Compliance with venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis guidelines in non-operative traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of compliance of The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) for initiation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after non-operative traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the explanation for the deviations. METHODS: A retrospective review from May 2018 to February 2020 in a Level II trauma center for patients with TBI and length of stay of more than 24 h. We performed an analysis of overall and subgroup compliance with guidelines. The ACS TQIP criteria for low and moderate-risk for hemorrhagic progression were used for subgroup classification. RESULTS: Of 393 patients, 239 (60.8%) patients received chemoprophylaxis in a mean of 64 (SD: +/-42) hours since admission. "Compliance" was achieved in 52.2% of patients. In subgroup analysis, 51.4% of patients in "low-risk" and 55.1% in "moderate-risk" were "compliant." The most common rationale for non-compliance in "low-risk" was a stay less than 48 h in 35.9% of patients. However, in "moderate-risk," the most common non-compliance was starting prophylaxis before the recommended 72 h from admission in 37% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines streamline clinical practice to optimize outcomes, but there are scenarios in which deviation of the recommendations may be indicated based on clinical judgment. We show that a stay of less than 48 h was the most common rationale for not starting prophylaxis in "low-risk" patients. However, in the "moderate-risk" subgroup, the most common reason was starting chemoprophylaxis before the recommended time frame, which we called a "paradoxical" non-compliance.

Delivery of seasonal malaria chemoprevention with enhanced infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Chad: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) is a WHO-recommended intervention for children aged 3-59 months living in areas of high malaria transmission to provide protection against malaria during the rainy season. Operational guidelines were developed, based on WHO guidance, to support countries to mitigate the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission within communities and among community distributors when delivering SMC. METHODS: A cross-sectional study to determine adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures during two distribution cycles of SMC in Nigeria, Chad and Burkina Faso. Community distributors were observed receiving equipment and delivering SMC. Adherence across six domains was calculated as the proportion of indications in which the community distributor performed the correct action. Focus group discussions were conducted with community distributors to understand their perceptions of the IPC measures and barriers and facilitators to adherence. RESULTS: Data collectors observed community distributors in Nigeria (n = 259), Burkina Faso (n = 252) and Chad (n = 266) receiving IPC equipment and delivering SMC. Adherence to IPC indications varied. In all three countries, adherence to mask use was the highest (ranging from 73.3% in Nigeria to 86.9% in Burkina Faso). Adherence to hand hygiene for at least 30 s was low (ranging from 3.6% in Nigeria to 10.3% in Burkina Faso) but increased substantially when excluding the length of time spent hand washing (ranging from 36.7% in Nigeria to 61.4% in Burkina Faso). Adherence to safe distancing in the compound ranged from 5.4% in Chad to 16.4% in Nigeria. In Burkina Faso and Chad, where disinfection wipes widely available compliance with disinfection of blister packs for SMC was low (17.4% in Burkina Faso and 16.9% in Chad). Community distributors generally found the IPC measures acceptable, however there were barriers to optimal hand hygiene practices, cultural norms made social distancing difficult to adhere to and caregivers needed assistance to administer the first dose of SMC. CONCLUSION: Adherence to IPC measures for SMC delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic varied across domains of IPC, but was largely insufficient, particularly for hand hygiene and safe distancing. Improvements in provision of protective equipment, early community engagement and adaptations to make IPC measures more feasible to implement could increase adherence.

Ramatroban for chemoprophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19: David takes on Goliath.

INTRODUCTION: In COVID-19 pneumonia, there is a massive increase in fatty acid levels and lipid mediators with a predominance of cyclooxygenase metabolites, notably TxB2 ≫ PGE2 > PGD2 in the lungs, and 11-dehydro-TxB2, a TxA2 metabolite, in the systemic circulation. While TxA2 stimulates thromboxane prostanoid (TP) receptors, 11-dehydro-TxB2 is a full agonist of DP2 (formerly known as the CRTh2) receptors for PGD2. Anecdotal experience of using ramatroban, a dual receptor antagonist of the TxA2/TP and PGD2/DP2 receptors, demonstrated rapid symptomatic relief from acute respiratory distress and hypoxemia while avoiding hospitalization. AREAS COVERED: Evidence supporting the role of TxA2/TP receptors and PGD2/DP2 receptors in causing rapidly progressive lung injury associated with hypoxemia, a maladaptive immune response and thromboinflammation is discussed. An innovative perspective on the dual antagonism of TxA2/TP and PGD2/DP2 receptor signaling as a therapeutic approach in COVID-19 is presented. This paper examines ramatroban an anti-platelet, immunomodulator, and antifibrotic agent for acute and long-haul COVID-19. EXPERT OPINION: Ramatroban, a dual blocker of TP and DP2 receptors, has demonstrated efficacy in animal models of respiratory dysfunction, atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and sepsis, as well as preliminary evidence for rapid relief from dyspnea and hypoxemia in COVID-19 pneumonia. Ramatroban merits investigation as a promising antithrombotic and immunomodulatory agent for chemoprophylaxis and treatment.

Chemoprophylaxis against COVID-19 among health-care workers using Ivermectin in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a novel viral infectious disease that the World Health Organization (WHO) has announced to be a pandemic. This meta-analysis was aimed at providing evidence for the use of ivermectin to prevent COVID-19 among hospital workers in low-resource countries. Medical databases including African Journals online, Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, COVID-19 research database (WHO), Clinicaltrials.gov, and SCOPUS were searched for studies on Ivermectin as a chemoprophylactic drug against COVID-19 among hospital personnel in settings with limited resources. Preprint servers such as bioRxiv and medRxiv as well as the gray literature were also searched. Studies adjudged to be eligible were identified using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses algorithm. Statistical analyses were done using Stata version 14.3. Seven studies were selected for the meta-analysis. The total sample size was 2652. There were two randomized controlled trials and five nonrandomized studies. Some studies dosed Ivermectin daily while some dosed it weekly. However, one of the studies dosed it monthly. The studies reported variable clinical benefits. I2 statistic was 92%, and random effect model was used. The pooled odd ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.09-0.13). This implies that 89% of the participants benefited from taking Ivermectin as a form of preexposure chemoprophylaxis. Ivermectin has a significant clinical benefit as a preventive drug against COVID-19 for hospital personnel in settings with limited resources.

Improving timeliness in the neglected tropical diseases preventive chemotherapy donation supply chain through information sharing: A retrospective empirical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Billions of doses of medicines are donated for mass drug administrations in support of the World Health Organization's "Roadmap to Implementation," which aims to control, eliminate, and eradicate Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs). The supply chain to deliver these medicines is complex, with fragmented data systems and limited visibility on performance. This study empirically evaluates the impact of an online supply chain performance measurement system, "NTDeliver," providing understanding of the value of information sharing towards the success of global health programs. METHODS: Retrospective secondary data were extracted from NTDeliver, which included 1,484 shipments for four critical medicines ordered by over 100 countries between February 28, 2006 and December 31, 2018. We applied statistical regression models to analyze the impact on key performance metrics, comparing data before and after the system was implemented. FINDINGS: The results suggest information sharing has a positive association with improvement for two key performance indicators: purchase order timeliness (ß = 0.941, p = 0.003) and-most importantly-delivery timeliness (ß = 0.828, p = 0.027). There is a positive association with improvement for three variables when the data are publicly shared: shipment timeliness (ß = 2.57, p = 0.001), arrival timeliness (ß = 2.88, p = 0.003), and delivery timeliness (ß = 2.82, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that information sharing between the NTD program partners via the NTDeliver system has a positive association with supply chain performance improvements, especially when data are shared publicly. Given the large volume of medicine and the significant number of people requiring these medicines, information sharing has the potential to provide improvements to global health programs affecting the health of tens to hundreds of millions of people.

HIV and COVID-19: Lessons From HIV and STI Harm Reduction Strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review highlights the intersection of the COVID-19, HIV, and STI pandemics and examines how harm reduction strategies can be applied broadly to controlling a pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, remarkable advances in the understanding of COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, and treatment have been made at a much faster pace than prior pandemics, yet much more still remains to be discovered. Many of the strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic mirror those employed to stem the HIV pandemic. Harm reduction principles used in the HIV pandemic can be applied to reduce the morbidity and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic through effective prevention, detection, and treatment strategies.

Cancer chemopreventive role of fisetin: Regulation of cell signaling pathways in different cancers.

It is becoming progressively more understandable that pharmaceutical targeting of drug-resistant cancers is challenging because of intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity. Interestingly, naturally derived bioactive compounds have unique ability to modulate wide-ranging deregulated oncogenic cell signaling pathways. In this review, we have focused on the available evidence related to regulation of PI3K/AKT/mTOR, Wnt/ß-catenin, NF-κB and TRAIL/TRAIL-R by fisetin in different cancers. Fisetin has also been shown to inhibit the metastatic spread of cancer cells in tumor-bearing mice. We have also summarized how fisetin regulated autophagy in different cancers. In addition, this review also covers fisetin-mediated regulation of VEGF/VEGFR, EGFR, necroptosis and Hippo pathway. Fisetin has entered into clinical trials particularly in context of COVID19-associated inflammations. Furthermore, fisetin mediated effects are also being tested in clinical trials with reference to osteoarthritis and senescence. These developments will surely pave the way for full-fledge and well-designed clinical trials of fisetin in different cancers. However, we still have to comprehensively analyze and fully unlock pharmacological potential of fisetin against different oncogenic signaling cascades and non-coding RNAs. Fisetin has remarkable potential as chemopreventive agent and future studies must converge on the identification of additional regulatory roles of fisetin for inhibition and prevention of cancers.

Towards Goals to Refine Prophylactic and Therapeutic Strategies Against COVID-19 Linked to Aging and Metabolic Syndrome.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) gave rise to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A strong correlation has been demonstrated between worse COVID-19 outcomes, aging, and metabolic syndrome (MetS), which is primarily derived from obesity-induced systemic chronic low-grade inflammation with numerous complications, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The majority of COVID-19 deaths occurs in people over the age of 65. Individuals with MetS are inclined to manifest adverse disease consequences and mortality from COVID-19. In this review, we examine the prevalence and molecular mechanisms underlying enhanced risk of COVID-19 in elderly people and individuals with MetS. Subsequently, we discuss current progresses in treating COVID-19, including the development of new COVID-19 vaccines and antivirals, towards goals to elaborate prophylactic and therapeutic treatment options in this vulnerable population.

Chemoprophylaxis trial designs in epidemics: insights from a systematic review of COVID-19 study registrations.

BACKGROUND: Chemoprophylactics against emerging epidemic and pandemic infectious diseases offer potential for prevention but require efficacy and safety analysis before widespread use can be recommended. Chemoprophylaxis with repurposed drugs enables deployment ahead of development of novel vaccines. It may have particular utility as a stopgap ahead of vaccine deployment or when vaccines become less effective on virus variants, in countries where there may be structural inaccessibility to vaccines or in specific risk-groups. Rapid implementation of robust trial designs is a persistent challenge in epidemics. We systematically reviewed SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis trial registrations from the first 21 weeks of the pandemic to critically appraise significant design features and alignment of study populations to clinical and public health uses, and describe candidate chemoprophylactic agents. METHODS: We searched online international trial databases from 31 Dec 2019 to 26 May 2020 using keywords "proph*" or "prevention". Trial protocols assessing efficacy of chemoprophylactic agents for COVID-19 were included. Trial components were screened for eligibility and relevant studies extracted. Key trial design features were assessed. RESULTS: We found 76 chemoprophylaxis study registrations, proposing enrolment of 208,367 people with median size of 490 (IQR 262-1710). A randomised design was specified for 63 trials, 61 included a control group and total proposed enrolment size was 197,010, median 600 (IQR 236-1834). Four protocols provided information on effect size sought. We estimate that for a control group attack rate of 10%, 66% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 50% effect size, and 97% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 30% effect size (at the 80% level). We found evidence of adaptive design in one trial registration only. Laboratory-confirmed infection with or without symptoms was the most common primary outcome. Polymerase chain reaction testing alone was used in 46% of trials, serological testing in 6.6% and 14.5% used both testing methods. Healthcare workers were the target population in 52/79 (65.8%) trials: 49 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and 3 post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sixteen trials (20.3%) planned PEP in close contacts. Five studies (6.3%) considered chemoprophylaxis in clinical-risk patients. Older adults were the focus of recruitment in only 3 (3.8%) studies (all long-term care facilities). Two (2.5%) studies of PrEP in the general population included older adults. Hydroxychloroquine was the most common candidate agent in 55/79 trials (69.6%), followed by chloroquine (4/79, 5.0%) and lopinavir/ritonavir (3/79, 3.8%). CONCLUSION: Many registered COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis efficacy trials were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful protection at epidemiologically informed attack rates. This, compounded with the time that has taken to organise these trials as compared to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, has rendered these trials of marginal importance. International coordination mechanisms and collaboration is required. Supporting the design of feasible chemoprophylaxis trials, large enough to generate strong evidence, early on in an epidemic using adaptive platform trial designs will allow structured entry and exit of candidate agents and rapid stand-up of trial infrastructure. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Our protocol is registered at https://www.osf.io/vp56f on May 20, 2020.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Preparing for the 2020-2021 influenza season.

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered health seeking behaviors and has increased attention to non-pharmaceutical interventions that reduce the risk of transmission of respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. While the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on influenza is not fully known, in the Southern hemisphere influenza infection rates appear to be very low. Influenza vaccine efficacy for 2019-2020 season was comparable to prior season and influenza vaccine recommendations for pediatric immunizations remain similar to prior years. Influenza treatments continue to include neuraminidase inhibitors as well as baloxavir for treatment and in some instances prophylaxis.

Deep vein thrombosis in noncritically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia: deep vein thrombosis in nonintensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolic events have been one of the main causes of mortality among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The aim of our study was to describe the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and correlate such observations with the thromboprophylaxis received. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of 67 patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 pneumonia. The diagnosis was confirmed using polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal specimens. The deep veins were examined using compression duplex ultrasonography with the transducer on B-mode. The patients were separated into two groups for statistical analysis: those receiving low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis and those receiving intermediate or complete anticoagulation treatment. Risk analysis and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Of the 67 patients, 57 were included in the present study after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 49.1% were women, and the patient mean age was 71.3 years. All 57 patients had undergone compression duplex ultrasonography. Of these 57 patients, 6 were diagnosed with DVT, for an in-hospital rate of DVT in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia of 10.5%. All the patients who had presented with DVT had been receiving low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis. The patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation treatment had a greater risk of DVT (16.21%; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.28; P = .056) compared with those receiving intermediate or complete anticoagulation treatment. We also found a protective factor for DVT in the intermediate or complete anticoagulation treatment group (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.46; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Noncritically ill, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have a high risk of DVT despite receipt of correct, standard thromboprophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at Veterans Health Administration Hospitals.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at heightened risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE), though there is no data examining when these events occur following a COVID-19 diagnosis. We therefore sought to characterize the incidence, timecourse of events, and outcomes of VTE during the COVID-19 pandemic in a national healthcare system using data from Veterans Affairs Administration.

Is chemoprophylaxis necessary for all latent tuberculosis infection patients receiving IL-17 inhibitors? A cohort study.

The tuberculosis (TB) burden is high in China, with a 32% prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in Beijing. Screening for LTBI and the chemoprophylaxis of positive patients are recommended prior to biologic therapy. To evaluate the TB-related safety of secukinumab (SEC) in a cohort of plaque psoriasis patients with LTBI receiving different treatments. Plaque psoriasis patients eligible for SEC treatment were screened for TB. LTBI patients (QuantiFeron-TB test positive, QFT+) receiving SEC were closely monitored by chest radiograph, ESR or hs-CRP, and blood counts every 12 to 20 weeks for active TB infection. QFT_patients receiving SEC treatment were screened for LTBI every 6 to 12 months. Of 42 patients treated with SEC, 19 were QFT+ (45.24%). A QFT_patient became QFT+ after 6 months treatment. Two patients started SEC treatment from 2015 to 2016 and were followed up 268 and 216 weeks later, respectively. Three patients received chemoprophylaxis, 17 did not because of safety concerns or being unable to complete the process. During the 16- to 268-week follow-up, no signs of TB reactivation were observed in the 20 LTBI patients receiving SEC. Plaque psoriasis patients with LTBI who received no chemoprophylaxis could be safely treated with SEC.

Prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 related venous thromboembolism.

COVID-19 pneumonia has been associated with high rates of thrombo-embolic complications, mostly venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is thought to be a combination of conventional VTE and in situ immunothrombosis in the pulmonary vascular tree. The incidence of thrombotic complications is dependent on setting (intensive care unit (ICU) versus general ward) and the threshold for performing diagnostic tests (screening versus diagnostic algorithms triggered by symptoms). Since these thrombotic complications are associated with in-hospital mortality, all current guidelines and consensus papers propose pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Several trials are ongoing to study the optimal intensity of anticoagulation for this purpose. As for the management of thrombotic complications, treatment regimens from non-COVID-19 guidelines can be adapted, with choice of anticoagulant drug class dependent on the situation. Parenteral anticoagulation is preferred for patients on ICUs or with impending clinical deterioration, while oral treatment can be started in stable patients. This review describes current knowledge on incidence and pathophysiology of COVID-19 associated VTE and provides an overview of guideline recommendations on thromboprophylaxis and treatment of established VTE in COVID-19 patients.

Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin is one among several potential drugs explored for its therapeutic and preventive role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study was aimed to explore the association between ivermectin prophylaxis and the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers. METHODS: A hospital-based matched case-control study was conducted among healthcare workers of AIIMS Bhubaneswar, India, from September to October 2020. Profession, gender, age and date of diagnosis were matched for 186 case-control pairs. Cases and controls were healthcare workers who tested positive and negative, respectively, for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. Exposure was defined as the intake of ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine and/or vitamin-C and/or other prophylaxis for COVID-19. Data collection and entry was done in Epicollect5, and analysis was performed using STATA version 13. Conditional logistic regression models were used to describe the associated factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Ivermectin prophylaxis was taken by 76 controls and 41 cases. Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis (AOR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.15-0.51) was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. Those involved in physical activity (AOR 3.06 95% CI, 1.18-7.93) for more than an hour/day were more likely to contract SARS-CoV-2 infection. Type of household, COVID duty, single-dose ivermectin prophylaxis, vitamin-C prophylaxis and hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 µg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. Chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

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.