Makerere University

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 provides an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence for risk factor exposure and the attributable burden of disease. By providing national and subnational assessments spanning the past 25 years, this study can inform debates on the importance of addressing risks in context. METHODS: We used the comparative risk assessment framework developed for previous iterations of the Global Burden of Disease Study to estimate attributable deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and trends in exposure by age group, sex, year, and geography for 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks from 1990 to 2015. This study included 388 risk-outcome pairs that met World Cancer Research Fund-defined criteria for convincing or probable evidence. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from randomised controlled trials, cohorts, pooled cohorts, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. We developed a metric that allows comparisons of exposure across risk factors-the summary exposure value. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk level, we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We decomposed trends in attributable burden into contributions from population growth, population age structure, risk exposure, and risk-deleted cause-specific DALY rates. We characterised risk exposure in relation to a Socio-demographic Index (SDI). FINDINGS: Between 1990 and 2015, global exposure to unsafe sanitation, household air pollution, childhood underweight, childhood stunting, and smoking each decreased by more than 25%. Global exposure for several occupational risks, high body-mass index (BMI), and drug use increased by more than 25% over the same period. All risks jointly evaluated in 2015 accounted for 57·8% (95% CI 56·6-58·8) of global deaths and 41·2% (39·8-42·8) of DALYs. In 2015, the ten largest contributors to global DALYs among Level 3 risks were high systolic blood pressure (211·8 million [192·7 million to 231·1 million] global DALYs), smoking (148·6 million [134·2 million to 163·1 million]), high fasting plasma glucose (143·1 million [125·1 million to 163·5 million]), high BMI (120·1 million [83·8 million to 158·4 million]), childhood undernutrition (113·3 million [103·9 million to 123·4 million]), ambient particulate matter (103·1 million [90·8 million to 115·1 million]), high total cholesterol (88·7 million [74·6 million to 105·7 million]), household air pollution (85·6 million [66·7 million to 106·1 million]), alcohol use (85·0 million [77·2 million to 93·0 million]), and diets high in sodium (83·0 million [49·3 million to 127·5 million]). From 1990 to 2015, attributable DALYs declined for micronutrient deficiencies, childhood undernutrition, unsafe sanitation and water, and household air pollution; reductions in risk-deleted DALY rates rather than reductions in exposure drove these declines. Rising exposure contributed to notable increases in attributable DALYs from high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, occupational carcinogens, and drug use. Environmental risks and childhood undernutrition declined steadily with SDI; low physical activity, high BMI, and high fasting plasma glucose increased with SDI. In 119 countries, metabolic risks, such as high BMI and fasting plasma glucose, contributed the most attributable DALYs in 2015. Regionally, smoking still ranked among the leading five risk factors for attributable DALYs in 109 countries; childhood underweight and unsafe sex remained primary drivers of early death and disability in much of sub-Saharan Africa. INTERPRETATION: Declines in some key environmental risks have contributed to declines in critical infectious diseases. Some risks appear to be invariant to SDI. Increasing risks, including high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, drug use, and some occupational exposures, contribute to rising burden from some conditions, but also provide opportunities for intervention. Some highly preventable risks, such as smoking, remain major causes of attributable DALYs, even as exposure is declining. Public policy makers need to pay attention to the risks that are increasingly major contributors to global burden. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Humans continue to transform the global nitrogen cycle at a record pace, reflecting an increased combustion of fossil fuels, growing demand for nitrogen in agriculture and industry, and pervasive inefficiencies in its use. Much anthropogenic nitrogen is lost to air, water, and land to cause a cascade of environmental and human health problems. Simultaneously, food production in some parts of the world is nitrogen-deficient, highlighting inequities in the distribution of nitrogen-containing fertilizers. Optimizing the need for a key human resource while minimizing its negative consequences requires an integrated interdisciplinary approach and the development of strategies to decrease nitrogen-containing waste.

Rhinosinusitis is a significant and increasing health problem which results in a large financial burden on society. This evidence based position paper describes what is known about rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, offers evidence based recommendations on diagnosis and treatment, and considers how we can make progress with research in this area. Rhinitis and sinusitis usually coexist and are concurrent in most individuals; thus, the correct terminology is now rhinosinusitis. Rhinosinusitis (including nasal polyps) is defined as inflammation of the nose and the paranasal sinuses characterised by two or more symptoms, one of which should be either nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge (anterior/posterior nasal drip), +/- facial pain/pressure, +/- reduction or loss of smell; and either endoscopic signs of polyps and/or mucopurulent discharge primarily from middle meatus and/or; oedema/mucosal obstruction primarily in middle meatus, and/or CT changes showing mucosal changes within the ostiomeatal complex and/or sinuses. The paper gives different definitions for epidemiology, first line and second line treatment and for research. Furthermore the paper describes the anatomy and (patho)physiology, epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, evidence based diagnosis, medical and surgical treatment in acute and chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis in adults and children. Evidence based schemes for diagnosis and treatment are given for the first and second line clinicians. Moreover attention is given to complications and socio-economic cost of chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. Last but not least the relation to the lower airways is discussed.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis is a promising approach for preventing human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in heterosexual populations. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial of oral antiretroviral therapy for use as preexposure prophylaxis among HIV-1-serodiscordant heterosexual couples from Kenya and Uganda. The HIV-1-seronegative partner in each couple was randomly assigned to one of three study regimens--once-daily tenofovir (TDF), combination tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC), or matching placebo--and followed monthly for up to 36 months. At enrollment, the HIV-1-seropositive partners were not eligible for antiretroviral therapy, according to national guidelines. All couples received standard HIV-1 treatment and prevention services. RESULTS: We enrolled 4758 couples, of whom 4747 were followed: 1584 randomly assigned to TDF, 1579 to TDF-FTC, and 1584 to placebo. For 62% of the couples followed, the HIV-1-seronegative partner was male. Among HIV-1-seropositive participants, the median CD4 count was 495 cells per cubic millimeter (interquartile range, 375 to 662). A total of 82 HIV-1 infections occurred in seronegative participants during the study, 17 in the TDF group (incidence, 0.65 per 100 person-years), 13 in the TDF-FTC group (incidence, 0.50 per 100 person-years), and 52 in the placebo group (incidence, 1.99 per 100 person-years), indicating a relative reduction of 67% in the incidence of HIV-1 with TDF (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 81; P<0.001) and of 75% with TDF-FTC (95% CI, 55 to 87; P<0.001). Protective effects of TDF-FTC and TDF alone against HIV-1 were not significantly different (P=0.23), and both study medications significantly reduced the HIV-1 incidence among both men and women. The rate of serious adverse events was similar across the study groups. Eight participants receiving active treatment were found to have been infected with HIV-1 at baseline, and among these eight, antiretroviral resistance developed in two during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Oral TDF and TDF-FTC both protect against HIV-1 infection in heterosexual men and women. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Partners PrEP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00557245.).

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: We examined the influence of viral load in relation to other risk factors for the heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). In a community-based study of 15,127 persons in a rural district of Uganda, we identified 415 couples in which one partner was HIV-1-positive and one was initially HIV-1-negative and followed them prospectively for up to 30 months. The incidence of HIV-1 infection per 100 person-years among the initially seronegative partners was examined in relation to behavioral and biologic variables. RESULTS: The male partner was HIV-1-positive in 228 couples, and the female partner was HIV-1-positive in 187 couples. Ninety of the 415 initially HIV-1-negative partners seroconverted (incidence, 11.8 per 100 person-years). The rate of male-to-female transmission was not significantly different from the rate of female-to-male transmission (12.0 per 100 person-years vs. 11.6 per 100 person-years). The incidence of seroconversion was highest among the partners who were 15 to 19 years of age (15.3 per 100 person-years). The incidence was 16.7 per 100 person-years among 137 uncircumcised male partners, whereas there were no seroconversions among the 50 circumcised male partners (P<0.001). The mean serum HIV-1 RNA level was significantly higher among HIV-1-positive subjects whose partners seroconverted than among those whose partners did not seroconvert (90,254 copies per milliliter vs. 38,029 copies per milliliter, P=0.01). There were no instances of transmission among the 51 subjects with serum HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 1500 copies per milliliter; there was a significant dose-response relation of increased transmission with increasing viral load. In multivariate analyses of log-transformed HIV-1 RNA levels, each log increment in the viral load was associated with a rate ratio of 2.45 for seroconversion (95 percent confidence interval, 1.85 to 3.26). CONCLUSIONS: The viral load is the chief predictor of the risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV-1, and transmission is rare among persons with levels of less than 1500 copies of HIV-1 RNA per milliliter.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician’s decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient’s clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice statement For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within hr of Strong , low quality of evidence from “We recommend that of should be as as after and within one for septic shock and sepsis Strong , very low quality of evidence , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice statement For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hr from the time when sepsis first Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice statement NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for as compared to one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence We on the of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for an initial over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of on and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend or a of infection that and as as and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of that are a of sepsis or septic shock after other Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest for of over using of for Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using over of Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and of is we suggest using clinical to when to over clinical alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using as fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence from , low quality of “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using in patients who of Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using for resuscitation. Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence from , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic For adults with septic shock, we recommend using as the over other Strong evidence evidence quality of evidence quality of evidence low-quality evidence For adults with septic shock on with mean arterial pressure we suggest of the of Weak , quality evidence For adults with septic shock and mean arterial pressure and we suggest Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest to or using alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock, we suggest of arterial blood pressure over as as and are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest to mean arterial pressure a is Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of fluid in the first hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have of hypoperfusion and after the initial resuscitation. NEW “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence is evidence to a on the of in adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest the of over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of in to for adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using a low over a Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using an for of 30 over higher Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with to sepsis-induced we suggest using higher over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using low as compared with Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence using we recommend against using Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using for hr Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis induced we suggest using over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using when in with the in to Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and an for we suggest using IV Weak , moderate-quality evidence from Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest against using IV to septic shock patients fluid resuscitation and are to for this is not we suggest IV at a of For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We the of blood is evidence to a on the of other blood For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have for we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using a to Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low over for Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using in to over alone. Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using or Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and with for we suggest against using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend at a of Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and we suggest against using to improve or to Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and and or we suggest using Weak , low quality of evidence For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who be we suggest of Weak , very low quality of evidence CARE For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of and with patients and over Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest of over hr or Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on to of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the of on clinician be the treatment when to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against for patients over on clinician Weak , low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest to over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a of at of over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on the of tool over For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend screening for and and and to these Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest and sepsis and to hospital and in the setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend the clinical provide the to in in and hospital to are and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis and septic shock and we suggest using a compared with to the Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend at and hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis and septic shock and we recommend including the sepsis and and after sepsis in the and hospital Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock who we recommend hospital with to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and is evidence to a on compared with For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a for or against For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend and for and after hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest to a program Weak , very low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock for or an of we suggest to a Weak , very low quality of evidence are to in the be at for Sepsis and - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong quality of evidence for Strong very low-quality evidence for standard operating Sepsis performance improvement of sepsis of sepsis and for a of on the of performance improvement that these with to sepsis with a in in patients with sepsis and septic shock The of performance improvement not to be as as the of a program that sepsis screening and Sepsis screening are to identification of sepsis and of or of the health is in of these with having the of with in of clinical and are for sepsis as response of or Early or Early improve performance of screening and in a of patients from for hospital sepsis the the operating and higher for the for screening as MEWS and target patients in as or of three not a of screening is in and of sepsis screening are an of sepsis for operating procedures are a of that a response to clinical Sepsis standard operating as Early have to a standard with of the sepsis and the between of sepsis and of sepsis to hospitals in the in a and after of sepsis with a from other this time in hospitals with higher with the sepsis a of in higher with standard operating procedures compared with it in one - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong moderate-quality The qSOFA three to and in patients with or suspected a a and a blood pressure mm of these are the is qSOFA to the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis qSOFA as a of in patients with or suspected to as a screening tool that time have the of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have as to have that qSOFA is having of for identification of infection induced organ dysfunction qSOFA are screening for sepsis and the clinician to the of the that of patients a qSOFA or these patients for of have when against the Early and the Early the of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in given the of the the a against as a screening - Recommendation 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak low-quality The of lactate with in patients with suspected infection and sepsis is is as of the sepsis for those patients with sepsis and an elevated lactate is of the of septic shock that lactate be to for the of sepsis adult patients with suspected not have the of lactate in this The lactate an elevated from of the from with from and from the three are and an between the of lactate at and the are the of an elevated or lactate or the of a of sepsis in patients with suspected lactate is to or the on not be in we a the of serum lactate as an to the of sepsis in patients with suspected not - Recommendations 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. Weak low-quality 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation over physical or static parameters alone. Weak very low-quality parameters response to a or a fluid using pressure or 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak low-quality resuscitation, serum lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak low-quality fluid resuscitation is for the of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion in sepsis and septic shock. Previous guidelines recommend appropriate resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock and having a low for it in those patients sepsis is not is the evidence from this is a best practice and are that a is The 2016 a for using a of 30 mL/kg of IV in initial fluid resuscitation. of initial resuscitation on evidence are for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. of adults to an with sepsis or septic shock that to 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid within 3 hours of sepsis with of of and of in of including and the and the of fluid in the of 30 that this fluid in clinical practice patients require fluid initial resuscitation. to be with the of fluid and with fluid of and of the of septic patients is the for a initial and of the response to treatment. and fluid the initial resuscitation should be by of and organ perfusion. pressure and blood pressure are of fluid measures have at fluid compared with static measures with fluid against pressure or and of in response to in a and dynamic to guide fluid with to of to and of to in one other in between septic patients with a compared with standard from and a of evidence in to guide of fluid resuscitation as as the appropriate in patients with sepsis and in that resuscitation with of IV by and arterial with fluid in the first hours and higher hospital standard fluid the initial 30 mL/kg is by measures of fluid of mL/kg compared to to 3 mL/kg the of fluid and on of of or not be a in pressure that the is fluid a for lactate is an of and is not a of of septic shock in lactate as evidence of to (1). Previous of these guidelines have using lactate as a target of resuscitation in the of sepsis and septic shock, on to and of in serum lactate in with or in The that serum lactate are not in patients with septic shock, these that decrease lactate lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. with sepsis lactate not be in is not measures of organ be to the and of of the and capillary refill time have and to be of The a resuscitation a resuscitation at or lactate by hours in the first hours of septic shock the organ dysfunction as by in the and in the lactate this not the of a on using resuscitation and is and this should be by and to or fluid are of the or to the should management - Recommendation 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong moderate-quality MAP is a of mean in is the major of and MAP in blood and the of perfusion. as the and have the to blood a to be mm are with organ with MAP Previous guidelines a MAP of 65 mm Hg for initial resuscitation. The on a in septic shock patients who given to target a MAP of mm a target of mm Hg in a a in with higher MAP patients with higher MAP with with a higher of of this that the MAP in the of on this that higher MAP not improve in septic shock to and MAP target compared a mm with a that and MAP by the in patients 65 and with septic shock The in this a mean MAP of mm compared with mm Hg in the to in the by of and in in the and the of with higher MAP and the of patients with MAP of mm the a MAP of 65 mm Hg in the initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock who require to - Recommendation 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak low-quality The of patients on of in an appropriate the septic patients are in the and hospital of patients from are with sepsis and and and hospital of on the time for to the from and an of an in of for each of to of patients in the a higher hospital for the higher to time hr and compared with the to time for of an to time hr with hospital in patients with higher of with sepsis not patients to when hours hospital the a hospital higher and higher of and of patients in hospitals in the that to to higher and on of patients to an in outcomes. is evidence of and are best in an are of patients with sepsis to an not be in in and be this and appropriate treatment should not be of of - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice of these we the of a for to it is to in a a best practice we that appropriate should be in patients with suspected sepsis and septic shock it in in the of not in this as as The and of sepsis are and other is to sepsis, the cannot have a of sepsis in a with organ a or of patients with sepsis to have Best practice is to the to other are or a patient’s clinical after hospital or the of a of this be in when it is to or major is a that to on the that the is each as in and of the that by or in each in of or that the for a in the or a We not or evidence this are to a an that not from is or this is not of the should the of patients and patients that is not to - Recommendations For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within one of Strong low quality of evidence very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice and clinical examination, for and of and treatment for that this should be within 3 hours of that a be as to the of an of the patient’s and the of sepsis is to be For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hours from the time when sepsis first Weak very low quality of For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak very low quality of Early of appropriate is one of the to in patients with sepsis to patients with sepsis or septic shock should be as an The to provide as as be against the with to patients infection These a of as or and sepsis is as sepsis in and that first to be sepsis to be the of infection and of for each with suspected sepsis should the and of The with in patients with septic shock, have a between time to and in patients with septic shock in patients septic shock a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients for patients not on a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients with sepsis at least one of or or organ and for patients with septic to a for sepsis and a for septic shock in a of patients in each in time from to of with of and of in patients with in patients not an between and should be that the and at of to the of with or other patients with sepsis shock, the between time to and within the first hours from is have one to a in between and the other in a in time to suggest that after hours from hospital sepsis We suggest in patients with sepsis shock as as sepsis to be the and 3 hours after sepsis first suspected for sepsis at that given the of with septic shock and the of and the a to and within one in patients with septic shock. for patients with sepsis, we recommend be 1). For patients with sepsis shock, we recommend a of and of be to within 3 should be or should be to the Recommendations on of from suggest that of in patients with sepsis and septic shock is and and of a of in The and time for by and the of and of on is to recommendations to the of in patients with sepsis and septic shock in are in with the recommendations to - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak very low quality of is in in response to in with clinical the of and of a of 30 a of and of for sepsis in patients We evidence from three that compared for of the three in to of to or of to and not in of the and on the with of the and the quality of evidence very guidelines for the management of recommend of for patients with of and in including the a against using to guide in to clinical - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak low quality of The on to an against in an treatment for sepsis and septic shock the that the patient’s infection is caused by the of with treatment for in a with and the of with treatment in a for of patients and be to The of by from in to in and by for of infection or IV of or of hospital and of on the of including in on patients with the of in patients with of hours are with in not in patients with or sepsis, including against with higher patients The with are by an between of and in patients with or to for in a with be in a be from including the of to for are and on and clinical for are - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for compared with one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak very low quality of the of in of the world and between in and the initial of is to the at least one that is against the the and are the of on the of for and the of the and are is for patients with in a with of in or other between in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock when from the in the of of and in a low with the from the Recommendations the of one for treatment over one are given clinical including of and the of the of sepsis is to the appropriate For this we from recommendations in patients with sepsis or septic shock recommend the of on of to guide this infection or with within the of within the to a within the and within the the and are is not for patients with with and quality of evidence very and the of with the of for treatment. have an in in patients at for we suggest using for treatment to the of in patients with a low for we suggest using a for as are of using and the a of including infection and development of of is in patients at for with septic shock. - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak low quality of Sepsis and septic shock to are in and are with that of appropriate

<h3>Importance</h3> Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. <h3>Objective</h3> To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. <h3>Evidence Review</h3> We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. <h3>Findings</h3> In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572 000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542 000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819 000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601 000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596 000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414 000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care.

Several studies demonstrate that Schwartz’s (1992) theory of human values is valid in cultures previously beyond its range. We measured the 10 value constructs in the theory with the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ), a new and less abstract method. Analyses in representative samples in South Africa ( n = 3,210) and Italy ( n = 5,867) and in samples of 13- to 14-year-old Ugandan girls ( n = 840) yielded structures of relations among values similar to the theoretical prototype. In an Israeli student sample ( n = 200), the values exhibited convergent and discriminant validity when measured with the PVQ and with the standard value survey. Predicted relations of value priorities with a set of 10 background, personality, attitude, and behavioral variables in the four samples supported the construct validity of the values theory with an alternative method of measurement.

IMPORTANCE: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). FINDINGS: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.

An estimated 2.6 million third trimester stillbirths occurred in 2015 (uncertainty range 2.4-3.0 million). The number of stillbirths has reduced more slowly than has maternal mortality or mortality in children younger than 5 years, which were explicitly targeted in the Millennium Development Goals. The Every Newborn Action Plan has the target of 12 or fewer stillbirths per 1000 births in every country by 2030. 94 mainly high-income countries and upper middle-income countries have already met this target, although with noticeable disparities. At least 56 countries, particularly in Africa and in areas affected by conflict, will have to more than double present progress to reach this target. Most (98%) stillbirths are in low-income and middle-income countries. Improved care at birth is essential to prevent 1.3 million (uncertainty range 1.2-1.6 million) intrapartum stillbirths, end preventable maternal and neonatal deaths, and improve child development. Estimates for stillbirth causation are impeded by various classification systems, but for 18 countries with reliable data, congenital abnormalities account for a median of only 7.4% of stillbirths. Many disorders associated with stillbirths are potentially modifiable and often coexist, such as maternal infections (population attributable fraction: malaria 8.0% and syphilis 7.7%), non-communicable diseases, nutrition and lifestyle factors (each about 10%), and maternal age older than 35 years (6.7%). Prolonged pregnancies contribute to 14.0% of stillbirths. Causal pathways for stillbirth frequently involve impaired placental function, either with fetal growth restriction or preterm labour, or both. Two-thirds of newborns have their births registered. However, less than 5% of neonatal deaths and even fewer stillbirths have death registration. Records and registrations of all births, stillbirths, neonatal, and maternal deaths in a health facility would substantially increase data availability. Improved data alone will not save lives but provide a way to target interventions to reach more than 7000 women every day worldwide who experience the reality of stillbirth.

Importance: Cerebral palsy describes the most common physical disability in childhood and occurs in 1 in 500 live births. Historically, the diagnosis has been made between age 12 and 24 months but now can be made before 6 months' corrected age. Objectives: To systematically review best available evidence for early, accurate diagnosis of cerebral palsy and to summarize best available evidence about cerebral palsy-specific early intervention that should follow early diagnosis to optimize neuroplasticity and function. Evidence Review: This study systematically searched the literature about early diagnosis of cerebral palsy in MEDLINE (1956-2016), EMBASE (1980-2016), CINAHL (1983-2016), and the Cochrane Library (1988-2016) and by hand searching. Search terms included cerebral palsy, diagnosis, detection, prediction, identification, predictive validity, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, criteria of diagnostic accuracy, and evidence-based clinical guidelines. Findings are reported according to the PRISMA statement, and recommendations are reported according to the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Findings: Six systematic reviews and 2 evidence-based clinical guidelines met inclusion criteria. All included articles had high methodological Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) ratings. In infants, clinical signs and symptoms of cerebral palsy emerge and evolve before age 2 years; therefore, a combination of standardized tools should be used to predict risk in conjunction with clinical history. Before 5 months' corrected age, the most predictive tools for detecting risk are term-age magnetic resonance imaging (86%-89% sensitivity), the Prechtl Qualitative Assessment of General Movements (98% sensitivity), and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (90% sensitivity). After 5 months' corrected age, the most predictive tools for detecting risk are magnetic resonance imaging (86%-89% sensitivity) (where safe and feasible), the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (90% sensitivity), and the Developmental Assessment of Young Children (83% C index). Topography and severity of cerebral palsy are more difficult to ascertain in infancy, and magnetic resonance imaging and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination may be helpful in assisting clinical decisions. In high-income countries, 2 in 3 individuals with cerebral palsy will walk, 3 in 4 will talk, and 1 in 2 will have normal intelligence. Conclusions and Relevance: Early diagnosis begins with a medical history and involves using neuroimaging, standardized neurological, and standardized motor assessments that indicate congruent abnormal findings indicative of cerebral palsy. Clinicians should understand the importance of prompt referral to diagnostic-specific early intervention to optimize infant motor and cognitive plasticity, prevent secondary complications, and enhance caregiver well-being.

BACKGROUND: The role of fluid resuscitation in the treatment of children with shock and life-threatening infections who live in resource-limited settings is not established. METHODS: We randomly assigned children with severe febrile illness and impaired perfusion to receive boluses of 20 to 40 ml of 5% albumin solution (albumin-bolus group) or 0.9% saline solution (saline-bolus group) per kilogram of body weight or no bolus (control group) at the time of admission to a hospital in Uganda, Kenya, or Tanzania (stratum A); children with severe hypotension were randomly assigned to one of the bolus groups only (stratum B). All children received appropriate antimicrobial treatment, intravenous maintenance fluids, and supportive care, according to guidelines. Children with malnutrition or gastroenteritis were excluded. The primary end point was 48-hour mortality; secondary end points included pulmonary edema, increased intracranial pressure, and mortality or neurologic sequelae at 4 weeks. RESULTS: The data and safety monitoring committee recommended halting recruitment after 3141 of the projected 3600 children in stratum A were enrolled. Malaria status (57% overall) and clinical severity were similar across groups. The 48-hour mortality was 10.6% (111 of 1050 children), 10.5% (110 of 1047 children), and 7.3% (76 of 1044 children) in the albumin-bolus, saline-bolus, and control groups, respectively (relative risk for saline bolus vs. control, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.90; P=0.01; relative risk for albumin bolus vs. saline bolus, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.29; P=0.96; and relative risk for any bolus vs. control, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86; P=0.003). The 4-week mortality was 12.2%, 12.0%, and 8.7% in the three groups, respectively (P=0.004 for the comparison of bolus with control). Neurologic sequelae occurred in 2.2%, 1.9%, and 2.0% of the children in the respective groups (P=0.92), and pulmonary edema or increased intracranial pressure occurred in 2.6%, 2.2%, and 1.7% (P=0.17), respectively. In stratum B, 69% of the children (9 of 13) in the albumin-bolus group and 56% (9 of 16) in the saline-bolus group died (P=0.45). The results were consistent across centers and across subgroups according to the severity of shock and status with respect to malaria, coma, sepsis, acidosis, and severe anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid boluses significantly increased 48-hour mortality in critically ill children with impaired perfusion in these resource-limited settings in Africa. (Funded by the Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; FEAST Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN69856593.).

EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. no immunosuppressants IV D no nasal saline irrigation Ib, no data in single use D yes for symptomatic relief topical antibiotics no data D no anti-IL-5 no data D unclear phytotherapy no data D no decongestant topical / oral no data in single use D no mucolytics no data D no oral antihistamine in allergic patients no data D no antimycotics -topical Ia (-) ** A(-) no antimycotics -systemic Ib (-)# A(-) $ no anti leukotrienes Ib (-) A(-) no anti-IgE Ib (-) A(-) no * Some of these studies also included patients with CRS with nasal polyps. % short term antibiotics shows one positive and one negative study. Therefore recommendation C. oral antibiotic short term <4 weeks Ib(-) # A(-)* no intravenous antibiotics III(-) ## C(-) ** no # Ib (-): Ib study with a negative outcome.

BACKGROUND: Reproductive-age women need effective interventions to prevent the acquisition of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess daily treatment with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), oral tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC), or 1% tenofovir (TFV) vaginal gel as preexposure prophylaxis against HIV-1 infection in women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. HIV-1 testing was performed monthly, and plasma TFV levels were assessed quarterly. RESULTS: Of 12,320 women who were screened, 5029 were enrolled in the study. The rate of retention in the study was 91% during 5509 person-years of follow-up. A total of 312 HIV-1 infections occurred; the incidence of HIV-1 infection was 5.7 per 100 person-years. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the effectiveness was -49.0% with TDF (hazard ratio for infection, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.29), -4.4% with TDF-FTC (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.49), and 14.5% with TFV gel (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.21). In a random sample, TFV was detected in 30%, 29%, and 25% of available plasma samples from participants randomly assigned to receive TDF, TDF-FTC, and TFV gel, respectively. Independent predictors of TFV detection included being married, being older than 25 years of age, and being multiparous. Detection of TFV in plasma was negatively associated with characteristics predictive of HIV-1 acquisition. Elevations of serum creatinine levels were seen more frequently among participants randomly assigned to receive oral TDF-FTC than among those assigned to receive oral placebo (1.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.004). We observed no significant differences in the frequencies of other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: None of the drug regimens we evaluated reduced the rates of HIV-1 acquisition in an intention-to-treat analysis. Adherence to study drugs was low. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; VOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00705679.).

BACKGROUND: We estimated rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 transmission per coital act in HIV-discordant couples by stage of infection in the index partner. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 235 monogamous, HIV-discordant couples in a Ugandan population-based cohort. HIV transmission within pairs was confirmed by sequence analysis. Rates of transmission per coital act were estimated by the index partner's stage of infection (recent seroconversion or prevalent or late-stage infection). The adjusted rate ratio of transmission per coital act was estimated by multivariate Poisson regression. RESULTS: The average rate of HIV transmission was 0.0082/coital act (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0039-0.0150) within approximately 2.5 months after seroconversion of the index partner; 0.0015/coital act within 6-15 months after seroconversion of the index partner (95% CI, 0.0002-0.0055); 0.0007/coital act (95% CI, 0.0005-0.0010) among HIV-prevalent index partners; and 0.0028/coital act (95% CI, 0.0015-0.0041) 6-25 months before the death of the index partner. In adjusted models, early- and late-stage infection, higher HIV load, genital ulcer disease, and younger age of the index partner were significantly associated with higher rates of transmission. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of HIV transmission per coital act was highest during early-stage infection. This has implications for HIV prevention and for projecting the effects of antiretroviral treatment on HIV transmission.

CONTEXT: The International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care developed a consensus-based definition of palliative care (PC) that focuses on the relief of serious health-related suffering, a concept put forward by the Lancet Commission Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Relief. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this article is to present the research behind the new definition. METHODS: The three-phased consensus process involved health care workers from countries in all income levels. In Phase 1, 38 PC experts evaluated the components of the World Health Organization definition and suggested new/revised ones. In Phase 2, 412 International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care members in 88 countries expressed their level of agreement with the suggested components. In Phase 3, using results from Phase 2, the expert panel developed the definition. RESULTS: The consensus-based definition is as follows: Palliative care is the active holistic care of individuals across all ages with serious health-related suffering due to severe illness and especially of those near the end of life. It aims to improve the quality of life of patients, their families and their caregivers. The definition includes a number of bullet points with additional details as well as recommendations for governments to reduce barriers to PC. CONCLUSION: Participants had significantly different perceptions and interpretations of PC. The greatest challenge faced by the core group was trying to find a middle ground between those who think that PC is the relief of all suffering and those who believe that PC describes the care of those with a very limited remaining life span.

Updates: This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. 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.

Quinine remains an important anti-malarial drug almost 400 years after its effectiveness was first documented. However, its continued use is challenged by its poor tolerability, poor compliance with complex dosing regimens, and the availability of more efficacious anti-malarial drugs. This article reviews the historical role of quinine, considers its current usage and provides insight into its appropriate future use in the treatment of malaria. In light of recent research findings intravenous artesunate should be the first-line drug for severe malaria, with quinine as an alternative. The role of rectal quinine as pre-referral treatment for severe malaria has not been fully explored, but it remains a promising intervention. In pregnancy, quinine continues to play a critical role in the management of malaria, especially in the first trimester, and it will remain a mainstay of treatment until safer alternatives become available. For uncomplicated malaria, artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) offers a better option than quinine though the difficulty of maintaining a steady supply of ACT in resource-limited settings renders the rapid withdrawal of quinine for uncomplicated malaria cases risky. The best approach would be to identify solutions to ACT stock-outs, maintain quinine in case of ACT stock-outs, and evaluate strategies for improving quinine treatment outcomes by combining it with antibiotics. In HIV and TB infected populations, concerns about potential interactions between quinine and antiretroviral and anti-tuberculosis drugs exist, and these will need further research and pharmacovigilance.

Current nucleic acid amplification methods to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis are complex, labor-intensive, and technically challenging. We developed and performed the first analysis of the Cepheid Gene Xpert System's MTB/RIF assay, an integrated hands-free sputum-processing and real-time PCR system with rapid on-demand, near-patient technology, to simultaneously detect M. tuberculosis and rifampin resistance. Analytic tests of M. tuberculosis DNA demonstrated a limit of detection (LOD) of 4.5 genomes per reaction. Studies using sputum spiked with known numbers of M. tuberculosis CFU predicted a clinical LOD of 131 CFU/ml. Killing studies showed that the assay's buffer decreased M. tuberculosis viability by at least 8 logs, substantially reducing biohazards. Tests of 23 different commonly occurring rifampin resistance mutations demonstrated that all 23 (100%) would be identified as rifampin resistant. An analysis of 20 nontuberculosis mycobacteria species confirmed high assay specificity. A small clinical validation study of 107 clinical sputum samples from suspected tuberculosis cases in Vietnam detected 29/29 (100%) smear-positive culture-positive cases and 33/39 (84.6%) or 38/53 (71.7%) smear-negative culture-positive cases, as determined by growth on solid medium or on both solid and liquid media, respectively. M. tuberculosis was not detected in 25/25 (100%) of the culture-negative samples. A study of 64 smear-positive culture-positive sputa from retreatment tuberculosis cases in Uganda detected 63/64 (98.4%) culture-positive cases and 9/9 (100%) cases of rifampin resistance. Rifampin resistance was excluded in 54/55 (98.2%) susceptible cases. Specificity rose to 100% after correcting for a conventional susceptibility test error. In conclusion, this highly sensitive and simple-to-use system can detect M. tuberculosis directly from sputum in less than 2 h.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.