King Abdullah International Medical Research Center

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems are complex and challenging for all stakeholders, but artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various fields, including healthcare, with the potential to improve patient care and quality of life. Rapid AI advancements can revolutionize healthcare by integrating it into clinical practice. Reporting AI's role in clinical practice is crucial for successful implementation by equipping healthcare providers with essential knowledge and tools. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE: This review article provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the current state of AI in clinical practice, including its potential applications in disease diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and patient engagement. It also discusses the associated challenges, covering ethical and legal considerations and the need for human expertise. By doing so, it enhances understanding of AI's significance in healthcare and supports healthcare organizations in effectively adopting AI technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current investigation analyzed the use of AI in the healthcare system with a comprehensive review of relevant indexed literature, such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE, with no time constraints but limited to articles published in English. The focused question explores the impact of applying AI in healthcare settings and the potential outcomes of this application. RESULTS: Integrating AI into healthcare holds excellent potential for improving disease diagnosis, treatment selection, and clinical laboratory testing. AI tools can leverage large datasets and identify patterns to surpass human performance in several healthcare aspects. AI offers increased accuracy, reduced costs, and time savings while minimizing human errors. It can revolutionize personalized medicine, optimize medication dosages, enhance population health management, establish guidelines, provide virtual health assistants, support mental health care, improve patient education, and influence patient-physician trust. CONCLUSION: AI can be used to diagnose diseases, develop personalized treatment plans, and assist clinicians with decision-making. Rather than simply automating tasks, AI is about developing technologies that can enhance patient care across healthcare settings. However, challenges related to data privacy, bias, and the need for human expertise must be addressed for the responsible and effective implementation of AI in healthcare.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician’s decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient’s clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice statement For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within hr of Strong , low quality of evidence from “We recommend that of should be as as after and within one for septic shock and sepsis Strong , very low quality of evidence , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice statement For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hr from the time when sepsis first Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice statement NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for as compared to one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence We on the of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for an initial over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of on and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend or a of infection that and as as and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of that are a of sepsis or septic shock after other Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest for of over using of for Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using over of Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and of is we suggest using clinical to when to over clinical alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using as fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence from , low quality of “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using in patients who of Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using for resuscitation. Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence from , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic For adults with septic shock, we recommend using as the over other Strong evidence evidence quality of evidence quality of evidence low-quality evidence For adults with septic shock on with mean arterial pressure we suggest of the of Weak , quality evidence For adults with septic shock and mean arterial pressure and we suggest Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest to or using alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock, we suggest of arterial blood pressure over as as and are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest to mean arterial pressure a is Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of fluid in the first hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have of hypoperfusion and after the initial resuscitation. NEW “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence is evidence to a on the of in adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest the of over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of in to for adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using a low over a Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using an for of 30 over higher Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with to sepsis-induced we suggest using higher over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using low as compared with Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence using we recommend against using Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using for hr Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis induced we suggest using over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using when in with the in to Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and an for we suggest using IV Weak , moderate-quality evidence from Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest against using IV to septic shock patients fluid resuscitation and are to for this is not we suggest IV at a of For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We the of blood is evidence to a on the of other blood For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have for we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using a to Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low over for Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using in to over alone. Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using or Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and with for we suggest against using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend at a of Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and we suggest against using to improve or to Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and and or we suggest using Weak , low quality of evidence For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who be we suggest of Weak , very low quality of evidence CARE For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of and with patients and over Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest of over hr or Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on to of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the of on clinician be the treatment when to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against for patients over on clinician Weak , low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest to over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a of at of over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on the of tool over For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend screening for and and and to these Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest and sepsis and to hospital and in the setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend the clinical provide the to in in and hospital to are and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis and septic shock and we suggest using a compared with to the Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend at and hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis and septic shock and we recommend including the sepsis and and after sepsis in the and hospital Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock who we recommend hospital with to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and is evidence to a on compared with For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a for or against For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend and for and after hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest to a program Weak , very low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock for or an of we suggest to a Weak , very low quality of evidence are to in the be at for Sepsis and - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong quality of evidence for Strong very low-quality evidence for standard operating Sepsis performance improvement of sepsis of sepsis and for a of on the of performance improvement that these with to sepsis with a in in patients with sepsis and septic shock The of performance improvement not to be as as the of a program that sepsis screening and Sepsis screening are to identification of sepsis and of or of the health is in of these with having the of with in of clinical and are for sepsis as response of or Early or Early improve performance of screening and in a of patients from for hospital sepsis the the operating and higher for the for screening as MEWS and target patients in as or of three not a of screening is in and of sepsis screening are an of sepsis for operating procedures are a of that a response to clinical Sepsis standard operating as Early have to a standard with of the sepsis and the between of sepsis and of sepsis to hospitals in the in a and after of sepsis with a from other this time in hospitals with higher with the sepsis a of in higher with standard operating procedures compared with it in one - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong moderate-quality The qSOFA three to and in patients with or suspected a a and a blood pressure mm of these are the is qSOFA to the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis qSOFA as a of in patients with or suspected to as a screening tool that time have the of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have as to have that qSOFA is having of for identification of infection induced organ dysfunction qSOFA are screening for sepsis and the clinician to the of the that of patients a qSOFA or these patients for of have when against the Early and the Early the of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in given the of the the a against as a screening - Recommendation 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak low-quality The of lactate with in patients with suspected infection and sepsis is is as of the sepsis for those patients with sepsis and an elevated lactate is of the of septic shock that lactate be to for the of sepsis adult patients with suspected not have the of lactate in this The lactate an elevated from of the from with from and from the three are and an between the of lactate at and the are the of an elevated or lactate or the of a of sepsis in patients with suspected lactate is to or the on not be in we a the of serum lactate as an to the of sepsis in patients with suspected not - Recommendations 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. Weak low-quality 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation over physical or static parameters alone. Weak very low-quality parameters response to a or a fluid using pressure or 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak low-quality resuscitation, serum lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak low-quality fluid resuscitation is for the of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion in sepsis and septic shock. Previous guidelines recommend appropriate resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock and having a low for it in those patients sepsis is not is the evidence from this is a best practice and are that a is The 2016 a for using a of 30 mL/kg of IV in initial fluid resuscitation. of initial resuscitation on evidence are for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. of adults to an with sepsis or septic shock that to 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid within 3 hours of sepsis with of of and of in of including and the and the of fluid in the of 30 that this fluid in clinical practice patients require fluid initial resuscitation. to be with the of fluid and with fluid of and of the of septic patients is the for a initial and of the response to treatment. and fluid the initial resuscitation should be by of and organ perfusion. pressure and blood pressure are of fluid measures have at fluid compared with static measures with fluid against pressure or and of in response to in a and dynamic to guide fluid with to of to and of to in one other in between septic patients with a compared with standard from and a of evidence in to guide of fluid resuscitation as as the appropriate in patients with sepsis and in that resuscitation with of IV by and arterial with fluid in the first hours and higher hospital standard fluid the initial 30 mL/kg is by measures of fluid of mL/kg compared to to 3 mL/kg the of fluid and on of of or not be a in pressure that the is fluid a for lactate is an of and is not a of of septic shock in lactate as evidence of to (1). Previous of these guidelines have using lactate as a target of resuscitation in the of sepsis and septic shock, on to and of in serum lactate in with or in The that serum lactate are not in patients with septic shock, these that decrease lactate lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. with sepsis lactate not be in is not measures of organ be to the and of of the and capillary refill time have and to be of The a resuscitation a resuscitation at or lactate by hours in the first hours of septic shock the organ dysfunction as by in the and in the lactate this not the of a on using resuscitation and is and this should be by and to or fluid are of the or to the should management - Recommendation 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong moderate-quality MAP is a of mean in is the major of and MAP in blood and the of perfusion. as the and have the to blood a to be mm are with organ with MAP Previous guidelines a MAP of 65 mm Hg for initial resuscitation. The on a in septic shock patients who given to target a MAP of mm a target of mm Hg in a a in with higher MAP patients with higher MAP with with a higher of of this that the MAP in the of on this that higher MAP not improve in septic shock to and MAP target compared a mm with a that and MAP by the in patients 65 and with septic shock The in this a mean MAP of mm compared with mm Hg in the to in the by of and in in the and the of with higher MAP and the of patients with MAP of mm the a MAP of 65 mm Hg in the initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock who require to - Recommendation 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak low-quality The of patients on of in an appropriate the septic patients are in the and hospital of patients from are with sepsis and and and hospital of on the time for to the from and an of an in of for each of to of patients in the a higher hospital for the higher to time hr and compared with the to time for of an to time hr with hospital in patients with higher of with sepsis not patients to when hours hospital the a hospital higher and higher of and of patients in hospitals in the that to to higher and on of patients to an in outcomes. is evidence of and are best in an are of patients with sepsis to an not be in in and be this and appropriate treatment should not be of of - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice of these we the of a for to it is to in a a best practice we that appropriate should be in patients with suspected sepsis and septic shock it in in the of not in this as as The and of sepsis are and other is to sepsis, the cannot have a of sepsis in a with organ a or of patients with sepsis to have Best practice is to the to other are or a patient’s clinical after hospital or the of a of this be in when it is to or major is a that to on the that the is each as in and of the that by or in each in of or that the for a in the or a We not or evidence this are to a an that not from is or this is not of the should the of patients and patients that is not to - Recommendations For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within one of Strong low quality of evidence very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice and clinical examination, for and of and treatment for that this should be within 3 hours of that a be as to the of an of the patient’s and the of sepsis is to be For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hours from the time when sepsis first Weak very low quality of For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak very low quality of Early of appropriate is one of the to in patients with sepsis to patients with sepsis or septic shock should be as an The to provide as as be against the with to patients infection These a of as or and sepsis is as sepsis in and that first to be sepsis to be the of infection and of for each with suspected sepsis should the and of The with in patients with septic shock, have a between time to and in patients with septic shock in patients septic shock a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients for patients not on a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients with sepsis at least one of or or organ and for patients with septic to a for sepsis and a for septic shock in a of patients in each in time from to of with of and of in patients with in patients not an between and should be that the and at of to the of with or other patients with sepsis shock, the between time to and within the first hours from is have one to a in between and the other in a in time to suggest that after hours from hospital sepsis We suggest in patients with sepsis shock as as sepsis to be the and 3 hours after sepsis first suspected for sepsis at that given the of with septic shock and the of and the a to and within one in patients with septic shock. for patients with sepsis, we recommend be 1). For patients with sepsis shock, we recommend a of and of be to within 3 should be or should be to the Recommendations on of from suggest that of in patients with sepsis and septic shock is and and of a of in The and time for by and the of and of on is to recommendations to the of in patients with sepsis and septic shock in are in with the recommendations to - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak very low quality of is in in response to in with clinical the of and of a of 30 a of and of for sepsis in patients We evidence from three that compared for of the three in to of to or of to and not in of the and on the with of the and the quality of evidence very guidelines for the management of recommend of for patients with of and in including the a against using to guide in to clinical - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak low quality of The on to an against in an treatment for sepsis and septic shock the that the patient’s infection is caused by the of with treatment for in a with and the of with treatment in a for of patients and be to The of by from in to in and by for of infection or IV of or of hospital and of on the of including in on patients with the of in patients with of hours are with in not in patients with or sepsis, including against with higher patients The with are by an between of and in patients with or to for in a with be in a be from including the of to for are and on and clinical for are - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for compared with one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak very low quality of the of in of the world and between in and the initial of is to the at least one that is against the the and are the of on the of for and the of the and are is for patients with in a with of in or other between in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock when from the in the of of and in a low with the from the Recommendations the of one for treatment over one are given clinical including of and the of the of sepsis is to the appropriate For this we from recommendations in patients with sepsis or septic shock recommend the of on of to guide this infection or with within the of within the to a within the and within the the and are is not for patients with with and quality of evidence very and the of with the of for treatment. have an in in patients at for we suggest using for treatment to the of in patients with a low for we suggest using a for as are of using and the a of including infection and development of of is in patients at for with septic shock. - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak low quality of Sepsis and septic shock to are in and are with that of appropriate

The genetics underlying severe COVID-19 The immune system is complex and involves many genes, including those that encode cytokines known as interferons (IFNs). Individuals that lack specific IFNs can be more susceptible to infectious diseases. Furthermore, the autoantibody system dampens IFN response to prevent damage from pathogen-induced inflammation. Two studies now examine the likelihood that genetics affects the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through components of this system (see the Perspective by Beck and Aksentijevich). Q. Zhang et al. used a candidate gene approach and identified patients with severe COVID-19 who have mutations in genes involved in the regulation of type I and III IFN immunity. They found enrichment of these genes in patients and conclude that genetics may determine the clinical course of the infection. Bastard et al. identified individuals with high titers of neutralizing autoantibodies against type I IFN-α2 and IFN-ω in about 10% of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. These autoantibodies were not found either in infected people who were asymptomatic or had milder phenotype or in healthy individuals. Together, these studies identify a means by which individuals at highest risk of life-threatening COVID-19 can be identified. Science , this issue p. eabd4570 , p. eabd4585 ; see also p. 404

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

The development of nanoparticle-based drug formulations has yielded the opportunities to address and treat challenging diseases. Nanoparticles vary in size but are generally ranging from 100 to 500 nm. Through the manipulation of size, surface characteristics and material used, the nanoparticles can be developed into smart systems, encasing therapeutic and imaging agents as well as bearing stealth property. Further, these systems can deliver drug to specific tissues and provide controlled release therapy. This targeted and sustained drug delivery decreases the drug related toxicity and increase patient's compliance with less frequent dosing. Nanotechnology has proven beneficial in the treatment of cancer, AIDS and many other disease, also providing advancement in diagnostic testing.

RATIONALE: Corticosteroid therapy is commonly used among critically ill patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), but its impact on outcomes is uncertain. Analyses of observational studies often do not account for patients' clinical condition at the time of corticosteroid therapy initiation. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of corticosteroid therapy on mortality and on MERS coronavirus RNA clearance in critically ill patients with MERS. METHODS: ICU patients with MERs were included from 14 Saudi Arabian centers between September 2012 and October 2015. We performed marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 309 patients, 151 received corticosteroids. Corticosteroids were initiated at a median of 3.0 days (quartile 1 [Q1]-Q3, 1.0-7.0) from ICU admission. Patients who received corticosteroids were more likely to receive invasive ventilation (141 of 151 [93.4%] vs. 121 of 158 [76.6%]; P < 0.0001) and had higher 90-day crude mortality (112 of 151 [74.2%] vs. 91 of 158 [57.6%]; P = 0.002). Using marginal structural modeling, corticosteroid therapy was not significantly associated with 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.07; P = 0.12) but was associated with delay in MERS coronavirus RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.72; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid therapy in patients with MERS was not associated with a difference in mortality after adjustment for time-varying confounders but was associated with delayed MERS coronavirus RNA clearance. These findings highlight the challenges and importance of adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders when estimating clinical effects of treatments using observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P<0.001). Patients in the hydrocortisone group had a shorter duration of the initial episode of mechanical ventilation than those in the placebo group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 3 to 18] vs. 7 days [interquartile range, 3 to 24]; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22; P<0.001), but taking into account episodes of recurrence of ventilation, there were no significant differences in the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Fewer patients in the hydrocortisone group than in the placebo group received a blood transfusion (37.0% vs. 41.7%; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.004). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality at 28 days, the rate of recurrence of shock, the number of days alive and out of the ICU, the number of days alive and out of the hospital, the recurrence of mechanical ventilation, the rate of renal-replacement therapy, and the incidence of new-onset bacteremia or fungemia. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in lower 90-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADRENAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01448109 .).

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Importance: Extended-spectrum β-lactamases mediate resistance to third-generation cephalosporins (eg, ceftriaxone) in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Significant infections caused by these strains are usually treated with carbapenems, potentially selecting for carbapenem resistance. Piperacillin-tazobactam may be an effective "carbapenem-sparing" option to treat extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers. Objectives: To determine whether definitive therapy with piperacillin-tazobactam is noninferior to meropenem (a carbapenem) in patients with bloodstream infection caused by ceftriaxone-nonsusceptible E coli or K pneumoniae. Design, Setting, and Participants: Noninferiority, parallel group, randomized clinical trial included hospitalized patients enrolled from 26 sites in 9 countries from February 2014 to July 2017. Adult patients were eligible if they had at least 1 positive blood culture with E coli or Klebsiella spp testing nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone but susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam. Of 1646 patients screened, 391 were included in the study. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam, 4.5 g, every 6 hours (n = 188 participants) or meropenem, 1 g, every 8 hours (n = 191 participants) for a minimum of 4 days, up to a maximum of 14 days, with the total duration determined by the treating clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomization. A noninferiority margin of 5% was used. Results: Among 379 patients (mean age, 66.5 years; 47.8% women) who were randomized appropriately, received at least 1 dose of study drug, and were included in the primary analysis population, 378 (99.7%) completed the trial and were assessed for the primary outcome. A total of 23 of 187 patients (12.3%) randomized to piperacillin-tazobactam met the primary outcome of mortality at 30 days compared with 7 of 191 (3.7%) randomized to meropenem (risk difference, 8.6% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 14.5%]; P = .90 for noninferiority). Effects were consistent in an analysis of the per-protocol population. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 5 of 188 patients (2.7%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group and 3 of 191 (1.6%) in the meropenem group. Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with E coli or K pneumoniae bloodstream infection and ceftriaxone resistance, definitive treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam compared with meropenem did not result in a noninferior 30-day mortality. These findings do not support use of piperacillin-tazobactam in this setting. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifiers: ACTRN12613000532707 and ACTRN12615000403538 and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02176122.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory, systemic autoimmune disease, affecting the joints with varying severity among patients. The risk factors include age, gender, genetics, and environmental exposure (cigarette smoking, air pollutants, and occupational). Many complications can follow, such as permanent joint damage requiring arthroplasty, rheumatoid vasculitis, and Felty syndrome requiring splenectomy if it remains unaddressed. As there is no cure for RA, the treatment goals are to reduce the pain and stop/slow further damage. Here, we present a brief summary of various past and present treatment modalities to address the complications associated with RA.

Abstract Body-mass index (BMI) has increased steadily in most countries in parallel with a rise in the proportion of the population who live in cities 1,2 . This has led to a widely reported view that urbanization is one of the most important drivers of the global rise in obesity 3–6 . Here we use 2,009 population-based studies, with measurements of height and weight in more than 112 million adults, to report national, regional and global trends in mean BMI segregated by place of residence (a rural or urban area) from 1985 to 2017. We show that, contrary to the dominant paradigm, more than 55% of the global rise in mean BMI from 1985 to 2017—and more than 80% in some low- and middle-income regions—was due to increases in BMI in rural areas. This large contribution stems from the fact that, with the exception of women in sub-Saharan Africa, BMI is increasing at the same rate or faster in rural areas than in cities in low- and middle-income regions. These trends have in turn resulted in a closing—and in some countries reversal—of the gap in BMI between urban and rural areas in low- and middle-income countries, especially for women. In high-income and industrialized countries, we noted a persistently higher rural BMI, especially for women. There is an urgent need for an integrated approach to rural nutrition that enhances financial and physical access to healthy foods, to avoid replacing the rural undernutrition disadvantage in poor countries with a more general malnutrition disadvantage that entails excessive consumption of low-quality calories.

Abstract Background Since publication of the 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), several developments have supported the need for an expansion of the definition, including the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, the expansion of the use of pulse oximetry in place of arterial blood gases, the use of ultrasound for chest imaging, and the need for applicability in resource-limited settings. Methods A consensus conference of 32 critical care ARDS experts was convened, had six virtual meetings (June 2021 to March 2022), and subsequently obtained input from members of several critical care societies. The goal was to develop a definition that would 1) identify patients with the currently accepted conceptual framework for ARDS, 2) facilitate rapid ARDS diagnosis for clinical care and research, 3) be applicable in resource-limited settings, 4) be useful for testing specific therapies, and 5) be practical for communication to patients and caregivers. Results The committee made four main recommendations: 1) include high-flow nasal oxygen with a minimum flow rate of ≥30 L/min; 2) use PaO2:Fi O2 ≤ 300 mm Hg or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry SpO2:Fi O2 ≤ 315 (if oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry is ≤97%) to identify hypoxemia; 3) retain bilateral opacities for imaging criteria but add ultrasound as an imaging modality, especially in resource-limited areas; and 4) in resource-limited settings, do not require positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygen flow rate, or specific respiratory support devices. Conclusions We propose a new global definition of ARDS that builds on the Berlin definition. The recommendations also identify areas for future research, including the need for prospective assessments of the feasibility, reliability, and prognostic validity of the proposed global definition.

AIMS: Traditional prognostic risk assessment in patients undergoing non-invasive imaging is based upon a limited selection of clinical and imaging findings. Machine learning (ML) can consider a greater number and complexity of variables. Therefore, we investigated the feasibility and accuracy of ML to predict 5-year all-cause mortality (ACM) in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), and compared the performance to existing clinical or CCTA metrics. METHODS AND RESULTS: The analysis included 10 030 patients with suspected coronary artery disease and 5-year follow-up from the COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter registry. All patients underwent CCTA as their standard of care. Twenty-five clinical and 44 CCTA parameters were evaluated, including segment stenosis score (SSS), segment involvement score (SIS), modified Duke index (DI), number of segments with non-calcified, mixed or calcified plaques, age, sex, gender, standard cardiovascular risk factors, and Framingham risk score (FRS). Machine learning involved automated feature selection by information gain ranking, model building with a boosted ensemble algorithm, and 10-fold stratified cross-validation. Seven hundred and forty-five patients died during 5-year follow-up. Machine learning exhibited a higher area-under-curve compared with the FRS or CCTA severity scores alone (SSS, SIS, DI) for predicting all-cause mortality (ML: 0.79 vs. FRS: 0.61, SSS: 0.64, SIS: 0.64, DI: 0.62; P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning combining clinical and CCTA data was found to predict 5-year ACM significantly better than existing clinical or CCTA metrics alone.

Abstract Rationale Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The evidence supporting NIV use in patients with ARDS remains relatively sparse. Objectives To determine whether, during NIV, the categorization of ARDS severity based on the PaO2/FiO2 Berlin criteria is useful. Methods The LUNG SAFE (Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure) study described the management of patients with ARDS. This substudy examines the current practice of NIV use in ARDS, the utility of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in classifying patients receiving NIV, and the impact of NIV on outcome. Measurements and Main Results Of 2,813 patients with ARDS, 436 (15.5%) were managed with NIV on Days 1 and 2 following fulfillment of diagnostic criteria. Classification of ARDS severity based on PaO2/FiO2 ratio was associated with an increase in intensity of ventilatory support, NIV failure, and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. NIV failure occurred in 22.2% of mild, 42.3% of moderate, and 47.1% of patients with severe ARDS. Hospital mortality in patients with NIV success and failure was 16.1% and 45.4%, respectively. NIV use was independently associated with increased ICU (hazard ratio, 1.446 [95% confidence interval, 1.159–1.805]), but not hospital, mortality. In a propensity matched analysis, ICU mortality was higher in NIV than invasively ventilated patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mm Hg. Conclusions NIV was used in 15% of patients with ARDS, irrespective of severity category. NIV seems to be associated with higher ICU mortality in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mm Hg. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02010073).

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) has made deep inroads into dentistry in the last few years. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the development of AI applications that are widely employed in dentistry and evaluate their performance in terms of diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and predicting the prognosis of the treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature for this paper was identified and selected by performing a thorough search in the electronic data bases like PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Google scholar, Scopus, Web of science, and Saudi digital library published over the past two decades (January 2000-March 15, 2020).After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 43 articles were read in full and critically analyzed. Quality analysis was performed using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: AI technologies are widely implemented in a wide range of dentistry specialties. Most of the documented work is focused on AI models that rely on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and artificial neural networks (ANNs). These AI models have been used in detection and diagnosis of dental caries, vertical root fractures, apical lesions, salivary gland diseases, maxillary sinusitis, maxillofacial cysts, cervical lymph nodes metastasis, osteoporosis, cancerous lesions, alveolar bone loss, predicting orthodontic extractions, need for orthodontic treatments, cephalometric analysis, age and gender determination. CONCLUSION: These studies indicate that the performance of an AI based automated system is excellent. They mimic the precision and accuracy of trained specialists, in some studies it was found that these systems were even able to outmatch dental specialists in terms of performance and accuracy.

IMPORTANCE: The literature focuses on mortality among children younger than 5 years. Comparable information on nonfatal health outcomes among these children and the fatal and nonfatal burden of diseases and injuries among older children and adolescents is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To determine levels and trends in the fatal and nonfatal burden of diseases and injuries among younger children (aged <5 years), older children (aged 5-9 years), and adolescents (aged 10-19 years) between 1990 and 2013 in 188 countries from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Data from vital registration, verbal autopsy studies, maternal and child death surveillance, and other sources covering 14,244 site-years (ie, years of cause of death data by geography) from 1980 through 2013 were used to estimate cause-specific mortality. Data from 35,620 epidemiological sources were used to estimate the prevalence of the diseases and sequelae in the GBD 2013 study. Cause-specific mortality for most causes was estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble Model strategy. For some infectious diseases (eg, HIV infection/AIDS, measles, hepatitis B) where the disease process is complex or the cause of death data were insufficient or unavailable, we used natural history models. For most nonfatal health outcomes, DisMod-MR 2.0, a Bayesian metaregression tool, was used to meta-analyze the epidemiological data to generate prevalence estimates. FINDINGS: Of the 7.7 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 7.4-8.1) million deaths among children and adolescents globally in 2013, 6.28 million occurred among younger children, 0.48 million among older children, and 0.97 million among adolescents. In 2013, the leading causes of death were lower respiratory tract infections among younger children (905.059 deaths; 95% UI, 810,304-998,125), diarrheal diseases among older children (38,325 deaths; 95% UI, 30,365-47,678), and road injuries among adolescents (115,186 deaths; 95% UI, 105,185-124,870). Iron deficiency anemia was the leading cause of years lived with disability among children and adolescents, affecting 619 (95% UI, 618-621) million in 2013. Large between-country variations exist in mortality from leading causes among children and adolescents. Countries with rapid declines in all-cause mortality between 1990 and 2013 also experienced large declines in most leading causes of death, whereas countries with the slowest declines had stagnant or increasing trends in the leading causes of death. In 2013, Nigeria had a 12% global share of deaths from lower respiratory tract infections and a 38% global share of deaths from malaria. India had 33% of the world's deaths from neonatal encephalopathy. Half of the world's diarrheal deaths among children and adolescents occurred in just 5 countries: India, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Understanding the levels and trends of the leading causes of death and disability among children and adolescents is critical to guide investment and inform policies. Monitoring these trends over time is also key to understanding where interventions are having an impact. Proven interventions exist to prevent or treat the leading causes of unnecessary death and disability among children and adolescents. The findings presented here show that these are underused and give guidance to policy makers in countries where more attention is needed.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate caloric goal for critically ill adults is unclear. We evaluated the effect of restriction of nonprotein calories (permissive underfeeding), as compared with standard enteral feeding, on 90-day mortality among critically ill adults, with maintenance of the full recommended amount of protein in both groups. METHODS: At seven centers, we randomly assigned 894 critically ill adults with a medical, surgical, or trauma admission category to permissive underfeeding (40 to 60% of calculated caloric requirements) or standard enteral feeding (70 to 100%) for up to 14 days while maintaining a similar protein intake in the two groups. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups; 96.8% of the patients were receiving mechanical ventilation. During the intervention period, the permissive-underfeeding group received fewer mean (±SD) calories than did the standard-feeding group (835±297 kcal per day vs. 1299±467 kcal per day, P<0.001; 46±14% vs. 71±22% of caloric requirements, P<0.001). Protein intake was similar in the two groups (57±24 g per day and 59±25 g per day, respectively; P=0.29). The 90-day mortality was similar: 121 of 445 patients (27.2%) in the permissive-underfeeding group and 127 of 440 patients (28.9%) in the standard-feeding group died (relative risk with permissive underfeeding, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.16; P=0.58). No serious adverse events were reported; there were no significant between-group differences with respect to feeding intolerance, diarrhea, infections acquired in the intensive care unit (ICU), or ICU or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral feeding to deliver a moderate amount of nonprotein calories to critically ill adults was not associated with lower mortality than that associated with planned delivery of a full amount of nonprotein calories. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; PermiT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN68144998.).

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative agent in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation has not been extensively studied. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).

Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, also known as veno-occlusive disease (SOS/VOD), is a potentially life threatening complication that can develop after hematopoietic cell transplantation. Although SOS/VOD progressively resolves within a few weeks in most patients, the most severe forms result in multi-organ dysfunction and are associated with a high mortality rate (>80%). Therefore, careful attention must be paid to allow an early detection of SOS/VOD, particularly as drugs have now proven to be effective and licensed for its treatment. Unfortunately, current criteria lack sensitivity and specificity, making early identification and severity assessment of SOS/VOD difficult. The aim of this work is to propose a new definition for diagnosis, and a severity-grading system for SOS/VOD in adult patients, on behalf of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.