Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
S Afr Med J ; 111(10): 934-937, 2021 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478412


Some clinicians prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 despite a lack of support from any credible South African professional body. They argue that when faced by clinical urgency, weak signals of efficacy should trigger action if harm is unlikely. Several recent reviews found an apparent mortality benefit by including studies at high risk of bias and with active rather than placebo controls. If these studies are discounted, the pooled mortality effect is no longer statistically significant, and evidence of benefit is very weak. Relying on this evidence could cause clinical harm if used to justify vaccine hesitancy. Clinicians remain responsible for ensuring that guidance they follow is both legitimate and reliable. In the ivermectin debate, evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles have largely been ignored under the guise thatin a pandemic the 'rules are different', probably to the detriment of vulnerable patients and certainly to the detriment of the profession's image. Medical schools and professional interest groups are responsible for transforming EBM from a taught but seldom-used tool into a process of lifelong learning, promoting a consistent call for evidence-based and unconflicted debate integral to clinical practice.

COVID-19/drug therapy , Ivermectin/administration & dosage , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , /psychology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Research Design , South Africa
Samj South African Medical Journal ; 110(11):1077-1080, 2020.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-979208


The COVID-19 pandemic requires urgent decisions regarding treatment policy in the face of rapidly evolving evidence. In response, the South African Essential Medicines List Committee established a subcommittee to systematically review and appraise emerging evidence, within very short timelines, in order to inform the National Department of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines. To date, the subcommittee has reviewed 14 potential treatments, and made recommendations based on local context, feasibility, resource requirements and equity. Here we describe the rapid review and evidence-to-decision process, using remdesivir and dexamethasone as examples. Our experience is that conducting rapid reviews is a practical and efficient way to address medicine policy questions under pandemic conditions.