Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Subscribe
My Account
My email alerts
BMA member login
Login
Username
*
Password
*
Forgot your log in details?
Need to activate
BMA Member Log In
Log in via OpenAthens
Log in via your institution
Edition:
US
UK
South Asia
International
Our company
Toggle navigation
The BMJ logo
Site map
Search
Search form
Search
Search
Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs
Toggle top menu
covid-19
Research
At a glance
Research papers
Research methods and reporting
Minerva
Research news
Education
At a glance
Clinical reviews
Practice
Minerva
Endgames
State of the art
What your patient is thinking
Rapid recommendations
Student
News & Views
At a glance
News
Features
Editorials
Analysis
Observations
Opinion
Head to head
Editor's choice
Letters
Obituaries
Views and reviews
Careers
Rapid responses
Campaigns
At a glance
Better evidence
Climate change
Divestment from fossil fuels
Patient and public partnership
Too much medicine
Wellbeing
Jobs
Doctor Jobs UK
Hospital Jobs UK
GP Jobs UK
International Jobs
Archive
For authors
Hosted
Education
A living WHO guideline...
Re: Covid-19: Where is the virus?
Rapid response to:
Practice
Rapid Recommendations
A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19
BMJ
2020
;
370
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3379
(Published 04 September 2020)
Cite this as:
BMJ
2020;370:m3379
Visual summary of recommendation
Last updated
13 Jan 2023
Interventions
Population
Disease severity
Non-severe
Severe
Critical
Requires life
sustaining treatment
Acute respiratory
distress syndrome
Sepsis
Septic shock
Absence of signs
of severe or
critical disease
This recommendation
applies only to people
with these characteristics:
Patients with
confirmed
covid-19
Oxygen saturation
<90% on room air
Signs of pneumonia
Strong
recommendations
in favour
Weak or conditional
recommendations
in favour
Weak or conditional
recommendations
against
Strong
recommendations
against
Lopinavir-ritonavir
Casirivimab and imdevimab
Sotrovimab
Hydroxychloroquine
Colchicine
Convalescent
plasma
Corticosteroids
Ruxolitinib and tofacitinib
Should be considered only if neither baricitinib
nor IL-6 receptor blockers are available
Remdesivir
Molnupiravir
Mitigation strategies to
reduce potential harms
should be implemented
Nirmatrelvir
and ritonavir
Use the interactive multiple
comparison tool to compare
and choose treatments
Remdesivir
Remdesivir
All three
may be
combined
IL-6 receptor blockers
Corticosteroids
Baricitinib
UPDATE
Pregnant or lactating
women can now be offered
nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in
shared decision making
UPDATE
New evidence has demonstrated that
in vitro neutralisation of currently
circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants and
subvariants is diminished.
For those with
highest risk of
hospital admission
The panel recommended
that the intervention should
be reserved for those at a
risk above 10% of being
admitted to hospotal
with covid-19.
Typical characteristics of
people at high risk include:
Lack of vaccination
Older people
Immunodeficiency
Chronic diseases
Signs of severe
respiratory distress
In adults:
Accessory muscle use
Inability to complete full sentences
Respiratory rate > 30 breaths per minute
In children:
Very severe chest wall indrawing
Grunting
Central cyanosis
Inability to breastfeed or drink
Reduced level of consciousness
Lethargy
Convulsions
Fluvoxamine
Only in research
settings
The panel inferred that
most patients would want to
receive fluvoxamine only in
the context of a randomised
trial, given the uncertainty
around potential benefits
and the possibility of harms
Convalescent
plasma
Only in research
settings
The panel inferred that
most patients would want to
receive convalescent
plasma only in the context
of a randomised trial, given
the uncertainty around
potential benefits and the
possibility of harms
There are also several practical issues
related to the use of convalescent
plasma, including but not limited to:
Collection of plasma
Storage and distribution of plasma
Infusion of convalescent plasma into recipients
Identification and recruitment of potential donors
Only in research
settings
The panel inferred that
most patients would want to
receive ivermectin only in
the context of a randomised
trial, given the uncertainty
around potential benefits
and the possibility of harms
Ivermectin
Corticosteroids
Corticosteroids
Suggested regimen
Acceptable alternative regimens
Dexamethasone
6 mg
Oral or intravenous
Hydrocortisone
50 mg
Intravenous
Every 8 hours
for 7-10 days
Daily for
7-10 days
Every 6 hours
for 7-10 days
Methylprednisolone
10 mg
Intravenous
Daily for
7-10 days
Prednisone
40 mg
Oral
Recommendation 1
Supportive care
Corticosteroids
or
Patients with severe
or critical covid-19
We recommend corticosteroids
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Conditions for use of treatment
IL-6 receptor blockers and baricitinib are also recommended, and may be
administered in combination with corticosteroids. The incremental survival
benefit afforded by baricitinib exists even among patients also treated with
IL-6 receptor blockers and baricitinib
Caution is advised when considering combinations in patients with an
increased risk of opportunistic infections
Consider combining medications in a stepwise fashion in patients who are
deteriorating
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours corticosteroids
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality
34 fewer
160
126
Moderate
More
Based on data from 1703 patients in 7 studies
Corticosteroids probably reduce the risk
of 28-day mortality in patients with
critical illness due to covid-19
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Mechanical ventilation
30 fewer
116
86
Moderate
More
Based on data from 5481 patients in 2 studies
Corticosteroids probably reduce the need
for mechanical ventilation at 28 days
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Gastrointestinal bleeding
No important difference
48
51
Low
More
Based on data from 5403 patients in 30 studies
Corticosteroids may not increase the
risk of gastrointestinal bleeding
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Superinfections
No important difference
186
188
Low
More
Based on data from 6027 patients in 32 studies
Corticosteroids may not increase the
risk of superinfections
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Hyperglycaemia
46 fewer
286
332
Moderate
More
Based on data from 8938 patients in 24 studies
Corticosteroids probably increase the
risk of hyperglycaemia
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Neuromuscular weakness
No important difference
69
75
Low
More
Based on data from 6358 patients in 8 studies
Corticosteroids may not increase the
risk of neuromuscular weakness
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Neuropsychiatric effects
No important difference
35
28
Low
More
Based on data from 1813 patients in 7 studies
Corticosteroids may not increase the
risk of neuropsychiatric effects
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
See all outcomes
Individual considerations
Key practical issues
The panel inferred that all or almost all fully informed patients with severe or critical covid-19 would choose to take
corticosteroids. In considering potential contraindications, clinicians must determine if they warrant depriving a patient
from a potentially lifesaving treatment
Values and preferences
Corticosteroids
Usual supportive care
Absolute contraindications for 7 to 10 day courses
of corticosteroid treatment are rare
No clear differences in efficacy or adverse events between different corticosteroids
Recommended regimens are available globally, and relatively inexpensive
No additional practical issues
Recommendation 2
Supportive care
Corticosteroids
or
Patients with
non-severe covid-19
We suggest no corticosteroids
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours corticosteroids
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality with non-severe illness
5 fewer
23
28
Low
More
Based on data from 1535 patients in 1 study
Corticosteroids may increase the risk of
28-day mortality in patients with
non-severe covid-19
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
See patient decision aids
See all outcomes
Non-severely ill
Individual considerations
Key practical issues
The panel inferred that most fully informed individuals with non-severe illness would not want to receive
corticosteroids, but many could want to consider this intervention through shared decision-making with their treating
physician. When treating patients with non-severe disease, even after 7 days of symptoms, the panel concluded that it
was preferable to err on the side of no corticosteroids
Values and preferences
Corticosteroids
Usual supportive care
In order to help guarantee access to therapy for severe or critical covid-19
patients, it is reasonable to avoid administering corticosteroids to patients who
are less likely to derive benefit
No additional practical issues
Interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers
Suggested regimen
Tocilizumab
Max 800 mg
8 mg per kg
Intravenous
Initial dose
over 1 hour
or
Sarilumab
400 mg
Intravenous
Initial dose
over 1 hour
A second dose may
be administered after
12 to 48 hours
Recommendation 1
Supportive care
IL-6 receptor blockers
or
Patients with severe
or critical covid-19
We recommend treatment with IL-6 receptor blockers
(tocilizumab or sarilumab)
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Conditions for use of treatment
Corticosteroids and baricitinib are also recommended, and may be
administered in combination with baricitinib. The incremental survival
benefit afforded by baricitinib exists even among patients also treated with
corticosteroids and baricitinib
Caution is advised when considering combinations in patients with an
increased risk of opportunistic infections
Consider combining medications in a stepwise fashion in patients who are
deteriorating
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours IL-6 receptor blockers
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality
15 fewer
130
115
High
More
Based on data from 6526 patients in 17 studies
IL-6 receptor blockers reduce mortality
High
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Mechanical ventilation
23 fewer
86
63
High
More
Based on data from 5686 patients in 9 studies
IL-6 receptor blockers reduce the need
for mechanical ventilation
High
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Serious adverse events
No important difference
9
5
Very low
More
Based on data from 815 patients in 2 studies
The effect of IL-6 receptor blockers on
serious adverse events is uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Bacterial infections
No important difference
101
96
Low
More
Based on data from 3548 patients in 18 studies
IL-6 receptor blockers may not increase
secondary bacterial infections
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Evidence quality
Mean days
Duration of ventilation
1.2 fewer
14.7
13.5
Low
More
Based on data from 1189 patients in 10 studies
IL-6 receptor blockers may reduce
duration of mechanical ventilation
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Length of hospital stay
4.5 fewer
12.8
8.3
Low
More
Based on data from 6665 patients in 9 studies
IL-6 receptor blockers may reduce length
of hospital stay
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
Serious
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
See all outcomes
Individual considerations
Key practical issues
The benefit of IL-6 receptor blockers on mortality was deemed of critical importance to patients, despite the small
magnitude of effect and the very low certainty around serious adverse events. A majority of the panel inferred that almost
all well informed patients would want to receive IL-6 receptor blockers
Values and preferences
IL-6 receptor blockers
Usual supportive care
Caution is advised when considering the use of tocilizumab
in patients with a history of recurring or chronic infections
All patients should be monitored for signs and symptoms of infection
No additional practical issues
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors
Suggested regimen
Baricitinib
4 mg
Oral
Daily
Ruxolitinib
5 mg
Oral
Twice daily
Tofacitinib
10 mg
Oral
Twice daily
For 14 days or until hospital discharge
Recommendation 1
Supportive care
Baricitinib
or
Patients with severe
or critical covid-19
We recommend treatment with baricitinib
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Conditions for use of treatment
Corticosteroids and IL-6 receptor blockers are also recommended, and may
be administered in combination with baricitinib. The incremental survival
benefit afforded by baricitinib exists even among patients also treated with
corticosteroids and IL-6 receptor blockers
Caution is advised when considering combinations in patients with an
increased risk of opportunistic infections
Consider combining medications in a stepwise fashion in patients who are
deteriorating
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours baricitinib
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality
20 fewer
130
110
High
More
Based on data from 10815 patients in 4 studies
Baricitinib reduces mortality
High
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Mechanical ventilation
11 fewer
116
105
Moderate
More
Based on data from 8412 patients in 3 studies
Baricitinib probably reduces mechanical
ventilation
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Serious adverse events
No important difference
0
5
Moderate
More
Based on data from 1611 patients in 2 studies
Baricitinib probably results in little
or no increase in adverse effects
leading to discontinuation
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Evidence quality
Days (median/mean)
Hospital length of stay
1.4 fewer
12.8
11.4
Moderate
More
Based on data from 2652 patients in 3 studies
Baricitinib probably reduces duration of
hospitalization
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Duration of mechanical ventilation
3.2 fewer
14.7
11.5
Moderate
More
Based on data from 328 patients in 2 studies
Baricitinib probably reduces duration of
mechanical ventilation
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Time to clinical stability
1 fewer
9.9
8.9
Low
More
Based on data from 2558 patients in 2 studies
Baricitinib may reduce time to clinical
stability
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
See all outcomes
Individual considerations
Key practical issues
The panel inferred that most patients would want to receive baricitinib. The
benefit on mortality was deemed of critical importance to patients and the
panel was reassured by the moderate certainty evidence of little or no
increase in serious adverse events
Values and preferences
Baricitinib
Usual supportive care
Administered as a pill, but can be crushed and
administered by a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube
Baricitinib must be adjusted for patients who have renal impairment
Baricitinib has not been studied in patients with severe hepatic impairment
Baricitinib may cause leucopenia, lymphopenia, thrombocytosis, anaemia,
clotting abnormalities, hepatic impairment, and secondary infection
No additional practical issues
Recommendation 2
Supportive care
Ruxolitinib
or
Patients with severe
or critical covid-19
We suggest not using ruxolitinib
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Conditions for use of treatment
Clinicians should only consider using ruxolitinib
if neither baricitinib nor IL-6 receptor blockers
(tocilizumab or sarilumab) are available
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours ruxolitinib
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality
No important difference
130
115
Very low
More
Based on data from 472 patients in 2 studies
The effect of ruxolitinib is very
uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Mechanical ventilation
No important difference
116
108
Very low
More
Based on data from 472 patients in 2 studies
The effect of ruxolitinib is very
uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Serious adverse events
No important difference
0
5
Low
More
Based on data from 484 patients in 1 study
Ruxolitinib may not result in an
increase in serious adverse events
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Evidence quality
Days (median/mean)
Length of hospital stay
No important difference
12.8
11.4
Very low
More
Based on data from 472 patients in 2 studies
The impact of ruxolitinib on length of
hospital stay is very uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Time to clinical stability
No important difference
9.9
9.8
Very low
More
Based on data from 472 patients in 2 studies
The impact of ruxolitinib on time to
clinical stability is very uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
See all outcomes
Individual considerations
The panel inferred that, given the uncertain benefits and the possibility of
serious adverse events, the majority of patients would not want ruxolitinib.
However, a minority of patients might choose to receive it if neither
baricitinib nor IL-6 receptor blockers were available.
Values and preferences
Recommendation 3
Supportive care
Tofacitinib
or
Patients with severe
or critical covid-19
We suggest not using tofacitinib
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Conditions for use of treatment
Clinicians should only consider using tofacitinib
if neither baricitinib nor IL-6 receptor blockers
(tocilizumab or sarilumab) are available
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours tofacitinib
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality
No important difference
130
78
Very low
More
Based on data from 289 patients in 1 study
The effect of tofacitinib is uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Extremely serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Mechanical ventilation
No important difference
116
68
Very low
More
Based on data from 289 patients in 1 study
The effect of tofacitinib is uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Extremely serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Serious adverse events
77 fewer
0
77
Low
More
Based on data from 284 patients in 1 study
Tofacitinib may increase serious adverse
events
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Evidence quality
Days (median/mean)
Length of hospital stay
1.1 fewer
12.8
11.7
Low
More
Based on data from 289 patients in 1 study
Tofacitinib may reduce length of
hospital stay
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Very serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
See all outcomes
Individual considerations
The panel inferred that, given the uncertain benefits and the possibility of
serious adverse events, the majority of patients would not want tofacitinib.
However, a minority of patients might choose to receive them if neither
baricitinib nor IL-6 receptor blockers were available
Values and preferences
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir
Suggested
regimen
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir
Nirmatrelvir
300 mg
Ritonavir
100 mg
Oral
Every 12 hours
for 5 days
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir
Nirmatrelvir
150 mg
Ritonavir
100 mg
Oral
Every 12 hours
for 5 days
With renal
insufficiency
GFR 30-59 ml/min
Recommendation 1
Supportive care
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir
or
Non-severe covid-19,
highest admission risk
We recommend nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, for those at
highest risk of hospital admission
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Recommendation 2
Supportive care
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir
or
Non-severe covid-19,
low admission risk
We suggest no nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, for those
at low risk of hospital admission
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours nirmatrelvir and ritonavir
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality
6 fewer
6.0
0
Low
More
Based on data from 3100 patients in 2 studies
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir may have a
small effect on mortality
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Admission to hospital (risk in trials)
30 fewer
35
5
Moderate
More
Based on data from 3078 patients in 2 studies
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir probably
reduces hospital admission, for patients
with a baseline risk of 35 per 1000 (the
average baseline risk of patients
included in the trials)
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Admission to hospital (higher risk)
51 fewer
60
9
Moderate
More
Based on data from 3078 patients in 2 studies
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir probably
reduces hospital admission, for patients
with a baseline risk of 60 per 1000
(higher baseline risk than the average
risk of patients included in the trials)
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Admission to hospital (highest risk)
84 fewer
100
16
Moderate
More
Based on data from 3078 patients in 2 studies
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir probably
reduces hospital admission, for patients
with a baseline risk of 100 per 1000 (an
arbitrary example of highest baseline
risk)
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Serious adverse events
No important difference
0
0
High
More
Based on data from 2246 patients in 1 study
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir has little or
no risk of adverse effects leading to
drug discontinuation
High
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
No serious concerns
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
See all outcomes
MATCH-IT comparison tool
Individual considerations
Key practical issues
The panel inferred that almost all well informed patients at at highest risk of
hospital admission (such as unvaccinated, older, or immunosuppressed) would
choose to receive nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, whereas the majority of well informed
patients with a low risk of hospital admission would decline this treatment
Values and preferences
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir
Usual supportive care
Administration should be as early as possible in the time course of the
disease. In the included studies, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir was administered
within five days of disease onset
Use among pregnant or lactating women can be offered in shared decision
making, weighing the likely benefits with the remaining uncertainty regarding
undesirable effects
Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir should not be offered to children
Clinicians need to give serious consideration to drug interactions
No additional practical issues
Molnupiravir
Suggested regimen
Molnupiravir
800 mg
Oral
Every 12 hours
for 5 days
Recommendation 1
Supportive care
Molnupiravir
or
Patients with
non-severe covid-19
We suggest treatment with molnupiravir, for those at
highest risk of hospital admission
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the left. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the left. Benefits would outweigh harms for
the majority, but not for everyone
Weak
Most people would likely want the intervention
to the right. Benefits would outweigh harms
for the majority, but not for everyone
Strong
All or nearly all informed people would likely
want the intervention to the right. Benefits
would outweigh harms for almost everyone
Conditions for use of treatment
The panel recommended that
molnupiravir should be
reserved for those at a risk
above 10% of being admitted
to hospital with covid-19.
Typical characteristics of people at high risk include:
Lack of vaccination
Chronic diseases
Older people
Immunodeficiency
Evidence profile
Favours supportive care
Favours molnupiravir
No important difference
The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients,
because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for
example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm
Evidence quality
Events per 1000 people
Mortality
6 fewer
6
0
Low
More
Based on data from 4796 patients in 6 studies
Molnupiravir may have a small effect on
mortality
Low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
Serious
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Mechanical ventilation
No important difference
8
8
Very low
More
Based on data from 1220 patients in 1 study
The effect of molnupiravir on mechanical
ventilation is very uncertain
Very low
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
Serious
Imprecision
Extremely serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns
Inconsistency
No serious concerns
Publication bias
No serious concerns
GRADE certainty ratings
High
The authors have a lot of
confidence that the true
effect is similar to the
estimated effect
Moderate
The authors believe that
the true effect is probably
close to the
estimated effect
Low
The true effect might be
markedly different from
the estimated effect
Very low
The true effect is
probably markedly
different from the
estimated effect
Admission to hospital (risk in trials)
16 fewer
35
19
Moderate
More
Based on data from 4688 patients in 5 studies
Molnupiravir probably reduces hospital
admission, for patients with a baseline
risk of 35 per 1000 (the average
baseline risk of patients included in
the trials)
Moderate
GRADE rating,
because of:
Risk of bias
No serious concerns
Imprecision
Serious
Indirectness
No serious concerns