Compelling evidence has shown that aggressive resuscitation bundles, adequate source control, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and organ support are cornerstone for the success in the treatment of patients with sepsis. Delay in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy has been recognized as a risk factor for mortality. To perform a retrospective analysis on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database to evaluate the relationship between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality. Retrospective analysis of a large dataset collected prospectively for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. One hundred sixty-five ICUs in Europe, the United States, and South America. A total of 28,150 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, from January 2005 through February 2010, were evaluated. Antibiotic administration and hospital mortality. A total of 17,990 patients received antibiotics after sepsis identification and were included in the analysis. In-hospital mortality was 29.7% for the cohort as a whole. There was a statically significant increase in the probability of death associated with the number of hours of delay for first antibiotic administration. Hospital mortality adjusted for severity (sepsis severity score), ICU admission source (emergency department, ward, vs ICU), and geographic region increased steadily after 1 hour of time to antibiotic administration. Results were similar in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, regardless of the number of organ failure. The results of the analysis of this large population of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock demonstrate that delay in first antibiotic administration was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. In addition, there was a linear increase in the risk of mortality for each hour delay in antibiotic administration. These results underscore the importance of early identification and treatment of septic patients in the hospital setting.

The most recent European guidelines and task force reports on hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) were published almost 10 years ago. Since then, further randomised clinical trials of HAP and VAP have been conducted and new information has become available. Studies of epidemiology, diagnosis, empiric treatment, response to treatment, new antibiotics or new forms of antibiotic administration and disease prevention have changed old paradigms. In addition, important differences between approaches in Europe and the USA have become apparent.The European Respiratory Society launched a project to develop new international guidelines for HAP and VAP. Other European societies, including the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, were invited to participate and appointed their representatives. The Latin American Thoracic Association was also invited.A total of 15 experts and two methodologists made up the panel. Three experts from the USA were also invited (Michael S. Niederman, Marin Kollef and Richard Wunderink).Applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, the panel selected seven PICO (population–intervention–comparison–outcome) questions that generated a series of recommendations for HAP/VAP diagnosis, treatment and prevention.

Infection is a common occurrence among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and a prerequisite to the development of sepsis.¹ Since 2009, several studies have provided national and international epidemiological data on sepsis,^2-6 but fewer studies have specifically concentrated on the underlying infections. Detailed data from around the world on types of infection, including causative microorganisms, as well as on the use and availability of diagnostic and treatment options are important because they can help increase and maintain awareness among clinicians, patients, and caregivers about the effects of infections; identify risk factors for infection; aid in the development of focused policies for diagnosis and treatment; facilitate adequate and appropriate resource allocation; assist in the design of interventional studies; and provide a baseline against which changes in patient characteristics and the effects of new treatments or management programs can be assessed over time.

Fatigue is a common symptom in those presenting with symptomatic COVID-19 infection. However, it is unknown if COVID-19 results in persistent fatigue in those recovered from acute infection. We examined the prevalence of fatigue in individuals recovered from the acute phase of COVID-19 illness using the Chalder Fatigue Score (CFQ-11). We further examined potential predictors of fatigue following COVID-19 infection, evaluating indicators of COVID-19 severity, markers of peripheral immune activation and circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines. Of 128 participants (49.5 ± 15 years; 54% female), more than half reported persistent fatigue (67/128; 52.3%) at median of 10 weeks after initial COVID-19 symptoms. There was no association between COVID-19 severity (need for inpatient admission, supplemental oxygen or critical care) and fatigue following COVID-19. Additionally, there was no association between routine laboratory markers of inflammation and cell turnover (leukocyte, neutrophil or lymphocyte counts, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein) or pro-inflammatory molecules (IL-6 or sCD25) and fatigue post COVID-19. Female gender and those with a pre-existing diagnosis of depression/anxiety were over-represented in those with fatigue. Our findings demonstrate a significant burden of post-viral fatigue in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection after the acute phase of COVID-19 illness. This study highlights the importance of assessing those recovering from COVID-19 for symptoms of severe fatigue, irrespective of severity of initial illness, and may identify a group worthy of further study and early intervention.