OBJECTIVE: The quality of care and safety for Telemedicine-discharged patients with suspected respiratory infections are closely related to low rates of prescriptions of unjustified and high-risk medications. This retrospective study aimed to assess adherence to the current COVID-19 guidelines in direct-to-consumer telemedicine encounters at a large center using multidrug stewardship protocols.
METHODS: A quarterly electronic survey utilizing medical records of individual physician care assessed various quality indicators. Physicians received ongoing adaptive feedback based on personal metrics, with Telemedicine Center recommendations derived from the 2020 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. The study included all consecutive adults with new respiratory symptoms in the last 14 days who sought spontaneous Telemedicine consultations between March 2020 and August 2021. This study analyzed patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and other airway infections.
RESULTS: Of the 221,128 evaluated patients, 42,042 (19%) had confirmed COVID-19; 104,021 (47%) were suspected to have COVID-19; and, 75,065 (33%) had other diagnoses. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 had a mean (+DP) age of 35±12 years. A total of 125,107 (85.65%) patients were managed at home, 2,552 (1.74%) were referred for non-urgent in-office reassessment, and 17,185 (11.7%) were referred to the emergency department for whom there was no further treatment recommendation. The antibiotic rate in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases was 0.46%/0.65% and that for non-evidence-based prescriptions was 0.01%/0.005%.
CONCLUSIONS: Guideline training and Telemedicine consultation feedback may lead to lower antibiotic and antimicrobial prescriptions in suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases. Multidrug stewardship protocols may improve guideline adherence and reinforce the quality of care and safety in Telemedicine encounters.

Although COVID-19 no longer constitutes a \"public health emergency of international concern\", which still has being spreading around the world at a low level. Small molecule drugs are the main antiviral treatment for novel coronavirus recommended in China. Although a variety of small-molecule antiviral drugs against COVID-19 have been listed in China, there is no specific drug recommendation for special populations. Society of Bacterial Infection and Resistance of Chinese Medical Association, together with the National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, and the National Center for Respiratory Medicine, organized domestic experts in various fields such as respiratory, virology, infection, critical care, emergency medicine and pharmacy to release Expert Consensus on the Clinical Application of Oral Small-Molecule Antiviral Drugs against COVID-19. The main content of this consensus includes the introduction of seven small-molecule antiviral drugs against COVID-19, focusing on the drug recommendations for 14 special groups such as the elderly, patients with complicated chronic diseases, tumor patients, pregnant women, and children, and providing suggestions for clinicians to standardize drug use.
新型冠状病毒（新冠病毒）感染虽已不再构成“国际关注的突发公共卫生事件”，但仍在全球范围内处于低水平流行。小分子口服药物是我国目前推荐的针对新冠病毒感染的主要抗病毒治疗方案。虽然国内已上市多种抗新冠病毒小分子药物，但目前尚无针对特殊人群的具体用药推荐。中华医学会细菌感染与耐药防治分会联合国家呼吸医学中心、国家呼吸系统疾病临床医学研究中心组织国内呼吸、病毒学、感染、重症、急诊、药学等各领域专家制订了本共识。本共识的主要内容包括7种抗新冠病毒小分子药物介绍，重点阐述了老年人群、合并慢性疾病人群、肿瘤患者、孕妇、儿童等14种特殊人群用药推荐，为临床医师规范用药提供建议。.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected all WHO member states. We compared and contrasted the COVID-19 treatment guidelines of each member state with the WHO COVID-19 therapeutic guidelines.
Ministries of Health or accessed National Infectious Disease websites and other relevant bodies and experts were contacted to obtain national guidelines (NGs) for COVID-19 treatment. NGs were included only if they delineated specific pharmacological treatments for COVID-19, which were stratified by disease severity. We conducted a retrospective review using the adapted Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines (RIGHT-PVG) survey checklist and a derived comparative metric based on the WHO guidelines was performed.
COVID-19 therapeutics NGs could be obtained from 109 of the 194 WHO member states. There was considerable variation in guidelines and in disease severity stratifications. Therapeutic recommendations in many NGs differed substantially from the WHO guidelines. Overall in late 2022, 93% of NGs were recommending at least one treatment which had proved to be ineffective in large randomised trials, and was not recommended by WHO. Corticosteroids were not recommended in severe disease in nearly 10% of NGs despite overwhelming evidence of their benefit. NGs from countries with low-resource settings showed the greatest divergence when stratified by gross domestic product per year, Human Development Index and the Global Health Security Index.
Our study is limited to NGs that were readily accessible, and it does not reflect the availability of recommended medicines in the field. Three years after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, available COVID-19 NGs vary substantially in their therapeutic recommendations, often differ from the WHO guidelines, and commonly recommend ineffective, unaffordable or unavailable medicines.

OBJECTIVE: Actively addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare guidelines provides an important avenue ensure that individuals and communities receive high-quality healthcare that meets their needs. In 2020, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was charged with developing Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 (the Guidelines). It was intended that the Guidelines would consider the biological and social determinants of health (BSDH) underpinning evidence-based recommendations for of the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this paper is to describe the evidence available on BSDH that is reported in published trials of disease-modifying therapies for COVID-19.
METHODS: Published papers of randomized controlled trials that informed clinical recommendations (for and against drug therapies for COVID-19) in the Guidelines were reviewed retrospectively using a case series design. We extracted reported characteristics relating to BSDH. These included age, sex, gender, geographical location, ethnicity (including indigenous), disability, migrant status, income, education, employment, and social support. A descriptive analysis was conducted to illustrate the characteristics available for use in guideline development.
RESULTS: A total of 115 peer-reviewed papers describing randomized control trials of drug interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were included. BSDH characteristics were poorly reported. Geographical location of the study was the only category reported in all papers. While age and sex were reported in most papers (n = 109 and 108, respectively), ethnicity was reported in only one-third of papers (n = 40), social support was reported in only three papers, and employment in one paper. No paper reported on gender, disability, migrant status, income, or education.
CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of EDI issues is a crucial component of guideline development. Although these issues were widely recognized to impact on health outcomes from COVID-19, reporting of these characteristics was poor in COVID trials. Urgent action is needed to improve reporting of EDI characteristics if they are to be meaningfully considered in guideline processes, and health inequity is overcome.

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

On January 18, 2024, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued their most recent guidelines for over-the-counter drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Specifically, the organization stated that \"Most people with COVID-19 have mild illness and can recover at home. You can treat symptoms with over-the-counter medicines, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil), to help you feel better.\" In this review we consider the contributions of different types of evidence and conclude that healthcare providers should make individual clinical judgments for each of their patients in the selection of over-the-counter drugs to treat symptoms of COVID-19. This judgment should be based on the entire benefit to risk profile of the patient. It is our belief that the individual healthcare provider knows far more about each of his or her patients than anyone, including expert members of guideline committees. Their astute and judicious individual clinical decision-making for each individual patient based on all these considerations has the potential to do far more good than harm.

BACKGROUND: Since November 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created challenges for preventing and managing COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Most research to develop new therapeutic interventions or to repurpose existing ones has been undertaken in adults, and although most cases of infection in pediatric populations are mild, there have been many cases of critical and fatal infection. Understanding the risk factors for severe illness and the evidence for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of therapies for COVID-19 in children is necessary to optimize therapy.
METHODS: A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacology, and pediatric intensive care medicine from 21 geographically diverse North American institutions was re-convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys and a systematic review with meta-analysis of data for risk factors, a guidance statement comprising a series of recommendations for risk stratification, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 was developed and refined based on expert consensus.
RESULTS: There are identifiable clinical characteristics that enable risk stratification for patients at risk for severe COVID-19. These risk factors can be used to guide the treatment of hospitalized and non-hospitalized children and adolescents with COVID-19 and to guide preventative therapy where options remain available.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory virus that has afflicted millions of individuals in the United States. A few medications have been determined to be beneficial for outpatient treatment. The medications in use against mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting during the study period are nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and bebtelovimab. Proper assessment and treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting is critical to reducing rates of disease progression and hospitalization.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of the prescribing by internal medicine physicians for mild-to-moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections based on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guideline-directed COVID-19 outpatient treatment options.
METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review examining the outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 by internal medicine physicians between February 2022 and August 2022. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older, had a positive home or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, completed a telehealth visit within 7 days of the positive test, and were prescribed either nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, or bebtelovimab for COVID-19 treatment. The primary end point was the appropriateness of COVID-19 treatment in the outpatient setting based on NIH guidelines, patient characteristics, and prescribing information for the medications. The secondary end point was hospitalization within 30 days of initiation of outpatient COVID-19 treatment. The presence or absence of a clinical pharmacist consultation at the time of prescribing was recorded as a process measure.
RESULTS: A total of 376 encounters were assessed, of which 226 were included and analyzed. A total of 210 participants (93%) received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The remaining participants received molnupiravir or bebtelovimab. Overall, guideline-concordant treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was prescribed for 200 participants (88%). Among patient characteristics, only glomerular filtration rate (GFR) had a statistically significant difference between groups prescribed medication for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Fifty-six participants (25%) received clinical pharmacist consultation. Three participants were hospitalized for COVID-19 within 30 days of receiving an appropriately prescribed medication for treatment. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was the only medication potentially prescribed inappropriately due to lack of being renally dose adjusted and the extensive drug-drug interactions.
CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was the most prescribed medication for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19, consistent with its position as first-line therapy and widespread accessibility. The study results will inform future educational opportunities, such as in-service presentations and handouts, that may improve the prescribing of outpatient treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 moving forward.

暂无摘要。

Both COVID-19 and pregnancy are associated with hypercoagulability. Due to the increased risk for thrombosis, the United States National Institute of Health\'s recommendation for prophylactic anticoagulant use for pregnant patients has expanded from patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 manifestation to all patients hospitalized for the manifestation of COVID-19 (no guideline: before December 26, 2020; first update: December 27, 2022; second update: February 24, 2022-present). However, no study has evaluated this recommendation.
The objective of this study was to characterize prophylactic anticoagulant use among hospitalized pregnant people with COVID-19 from March 20, 2020, to October 19, 2022.
This was a retrospective cohort study in large US health care systems across 7 states. The cohort of interest was pregnant patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, without previous coagulopathy or contraindication to anticoagulants (n=2767). The treatment group consisted of patients prescribed prophylactic dose anticoagulation between 2 days before and 14 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=191). The control group was patients with no anticoagulant exposure between 14 days before and 60 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=2534). We ascertained the use of prophylactic anticoagulants with attention to the updates in guidelines and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We propensity score matched the treatment and control group 1:1 on the most important features contributing to the prophylactic anticoagulant administration status classification. Outcome measures included coagulopathy, bleeding, COVID-19-related complications, and maternal-fetal health outcomes. Additionally, the inpatient anticoagulant administration rate was validated in a nationwide population from Truveta, a collective of 700 hospitals across the United States.
The overall administration rate of prophylactic anticoagulants was 7% (191/2725). It was lowest after the second guideline update (no guideline: 27/262, 10%; first update: 145/1663, 8.72%; second update: 19/811, 2.3%; P<.001) and during the omicron-dominant period (Wild type: 45/549, 8.2%; Alpha: 18/129, 14%; Delta: 81/507, 16%; and Omicron: 47/1551, 3%; P<.001). Models developed on retrospective data showed that the variable most associated with the administration of inpatient prophylactic anticoagulant was comorbidities prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patients who were administered prophylactic anticoagulant were also more likely to receive supplementary oxygen (57/191, 30% vs 9/188, 5%; P<.001). There was no statistical difference in a new diagnosis of coagulopathy, bleeding, or maternal-fetal health outcomes between those who received treatment and the matched control group.
Most hospitalized pregnant patients with COVID-19 did not receive prophylactic anticoagulants across health care systems as recommended by guidelines. Guideline-recommended treatment was administered more frequently to patients with greater COVID-19 illness severity. Given the low rate of administration and differences between treated and untreated cohorts, efficacy could not be assessed.