King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences

As with other fields, medical sciences are subject to different sources of bias. While understanding sources of bias is a key element for drawing valid conclusions, bias in health research continues to be a very sensitive issue that can affect the focus and outcome of investigations. Information bias, otherwise known as misclassification, is one of the most common sources of bias that affects the validity of health research. It originates from the approach that is utilized to obtain or confirm study measurements. This paper seeks to raise awareness of information bias in observational and experimental research study designs as well as to enrich discussions concerning bias problems. Specifying the types of bias can be essential to limit its effects and, the use of adjustment methods might serve to improve clinical evaluation and health care practice.

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 ICU admission, we suggest admitting the patients to the ICU within 6 hr. Weak , low quality of evidence INFECTION 11. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock but unconfirmed infection, we recommend continuously re-evaluating and searching for alternative diagnoses and discontinuing empiric antimicrobials if an alternative cause of illness is demonstrated or strongly suspected. Best practice statement 12. For adults with possible septic shock or a high likelihood for sepsis, we recommend administering antimicrobials immediately, ideally within 1 hr of recognition. Strong , low quality of evidence (Septic shock) CHANGED from previous: "We recommend that administration of intravenous antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within one hour for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" Strong , very low quality of evidence (Sepsis without shock) strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 13. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we recommend rapid assessment of the likelihood of infectious versus noninfectious causes of acute illness. Best practice statement 14. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we suggest a time-limited course of rapid investigation and if concern for infection persists, the administration of antimicrobials within 3 hr from the time when sepsis was first recognized. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 15. For adults with a low likelihood of infection and without shock, we suggest deferring antimicrobials while continuing to closely monitor the patient. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 16. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using procalcitonin plus clinical evaluation to decide when to start antimicrobials, as compared to clinical evaluation alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 17. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of MRSA, we recommend using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage over using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Best practice statement NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 18. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of MRSA, we suggest against using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage, as compared with using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 19. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and high risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest using two antimicrobials with gram-negative coverage for empiric treatment over one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 20. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest against using two gram-negative agents for empiric treatment, as compared to one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 21. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using double gram-negative coverage once the causative pathogen and the susceptibilities are known. Weak , very low quality of evidence 22. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of fungal infection, we suggest using empiric antifungal therapy over no antifungal therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 23. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of fungal infection, we suggest against empiric use of antifungal therapy Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage. " Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 24. We make no recommendation on the use of antiviral agents. No recommendation 25. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using prolonged infusion of beta-lactams for maintenance (after an initial bolus) over conventional bolus infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 26. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend optimising dosing strategies of antimicrobials based on accepted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) principles and specific drug properties. Best practice statement 27. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend rapidly identifying or excluding a specific anatomical diagnosis of infection that requires emergent source control and implementing any required source control intervention as soon as medically and logistically practical. Best practice statement 28. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend prompt removal of intravascular access devices that are a possible source of sepsis or septic shock after other vascular access has been established. Best practice statement 29. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest daily assessment for de-escalation of antimicrobials over using fixed durations of therapy without daily reassessment for de-escalation. Weak , very low quality of evidence 30. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control, we suggest using shorter over longer duration of antimicrobial therapy. Weak , very low quality of evidence 31. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control where optimal duration of therapy is unclear, we suggest using procalcitonin AND clinical evaluation to decide when to discontinue antimicrobials over clinical evaluation alone. Weak , low quality of evidence HEMODYNAMIC MANAGEMENT 32. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using crystalloids as first-line fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 33. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using balanced crystalloids instead of normal saline for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence CHANGED from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence. "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" 34. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using albumin in patients who received large volumes of crystalloids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 35. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using starches for resuscitation. Strong , high-quality evidence 36. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using gelatin for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." 37. For adults with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine as the first-line agent over other vasopressors. Strong Dopamine. High-quality evidence Vasopressin. Moderate-quality evidence Epinephrine. Low quality of evidence Selepressin. Low quality of evidence Angiotensin II. Very low-quality evidence 38. For adults with septic shock on norepinephrine with inadequate mean arterial pressure levels, we suggest adding vasopressin instead of escalating the dose of norepinephrine. Weak , moderate quality evidence 39. For adults with septic shock and inadequate mean arterial pressure levels despite norepinephrine and vasopressin, we suggest adding epinephrine. Weak , low quality of evidence 40. For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using terlipressin. Weak , low quality of evidence 41. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest either adding dobutamine to norepinephrine or using epinephrine alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 42. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest against using levosimendan. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 43. For adults with septic shock, we suggest invasive monitoring of arterial blood pressure over noninvasive monitoring, as soon as practical and if resources are available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 44. For adults with septic shock, we suggest starting vasopressors peripherally to restore mean arterial pressure rather than delaying initiation until a central venous access is secured. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW 45. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies in the first 24 hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who still have signs of hypoperfusion and volume depletion after the initial resuscitation. No recommendation NEW "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence VENTILATION 46.There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of conservative oxygen targets in adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 47. For adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest the use of high flow nasal oxygen over noninvasive ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 48. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of noninvasive ventilation in comparison to invasive ventilation for adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 49. For adults with sepsis-induced ARDS, we recommend using a low tidal volume ventilation strategy (6 mL/kg), over a high tidal volume strategy (> 10 mL/kg). Strong , high-quality evidence 50. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we recommend using an upper limit goal for plateau pressures of 30 cm H2O, over higher plateau pressures. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 51. For adults with moderate to severe sepsis-induced ARDS, we suggest using higher PEEP over lower PEEP. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 52. For adults with sepsis-induced respiratory failure (without ARDS), we suggest using low tidal volume as compared with high tidal volume ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence 53. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using traditional recruitment maneuvers. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 54. When using recruitment maneuvers, we recommend against using incremental PEEP titration/strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 55. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we recommend using prone ventilation for greater than 12 hr daily. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 56. For adults with sepsis induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using intermittent NMBA boluses, over NMBA continuous infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 57. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we suggest using Veno-venous (VV) ECMO when conventional mechanical ventilation fails in experienced centers with the infrastructure in place to support its use. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW ADDITIONAL THERAPIES 58. For adults with septic shock and an ongoing requirement for vasopressor therapy we suggest using IV corticosteroids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (see goals for Initial Resuscitation). If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/day." 59. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We make no recommendation regarding the use of blood purification techniques" 60. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of other blood purification techniques. No recommendation 61. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a restrictive (over liberal) transfusion strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 62. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV immunoglobulins. Weak , low quality of evidence 63. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, we suggest using stress ulcer prophylaxis. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 64. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis unless a contraindication to such therapy exists. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 65. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low molecular weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis Strong , moderate-quality evidence 66. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using mechanical VTE prophylaxis, in addition to pharmacological prophylaxis, over pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 67. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, we suggest using either continuous or intermittent renal replacement therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence 68. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, with no definitive indications for renal replacement therapy, we suggest against using renal replacement therapy. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 69. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend initiating insulin therapy at a glucose level of ≥ 180mg/dL (10 mmol/L). Strong , moderate-quality evidence 70. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV vitamin C. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 71. For adults with septic shock and hypoperfusion-induced lactic acidemia, we suggest against using sodium bicarbonate therapy to improve hemodynamics or to reduce vasopressor requirements. Weak , low quality of evidence 72. For adults with septic shock and severe metabolic acidemia (pH ≤ 7.2) and acute kidney injury (AKIN score 2 or 3), we suggest using sodium bicarbonate therapy Weak , low quality of evidence 73. For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who can be fed enterally, we suggest early (within 72 hr) initiation of enteral nutrition. Weak , very low quality of evidence LONG-TERM OUTCOMES AND GOALS OF CARE 74. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend discussing goals of care and prognosis with patients and families over no such discussion. Best practice statement 75. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest addressing goals of care early (within 72 hr) over late (72 hr or later). Weak , low quality of evidence 76. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on any specific standardized criterion to trigger goals of care discussion. No recommendation 77. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the principles of palliative care (which may include palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement) be integrated into the treatment plan, when appropriate, to address patient and family symptoms and suffering. Best practice statement 78. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against routine formal palliative care consultation for all patients over palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement. Weak , low quality of evidence 79. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest referral to peer support groups over no such referral. Weak , very low quality of evidence 80. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a handoff process of critically important information at transitions of care over no such handoff process. Weak , very low quality of evidence 81. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of any specific structured handoff tool over usual handoff processes. No recommendation 82. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend screening for economic and social support (including housing, nutritional, financial, and spiritual support), and make referrals where available to meet these needs. Best practice statement 83. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest offering written and verbal sepsis education (diagnosis, treatment, and post-ICU/post-sepsis syndrome) prior to hospital discharge and in the follow-up setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence 84. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend the clinical team provide the opportunity to participate in shared decision making in post-ICU and hospital discharge planning to ensure discharge plans are acceptable and feasible. Best practice statement 85. For adults with sepsis and septic shock and their families, we suggest using a critical care transition program, compared with usual care, upon transfer to the floor. Weak , very low quality of evidence 86. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend reconciling medications at both ICU and hospital discharge. Best practice statement 87. For adult survivors of sepsis and septic shock and their families, we recommend including information about the ICU stay, sepsis and related diagnoses, treatments, and common impairments after sepsis in the written and verbal hospital discharge summary. Best practice statement 88. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who developed new impairments, we recommend hospital discharge plans include follow-up with clinicians able to support and manage new and long-term sequelae. Best practice statement 89. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on early post-hospital discharge follow-up compared with routine post-hospital discharge follow-up. No recommendation 90. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against early cognitive therapy. No recommendation 91. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. Best practice statement 92. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest referral to a post-critical illness follow-up program if available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 93. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock receiving mechanical ventilation for > 48hr or an ICU stay of > 72 hr, we suggest referral to a post-hospital rehabilitation program. Weak , very low quality of evidence (References 5–24 are referred to in the Methodology section which can be accessed at Supplemental Digital Content: Methodology.) SCREENING AND EARLY TREATMENT Screening for Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock - 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 recommendation, moderate quality of evidence for screening. Strong recommendation, very low-quality evidence for standard operating procedures. Rationale Sepsis performance improvement programs generally consist of sepsis screening, education, measurement of sepsis bundle performance, patient outcomes, and actions for identified opportunities (25,26). Despite some inconsistency, a meta-analysis of 50 observational studies on the effect of performance improvement programs showed that these programs were associated with better adherence to sepsis bundles along with a reduction in mortality (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61–0.72) in patients with sepsis and septic shock (27). The specific components of performance improvement did not appear to be as important as the presence of a program that included sepsis screening and metrics. Sepsis screening tools are designed to promote early identification of sepsis and consist of manual methods or automated use of the electronic health record (EHR). There is wide variation in diagnostic accuracy of these tools with most having poor predictive values, although the use of some was associated with improvements in care processes (28–31). A variety of clinical variables and tools are used for sepsis screening, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, vital signs, signs of infection, quick Sequential Organ Failure Score (qSOFA) or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) (26,32). Machine learning may improve performance of screening tools, and in a meta-analysis of 42,623 patients from seven studies for predicting hospital acquired sepsis the pooled area under the receiving operating curve (SAUROC) (0.89; 95% CI, 0.86−0.92); sensitivity (81%; 95% CI, 80−81), and specificity (72%; 95% CI, 72−72) was higher for machine learning than the SAUROC for traditional screening tools such as SIRS (0.70), MEWS (0.50), and SOFA (0.78) (32). Screening tools may target patients in various locations, such as in-patient wards, emergency departments, or ICUs (28–30,32). A pooled analysis of three RCTs did not demonstrate a mortality benefit of active screening (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51−1.58) (33–35). However, while there is wide variation in sensitivity and specificity of sepsis screening tools, they are an important component of identifying sepsis early for timely intervention. Standard operating procedures are a set of practices that specify a preferred response to specific clinical circumstances Sepsis standard operating as Early have to which a standard with components of the sepsis early and A large the between of sepsis and A of sepsis to hospitals in the in a mortality and after of sepsis with a control from other In this time mortality was lower in hospitals with higher with the sepsis bundles may a A meta-analysis of two RCTs in higher mortality (RR, 95% CI, with standard operating procedures compared with usual care, while it was in one observational 95% CI, - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. Rationale The qSOFA three variables to and prolonged ICU stay in patients with or suspected a Score a respiratory ≥ and a blood pressure ≤ mm When any two of these variables are the patient is qSOFA analysis used to support the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis identified qSOFA as a of poor in patients with or suspected infection, but no analysis was to support its use as a screening tool that time studies have the use of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have been as to its have that qSOFA is more specific but than having two of SIRS for early identification of infection induced organ dysfunction SIRS qSOFA are screening tools for sepsis and the clinician to the of In the that of patients a qSOFA score 2 or but these patients for of poor have been when against the National Early Score and the Modified Early Score (MEWS) the presence of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in all given the poor sensitivity of the the a strong recommendation against its use as a screening -

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether decompressive craniectomy improves the functional outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury and refractory raised intracranial pressure. METHODS: From December 2002 through April 2010, we randomly assigned 155 adults with severe diffuse traumatic brain injury and intracranial hypertension that was refractory to first-tier therapies to undergo either bifrontotemporoparietal decompressive craniectomy or standard care. The original primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome (a composite of death, vegetative state, or severe disability), as evaluated on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale 6 months after the injury. The final primary outcome was the score on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at 6 months. RESULTS: Patients in the craniectomy group, as compared with those in the standard-care group, had less time with intracranial pressures above the treatment threshold (P<0.001), fewer interventions for increased intracranial pressure (P<0.02 for all comparisons), and fewer days in the intensive care unit (ICU) (P<0.001). However, patients undergoing craniectomy had worse scores on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale than those receiving standard care (odds ratio for a worse score in the craniectomy group, 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.24; P=0.03) and a greater risk of an unfavorable outcome (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 4.26; P=0.02). Rates of death at 6 months were similar in the craniectomy group (19%) and the standard-care group (18%). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with severe diffuse traumatic brain injury and refractory intracranial hypertension, early bifrontotemporoparietal decompressive craniectomy decreased intracranial pressure and the length of stay in the ICU but was associated with more unfavorable outcomes. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; DECRA Australian Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN012605000009617.).

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 .).

BACKGROUND: Previous trials suggesting that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) reduced mortality among adults with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were limited by the use of outdated comparator ventilation strategies and small sample sizes. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 39 intensive care units in five countries, we randomly assigned adults with new-onset, moderate-to-severe ARDS to HFOV targeting lung recruitment or to a control ventilation strategy targeting lung recruitment with the use of low tidal volumes and high positive end-expiratory pressure. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital death from any cause. RESULTS: On the recommendation of the data monitoring committee, we stopped the trial after 548 of a planned 1200 patients had undergone randomization. The two study groups were well matched at baseline. The HFOV group underwent HFOV for a median of 3 days (interquartile range, 2 to 8); in addition, 34 of 273 patients (12%) in the control group received HFOV for refractory hypoxemia. In-hospital mortality was 47% in the HFOV group, as compared with 35% in the control group (relative risk of death with HFOV, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.64; P=0.005). This finding was independent of baseline abnormalities in oxygenation or respiratory compliance. Patients in the HFOV group received higher doses of midazolam than did patients in the control group (199 mg per day [interquartile range, 100 to 382] vs. 141 mg per day [interquartile range, 68 to 240], P<0.001), and more patients in the HFOV group than in the control group received neuromuscular blockers (83% vs. 68%, P<0.001). In addition, more patients in the HFOV group received vasoactive drugs (91% vs. 84%, P=0.01) and received them for a longer period than did patients in the control group (5 days vs. 3 days, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with moderate-to-severe ARDS, early application of HFOV, as compared with a ventilation strategy of low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure, does not reduce, and may increase, in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Current Controlled Trials numbers, ISRCTN42992782 and ISRCTN87124254, and ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00474656 and NCT01506401.).

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depression respond to antidepressant treatment, but 10%-30% of them do not improve or show a partial response coupled with functional impairment, poor quality of life, suicide ideation and attempts, self-injurious behavior, and a high relapse rate. The aim of this paper is to review the therapeutic options for treating resistant major depressive disorder, as well as evaluating further therapeutic options. METHODS: In addition to Google Scholar and Quertle searches, a PubMed search using key words was conducted, and relevant articles published in English peer-reviewed journals (1990-2011) were retrieved. Only those papers that directly addressed treatment options for treatment-resistant depression were retained for extensive review. RESULTS: Treatment-resistant depression, a complex clinical problem caused by multiple risk factors, is targeted by integrated therapeutic strategies, which include optimization of medications, a combination of antidepressants, switching of antidepressants, and augmentation with non-antidepressants, psychosocial and cultural therapies, and somatic therapies including electroconvulsive therapy, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy, deep brain stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and vagus nerve stimulation. As a corollary, more than a third of patients with treatment-resistant depression tend to achieve remission and the rest continue to suffer from residual symptoms. The latter group of patients needs further study to identify the most effective therapeutic modalities. Newer biomarker-based antidepressants and other drugs, together with non-drug strategies, are on the horizon to address further the multiple complex issues of treatment-resistant depression. CONCLUSION: Treatment-resistant depression continues to challenge mental health care providers, and further relevant research involving newer drugs is warranted to improve the quality of life of patients with the disorder.

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 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.

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic heterogeneous metabolic disorder with complex pathogenesis. It is characterized by elevated blood glucose levels or hyperglycemia, which results from abnormalities in either insulin secretion or insulin action or both. Hyperglycemia manifests in various forms with a varied presentation and results in carbohydrate, fat, and protein metabolic dysfunctions. Long-term hyperglycemia often leads to various microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications, which are mainly responsible for diabetes-associated morbidity and mortality. Hyperglycemia serves as the primary biomarker for the diagnosis of diabetes as well. In this review, we would be focusing on the classification of diabetes and its pathophysiology including that of its various types.

RATIONALE: Baseline characteristics and management have changed over time in patients requiring mechanical ventilation; however, the impact of these changes on patient outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To estimate whether mortality in mechanically ventilated patients has changed over time. METHODS: Prospective cohort studies conducted in 1998, 2004, and 2010, including patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 12 hours in a 1-month period, from 927 units in 40 countries. To examine effects over time on mortality in intensive care units, we performed generalized estimating equation models. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 18,302 patients. The reasons for initiating mechanical ventilation varied significantly among cohorts. Ventilatory management changed over time (P < 0.001), with increased use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (5% in 1998 to 14% in 2010), a decrease in tidal volume (mean 8.8 ml/kg actual body weight [SD = 2.1] in 1998 to 6.9 ml/kg [SD = 1.9] in 2010), and an increase in applied positive end-expiratory pressure (mean 4.2 cm H2O [SD = 3.8] in 1998 to 7.0 cm of H2O [SD = 3.0] in 2010). Crude mortality in the intensive care unit decreased in 2010 compared with 1998 (28 versus 31%; odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.94), despite a similar complication rate. Hospital mortality decreased similarly. After adjusting for baseline and management variables, this difference remained significant (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics and ventilation practices have changed over time, and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients have improved. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01093482).

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).

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.