Background There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. Objective Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. Conclusions At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

The antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) is a major strategy to combat antimicrobial resistance and to limit its expenditure. We have improved on our existing ASP to implement a sustainable and cost-effective two-stage immediate concurrent feedback (ICF) model, in which the antimicrobial prescription is audited by two part-time infection control nurses at the first stage, followed by "physician ICF" at the second stage. In January 2005, an ASP focused on broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics was implemented. All in-patients, except from the intensive care, bone marrow transplantation, liver transplantation, pediatric, and private units, being treated with broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics were included. The compliance to ICF and "physician ICF", antibiotics usage density measured by expenditure and defined daily doses (DDD) were recorded and analyzed before and after the ASP. The overall conformance rate to antibiotic prescription guidelines was 79.4%, while the conformance to ICF was 83.8%. Antibiotics consumption reduced from 73.06 (baseline, year 2004) to 64.01 (year 2007) per 1,000 patient bed-day-occupancy. Our model can be easily applied even in the clinical setting of limited resources.

Our study does not support the association between the use of fluoroquinolones and the development of retinal detachment and our findings are strikingly similar to that of the study conducted in Denmark. Doubt is cast on the association between the use of fluoroquinolones and the development of retinal detachment. Therefore, the use of fluoroquinolones should not be precluded based on the current evidence on the risk of retinal detachment. The impact of different ethnicities on the response to fluoroquinolones should also be investigated.