Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(8): 1476-1479, 2022 Apr 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1707110

ABSTRACT

Completion of a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with approximately 17-fold increased odds of survival among a sample of 54 nursing home residents with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the course of an outbreak from October to December 2020. Remdesivir was well tolerated; administration was logistically feasible in a pre-hospital environment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospital Administration , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , COVID-19/drug therapy , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Skilled Nursing Facilities
2.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0261479, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613353

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project. METHODS: The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/trends , Process Assessment, Health Care/methods , Australia , Health Policy/trends , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Stakeholder Participation
3.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 143: 11-21, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536636

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

4.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 19458, 2021 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1447326

ABSTRACT

Efficacious therapeutics for Ebola virus disease are in great demand. Ebola virus infections mediated by mucosal exposure, and aerosolization in particular, present a novel challenge due to nontypical massive early infection of respiratory lymphoid tissues. We performed a randomized and blinded study to compare outcomes from vehicle-treated and remdesivir-treated rhesus monkeys in a lethal model of infection resulting from aerosolized Ebola virus exposure. Remdesivir treatment initiated 4 days after exposure was associated with a significant survival benefit, significant reduction in serum viral titer, and improvements in clinical pathology biomarker levels and lung histology compared to vehicle treatment. These observations indicate that remdesivir may have value in countering aerosol-induced Ebola virus disease.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Ebolavirus/drug effects , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/pharmacology , Administration, Intravenous , Aerosols , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/pharmacology , Animals , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Disease Models, Animal , Female , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/blood , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Liver/drug effects , Liver/virology , Lung/pathology , Lung/virology , Lymph Nodes/drug effects , Lymph Nodes/pathology , Lymph Nodes/virology , Macaca mulatta , Male , Random Allocation , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/drug therapy , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/virology , Viral Load/drug effects , Viremia/drug therapy
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(8): 1476-1479, 2022 Apr 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364784

ABSTRACT

Completion of a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with approximately 17-fold increased odds of survival among a sample of 54 nursing home residents with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the course of an outbreak from October to December 2020. Remdesivir was well tolerated; administration was logistically feasible in a pre-hospital environment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospital Administration , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , COVID-19/drug therapy , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Skilled Nursing Facilities
6.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 131: 11-21, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-922037

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. METHODS: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. RESULTS: The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Evidence-Based Medicine/organization & administration , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Australia , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans , Patient Care Team
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL