Update June 2022: management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

N. Roche, M. Crichton, P. Goeminne, B. Cao, M. Humbert, M. Shteinberg, K. Antoniou, C. Ulrik, H. Parks, Chen Wang, T. Vandendriessche, J. Qu, D. Stolz, C. Brightling, T. Welte, S. Aliberti, A. Simonds, T. Tonia, J. Chalmers
{"title":"Update June 2022: management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline","authors":"N. Roche, M. Crichton, P. Goeminne, B. Cao, M. Humbert, M. Shteinberg, K. Antoniou, C. Ulrik, H. Parks, Chen Wang, T. Vandendriessche, J. Qu, D. Stolz, C. Brightling, T. Welte, S. Aliberti, A. Simonds, T. Tonia, J. Chalmers","doi":"10.1183/13993003.00803-2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the identification of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected more than 410 million people worldwide and killed almost 6 million [1, 2]. The predecessors of COVID-19, i.e. the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) outbreaks, had been relatively self-limiting, preventing clinicians and researchers from establishing evidence-based specific therapeutic strategies [3]. Conversely, COVID-19 rapidly proved to be extremely fast spreading, which led stakeholders to encourage, guide, build or fund multidirectional therapeutic research strategies based on both repurposing and development of new agents [4–8]. In parallel, considerable efforts were directed at describing the disease and understanding the underlying mechanisms [9–13]. As a result, there has been a huge generation of evidence, as highlighted by the impressive number of COVID-19 publications (more than 200 000 since the end of 2019). As a consequence, it proved rapidly impossible for any clinician, researcher or decision-maker to gather and analyse all the corresponding literature to derive appropriate guidance [14]. The first step of such a process is to select the relevant high-quality research that can be used to answer the question(s) of interest [15]. Even if limiting the search to clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, almost 4000 papers appear in the PubMed database, as of mid-February 2022. In June and July 2020, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) released early guidance on several aspects of COVID-19 management (i.e. rehabilitation, palliative care and acute management); at that time, direct specific evidence was sparse or absent [16–18]. Simultaneously, the ERS launched a living guideline on the management of COVID-19. The format was that of a “short” guideline, as per ERS standards [19, 20], in that the purpose was to release the first iteration within 12 months. However, the number of PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions to be addressed (n=12) already exceeded markedly what the ERS considers as being feasible during such a short timeframe (i.e. n=1–2), which was a direct consequence of the high number of unanswered issues in the field of acute COVID-19 management, all corresponding to outstanding clinical needs. The first version of these guidelines was published in March 2021 and addressed the following potential therapeutic options: corticosteroids, interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonists, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and both combined, colchicine, lopinavir-ritonavir, remdesivir, interferon-β, anticoagulation and non-invasive ventilatory support [6, 21]. An update of the mortality meta-analyses for corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β was published in December 2021 [22]. The ERS COVID-19 guidelines make recommendations for corticosteroids, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, baricitinib, anticoagulation and non-invasive respiratory support for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 https://bit.ly/3QgHH7U","PeriodicalId":77419,"journal":{"name":"The European respiratory journal. Supplement","volume":"119 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European respiratory journal. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00803-2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Since the identification of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected more than 410 million people worldwide and killed almost 6 million [1, 2]. The predecessors of COVID-19, i.e. the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) outbreaks, had been relatively self-limiting, preventing clinicians and researchers from establishing evidence-based specific therapeutic strategies [3]. Conversely, COVID-19 rapidly proved to be extremely fast spreading, which led stakeholders to encourage, guide, build or fund multidirectional therapeutic research strategies based on both repurposing and development of new agents [4–8]. In parallel, considerable efforts were directed at describing the disease and understanding the underlying mechanisms [9–13]. As a result, there has been a huge generation of evidence, as highlighted by the impressive number of COVID-19 publications (more than 200 000 since the end of 2019). As a consequence, it proved rapidly impossible for any clinician, researcher or decision-maker to gather and analyse all the corresponding literature to derive appropriate guidance [14]. The first step of such a process is to select the relevant high-quality research that can be used to answer the question(s) of interest [15]. Even if limiting the search to clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, almost 4000 papers appear in the PubMed database, as of mid-February 2022. In June and July 2020, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) released early guidance on several aspects of COVID-19 management (i.e. rehabilitation, palliative care and acute management); at that time, direct specific evidence was sparse or absent [16–18]. Simultaneously, the ERS launched a living guideline on the management of COVID-19. The format was that of a “short” guideline, as per ERS standards [19, 20], in that the purpose was to release the first iteration within 12 months. However, the number of PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions to be addressed (n=12) already exceeded markedly what the ERS considers as being feasible during such a short timeframe (i.e. n=1–2), which was a direct consequence of the high number of unanswered issues in the field of acute COVID-19 management, all corresponding to outstanding clinical needs. The first version of these guidelines was published in March 2021 and addressed the following potential therapeutic options: corticosteroids, interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonists, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and both combined, colchicine, lopinavir-ritonavir, remdesivir, interferon-β, anticoagulation and non-invasive ventilatory support [6, 21]. An update of the mortality meta-analyses for corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β was published in December 2021 [22]. The ERS COVID-19 guidelines make recommendations for corticosteroids, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, baricitinib, anticoagulation and non-invasive respiratory support for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 https://bit.ly/3QgHH7U
2022年6月更新:2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)住院成人的管理:欧洲呼吸学会生活指南
自2019年底发现SARS-CoV-2以来,2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行已影响全球超过4.1亿人,造成近600万人死亡[1,2]。COVID-19的前身,即SARS(严重急性呼吸综合征)和MERS(中东呼吸综合征)暴发,相对来说是自我限制的,这使得临床医生和研究人员无法建立基于证据的特异性治疗策略[3]。相反,事实证明COVID-19的传播速度极快,这导致利益相关者鼓励、指导、建立或资助基于新药再利用和开发的多向治疗研究策略[4-8]。与此同时,在描述疾病和了解潜在机制方面也付出了相当大的努力[9-13]。因此,关于COVID-19的出版物数量令人印象深刻(自2019年底以来超过20万篇),这突显了大量证据。因此,事实很快证明,任何临床医生、研究人员或决策者都不可能收集和分析所有相应的文献来得出适当的指导[14]。这个过程的第一步是选择相关的高质量研究,这些研究可以用来回答感兴趣的问题[15]。即使将搜索限制在临床试验、系统评论和荟萃分析上,截至2022年2月中旬,PubMed数据库中出现了近4000篇论文。2020年6月和7月,欧洲呼吸学会(ERS)和美国胸科学会(ATS)就COVID-19管理的几个方面(即康复、姑息治疗和急性管理)发布了早期指南;当时,直接的具体证据很少或缺乏[16-18]。与此同时,ERS发布了新冠肺炎管理生活指南。按照ERS标准[19,20],其格式是“短”指南,因为其目的是在12个月内发布第一个迭代。然而,需要解决的PICO(人口、干预、比较者、结果)问题的数量(n=12)已经明显超过了ERS认为在如此短的时间框架内可行的数量(即n= 1-2),这是急性COVID-19管理领域大量未解决问题的直接后果,所有这些问题都对应着突出的临床需求。第一版指南于2021年3月发布,提出了以下潜在的治疗选择:皮质类固醇、白细胞介素(IL)-6受体拮抗剂、羟氯喹、阿奇霉素及其联合用药、秋水仙碱、洛匹那韦-利托那韦、瑞德西韦、干扰素-β、抗凝和无创通气支持[6,21]。一项关于皮质类固醇、羟氯喹、阿奇霉素、瑞德西韦、抗il -6单克隆抗体、秋水仙碱、洛匹那韦/利托那韦和干扰素-β的死亡率荟萃分析于2021年12月发表[22]。ERS COVID-19指南对COVID-19住院患者的皮质类固醇、抗il -6单克隆抗体、巴比替尼、抗凝和无创呼吸支持提出了建议https://bit.ly/3QgHH7U
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信