Category: 8. Health

But getting the healthy cells into the brain is difficult because the body tightly restricts access to the central nervous system. Other possible complications of a bodywide transplant include the elimination of donor cells by any remaining immune cells or, conversely, the life-threatening graft-versus-host disease.

Research from Wernig’s laboratory in 2022 showed it’s possible to achieve 90% engraftment of donor cells by wiping out the recipient animal’s immune system and treating them with a drug to kill off existing microglia, giving the donated hematopoietic stem cells a competitive growth advantage. But the technique still required toxic preconditioning and relied on genetically identical donor cells to prevent graft-versus-host disease.

“A hematopoietic stem cell transplant is a rough procedure to go through,” Wernig said. “It’s not something you want to do to your patients unless there’s no other option.”

A targeted transplant procedure

In the current study, Mader and Wernig tested whether they could develop a brain-specific transplant procedure that would avoid the toxic preconditioning and bodywide effects of a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. To that end, they coupled the microglia-depleting drug treatment with irradiation of the brain to create space for the new cells to occupy. They then injected microglia precursor cells — a more specialized subset of hematopoietic stem cells — from a non-genetically matched donor animal into the brain. Finally, they administered two drugs to block the activation of immune cells from elsewhere in the body that would otherwise kill the unmatched donated cells.

This delicate tango of steps resulted in efficient engraftment of the donated cells, which nestled into the brain and developed into microglia without migrating to the rest of the body or being attacked by the recipient animal’s immune system.

The cells’ engraftment was lasting: More than 85% of the microglial cells in the brain were derived from the donated cells eight months after transplantation. Untreated mice with a version of Sandhoff disease lived a median of 135 days and no animal lived beyond 155 days. In contrast, five of the animals treated with the brain-specific microglia transplantation therapy lived up to 250 days, when the experiment was terminated.

Although the long-lived treated mice eventually developed hind leg paralysis, they displayed normal exploration behaviors in a large open pen and greater muscle strength and coordination than control animals.

A closer investigation of the relationship between the donated microglia and their neuronal neighbors revealed something intriguing: The missing lysosomal enzyme now being made by the microglia could also be found in the animals’ native neurons. Although the reason is not yet known, Wernig and Mader suspect the microglia are packaging and secreting the enzyme into the space between cells, where it is imported into the neurons.

“This could be an important, unrecognized role for microglia: to supply lysosomal factors to the environment including neurons,” Wernig said.

The researchers are optimistic their approach could be translated to humans because each individual step — irradiation, administering drugs used to wipe out existing microglia and applying drugs to prevent immune attack of the donated cells — is already used to treat other conditions.

“We’ve solved three big problems with this study,” Wernig said. “We achieved efficient brain-restricted transplantation without systemic toxic preconditioning, we were able to use non-genetically matched cells that don’t require genetic engineering to make the missing lysosomal enzyme, and we avoided immune rejection and graft-versus-host disease. We’re very happy.”

The researchers also believe the therapy could be widely applicable.

“It’s possible that these lysosomal storage diseases are just an accelerated version of much more common neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s,” Wernig said. “If so, this therapy could be very relevant not just for a small subset of children, but for many, many more people.”

Reference: Mader MMD, Scavetti A, Yoo Y, Chai AT, Uenaka T, Wernig M. Therapeutic genetic restoration through allogeneic brain microglia replacement. Nature. 2025:1-3. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09461-6

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source. Our press release publishing policy can be accessed here.

Study design and participants

This study utilized data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted between 2003 and 2018. Ethical approval was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Institutional Review Board. All participants provided written informed consent. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant guidelines and regulations. The methods used in this study were approved by the CDC Institutional Review Board, and the data used are de-identified and publicly accessible, thus exempting the study from further review.

The CDC Institutional Review Board granted ethical clearance, and all participants provided written informed consent. To maintain data integrity, individuals lacking essential ALBI score elements, mortality data, or MAFLD diagnosis standards were not included. Missing data in the remaining variables were addressed using multiple imputation with chained equations (MICE), producing five complete datasets. The imputation models incorporated all analytical variables and auxiliary covariates to preserve underlying data structure and relationships. The specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion are detailed in Fig. 1.

ALBI formula and grouping

The ALBI score was calculated using the following formula: ALBI = 0.66×log[bilirubin(µmol/L)]−0.085×albumin(g/L), ALBI is divided into 3 grades, the score of ≤−2.60 is grade 1; the score of −2.60< score≤−1.39 is grade 2; the score of >−1.39 is grade 3 [23]. For the purposes of analysis in our cohort, we re-defined ALBI grades by tertiles (denoted Q1–Q3) rather than using the original grade 1–3 cutoffs, due to the limited number of patients falling into original grade 3. Specifically, these tertiles were defined as: group Q1 (ALBI scores < −2.96), group Q2 (ALBI scores − 2.96 ≤ ALBI < −2.70), and group Q3 (ALBI scores ≥ −2.70). It is important to note that ALBI is a reverse scale where more negative values indicate better liver function. Thus, lower (more negative) ALBI scores correspond to healthier liver status.

Definition of MAFLD

Fatty liver was defined using the US-FLI, which is calculated as follows: US-FLI = e^y/(1 + e^y) × 100, where y = − 0.8073 × non-Hispanic black + 0.3458×Mexican American + 0.0093×age + 0.6151 ×log_e (gamma-glutamyl transferase) + 0.0249 × waist circumference + 1.1792 × log_e (insulin) + 0.8242 × log_e (glucose) − 14.7812. The variables for ‘non-Hispanic black’ and ‘Mexican American’ were coded as 1 if the participant identified with that ethnicity and 0 otherwise [22]. Fatty liver is defined by a US-FLI score of ≥ 30, as recommended [24, 25]. MAFLD is identified by a US-FLI score of ≥ 30, discounting other established reasons for chronic liver disease. These include viral hepatitis, indicated by positive markers such as hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis C antibody, or hepatitis C RNA, and significant alcohol consumption (≥ 2 drinks per day for men or ≥ 1 drink per day for women).

Covariates

Study participants were stratified into three age cohorts: young adults (20–39 years), middle-aged (40–59 years), and older adults (≥ 60 years). Racial/ethnic categorization included non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Mexican American, and other self-identified groups. Educational status was categorized into three tiers: incomplete secondary education, secondary education completion (high school diploma or equivalent), and postsecondary attainment (associate degree or higher). Socioeconomic status was evaluated using poverty-income ratio (PIR) tertile: low-income (PIR < 1.0), middle-income (PIR 1.0–3.0), and high-income (PIR > 3.0).

Tobacco exposure history was classified as: lifetime nonsmokers (< 100 cigarettes consumed), active smokers (≥ 100 cigarettes with current use), and former smokers (≥ 100 cigarettes with cessation). Occupational physical activity levels were ascertained through validated questionnaires, dichotomized as engagement or non-engagement in moderate-intensity work-related tasks. Anthropometric evaluation utilized WHO-defined BMI categories: normal weight (< 25 kg/m²), overweight (25–29.9 kg/m²), and obese (≥ 30 kg/m²). Nutritional intake was quantified using 24-hour dietary recall-derived total caloric consumption. Comorbidity profiles incorporated self-reported diagnoses of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus.

Comprehensive biochemical profiling encompassed hemoglobin concentration, hepatic transaminases (ALT, AST), and lipid panel components—total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. All laboratory parameters were measured using standardized automated assays following NHANES protocols.

Statistical analysis

Analytical procedures incorporated sampling weights to address the multistage probability sampling framework of NHANES. Event timing spanned from study entry to mortality occurrence, participant withdrawal, or administrative censoring (December 31, 2019), with temporal intervals quantified in monthly units. Continuous metrics are presented as weight-adjusted means (95% confidence intervals), while categorical variables are summarized as proportion estimates (95% confidence intervals). For comparative analyses, we used the Chi-square test (χ²) to compare observed and expected frequencies for categorical variables. For continuous variables, we employed the Mann–Whitney U test (U) for non-parametric comparisons and the T-test (T) for parametric comparisons. All statistical tests were two-tailed, with a significance level set at α = 0.05. Following NCHS guidelines to combine NHANES 2003–2018 data, each participant’s two-year sampling weight was divided by the eight included two-year cycles (spanning 16 years), generating a multi-year weight for the entire study period. For mortality analysis, we utilized NHANES-provided adjusted follow-up weights, linked to the public-use mortality file, which account for the original survey design and loss to follow-up.

Mortality risk stratification utilized the lowest ALBI tertile (Q1) as the reference category. Weighted multivariable proportional hazards regression frameworks assessed associations between ALBI gradients and all-cause mortality, generating hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding confidence bounds. The proportional hazards assumption was verified using Schoenfeld residual tests, with global test p = 0.32 (ALBI-specific test p = 0.17), confirming compliance with the fundamental assumptions of the Cox model. Survival probability disparities across ALBI strata were graphically represented through Kaplan-Meier plots with weighted log-rank testing. Three sequential adjustment tiers were implemented: Minimally adjusted: Univariate analysis; Partially adjusted: Demographic covariates (sex, age, racial/ethnic group, educational attainment, socioeconomic status); Fully adjusted: Behavioral, anthropometric, and metabolic parameters (occupational activity, caloric intake, smoking history, BMI category, cardiometabolic comorbidities, hepatic enzymes, lipid profile) Nonparametric associations were investigated through penalized spline regression within generalized additive models. Threshold identification employed iterative segmented regression techniques when nonlinear patterns emerged, with piecewise Cox models applied to interval-specific risk estimation. Computational workflows were executed in R statistical environment (v4.3.1) and EmpowerStats analytical platform, applying two-tailed significance thresholds (α = 0.05) with multiplicity-unadjusted interpretation. Sensitivity analyses confirmed model robustness across alternative adjustment strategies.

Participants and procedures

The study design was cross-sectional. Data were collected for 13 months at five sites in Denmark (from November 1, 2022, until December 29, 2023). Figure 1 displays the data flow of the project. Data were retrieved from structured interviews with adults who chose treatment for DUD or AUD at five Danish treatment centers. In Denmark, AUD and DUD treatment are separate offered by counsellors specialized in either AUD or DUD counselling, however both types of treatment are typically offered in the same treatment center. Individuals can seek treatment based on their perception of whether they want help for AUD or DUD. Thus, patients in DUD treatment may also have concurrent AUD, and vice versa [26].

The five treatment centers participated in a larger research project that evaluated two PTSD treatment models in treatment for SUD and were situated in both rural and urban areas. One of the centers (site 5) offered heroin-assisted treatment only, whereas the remaining sites (site 1 to 4) offered specialized outpatient SUD treatment including OUD treatment. The five sites offered various SUD treatment modalities, including medication, psychotherapy, family counselling, and psychoeducation. All of the centers are public and free of charge and operate in close collaboration with the country’s social service and healthcare systems.

A total of 1347 adults were interviewed as part of a structured intake screening at the treatment centers. Due to structural and organizational differences in treatment, the screening interview was consistently done at the DUD treatment sites but less so at the AUD treatment sites, which meant that, in our study sample, 69.5% came from the former versus 30.5% from the latter. Also, at site 5, only individuals who were assessed to be able to participate in a psychotherapeutic treatment course (n = 41) were screened for PTSD. This assessment was done by the primary counselor and was based on clients’ motivation, ability to focus, and level of abstraction.

Measures

Data for the present study were retrieved from AdultMap interviews [27]. AdultMap is a Danish structured screening interview consisting of 70 to 90 items (depending on responses) that is specifically developed for SUD treatment. Topics in the interview are living conditions, mental health and behavior, physical health, substance use, social network, adverse experiences, and function level. AdultMap is widely used for SUD treatment in Denmark and has been implemented in 62 out of 74 municipal treatment centers in Denmark. The primary aims of the interview are to assess current barriers, needs, and resources to offer the most appropriate treatment possible. The questions used in the present study (demographic data, trauma exposure and substance use) are part of the current version of AdultMap. The trauma symptom items in the present study were implemented for the study period and in the five included treatment centers only. Interviews were conducted at the start of treatment by counselors.

Demographic data

Demographic factors were gender (male or female as indicated by social security numbers); age; treatment type the client chose (AUD or DUD); employment status (employed, in training, in school, or none); source of income (financially supported via full- or part-time occupation, educational support or governmental support, early retirement, or no income nor financial support by relatives); and living situation (stable or partly stable vs. unstable such as homeless, living in an institution, or incarcerated). Pre-existing psychiatric disorders were reported for the following disorders: depression, bipolar, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, or psychosis. Participants were asked to only report diagnoses given by a psychiatrist. The metric was total number of pre-existing diagnoses.

Trauma exposure was assessed using a single item of a non-specified stressful experience, as well as five specific categories of potentially traumatic experiences (i.e., accident, sexual abuse or assault, physical or psychological violence, life-threatening illness, sudden accidental death, and other very stressful or violent experience). These specific categories were selected based on prior research indicating that they are the most common types of traumatic exposure previously identified in the general population [28]. An almost identical event checklist was used in a Danish ITQ validation study [25], the only difference being that a seventh item (natural disasters) was not included in the present study, as natural disasters are rare in Denmark. For the trauma exposure check list, participants were able to reply “I do not wish to disclose”.

Each trauma type reported was scored dichotomously with 1 = directly exposed or witnessed and 0 = not directly exposed nor witnessed. For trauma exposure, timing of exposure was recorded as (1) throughout the childhood, (2) in adulthood, or (3) both in childhood and adulthood. Hence, participants that were exposed in childhood but also in adulthood to any or different types of trauma would fit in category 3, whereas participants exposed to any type of trauma either in childhood (until 18th year of age) or in adulthood (after 18th year of age) only, were listed in category 1 or 2, respectively.

ICD-11 PTSD

ICD-11 PTSD symptoms were assessed using a Danish translation and validated version (Hansen et al., 2021) of the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) [29]. The ITQ is a 12-item validated self-report measure developed for assessment of ICD-11 PTSD and Complex PTSD. The concurrent and discriminant validity of the ITQ [30, 31], along with the factorial validity of the ITQ across different countries and cultures, including Denmark, has been demonstrated in several studies [24, 25, 32]. Only the 6 items for ICD-11 PTSD were used in the current study. In the ITQ, the six PTSD items are accompanied by three items measuring associated functional impairments in the domains of social, occupational, and other important areas of life. Respondents that endorsed at least one of the specific potentially traumatic events are asked how much each PTSD symptom bothered them in the past month, with scoring from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“extremely”). Symptoms are considered endorsed at two (“moderately”) or more. To meet criteria for PTSD, one symptom is required in each of the clusters for re-experiencing, avoidance, and sense of threat, as well as a score of two or more on one of the three functional impairment questions. As previous studies showed differential treatment response between individuals with clinical vs. subclinical [33] we wanted to include subclinical PTSD as a diagnostic construct in our analyses. Patients could meet criteria for subclinical PTSD if they had all but one PTSD symptom cluster plus had functional impairment [2, 3]; or if they met full PTSD criteria but without functional impairment. Cronbach’s alpha for the ITQ in the present study was 0.84 for the PTSD subscale.

Substance use severity

Alcohol use severity was measured by a total score on the AUDIT, a 10-item screening tool developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) [34]. The AUDIT assesses the amount and frequency of alcohol use, alcohol dependence, and problems related to alcohol consumption. Each item is scored from 0 to 4, resulting in a total score range from 0 to 40. The current study relied on cut-off scores established by the WHO whereby scores from 8 to 14 indicate hazardous or harmful alcohol-use, and scores of 15 or more indicate the likely presence of moderate to severe alcohol use disorder, corresponding to alcohol dependence [35].

Drug use severity was measured by self-reported use of cannabis, amphetamines, cocaine, MDMA, opioids, and other substances within the past 30 days. Responses were coded into a composite score ranging from 0 to 100 (number of days cannabis + number of days amphetamines + number of days cocaine + number of days MDMA + number of days opioids + number of days sedatives + number of days with other substances)/210 (the number of possible days with drug use) x 100. For example: number of days cannabis use (n = 20) + number of days cocaine use (n = 4): 24/210 × 100 = 11.4. The calculation for the severity is based on previous publications on Danish SUD treatment outcomes using the same measure e.g [36, 37].

Data analysis

The data were cleaned as per Fig. 1, and then we tested each of the five hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1

Two competing models of the latent structure of the ITQ were tested to examine whether the ITQ factor structure among substance users align with existing findings on the ICD-11 model of PTSD [32]. The first model tested was a one factor model, where all items loaded onto a single latent factor representing PTSD-severity. This model has 18 free parameters and nine degrees of freedom. The second model was a correlated first order model representing the segregation of ITQ-items into three correlated latent factors corresponding to the ICD-11 formulation of PTSD consisting of re-experiencing, avoidance, and sense of threat. This model has 21 free parameters and six degrees of freedom and is statistically equivalent to a one factor second order model where factor correlations are replaced by factor loadings of re-experiencing, avoidance, and sense of threat onto a latent factor of PTSD. Figure 2 displays the competing models. The model fit was evaluated and compared using a standard range of model fit indices. The model with the lowest BIC is preferred as long as other indicators support the fit of the model to the data. This includes CFI and TLI values above 0.90 or 0.95 for adequate or excellent fit, and RMSEA and SRMR values lower than 0.08 or 0.05 for adequate or close fit to the data, respectively.

Hypothesis 2

We calculated descriptive statistics on each PTSD-symptom cluster and functional impairment as well as the total rate of positive screens for PTSD and subclinical PTSD, as described in Methods.

Hypothesis 3

Chi-square analyses were conducted to test the distribution of types of traumatic events across each treatment type, and independent samples t-test was used to evaluate differences in total number of traumatic events.

Hypothesis 4

Independent samples t-tests was used to compare PTSD-severity between DUD and AUD treatment.

Hypothesis 5

A series of chi-square analyses and ANOVAs, first on the total sample and then on AUD and DUD treatment samples separately, was used to test the significance of observed differences across probable PTSD-diagnostic status (no PTSD, subclinical PTSD, and PTSD) as well as demographic and trauma-related variables in each treatment group.

Analyses were conducted using Mplus version 8.81 and SPSS version 28. Missing data for trauma-exposure and ITQ-data was handled as stated in the beginning of the results-section for the different hypotheses. Missing data on other variables ranged from 18.8% for education over 6.7% for age to 0% for sex, income, living arrangement and N psychiatric diagnoses and was handled using casewise deletion.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have officially classified the Hepatitis D virus (HDV) as carcinogenic to humans. This places HDV alongside Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C as major causes of liver cancer. The reclassification is based on increasing evidence of HDV’s severe health risks, especially its role in accelerating liver damage and cancer in co-infected individuals. This important update emphasises the urgent need for better awareness, expanded testing, and improved treatment options to combat HDV and reduce the global burden of liver cancer and liver-related deaths.

Understanding Hepatitis D Virus (HDV) and its symptoms

Hepatitis D is a unique and dangerous virus that requires the presence of Hepatitis B virus (HBV) to infect and replicate. HDV cannot infect people on its own; it “hijacks” the HBV infection process, resulting in more severe liver disease when both viruses coexist.Symptoms of HDV infection often overlap with other liver diseases and can be easily overlooked. Common signs include:

Because symptoms may be mild or mistaken for other illnesses, many individuals delay seeking medical care, increasing the risk of serious liver damage.

What causes Hepatitis D virus infection

HDV spreads primarily through direct contact with infected blood or bodily fluids. Common modes of transmission include:

Because HDV can only infect individuals already carrying HBV, anyone with chronic hepatitis B is at risk of contracting HDV.

Populations at higher risk for HDV infection include:

Awareness and screening in these groups are essential for early detection

Global impact: How widespread is Hepatitis D

According to the WHO, over 300 million people worldwide are infected with hepatitis B, C, or D, contributing to about 1.3 million deaths annually, mostly from liver cirrhosis and liver cancer. About 5% of chronic HBV carriers, roughly 12 million people worldwide, are co-infected with HDV.

Why is Hepatitis D considered dangerous

Co-infection with HDV dramatically worsens liver health outcomes. Research shows:

Current treatment options for Hepatitis D

While chronic HBV infection can be managed with lifelong antiviral therapies, treatment options for HDV are limited but improving:

Progress in global hepatitis B vaccination and testing

Vaccination remains the most effective prevention method. As of 2025:129 countries have adopted hepatitis B testing for pregnant women (up from 106 in 2024).147 countries provide the hepatitis B birth dose vaccine (up from 138 in 2022).These efforts are critical to preventing HBV and consequently HDV transmission.

Expert recommendations to combat Hepatitis D

To achieve WHO’s hepatitis elimination goals by 2030, health authorities must:

Meeting these goals could save 2.8 million lives and prevent 9.8 million new infections by 2030.Also read | Testicular cancer symptoms men often miss: Know the risks, treatment options, and what to watch for

As COVID-19 continues to evolve, so do the guidelines for how to tackle and treat it. Although the pandemic has drawn to a close, various strains are still at play and are causing infection amongst communities. After the Nimbus strain, now the Stratus strain is surging in the US, causing soar throat and hoarseness in voice in patients.Although these strains aren’t fatal, many people still wonder: Can you take antibiotics for COVID? The answer, finally, is here.

The latest guideline

In a major update to its clinical guidelines, the World Health Organization (WHO) has advised against giving antibiotics to COVID-19 patients, even those with severe illness, if there’s no clear sign of a bacterial infection.This shift in guidance comes after a new meta-analysis of studies showed that antibiotics do not improve outcomes in COVID-19 patients who don’t have a bacterial infection. Overusing antibiotics without need, the WHO warns, could worsen the global problem of antimicrobial resistance.“For patients with non-severe COVID-19 and a low clinical suspicion of a concurrent bacterial infection, we recommend no empirical antibiotics,” the WHO said in its latest guidance.“For patients with severe COVID-19 and a low clinical suspicion of a concurrent bacterial infection, we suggest no empirical antibiotics.”

What are antibiotics?

Antibiotics are medicines used to treat bacterial infections, not viral infections like COVID-19. They work by killing bacteria or stopping them from growing. Common illnesses treated with antibiotics include strep throat, urinary tract infections, and some types of pneumonia.COVID-19, however, is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, not a bacterium. This means antibiotics do not treat the virus itself. Taking them unnecessarily won’t help you recover faster, and it can cause serious side effects or even long-term health problems.

Why the change?

Since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, both COVID-19 and the world’s response to it have changed dramatically, the WHO noted. With lower infection rates, milder disease, and the removal of emergency public health measures, COVID-19 is now treated more like other illnesses in many countries.“Notable changes to COVID-19 disease over this time have been overall reduced infection rates and reduced disease severity,” the WHO said.“Care for patients with COVID-19 has become more integrated with usual healthcare systems.”These changes prompted the WHO to review and revise all of its existing COVID-related recommendations. As a result, the new guidelines remove outdated advice or recommendations that are now considered basic medical practice and not specific to COVID-19.

Recommendation backed by new research

The updated antibiotic recommendations are based on the latest data from a systematic review and meta-analysis. These studies looked at how patients fared when treated with antibiotics during COVID-19, and whether those treatments were really necessary in the absence of a bacterial infection.At the same time, there’s growing urgency to tackle antimicrobial resistance, a serious global threat where overuse of antibiotics makes bacteria resistant to treatment.The WHO stressed that these new guidelines are aimed at everyone involved in COVID-19 care, from doctors and nurses to hospital administrators and health system planners.

COVID-19: Still a threat, and ever-evolving

While vaccines, treatments, and previous infections have helped many people build immunity, COVID-19 hasn’t disappeared. The SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to infect thousands of people daily, causing avoidable sickness and death.“The virus continues to evolve in terms of infectivity, immune escape, and disease severity,” the WHO warned.Even though many countries are no longer in emergency mode, COVID-19 still requires careful clinical management, especially for high-risk populations. The new WHO guideline aims to reflect this shifting landscape, balancing new scientific evidence with the current global health context.“This guideline robustly and transparently addresses the changing landscape and evidence availability, and the continual development of treatment and management strategies for COVID-19,” the WHO added.

To sum it up…

Antibiotics should not be used in COVID-19 patients unless there is a strong suspicion of a bacterial infection.This applies to both mild and severe cases.The guidance is part of a broader update reflecting new evidence and a changing pandemic.Overuse of antibiotics can worsen antimicrobial resistance, a growing health threat worldwide.The new guidelines apply to all levels of the health system involved in COVID-19 care.

A children’s hospital has been praised for its “strong leaders” and “compassionate staff”, as it is given an outstanding rating for its specialist community mental health services.

Liverpool’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, which was inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in March, was also commended for its work in schools, where it holds clinics for pupils.

The CQC said children “felt valued and listened to”.

Alder Hey provides specialist mental health, ADHD and autism spectrum disorder services for those aged up to 18.

The hospital’s mental services had been previously rated as good.

Alder Hey’s foundation trust said the upgrade reflected the “compassion, professionalism, and relentless commitment” of staff.

CQC inspectors said they found a dedication to giving children and young people a safe and caring service.

Inspectors found the services worked well with local schools to help deliver joined up and coordinated care.

Karen Knapton, from the CQC, said inspectors found “strong leaders, as well as kind and compassionate staff, who delivered high quality care”.

“Staff focused on what mattered to the people they were caring for, and as a result they felt valued and listened to.”

The overall rating for the trust remains unchanged and is rated as “Good”.