Just published in @bmj_latest, an update to our @WHO living guideline on drugs for #COVID19 – this update focuses on #remdesivir & was informed by the results of 4 trials w/7,333 participants – ACTT-1, SOLIDARITY, Spinner (JAMA), & Wang (Lancet). tinyurl.com/y4svlcyn
Summary: based on currently available data, there is insufficient evidence that #remdesivir improves patient-important outcomes ➡️ thus, a conditional (weak) recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with #COVID19.
A conditional, or weak, recommendation against #remdesivir means that, based on current data, the undesirable effects probably outweigh the desirable effects, but substantial uncertainty exists. With this in mind, we very much felt that trials of remdesivir should continue.
When making this recommendation, outcomes thought to be most important were:
1. Mortality 2. Need for & duration of mechanical ventilation 3. Time to clinical improvement 4. Treatment-related serious adverse events.
We also considered factors such as resources & feasibility.
One concern was the importance of not drawing resources away from best supportive care – staff & resource limitations have already been issues throughout the #pandemic. It’s not exciting to talk about best supportive care, but no medication will be effective in its absence.
Many areas of uncertainty remain & it's not clear that #remdesivir is ineffective. Do specific groups of patients benefit? Would #steroids impact the results? The mortality benefit of steroids hadn’t yet been established during much of the time remdesivir trials were enrolling.
Research is continuing & evidence has been evolving at a rapid pace. Our update is part of a living guideline, which will continue to be updated as we learn more about therapies for #COVID19. And as always, it was an honor working on this guideline w/ so many outstanding people.
Honored to present at combined medicine & surgery grand rounds @UCLAHealth today & a privilege to highlight the incredible work done by the UCLA #COVID19 front line. Also packed in a review of the evidence basis for COVID therapeutics & discussed COVID recovery.
A lot to cover, and admittedly, I haven’t been that nervous about a presentation in a long time. I’ll share some slides here, starting with a summary of #COVID19 therapeutics.
Reviewing the body of evidence is always a task, even if the last time you did it was a week ago. You’ll get >100,000 results in PubMed if you search for #COVID19. In one year, there are about as many results for COVID as there are for influenza over 30 years 😳
#CCCF2020 Brian Kavanaugh Controversies - #COVID19: #ARDS or not? What we really addressed - not so much "is it ARDS?" but rather, "does it matter?" So happy to have been a part of this, but man, I still have so much to say! My take on the ? – yes, it matters - to an extent 🧵 1/
Pre-intubation management: YES, but not because it substantially changes methods of support, or the criteria used for #intubation. It matters because categorizing patients as having #ARDS has value. 2/
If we use the Berlin definition, patients on Venturi masks or arguably #HFNC don’t actually meet criteria for #ARDS because they’re not on PEEP >/= 5. The natural history of ARDS though almost certainly begins prior to the use of mechanical ventilation (invasive or not). 3/