clinical illness among patients with common cold and influenza/ARVI, the duration and severity of the main symptoms. Number of clinical complications associated with influenza and common cold was assessed as a secondary outcome. Safety was assessed by analyzing number of adverse events that are probably or definitely related to Arbidol, assessing vital signs, examining the physical condition of patients and general clinical laboratory parameters. Results. In the group treated by umifenovir, the number of full recover patients on the 4th day from the disease onset were significantly differed from the number of such cases in the placebo group. The number of cases of complete recovery after 96 hours was 98 patients (54.1%) and 77 (43.3%), p

BackgroundCrimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) is a life threatening acute viral infection that presents significant risk of nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers.AimEvaluation of CCHF infection prevention and control (IP&C) practices in healthcare facilities that routinely manage CCHF cases in Eurasia.MethodsA cross-sectional CCHF IP&C survey was designed and distributed to CCHF centers in 10 endemic Eurasian countries in 2016.ResultsTwenty-three responses were received from centers in Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, Georgia, Kosovo, Bulgaria, Oman, Iran, India and Kazakhstan. All units had dedicated isolation rooms for CCHF, with cohorting of confirmed cases in 15/23 centers and cohorting of suspect and confirmed cases in 9/23 centers. There was adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) in 22/23 facilities, with 21/23 facilities reporting routine use of PPE for CCHF patients. Adequate staffing levels to provide care reported in 14/23 locations. All centers reported having a high risk CCHFV nosocomial exposure in last five years, with 5 centers reporting more than 5 exposures. Education was provided annually in most centers (13/23), with additional training requested in PPE use (11/23), PPE donning/doffing (12/23), environmental disinfection (12/23) and waste management (14/23).ConclusionsStaff and patient safety must be improved and healthcare associated CCHF exposure and transmission eliminated. Improvements are recommended in isolation capacity in healthcare facilities, use of PPE and maintenance of adequate staffing levels. We recommend further audit of IP&C practice at individual units in endemic areas, as part of national quality assurance programs.

COVID-19 travel restrictions and the International Health Regulations -Call for an open debate on easing of travel restrictionsThe COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has made national governments worldwide to mandate several generic infection control measures such as physical distancing, self-isolation, and closure of non-essential shops, restaurants schools, among others. Some models suggest physical distancing would have to persist for 3 months to mitigate the peak effects on health systems and could be required on an intermittent basis for 12 to 18 months (Flaxman et al., 2020).Apart from these control measures travel restrictions during the early phase of the China outbreak were useful to confine it to Wuhan, the major source of the outbreak (Kraemer et al., 2020) although ultimately these measures did not prevent the spread of COVID-19 to other regions of China. The global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 has clearly been associated with regional and international travel which has contributed to the pandemic (Candido et al., 2020). To limit cross-border spread, both regionally and globally, many countries have swiftly adopted sweeping measures, including full lockdowns of shops, companies, shutting down airports, imposing travel restrictions and completely sealing their borders, to contain transmission (Gostin and Wiley, 2020). The grounding of international travel as part of the global response to prevent spread has caused profound disruption of travel and trade and has threatened the survival of many airlines, travel companies, and associated businesses.Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but have a significant economic and social impact. Since the WHO declaration of a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020, and as of 8th April, 2020, 180 countries have reported to WHO additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic in relation to travel to and from China or other countries, ranging from denial of entry of passengers, visa restrictions or quarantine for returning travellers (WHO, 2020a). To re-start the world economy again it will be important to ease travel restrictions as soon as possible. Whilst travel restriction measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, since they allow countries time to implement effective preparedness measures based on careful risk assessment, they should be based on a reasoned scientific evaluation of the