The 2021 AMR Preparedness Index is an excellent effort to look at what is 1 of our most pressing public health issues as some countries emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic: #AntimicrobialResistance
There are important findings for Canadians and their leaders: 1. We ain't so good!
2. We are behind the UK, US, France, Germany, India and Japan on a national strategy.
"Governments must make bolder financial investments ...
... should develop more ambitious National Action Plans and provide sufficient funding to achieve goals ... lean into AMR initiatives now"
3. We are kinda pathetic on governments' commitments to foster and support AMR innovation.
Govts "should implement pull incentive programs within the next 3 years ...
increase investments in AMR innovations for surveillance and diagnostics ...
ensure pricing reflects full value"
4. 🇨🇦 govt effort to reduce overuse of ABx and promote rational Dx is relatively poor, behind most peers.
Govts should "provide better access to diagnostic tools for general practitioners ...
improve enforcement and administration of existing mechanisms ...
fund ... stewardship"
5. Canada's attention to managing antimicrobials throughout their life cycle, including disposal, is amongst the worst.
"should better integrate environmental controls in ... National Action Plans ...
continue to integrate the One Health approach"
6. 🇨🇦 govt has far to go with facilitating collaborative engagement to address AMR
"should provide more direct support for research institutions and working groups ...
partner with NGOs ...
"invest in training next gen of AMR researchers and clinicians to support clinical trials"
Conclusion: "Though Canada has demonstrated strong implementation of training, awareness, and healthcare infection prevention programs, investments in innovation and commitments to national strategy are lacking."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To my colleagues & trainees who have contacted me in distress over the past few days, I see you and hear you.
I don't post my thoughts about the Middle East because—even though I have studied its history tremendously over the years—I recognize that there are more than one truth.
I understand how you fear—as Jews or people sympathetic to the tragedy that Israelis are experiencing—expressing your views or trying to counter views that see only one side of a dispute that is much older than the state of Israel.
I also understand how uncomfortable you have been made to feel when colleagues or supervisors use their (mostly) professional platform to acknowledge the unquestionable and tragic suffering of Palestinians yet fail to acknowledge the suffering many Israelis are also experiencing.
Reluctantly, I feel I need to clarify some issues around why AZ doesn't make sense for most of Canada right now.
When NACI evaluated—using the hard endpoint of deaths—the risk-benefit of AZ vs. no AZ, it used a lower incidence 1 per 100 000.
With this modeling, it makes clear sense to give AZ vs. waiting for age 50-69 in a moderate incidence setting, and for all ages in high incidence setting.
But what happens if the VITT rate is 1:26 000 or 3.85/100 000? You get this ...
This means that it is only a slam dunk (vs. no vaccine) for age 50+ in high incidence (30 cases/100K/day) settings, and 40+ in very high incidence (60 cases/100K/day) settings. Even if VITT incidence is 1:40 000 (or 2.5/100K/day), your expected VITT deaths/100K are 0.63-1.0.
It all hinges on the estimates of VITT. Yesterday @COVIDSciOntario posted a VITT brief covid19-sciencetable.ca/sciencebrief/v… that gave updated estimates of risk: 1:26 000 to 1:127 000 (as opposed to govt doc using 1:100-250K), and I believe ours is the most accurate estimate of risk of VITT.
If we use the revised numbers, the incidence of an ICU admission from AZ vaccine becomes anywhere from 1.27-3.85/100 000. Using existing risk-benefit analysis, it means that it never makes "statistical sense" to use an AZ vaccine where the COVID incidence is moderate (7.5/100K/d)
Highlights for remdesivir 1. Not recommended for patients not on oxygen 2. Not recommended for patients mechanically ventilated. 3. Recommended for patients on low-flow supplemental O2 4. Consider for patients in between low-flow O2 and MV
Much of our advice comes from insights around this table of 28d mortality and the studies involved. We recognize that this isn't straightforward guidance.
I will start off by saying what we know about systemic corticosteroids in patients with COVID:
They likely work and save lives if patients need supplemental O2 or supported ventilation. The strongest evidence comes from the massive RECOVERY trial (N=6435, nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…). Importantly, dexamethasone appeared potentially harmful for patients not requiring O2.
It's possible that the best decision for the population and the best decision for individuals are different.
In a young otherwise healthy person where other vaccines are available soon and they can mitigate their risk, the risk of illness/death from AZ > risk of death from COVID
Would a parent give their 12yo kid AZ if it were shown to be safe and efficacious in studies but still carried the VIPIT risk? I seriously doubt it. Then how about a 15yo? 20 yo? 21?
At some age benefit > risk. NACI decided that that inflection point is 55y. I agree with them.
However, to the general public, the value of getting as many people as possible vaccinated is huge.
The argument of being in a 3rd wave isn't being lost on me, but most of these vaccines during the 3rd wave will/should not go in young people.