Search

In March 2020, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel began developing evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. In this article, Panel members summarize some of the lessons learned from their first year of work., The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually—as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

This short review presents an overview of key metrics that have been used to assess the ‘greenness’ of pharmaceutical processes in development in the larger context of environmental sustainability. The green metrics cover areas of resource efficiency (mass and energy); environment, health, and safety considerations; and life cycle assessment. There is also a discussion of currently unmet needs in the area that need enhanced focus.

Background: The Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) study has enrolled a racially and ethnically diverse population with type 2 diabetes, performed extensive phenotyping, and randomly assigned the participants to one of four second-line diabetes medications. The continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) substudy has been added to determine whether there are racial/ethnic differences in the relationship between average glucose (AG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). CGM will also be used to compare time in target range, glucose variability, and the frequency and duration of hypoglycemia across study groups. Methods: The observational CGM substudy will enroll up to 1800 of the 5047 GRADE study participants from the four treatment groups, including as many as 450 participants from each of 4 racial/ethnic minority groups to be compared: Hispanic White, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic African American, and non-Hispanic Other. CGM will be performed for 2 weeks in proximity to a GRADE annual visit, during which an oral glucose tolerance test will be performed and HbA1c and glycated albumin measured. Indicators of interindividual variation in red blood cell turnover, based on specialized erythrocyte measurements, will also be measured to explore the potential causes of interindividual HbA1c variations. Conclusions: The GRADE CGM substudy will provide new insights into whether differences exist in the relationship between HbA1c and AG among different racial/ethnic groups and whether glycemic profiles differ among frequently used diabetes medications and their potential clinical implications. Understanding such differences is important for clinical care and adjustment of diabetes medications in patients of different races or ethnicities.