Browsing by Author "Brignardello-Petersen, Romina"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19
    (2022-09) Agarwal, Arnav; Rochwerg, Bram; Lamontagne, François; Siemieniuk, Reed AC; Agoritsas, Thomas; Askie, Lisa; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Leo, Yee-Sin; Macdonald, Helen; Zeng, Linan; Amin, Wagdy; Barragan, Fabian A Jaimes; Bausch, Frederique J.; Burhan, Erlina; Calfee, Carolyn S.; Cecconi, Maurizio; Chanda, Duncan; Dat, Vu Quoc; De Sutter, An; Du, Bin; Freedman, Stephen; Geduld, Heike; Gee, Patrick; Gotte, Matthias; Harley, Nerina; Hashmi, Madiha; Hunt, Beverley; Jehan, Fyezah; Kabra, Sushil K.; Kanda, Seema; Kim, Yae-Jean; Kissoon, Niranjan; Krishna, Sanjeev; Kuppalli, Krutika; Kwizera, Arthur; Castro-Rial, Marta Lado; Lisboa, Thiago; Lodha, Rakesh; Mahaka, Imelda; Manai, Hela; Mino, Greta; Nsutebu, Emmanuel; Preller, Jacobus; Pshenichnaya, Natalia; Qadir, Nida; Relan, Pryanka; Sabzwari, Saniya; Sarin, Rohit; Shankar-Hari, Manu; Sharland, Michael; Shen, Yinzhong; Ranganathan, Shalini S.; Souza, Joao P.; Stegemann, Miriam; Swanstrom, Ronald; Ugarte, Sebastian; Uyeki, Tim; Venkatapuram, Sridhar; Vuyiseka, Dubula; Wijewickrama, Ananda; Tran, Lien; Zeraatkar, Dena; Bartoszko, Jessica J.; Ge, Long; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Owen, Andrew; Guyatt, Gordon; Diaz, Janet; Kawano-Dourado, Leticia; Jacobs, Michael; Vandvik, Per Olav
    This living guideline by Arnav Agarwal and colleagues (BMJ 2020;370:m3379, doi:10.1136/bmj.m3379) was last updated on 22 April 2022, but the infographic contained two dosing errors: the dose of ritonavir with renal failure should have read 100 mg, not 50 mg; and the suggested regimen for remdesivir should have been 3 days, not 5-10 days. The infographic has now been corrected.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline
    (2020-11) Rochwerg, Bram; Agarwal, Arnav; Zeng, Linan; Leo, Yee-Sin; Appiah, John Adabie; Agoritsas, Thomas; Bartoszko, Jessica; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Ergan, Begum; Ge, Long; Geduld, Heike; Gershengorn, Hayley B.; Manai, Hela; Huang, Minhua; Lamontagne, François; Kanda, Seema; Kawano-Dourado, Leticia; Kurian, Linda; Kwizera, Arthur; Murthy, Srinivas; Qadir, Nida; Siemieniuk, Reed; Silvestre, Maria Asuncion; Vandvik, Per Olav; Ye, Zhikang; Zeraatkar, Dena; Guyatt, Gordon
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reporting of methodological studies in health research : a protocol for the development of the Methodological Study reporting Checklist (MISTIC)
    (BMJ Publishing, 2020-12) Lawson, Daeria O.; Puljak, Livia; Pieper, Dawid; Schandelmaier, Stefan; Collins, Gary S.; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Moher, David; Tugwell, Peter; Welch, Vivian A.; Samaan, Zainab; Thombs, Brett D.; Nørskov, Anders K.; Jakobsen, Janus C.; Allison, David B.; Mayo-Wilson, Evan; Young, Taryn; Chan, An-Wen; Briel, Matthias; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Thabane, Lehana; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
    Introduction: Methodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool—the Methodological Study reporting Checklist—to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies. Methods and analysis: We will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies. Ethics and dissemination: The consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites. Registration: We have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science.