Search

Clinical Question: In adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis), or psoriasis taking biologic drugs, does proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) improve outcomes as compared with standard care?, Context and Current Practice: Standard care for immune mediated inflammatory diseases includes prescribing biologic drugs at pre-determined doses. Dosing may be adjusted reactively, for example with increased disease activity. In proactive TDM, serum drug levels and anti-drug antibodies are measured irrespective of disease activity, and the drug dosing is adjusted to achieve target serum drug levels, usually within pre-specified therapeutic ranges. The role of proactive TDM in clinical practice remains unclear, with conflicting guideline recommendations and emerging evidence from randomised controlled trials., The Evidence: Linked systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis which identified 10 trials including 2383 participants. Inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis were grouped together as best current research evidence on proactive TDM did not suggest heterogeneity of effects on outcomes of interest. Proactive TDM of intravenous infliximab during maintenance treatment may increase the proportion of patients who experience sustained disease control or sustained remission without considerable additional harm. For adalimumab, it remains unclear if proactive TDM during maintenance treatment has an effect on sustained disease control or sustained remission. At induction (start) of treatment, proactive TDM of intravenous infliximab may have little or no effect on achieving remission. No eligible trial evidence was available for proactive TDM of adalimumab at induction (start) of treatment. No eligible trial evidence was available for proactive TDM of other biologic drugs in maintenance or at induction (start) of treatment., Recommendations: The guideline panel issued the following recommendations for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, or psoriasis:1. A weak recommendation in favour of proactive TDM for intravenous infliximab during maintenance treatment2. A weak recommendation against proactive TDM for adalimumab and other biologic drugs during maintenance treatment3. A weak recommendation against proactive TDM for intravenous infliximab, adalimumab, and other biologic drugs during induction (start) of treatment., Understanding the Recommendations: When considering proactive TDM, clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision making to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preferences. The availability of laboratory assays to implement proactive TDM should also be considered. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future., How This Guideline Was Created: An international panel including patient partners, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations based on a linked systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis which identified 10 trials including 2383 participants. The panel followed standards for trustworthy guidelines and used the GRADE approach, explicitly considering the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of treatment from an individual patient perspective., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest of disclosure form. MAGIC and The BMJ judged that no panel member or co-chair had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions. MAGIC and TheBMJ assessed declared interests from other coauthors of this publication and found no relevant conflicts of interests., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?, Current Practice: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries., Recommendation: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain., How This Guideline Was Created: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective., The Evidence: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain., Understanding the Recommendation: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Personal, professional, and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All guideline panel members have completed the WHO interest disclosure form. All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest of disclosure form. The WHO, MAGIC, and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions. MAGIC and TheBMJ assessed declared interests from other co-authors of this publication and found no conflicts of interests., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

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., Competing Interests: All GDG members have completed the WHO interest disclosure form. All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest of disclosure form. The WHO, MAGIC and The BMJ judged that no GDG member or co-chair had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the GDG to make fully informed decisions. MAGIC and TheBMJ assessed declared interests from other co-authors of this publication and found no relevant conflicts of interests., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020., Current Practice: Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice., Recommendations: The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir., How This Guideline Was Created: An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems., The Evidence: The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay., Understanding the Recommendation: Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 3 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)