Consensus on Science and Treatment recommendations aim to balance the benefits of early resuscitation with the potential for harm to care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chest compressions and cardiopulmonary resuscitation have the potential to generate aerosols. During the current COVID-19 pandemic lay rescuers should consider compressions and public-access defibrillation. Lay rescuers who are willing, trained and able to do so, should consider providing rescue breaths to infants and children in addition to chest compressions. Healthcare professionals should use personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures during resuscitation and may consider defibrillation before donning personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream (SAB) infection is a common and severe infectious disease, with a 90-day mortality of 15-30%. Despite this, fewer than 3000 people have been randomised into clinical trials of treatments for SAB infection. The limited evidence base partly results from clinical trials for SAB infections being difficult to complete at scale using traditional clinical trial methods. Here we provide the rationale and framework for an adaptive platform trial applied to SAB infections. We detail the design features of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial that will enable multiple questions to be answered as efficiently as possible. The SNAP trial will commence enrolling patients across multiple countries in 2022 with an estimated target sample size of 7000 participants. This approach may serve as an exemplar to increase efficiency of clinical trials for other infectious diseases syndromes.

No abstract

Introduction or background Antibiotic resistance raises ethical issues due to the severe and inequitably distributed consequences caused by individual actions and policies. Sources of data Synthesis of ethical, scientific and clinical literature. Areas of agreement Ethical analyses have focused on the moral responsibilities of patients to complete antibiotic courses, resistance as a tragedy of the commons and attempts to limit use through antibiotic stewardship. Areas of controversy Each of these analyses has significant limitations and can result in self-defeating or overly narrow implications for policy. Growing points More complex analyses focus on ethical implications of ubiquitous asymptomatic carriage of resistant bacteria, non-linear outcomes within and between patients over time and global variation in resistant disease burdens. Areas timely for developing research Neglected topics include the harms of antibiotic use, including off-target effects on the human microbiome, and the lack of evidence guiding most antibiotic prescription decisions.

Vaccination is a cornerstone of global public health. Although licensed vaccines are generally extremely safe, both experimental and licensed vaccines are sometimes associated with rare serious adverse events. Vaccine-enhanced disease (VED) is a type of adverse event in which disease severity is increased when a person who has received the vaccine is later infected with the relevant pathogen. VED can occur during research with experimental vaccines and/or after vaccine licensure, sometimes months or years after a person receives a vaccine. Both research ethics and public health policy should therefore address the potential for disease enhancement. Significant VED has occurred in humans with vaccines for four pathogens: measles virus, respiratory syncytial virus, Staphylococcus aureus, and dengue virus; it has also occurred in veterinary research and in animal studies of human coronavirus vaccines. Some of the immunological mechanisms involved are now well-described, but VED overall remains difficult to predict with certainty, including during public health implementation of novel vaccines. This paper summarises the four known cases in humans and explores key ethical implications. Although rare, VED has important ethical implications because it can cause serious harm, including death, and such harms can undermine vaccine confidence more generally – leading to larger public health problems. The possibility of VED remains an important challenge for current and future vaccine development and deployment. We conclude this paper by summarising approaches to the reduction of risks and uncertainties related to VED, and the promotion of public trust in vaccines.

IMPORTANCE Echocardiography to detect infective endocarditis is regarded as a key quality indicator in the care of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, but its application varies markedly between reported series. Understanding the reasons for this variation in practice is important to improve the use of this investigation.OBJECTIVE To identify expert clinicians' preferred echocardiography strategy for a variety of S aureus bacteremia scenarios in a hypothetical setting free from extrinsic constraints. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSAnonymous web-based survey study comprising 50 textbased scenarios describing patients with S aureus bacteremia and various combinations of risk factors for endocarditis. Other variables included patient age and the presence of an extracardiac focus of infection warranting prolonged treatment. The survey was emailed to participants between September 2018 and March 2019. Each respondent was asked to recommend 1 of 6 echocardiography strategies for up to 8 randomly selected scenarios. Respondents were primarily infectious diseases physicians, and more than half reported an annual caseload of more than 20 cases of S aureus bacteremia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe proportion of respondents selecting each of the 6 echocardiography strategies was calculated alongside Wilson score confidence intervals. Modified Fleiss κ statistics were used to described interrespondent variability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the associations between respondent-and scenario-level variables and the recommendation of an echocardiography strategy with a low negative likelihood ratio for infective endocarditis (ie, a highly exclusionary strategy). RESULTSA total of 656 respondents from 24 countries provided 4837 echocardiography recommendations across the 50 scenarios. Echocardiography recommendations were associated with scenarios' burden of endocarditis risk (multivariate odds ratio per point of the VIRSTA score, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5; P < .001). Poor interrespondent agreement was seen across all scenarios (modified Fleiss κ, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.05-0.07) but was most notable for scenarios with a lower risk of endocarditis (modified Fleiss κ, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.03-0.05). The presence of an extracardiac focus of infection was also associated with the choice of echocardiography strategy (odds ratio for highly exclusionary strategy, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.58). Respondent location in continental Europe was associated with recommendations in favor of a highly exclusionary strategy (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5) compared with location in Australia or New Zealand. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this study, expert clinicians demonstrated active stratification by risk of endocarditis when making echocardiography recommendations for hypothetical patients with S aureus bacteremia. Substantial disagreement existed as to whether patients at lower risk of (continued) Key Points Question Which echocardiography strategies do expert clinicians recommend for patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacter...

Purpose of review Although there is increasing recognition of the link between antibiotic overuse and antimicrobial resistance, clinician prescribing is often unnecessarily long and motivated by fear of clinical relapse. High-quality evidence supporting shorter treatment durations is needed to give clinicians confidence to change prescribing habits. Here we summarize recent randomized controlled trials investigating antibiotic short courses for common infections in adult patients. Recent findings Randomized trials in the last five years have demonstrated noninferiority of short-course therapy for a range of conditions including community acquired pneumonia, intraabdominal sepsis, gram-negative bacteraemia and vertebral osteomyelitis. Summary Treatment durations for many common infections have been based on expert opinion rather than randomized trials. There is now evidence to support shorter courses of antibiotic therapy for many conditions.