Search

Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19.Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020.Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included.Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews).Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs.Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported.Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers.Primary Funding Source: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has been hypothesized that adaptation of health practice guidelines to the local setting is expected to improve their uptake and implementation while cutting on required resources. We recently adapted the published American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) treatment guideline to the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). The objective of this paper is to describe the process used for the adaptation of the 2015 ACR guideline on the treatment of RA for the EMR.Methods: We used the GRADE-Adolopment methodology for the guideline adaptation process. We describe in detail how adolopment enhanced the efficiency of the following steps of the guideline adaptation process: (1) groups and roles, (2) selecting guideline topics, (3) identifying and training guideline panelists, (4) prioritizing questions and outcomes, (5) identifying, updating or conducting systematic reviews, (6) preparing GRADE evidence tables and EtD frameworks, (7) formulating and grading strength of recommendations, (8) using the GRADEpro-GDT software.Results: The adolopment process took 6 months from January to June 2016 with a project coordinator dedicating 40% of her time, and the two co-chairs dedicating 5% and 10% of their times respectively. In addition, a research assistant worked 60% of her time over the last 3 months of the project. We held our face-to-face panel meeting in Qatar. Our literature update included five newly published trials. The certainty of the evidence of three of the eight recommendations changed: one from moderate to very low and two from low to very low. The factors that justified a very low certainty of the evidence in the three recommendations were: serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision. The strength of five of the recommendations changed from strong to conditional. The factors that justified the conditional strength of these 5 recommendations were: cost (n = 5 [100%]), impact on health equities (n = 4 [80%]), the balance of benefits and harms (n = 1 [20%]) and acceptability (n = 1 [20%]).Conclusion: This project confirmed the feasibility of GRADE-Adolopment. It also highlighted the value of collaboration with the organization that had originally developed the treatment guideline. We discuss the implications for both guideline adaptation and future research to advance the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the rising burden of chronic respiratory diseases, global data for lung function are not available. We investigated global variation in lung function in healthy populations by region to establish whether regional factors contribute to lung function., Methods: In an international, community-based prospective study, we enrolled individuals from communities in 17 countries between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2009 (except for in Karnataka, India, where enrolment began on Jan 1, 2003). Trained local staff obtained data from participants with interview-based questionnaires, measured weight and height, and recorded forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC). We analysed data from participants 130-190 cm tall and aged 34-80 years who had a 5 pack-year smoking history or less, who were not affected by specified disorders and were not pregnant, and for whom we had at least two FEV₁ and FVC measurements that did not vary by more than 200 mL. We divided the countries into seven socioeconomic and geographical regions: south Asia (India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan), east Asia (China), southeast Asia (Malaysia), sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa and Zimbabwe), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile), the Middle East (Iran, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey), and North America or Europe (Canada, Sweden, and Poland). Data were analysed with non-linear regression to model height, age, sex, and region., Findings: 153,996 individuals were enrolled from 628 communities. Data from 38,517 asymptomatic, healthy non-smokers (25,614 women; 12,903 men) were analysed. For all regions, lung function increased with height non-linearly, decreased with age, and was proportionately higher in men than women. The quantitative effect of height, age, and sex on lung function differed by region. Compared with North America or Europe, FEV1 adjusted for height, age, and sex was 31·3% (95% CI 30·8-31·8%) lower in south Asia, 24·2% (23·5-24·9%) lower in southeast Asia, 12·8% (12·4-13·4%) lower in east Asia, 20·9% (19·9-22·0%) lower in sub-Saharan Africa, 5·7% (5·1-6·4%) lower in South America, and 11·2% (10·6-11·8%) lower in the Middle East. We recorded similar but larger differences in FVC. The differences were not accounted for by variation in weight, urban versus rural location, and education level between regions., Interpretation: Lung function differs substantially between regions of the world. These large differences are not explained by factors investigated in this study; the contribution of socioeconomic, genetic, and environmental factors and their interactions with lung function and lung health need further clarification., Funding: Full funding sources listed at end of the paper (see Acknowledgments)., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)