DESIGN: Systematic umbrella review of existing meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as manual searches of reference lists from 2009 to June 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, and/or cross sectional study designs. To evaluate the credibility of evidence, pre-specified evidence classification criteria were applied, graded as convincing ("class I"), highly suggestive ("class II"), suggestive ("class III"), weak ("class IV"), or no evidence ("class V"). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework, categorised as "high," "moderate," "low," or "very low" quality.

RESULTS: The search identified 45 unique pooled analyses, including 13 dose-response associations and 32 non-dose-response associations (n=9 888 373). Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low). Of the remaining 34 pooled analyses, 21 were graded as suggestive or weak strength (class III-IV) and 13 were graded as no evidence (class V). Overall, using the GRADE framework, 22 pooled analyses were rated as low quality, with 19 rated as very low quality and four rated as moderate quality.

CONCLUSIONS: Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes. These findings provide a rationale to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of using population based and public health measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods for improved human health. They also inform and provide support for urgent mechanistic research.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.

SETTING: 21 low, middle, and high income countries across seven geographical regions (Europe and North America, South America, Africa, Middle East, south Asia, South East Asia, and China).

PARTICIPANTS: 116 087 adults aged 35-70 years with at least one cycle of follow-up and complete baseline food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) data (country specific validated FFQs were used to document baseline dietary intake). Participants were followed prospectively at least every three years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was development of IBD, including Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. Associations between ultra-processed food intake and risk of IBD were assessed using Cox proportional hazard multivariable models. Results are presented as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS: Participants were enrolled in the study between 2003 and 2016. During the median follow-up of 9.7 years (interquartile range 8.9-11.2 years), 467 participants developed incident IBD (90 with Crohn's disease and 377 with ulcerative colitis). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, higher intake of ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of incident IBD (hazard ratio 1.82, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.72 for ≥5 servings/day and 1.67, 1.18 to 2.37 for 1-4 servings/day compared with <1 serving/day, P=0.006 for trend). Different subgroups of ultra-processed food, including soft drinks, refined sweetened foods, salty snacks, and processed meat, each were associated with higher hazard ratios for IBD. Results were consistent for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis with low heterogeneity. Intakes of white meat, red meat, dairy, starch, and fruit, vegetables, and legumes were not associated with incident IBD.

CONCLUSIONS: Higher intake of ultra-processed food was positively associated with risk of IBD. Further studies are needed to identify the contributory factors within ultra-processed foods.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.

SETTING: PURE study in 21 countries.

PARTICIPANTS: 148 858 participants with median follow-up of 9.5 years.

EXPOSURES: Country specific validated food frequency questionnaires were used to assess intakes of refined grains, whole grains, and white rice.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite of mortality or major cardiovascular events (defined as death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure). Hazard ratios were estimated for associations of grain intakes with mortality, major cardiovascular events, and their composite by using multivariable Cox frailty models with random intercepts to account for clustering by centre.

RESULTS: Analyses were based on 137 130 participants after exclusion of those with baseline cardiovascular disease. During follow-up, 9.2% (n=12 668) of these participants had a composite outcome event. The highest category of intake of refined grains (≥350 g/day or about 7 servings/day) was associated with higher risk of total mortality (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46; P for trend=0.004), major cardiovascular disease events (1.33, 1.16 to 1.52; P for trend<0.001), and their composite (1.28, 1.15 to 1.42; P for trend<0.001) compared with the lowest category of intake (<50 g/day). Higher intakes of refined grains were associated with higher systolic blood pressure. No significant associations were found between intakes of whole grains or white rice and health outcomes.

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 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.

WHAT IS NEW?: The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.

ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the 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 on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.