Clinical Presentation of Patients with Ebola Virus Disease in Conakry, Guinea

BACKGROUND: In March 2014, the World Health Organization was notified of an outbreak of Zaire ebolavirus in a remote area of Guinea. The outbreak then spread to the capital, Conakry, and to neighboring countries and has subsequently become the largest epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) to date. METHODS: From March 25 to April 26, 2014, we performed a study of all patients with laboratory-confirmed EVD in Conakry. Mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient characteristics, complications, treatments, and comparisons between survivors and nonsurvivors. RESULTS: Of 80 patients who presented with symptoms, 37 had laboratory-confirmed EVD. Among confirmed cases, the median age was 38 years (interquartile range, 28 to 46), 24 patients (65%) were men, and 14 (38%) were health care workers; among the health care workers, nosocomial transmission was implicated in 12 patients (32%). Patients with confirmed EVD presented to the hospital a median of 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7) after the onset of symptoms, most commonly with fever (in 84% of the patients; mean temperature, 38.6°C), fatigue (in 65%), diarrhea (in 62%), and tachycardia (mean heart rate, \u3e93 beats per minute). Of these patients, 28 (76%) were treated with intravenous fluids and 37 (100%) with antibiotics. Sixteen patients (43%) died, with a median time from symptom onset to death of 8 days (interquartile range, 7 to 11). Patients who were 40 years of age or older, as compared with those under the age of 40 years, had a relative risk of death of 3.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.42 to 8.59; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EVD presented with evidence of dehydration associated with vomiting and severe diarrhea. Despite attempts at volume repletion, antimicrobial therapy, and limited laboratory services, the rate of death was 43%

Being Ready to Treat Ebola Virus Disease Patients

As the outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa continues, clinical preparedness is needed in countries at risk for EVD (e.g., United States) and more fully equipped and supported clinical teams in those countries with epidemic spread of EVD in Africa. Clinical staff must approach the patient with a very deliberate focus on providing effective care while assuring personal safety. To do this, both individual health care providers and health systems must improve EVD care. Although formal guidance toward these goals exists from the World Health Organization, Medecin Sans Frontières, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups, some of the most critical lessons come from personal experience. In this narrative, clinicians deployed by the World Health Organization into a wide range of clinical settings in West Africa distill key, practical considerations for working safely and effectively with patients with EVD

New filovirus disease classification and nomenclature.

The recent large outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Western Africa resulted in greatly increased accumulation of human genotypic, phenotypic and clinical data, and improved our understanding of the spectrum of clinical manifestations. As a result, the WHO disease classification of EVD underwent major revision

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19

Clinical question: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19.Recommendation: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty).How this guideline was created: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Understanding the new recommendation: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19.Updates: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.Readers note: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19

Clinical question: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. Recommendation: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. Readers note: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.</p

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCEmergency Medicine, Department ofPediatrics, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearcherPostdoctoralGraduat

New filovirus disease classification and nomenclature

The recent large outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Western Africa resulted in greatly increased accumulation of human genotypic, phenotypic and clinical data, and improved our understanding of the spectrum of clinical manifestations. As a result, the WHO disease classification of EVD underwent major revision.Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E (I.C.). G.I. is grateful for support from the Italian Ministry of Health, grant Ricerca Corrente, Research programme n.1. The UK Public Health Rapid Support Team (D.G.B.) is funded by the UK Department of Health and Social Care.https://www.nature.com/nrmicrohj2020Veterinary Tropical Disease