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.

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 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.Recommendation 9. For the acute resuscitation of adults with COVID-19 and shock, we suggest using a conservative over a liberal fluid strategy. Weak recommendation, low-quality evidence.

We found a significant association between respiratory infections, especially influenza, and acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others.).

Although the antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been extensively studied in blood, relatively little is known about the antibody response in saliva and its relationship to systemic antibody levels. Here, we profiled by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgA, and IgM responses to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (full-length trimer) and its receptor binding domain (RBD) in serum and saliva of acute and convalescent patients with laboratory-diagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ranging from 3 to 115 days postsymptom onset (PSO), compared with negative controls. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses were readily detected in serum and saliva, with peak IgG levels attained by 16 to 30 days PSO. Longitudinal analysis revealed that anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgM antibodies rapidly decayed, whereas IgG antibodies remained relatively stable up to 105 days PSO in both biofluids. Last, IgG, IgM, and, to a lesser extent, IgA responses to spike and RBD in the serum positively correlated with matched saliva samples. This study confirms that serum and saliva IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are maintained in most of the patients with COVID-19 for at least 3 months PSO. IgG responses in saliva may serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2 based on their correlation with serum IgG responses.