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.

DESIGN: Retrospective observational analysis.

SETTING: 56 acute stroke hospitals in eight countries.

PARTICIPANTS: 1074 trial physiotherapists, nurses, and other clinicians.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of babies born during trial recruitment per trial participant recruited.

RESULTS: With 198 site recruitment years and 2104 patients recruited during AVERT, 120 babies were born to trial staff. Births led to an estimated 10% loss in time to achieve recruitment. Parental leave was linked to six trial site closures. The number of participants needed to recruit per baby born was 17.5 (95% confidence interval 14.7 to 21.0); additional trial costs associated with each birth were estimated at 5736 Australian dollars on average.

CONCLUSION: The staff absences registered in AVERT owing to parental leave led to delayed trial recruitment and increased costs, and should be considered by trial investigators when planning research and estimating budgets. However, the celebration of new life became a highlight of the annual AVERT collaborators' meetings and helped maintain a cohesive collaborative group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no 12606000185561.

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.

DESIGN: Individual participant meta-analysis using data from 25 cohorts participating in the CHANCES consortium. Data were harmonised, analysed separately employing Cox proportional hazard regression models, and combined by meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Overall, 503,905 participants aged 60 and older were included in this study, of whom 37,952 died from cardiovascular disease. Random effects meta-analysis of the association of smoking status with cardiovascular mortality yielded a summary hazard ratio of 2.07 (95% CI 1.82 to 2.36) for current smokers and 1.37 (1.25 to 1.49) for former smokers compared with never smokers. Corresponding summary estimates for risk advancement periods were 5.50 years (4.25 to 6.75) for current smokers and 2.16 years (1.38 to 2.39) for former smokers. The excess risk in smokers increased with cigarette consumption in a dose-response manner, and decreased continuously with time since smoking cessation in former smokers. Relative risk estimates for acute coronary events and for stroke events were somewhat lower than for cardiovascular mortality, but patterns were similar.