Background We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe COVID-19 using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard-of-care. Methods GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation 94% or lower on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard-of-care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. Results After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 2.03: 95% confidence interval 1.34–3.08, p<0.001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.22–0.68, p=0.001). Conclusions In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19.

BackgroundThe burdens of hypertension and diabetes are increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It is important to identify patients with these conditions early in the disease process. The goal of this study, therefore, is to compare community- versus home-based screening for hypertension and diabetes in Kenya.MethodsThis was a feasibility study conducted by the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) program in Webuye, a town in western Kenya. Home-based (door-to-door) screening occurred in March 2010 and community-based screening in November 2011. HIV counselors were trained to screen for diabetes and hypertension in the home-based screening with local district hospital based staff conducting the community-based screening. Participants >18 years old qualified for screening in both groups. Counselors referred all participants with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥160 mmHg and/or a random blood glucose ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) to a local clinic for follow-up. Differences in likelihood of screening positive between the two strategies were compared using Fischer’s Exact Test. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the likelihood of following-up after a positive screening.ResultsThere were 236 participants in home-based screening: 13 (6%) had a SBP ≥160 mmHg, and 54 (23%) had a random glucose ≥ 7 mmol/L. There were 346 participants in community-based screening: 35 (10%) had a SBP ≥160 mmHg, and 27 (8%) had a random glucose ≥ 7 mmol/L. Participants in community-based screening were twice as likely to screen positive for hypertension compared to home-based screening (OR=1.93, P=0.06). In contrast, participants were 3.5 times more likely to screen positive for a random blood glucose ≥7 mmol/L with home-based screening (OR=3.51, P<0.01). Rates for following-up at the clinic after a positive screen were low for both groups with 31% of patients with an elevated SBP returning for confirmation in both the community-based and home-based group (P=1.0). Follow-up after a random glucose was also low with 23% returning in the home-based group and 22% in the community-based group (P=1.0).ConclusionCommunity- or home-based screening for diabetes and hypertension in LMICs is feasible. Due to low rates of follow-up, screening efforts in rural settings should focus on linking cases to care.

Background Antimicrobial resistance has been named as one of the top ten threats to public health in the world. Hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can help reduce antimicrobial resistance. The purpose of this study was to determine perceived barriers to the development and implementation of ASPs in tertiary care centers in three low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods Interviews were conducted with 45 physicians at tertiary care hospitals in Sri Lanka (n = 22), Kenya (12), and Tanzania (11). Interviews assessed knowledge of antimicrobial resistance and ASPs, current antimicrobial prescribing practices, access to diagnostics that inform antimicrobial use, receptiveness to ASPs, and perceived barriers to implementing ASPs. Two independent reviewers coded the interviews using principles of applied thematic analysis, and comparisons of themes were made across the three sites. Results Barriers to improving antimicrobial prescribing included prohibitively expensive antimicrobials, limited antimicrobial availability, resistance to changing current practices regarding antimicrobial prescribing, and limited diagnostic capabilities. The most frequent of these barriers in all three locations was limited drug availability. Many physicians in all three sites had not heard of ASPs before the interviews. Improved education was a suggested component of ASPs at all three sites. The creation of guidelines was also recommended, without prompting, by interviewees at all three sites. Although most participants felt microbiological results were helpful in tailoring antibiotic courses, some expressed distrust of laboratory culture results. Biomarkers like erythrocyte sedimentation rate and c-reactive protein were not felt to be specific enough to guide antimicrobial therapy. Despite limited or no prior knowledge of ASPs, most interviewees were receptive to implementing protocols that would include documentation and consultation with ASPs regarding antimicrobial prescribing. Conclusions Our study highlighted several important barriers to implementing ASPs that were shared between three tertiary care centers in LMICs. Improving drug availability, enhancing availability of and trust in microbiologic data, creating local guidelines, and providing education to physicians regarding antimicrobial prescribing are important steps that could be taken by ASPs in these facilities.

BackgroundThere is currently conflicting evidence surrounding the effects of obesity on postoperative outcomes. Previous studies have found obesity to be associated with adverse events, but others have found no association. The aim of this study was to determine whether increasing body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for development of major postoperative complications.MethodsThis was a multicentre prospective cohort study across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal surgery over a 4‐month interval (October–December 2014) were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the 30‐day major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo grade III–V). BMI was grouped according to the World Health Organization classification. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to adjust for patient, operative and hospital‐level effects, creating odds ratios (ORs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).ResultsOf 7965 patients, 2545 (32·0 per cent) were of normal weight, 2673 (33·6 per cent) were overweight and 2747 (34·5 per cent) were obese. Overall, 4925 (61·8 per cent) underwent elective and 3038 (38·1 per cent) emergency operations. The 30‐day major complication rate was 11·4 per cent (908 of 7965). In adjusted models, a significant interaction was found between BMI and diagnosis, with an association seen between BMI and major complications for patients with malignancy (overweight: OR 1·59, 95 per cent c.i. 1·12 to 2·29, P = 0·008; obese: OR 1·91, 1·31 to 2·83, P = 0·002; compared with normal weight) but not benign disease (overweight: OR 0·89, 0·71 to 1·12, P = 0·329; obese: OR 0·84, 0·66 to 1·06, P = 0·147).ConclusionOverweight and obese patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal malignancy are at increased risk of major postoperative complications compared with those of normal weight.