Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 22(7): 651-654, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1735703
2.
Murray, Christopher J. L.; Ikuta, Kevin Shunji, Sharara, Fablina, Swetschinski, Lucien, Robles Aguilar, Gisela, Gray, Authia, Han, Chieh, Bisignano, Catherine, Rao, Puja, Wool, Eve, Johnson, Sarah C.; Browne, Annie J.; Chipeta, Michael Give, Fell, Frederick, Hackett, Sean, Haines-Woodhouse, Georgina, Kashef Hamadani, Bahar H.; Kumaran, Emmanuelle A. P.; McManigal, Barney, Agarwal, Ramesh, Akech, Samuel, Albertson, Samuel, Amuasi, John, Andrews, Jason, Aravkin, Aleskandr, Ashley, Elizabeth, Bailey, Freddie, Baker, Stephen, Basnyat, Buddha, Bekker, Adrie, Bender, Rose, Bethou, Adhisivam, Bielicki, Julia, Boonkasidecha, Suppawat, Bukosia, James, Carvalheiro, Cristina, Castañeda-Orjuela, Carlos, Chansamouth, Vilada, Chaurasia, Suman, Chiurchiù, Sara, Chowdhury, Fazle, Cook, Aislinn J.; Cooper, Ben, Cressey, Tim R.; Criollo-Mora, Elia, Cunningham, Matthew, Darboe, Saffiatou, Day, Nicholas P. J.; De Luca, Maia, Dokova, Klara, Dramowski, Angela, Dunachie, Susanna J.; Eckmanns, Tim, Eibach, Daniel, Emami, Amir, Feasey, Nicholas, Fisher-Pearson, Natasha, Forrest, Karen, Garrett, Denise, Gastmeier, Petra, Giref, Ababi Zergaw, Greer, Rachel Claire, Gupta, Vikas, Haller, Sebastian, Haselbeck, Andrea, Hay, Simon I.; Holm, Marianne, Hopkins, Susan, Iregbu, Kenneth C.; Jacobs, Jan, Jarovsky, Daniel, Javanmardi, Fatemeh, Khorana, Meera, Kissoon, Niranjan, Kobeissi, Elsa, Kostyanev, Tomislav, Krapp, Fiorella, Krumkamp, Ralf, Kumar, Ajay, Kyu, Hmwe Hmwe, Lim, Cherry, Limmathurotsakul, Direk, Loftus, Michael James, Lunn, Miles, Ma, Jianing, Mturi, Neema, Munera-Huertas, Tatiana, Musicha, Patrick, Mussi-Pinhata, Marisa Marcia, Nakamura, Tomoka, Nanavati, Ruchi, Nangia, Sushma, Newton, Paul, Ngoun, Chanpheaktra, Novotney, Amanda, Nwakanma, Davis, Obiero, Christina W.; Olivas-Martinez, Antonio, Olliaro, Piero, Ooko, Ednah, Ortiz-Brizuela, Edgar, Peleg, Anton Yariv, Perrone, Carlo, Plakkal, Nishad, Ponce-de-Leon, Alfredo, Raad, Mathieu, Ramdin, Tanusha, Riddell, Amy, Roberts, Tamalee, Robotham, Julie Victoria, Roca, Anna, Rudd, Kristina E.; Russell, Neal, Schnall, Jesse, Scott, John Anthony Gerard, Shivamallappa, Madhusudhan, Sifuentes-Osornio, Jose, Steenkeste, Nicolas, Stewardson, Andrew James, Stoeva, Temenuga, Tasak, Nidanuch, Thaiprakong, Areerat, Thwaites, Guy, Turner, Claudia, Turner, Paul, van Doorn, H. Rogier, Velaphi, Sithembiso, Vongpradith, Avina, Vu, Huong, Walsh, Timothy, Waner, Seymour, Wangrangsimakul, Tri, Wozniak, Teresa, Zheng, Peng, Sartorius, Benn, Lopez, Alan D.; Stergachis, Andy, Moore, Catrin, Dolecek, Christiane, Naghavi, Mohsen.
Lancet ; 399(10325): 629-655, 2022 02 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1624565

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major threat to human health around the world. Previous publications have estimated the effect of AMR on incidence, deaths, hospital length of stay, and health-care costs for specific pathogen-drug combinations in select locations. To our knowledge, this study presents the most comprehensive estimates of AMR burden to date. METHODS: We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to and associated with bacterial AMR for 23 pathogens and 88 pathogen-drug combinations in 204 countries and territories in 2019. We obtained data from systematic literature reviews, hospital systems, surveillance systems, and other sources, covering 471 million individual records or isolates and 7585 study-location-years. We used predictive statistical modelling to produce estimates of AMR burden for all locations, including for locations with no data. Our approach can be divided into five broad components: number of deaths where infection played a role, proportion of infectious deaths attributable to a given infectious syndrome, proportion of infectious syndrome deaths attributable to a given pathogen, the percentage of a given pathogen resistant to an antibiotic of interest, and the excess risk of death or duration of an infection associated with this resistance. Using these components, we estimated disease burden based on two counterfactuals: deaths attributable to AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by drug-susceptible infections), and deaths associated with AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by no infection). We generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for final estimates as the 25th and 975th ordered values across 1000 posterior draws, and models were cross-validated for out-of-sample predictive validity. We present final estimates aggregated to the global and regional level. FINDINGS: On the basis of our predictive statistical models, there were an estimated 4·95 million (3·62-6·57) deaths associated with bacterial AMR in 2019, including 1·27 million (95% UI 0·911-1·71) deaths attributable to bacterial AMR. At the regional level, we estimated the all-age death rate attributable to resistance to be highest in western sub-Saharan Africa, at 27·3 deaths per 100 000 (20·9-35·3), and lowest in Australasia, at 6·5 deaths (4·3-9·4) per 100 000. Lower respiratory infections accounted for more than 1·5 million deaths associated with resistance in 2019, making it the most burdensome infectious syndrome. The six leading pathogens for deaths associated with resistance (Escherichia coli, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were responsible for 929 000 (660 000-1 270 000) deaths attributable to AMR and 3·57 million (2·62-4·78) deaths associated with AMR in 2019. One pathogen-drug combination, meticillin-resistant S aureus, caused more than 100 000 deaths attributable to AMR in 2019, while six more each caused 50 000-100 000 deaths: multidrug-resistant excluding extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant A baumannii, fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae, and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant K pneumoniae. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this study provides the first comprehensive assessment of the global burden of AMR, as well as an evaluation of the availability of data. AMR is a leading cause of death around the world, with the highest burdens in low-resource settings. Understanding the burden of AMR and the leading pathogen-drug combinations contributing to it is crucial to making informed and location-specific policy decisions, particularly about infection prevention and control programmes, access to essential antibiotics, and research and development of new vaccines and antibiotics. There are serious data gaps in many low-income settings, emphasising the need to expand microbiology laboratory capacity and data collection systems to improve our understanding of this important human health threat. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Department of Health and Social Care using UK aid funding managed by the Fleming Fund.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Global Burden of Disease , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Global Health , Humans , Models, Statistical
3.
Lancet Child Adolesc Health ; 6(2): 129-136, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1677246

ABSTRACT

Sepsis is a worldwide public health problem due to its high incidence and accompanying mortality, morbidity, and financial burden. It is a major cause of admission to paediatric intensive care units; despite advances in the diagnosis and treatment, both incidence and mortality are high in low-income and middle-income countries. There are several barriers in addressing the enormous burden of paediatric sepsis in these countries, which include: lack of data of incidence and mortality; unfamiliarity of sepsis by the lay public, leading to failure to seek care early, and by health professionals, leading to failure to treat emergently; and insufficient government funding for sepsis care programmes leading to inadequate staffing, material, and financial resources, and therefore, poor health systems. Socioeconomic inequalities, such as inequity and marked variation in income and education, high rates of malnutrition, high percentage of young population, and health systems that do not meet the population's demands also represent barriers in the care of children with sepsis in Latin America. In this Viewpoint, we draw attention to the problem of paediatric sepsis in Latin America and call for action to reduce the disease burden by proposing some solutions.


Subject(s)
Cost of Illness , Health Priorities , Sepsis/epidemiology , Sepsis/prevention & control , Adolescent , Child , Child, Preschool , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Humans , Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/standards , Latin America/epidemiology , Social Class
5.
Pediatr Emerg Care ; 37(10): 519-525, 2021 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1443157

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Most children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are asymptomatic or have mild disease. About 5% of infected children will develop severe or critical disease. Rapid identification and treatment are essential for children who are critically ill with signs and symptoms of respiratory failure, septic shock, and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. This article is intended for pediatricians, pediatric emergency physicians, and individuals involved in the emergency care of children. It reviews the current epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in children, summarizes key aspects of clinical assessment including identification of high-risk patients and manifestations of severe disease, and provides an overview of COVID-19 management in the emergency department based on clinical severity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Child , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Syndrome , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
7.
Front Pediatr ; 9: 665350, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247891

ABSTRACT

Objective: The ongoing coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is disproportionally impacting the adult population. This study describes the experiences after repurposing a PICU and its staff for adult critical care within a state mandated COVID-19 hospital and compares the outcomes to adult patients admitted to the institution's MICU during the same period. Design: A retrospective chart review was performed to analyze outcomes for the adults admitted to the PICU and MICU during the 27-day period the PICU was incorporated into the institution's adult critical care surge plan. Setting: Tertiary care state University hospital. Patients: Critically ill adult patients with proven or suspected COVID-19. Interventions: To select the most ideal adult patients for PICU admission a tiered approach that incorporated older patients with more comorbidities at each stage was implemented. Measurements and Main Results: There were 140 patients admitted to the MICU and 9 patients admitted to the PICU during this period. The mean age of the adult patients admitted to the PICU was lower (49.1 vs. 63.2 p = 0.017). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of comorbidities, intubation rates, days of ventilation, dialysis or LOS. Patients selected for PICU care did not have coronary artery disease, CHF, cerebrovascular disease or COPD. Mean admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was lower in patients admitted to the PICU (4 vs. 6.4, p = 0.017) with similar rates of survival to discharge (66.7 vs. 44.4%, p = 0.64). Conclusion: Outcomes for the adult patients who received care in the PICU did not appear to be worse than those who were admitted to the MICU during this time. While limited by a small sample size, this single center cohort study revealed that careful assessment of critical illness considering age and type of co-morbidities may be a safe and effective approach in determining which critically ill adult patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are the most appropriate for PICU admission in general hospitals with primary management by its physicians and nurses.

8.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 22(7): 651-654, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242127
9.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(11): 1023, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-956626
10.
BMJ ; 372: n526, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1112324

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Chemoprevention , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Risk Assessment , COVID-19/epidemiology , Chemoprevention/methods , Chemoprevention/standards , Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Humans , Immunologic Factors/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Uncertainty , World Health Organization
11.
Crit Care Med ; 49(4): 598-622, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1085323

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. DESIGN: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. METHODS: Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? CONCLUSIONS: Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Research , Sepsis/therapy , Humans
12.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(8): 783-784, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-745516
13.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 22(1): 127-130, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1012892
14.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(7): 662-666, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-980045

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 has spread around the world. In the 3 months since its emergence, we have learned a great deal about its clinical management and its relevance to the pediatric critical care provider. In this article, we review the available literature and provide valuable insight into the clinical management of this disease, as well as information on preparedness activities that every PICU should perform.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Care/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Severity of Illness Index , Age Distribution , Age Factors , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Child , Child, Preschool , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Global Health , Humans , Infant , Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/organization & administration , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Chest ; 159(2): 634-652, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-973941

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was serious concern that the United States would encounter a shortfall of mechanical ventilators. In response, the US government, using the Defense Production Act, ordered the development of 200,000 ventilators from 11 different manufacturers. These ventilators have different capabilities, and whether all are able to support COVID-19 patients is not evident. RESEARCH QUESTION: Evaluate ventilator requirements for affected COVID-19 patients, assess the clinical performance of current US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) ventilators employed during the pandemic, and finally, compare ordered ventilators' functionality based on COVID-19 patient needs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Current published literature, publicly available documents, and lay press articles were reviewed by a diverse team of disaster experts. Data were assembled into tabular format, which formed the basis for analysis and future recommendations. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients often develop severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and adult respiratory defense syndrome (ARDS), requiring high levels of ventilator support. Current SNS ventilators were unable to fully support all COVID-19 patients, and only approximately half of newly ordered ventilators have the capacity to support the most severely affected patients; ventilators with less capacity for providing high-level support are still of significant value in caring for many patients. INTERPRETATION: Current SNS ventilators and those on order are capable of supporting most but not all COVID-19 patients. Technologic, logistic, and educational challenges encountered from current SNS ventilators are summarized, with potential next-generation SNS ventilator updates offered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Strategic Stockpile , Ventilators, Mechanical/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Ventilators, Mechanical/standards , Ventilators, Mechanical/supply & distribution
16.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(10): 921-922, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-814189
17.
BMJ ; 370: m3379, 2020 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-744846

ABSTRACT

UPDATES: This is the tenth version (ninth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions, available as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? CONTEXT: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous recently completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this update the Guideline Development Group (GDG) developed new recommendations for patients with non-severe covid-19, concerning the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (2 RCTs, 3100 participants) and remdesivir (5 RCTs, 2710 participants). We have also revised the structure of the guideline to accommodate for an increasing number of effective treatment options to choose between. NEW RECOMMENDATION: • Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir: a strong recommendation for its use in patients at highest risk of hospitalisation; and a conditional recommendation against its use in patients at low risk of hospitalisation. In the absence of trial data, no recommendation on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was made in patients with severe or critical illness. • Remdesivir: a conditional recommendation for its use in patients at highest risk of hospitalisation. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS: In patients with non-severe illness at highest risk of hospitalisation, the recommendations for treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir reflect what the GDG considered to be important reductions in admission to hospital (moderate certainty) with little or no impact on mortality, mechanical ventilation, time to symptom resolution (low to very low certainty), and adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (high certainty for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, moderate certainty for remdesivir), though diarrhoea and altered taste were noted more often with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Several treatment alternatives are now available for patients with non-severe covid-19 at highest risk of hospitalisation. In the absence of direct comparisons in trials, indirect comparisons from the living network meta-analysis have been used to inform the use of one drug over another with a related mechanism of action. Choices will depend on availability of the drugs, routes of administration (only intravenous for remdesivir), duration of treatment, and time from onset of symptoms to starting treatment in the trials. The strong recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reflects what the GDG considered to represent a superior choice over other treatment options for those with non-severe illness at highest risk; it may prevent more hospitalisations than the alternatives, has fewer harms than molnupiravir, and is easier to administer than intravenous options such as remdesivir and the monoclonal antibodies. For monoclonal antibodies, efficacy may depend on the given SARS-CoV-2 variant, with a less certain benefit seen with the omicron BA1-2 variant which is dominating in many regions. There are no clinical data on combination treatment, and currently the GDG advises against combining antivirals in the absence of supporting evidence. UPDATES TO PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The conditional (weak) recommendation for remdesivir in patients with non-severe illness at highest risk of hospitalisation replaces a previous conditional recommendation against treatment with remdesivir in all patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity. The recommendation for patients with severe or critical illness is being updated using new evidence. PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS: • Recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids; a strong recommendation for IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab), in combination with corticosteroids; a strong recommendation for baricitinib as an alternative to IL-6 receptor blockers, in combination with corticosteroids; and a conditional recommendation for casirivimab-imdevimab, for those with seronegative status, (where rapid viral genotyping is available to confirm infection with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant). • Recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19­conditional recommendations for those at highest risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir; sotrovimab; and for casirivimab-imdevimab (where rapid viral genotyping is available to confirm infection with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant). • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19­a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids; and a strong recommendation against convalescent plasma. • Not recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­a recommendation against convalescent plasma, except in the context of a clinical trial; and a conditional recommendation against ruxolitinib and tofacitinib. • Not recommended, regardless of covid-19 disease severity­a strong recommendation against hydroxychloroquine; a strong recommendation against lopinavir/ritonavir; and a recommendation against ivermectin, except in the context of a clinical trial. ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new recommendations on two drugs for covid-19 and updates existing recommendations. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF, with a summary version here in The BMJ.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
18.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(11): e1031-e1037, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-744635

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pediatrics/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Sepsis/therapy , Algorithms , Attitude to Health , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Child , Critical Care/standards , Humans , Multiple Organ Failure/etiology , Multiple Organ Failure/therapy , Pandemics , Resuscitation/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Sepsis/etiology , Shock, Septic/etiology , Shock, Septic/therapy , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL