METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was carried out in a university hospital in Malaysia. Women with lifestyle-controlled gestational diabetes scheduled to receive clinically indicated antenatal corticosteroids (dexamethasone) were randomized to 12-mg 12 hourly for one day (2 × 12-mg) or 6-mg 12-hourly for two days (4 × 6-mg). 6-point (pre and 2-h postprandial) daily self-monitoring of capillary blood sugar profile for up to 3 consecutive days was started after the first dexamethasone injection. Hyperglycemia is defined as blood glucose pre-meal ≥ 5.3 or 2 h postprandial ≥ 6.7 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a number of hyperglycemic episodes in Day-1 (first 6 BSP points). A sample size of 30 per group (N = 60) was planned.
RESULTS: Median [interquartile range] hyperglycemic episodes 4 [2.5-5] vs. 4 [3-5] p = 0.3 in the first day, 3 [2-4] vs. 1 [0-3] p = 0.01 on the second day, 0 [0-1] vs. 0 [0-1] p = 0.6 on the third day and over the entire 3 trial days 7 [6-9] vs. 6 [4-8] p = 0.17 for 6-mg vs. 12-mg arms, respectively. 2/30 (7%) in each arm received an anti-glycemic agent during the 3-day trial period (capillary glucose exceeded 11 mmol/L). Mean birth weight (2.89 vs. 2.49 kg p
METHODS: In this phase Ib, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients received AMG 557 210 mg (n = 10) or placebo (n = 10) weekly for 3 weeks, then every other week for 10 additional doses. The corticosteroid dosage was tapered to ≤7.5 mg/day by day 85, and immunosuppressants were discontinued by day 29. Primary end points on day 169 were safety, immunogenicity, the Lupus Arthritis Response Index (LARI; defined by a reduction in the tender and swollen joint counts), ≥1-letter improvement in the musculoskeletal domain of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index, and medication discontinuation. The secondary/exploratory end points were changes in the tender and swollen joint counts, BILAG index scores (musculoskeletal, global), and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI).
RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events, most of which were mild, was similar between groups. LARI responses occurred in 3 of 10 patients receiving AMG 557 and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (P = 0.58). More patients in the AMG 557 group achieved a ≥4-point improvement in the SLEDAI score on day 169 (7 of 10 patients) compared with the placebo group (2 of 10 patients) (P = 0.07). Patients treated with AMG 557 (versus placebo) had greater improvements from baseline in the global BILAG index scores (-36.3% versus -24.7%) and the SLEDAI score (-47.8% versus -10.7%) and in tender (-22.8% versus -13.5%) and swollen (-62.1% versus -7.8%) joint counts on day 169.
CONCLUSION: AMG 557 showed safety and potential efficacy, supporting further evaluation of the clinical efficacy of ICOSL blockade in patients with SLE.
METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study involving 58 pregnancies from 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were previous mid-trimester miscarriage and/or preterm birth, previous cervical surgery or short cervical length on routine sonogram. The demographic data, characteristics of each pregnancy and details of outcomes and management were described.
RESULTS: The majority of women were Malay with mean age and body mass index of 32.9 ± 4.2 years and 27.1 ± 6.3 kg/m2 respectively. The most frequent indications for Arabin pessary insertion were previous mid-trimester miscarriage (46.4%) and early preterm birth (17.2%). A total of 73.4% of these women had the pessary inserted electively at a mean cervical length of 31.6 ± 9.1 mm at median gestation of 15.0 weeks. They were managed as outpatient (56.9%), inpatient (24.1%) or mixed (19.0%) with combination of progestogen (81.0%) and 53.4% received antenatal corticosteroids. Spontaneous preterm birth at or more than 34 weeks gestation occurred in 74.1% with birthweight at or more than 2000 g (82.4%). Despite cervical funneling in 12 women (20.7%), 66.7% delivered at or later than 34 weeks gestation and 2 (16.7%) resulted in miscarriage.
CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of the Arabin pessary is beneficial to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in pregnant women who are at high risk. In particular, early insertion and close monitoring allows the best possible outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04638023 ) on 20/11/2020.
METHODS: Seven licensed practicing community pharmacists (from the Klang Valley, Malaysia) were interviewed between 23rd September to 14th November 2021. These were CPs participating in the questionnaire study who agreed to be interviewed. NVIVO 11 software was used for data analysis. Codes and themes were generated and agreed on by the researchers.
RESULTS: The major themes identified related to the process mentioned of providing information to patients, the issues addressed by CPs during the counselling (including steroid phobia, overuse of TCS, patients asking for a specific preparation by name), less counselling support material, language barriers, lesser knowledge about certain conditions, information sources used by CPs (material provided by Ministry of Health and Malaysian Pharmacists Association, MIMS) and suggestions to strengthen the quality of counselling (specialization in skin diseases, webinars, shared care models). For patients requesting a particular preparation by name, the pharmacist will decide whether the preparation requested is suitable or suggest an alternative. Steroid phobia was seen more commonly among parents of young children and young patients. MIMS was available as a smartphone application making it easier to use. Advanced training for CPs in the management of skin conditions like that provided for diabetes mellitus can be considered.
CONCLUSIONS: Counselling was conducted while dispensing TCS in the open area of the pharmacy. Challenges to counselling were lack of time, limited counselling materials, and language barriers. Steroid phobia requires attention. Initiatives to strengthen counselling were mentioned by respondents and appear feasible. Further research covering the entire country is required.
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.
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.
METHODS: Patients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 microg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Overall hospital mortality rates were greater in the LDC than in the non-LDC group (58.0% versus 43.0%; P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47).
CONCLUSIONS: Widespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.
METHODS: This is a systematic review and a meta-analysis evaluating the evidence from clinical trials on the effect of colchicine and corticosteroids against COVID-19. In this review, we have systematically searched five databases [(PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, CINAHL (EBSCO)]. Cochrane's data extraction sheet was used to collect the required information, and RevMan-5.4.1 was used to conduct the meta-analysis and to assess the risk of bias. The review was registered in Prospero (CRD42022299718).
RESULTS: The total number of included studies was 17, with 18,956 participants; the majority were male 12,001. Out of which, 8772 participants were on colchicine, 569 took methylprednisolone, and 64 patients received prednisolone. The meta-analysis has shown that colchicine had no significant effect on reducing the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients [OR 0.98(95% CI 0.90-1.08), p = .70), I2:1%)], corticosteroids have significantly reduced the mortality rates [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.33-0.91), p = .02, I2:40]. Colchicine did not reduce the incidence of ICU admissions [OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.39-1.40), p = .35, I2:0%], while steroidal drugs significantly reduced the ICU admissions [OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.23-0.78), p = .005, I2:0%]. Unlike steroidal drugs [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.30-0.95), p = .03, I2:61%], colchicine failed to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation [OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.48-1.10), p = .13, I2:76%]. Steroidal drugs significantly reduced the duration of hospitalization among COVID-19 patients [OR -0.50 (95% CI -0.79-0.21), p = .0007, I2:36%].
CONCLUSIONS: The use of colchicine did not significantly reduce the mortality rate, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation among COVID-19 patients. Conversely, corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate, ICU admissions, mechanical ventilation, and hospitalization duration among COVID-19 patients.
RECENT FINDINGS: The cause of hyperemesis is continuing to be elaborated. Recent data attest to the effectiveness of the oral doxylamine-pyridoxine in NVP. Follow-up data of children exposed in early pregnancy to doxylamine-pyridoxine for NVP are reassuring. Evidence is increasing for ginger as an effective herbal remedy for NVP. Metoclopramide is effective in NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, with a good balance of efficacy and tolerability. A recent large-scale study on first trimester exposure to metoclopramide is reassuring of its safety. Evidence is emerging for the treatment of acid reflux to ameliorate NVP. The role of corticosteroids for hyperemesis gravidarum remains controversial. Transpyloric feeding may be warranted for persistent weight loss, despite optimal antiemetic therapy.
SUMMARY: Women with significant NVP should be identified so that they can be safely and effectively treated.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for studies involving tocilizumab, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone in treating COVID-19. We included case-control and randomized or partially randomized trials. Meta-regression for patient baseline characteristics, co-medications, and tocilizumab dose regimens was performed to identify contributing factors to drug efficacy.
RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and twenty-four case-control studies were included in our meta-analysis involving 18,702 patients. Meta-analysis among the RCTs showed that a summary estimate favoring mortality reduction (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.55 - 0.92) contributed mainly by tocilizumab and dexamethasone. Among case-control studies, meta-analysis showed mortality reduction (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36 - 0.75) contributed by tocilizumab and tocilizumab-methylprednisolone combination. Methylprednisolone alone did not reduce mortality except for one study involving high dose pulse therapy. Meta-analysis also found that all three drugs did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.32 - 1.60).
CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab and dexamethasone emerge as viable options in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. A tocilizumab-corticosteroid combination strategy may improve therapeutic outcome in cases where single therapy fails.