Apnoeic oxygenation during paediatric tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen administration by apnoeic oxygenation during laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation is intended to prolong safe apnoea time, reduce the risk of hypoxaemia, and increase the success rate of first-attempt tracheal intubation under general anaesthesia. This systematic review examined the efficacy and effectiveness of apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in children. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies in paediatric patients requiring tracheal intubation, evaluating apnoeic oxygenation by any method compared with patients without apnoeic oxygenation. Searched databases were MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to March 22, 2023. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendation. RESULTS: After initial selection of 40 708 articles, 15 studies summarising 9802 children were included (10 randomised controlled trials, four pre-post studies, one prospective observational study) published between 1988 and 2023. Eight randomised controlled trials were included for meta-analysis (n=1070 children; 803 from operating theatres, 267 from neonatal intensive care units). Apnoeic oxygenation increased intubation first-pass success with no physiological instability (risk ratio [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.57, P=0.04, I2=0), higher oxygen saturation during intubation (mean difference 3.6%, 95% CI 0.8-6.5%, P=0.02, I2=63%), and decreased incidence of hypoxaemia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17-0.33, P<0.01, I2=51%) compared with no supplementary oxygen administration. CONCLUSION: This systematic review with meta-analysis confirms that apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation of children significantly increases first-pass intubation success rate. Furthermore, apnoeic oxygenation enables stable physiological conditions by maintaining oxygen saturation within the normal range. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol registered prospectively on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022369000) on December 2, 2022.

Airway management in neonates and infants: European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and British Journal of Anaesthesia joint guidelines.

Airway management is required during general anaesthesia and is essential for life-threatening conditions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Evidence from recent trials indicates a high incidence of critical events during airway management, especially in neonates or infants. It is important to define the optimal techniques and strategies for airway management in these groups. In this joint European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) guideline on airway management in neonates and infants, we present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing safe and effective medical care. We identified seven main areas of interest for airway management: i) preoperative assessment and preparation; ii) medications; iii) techniques and algorithms; iv) identification and treatment of difficult airways; v) confirmation of tracheal intubation; vi) tracheal extubation, and vii) human factors. Based on these areas, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to formulate the recommendations based on those studies included with consideration of their methodological quality (strong '1' or weak '2' recommendation with high 'A', medium 'B' or low 'C' quality of evidence). In summary, we recommend: 1. Use medical history and physical examination to predict difficult airway management (1C). 2. Ensure adequate level of sedation or general anaesthesia during airway management (1B). 3. Administer neuromuscular blocker before tracheal intubation when spontaneous breathing is not necessary (1C). 4. Use a videolaryngoscope with an age-adapted standard blade as first choice for tracheal intubation (1B). 5. Apply apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in neonates (1B). 6. Consider a supraglottic airway for rescue oxygenation and ventilation when tracheal intubation fails (1B). 7. Limit the number of tracheal intubation attempts (1C). 8. Use a stylet to reinforce and preshape tracheal tubes when hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades are used and when the larynx is anatomically anterior (1C). 9. Verify intubation is successful with clinical assessment and end-tidal CO2 waveform (1C). 10. Apply high-flow nasal oxygenation, continuous positive airway pressure or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for postextubation respiratory support, when appropriate (1B).

Cannabinoids for Acute Pain Management: Approaches and Rationale.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Acute pain management remains a challenge and postoperative pain is often undermanaged despite many available treatment options, also including cannabinoids. RECENT FINDINGS: In the light of the opioid epidemic, there has been growing interest in alternative care bundles for pain management, including cannabinoids as potential treatment to decrease opioid prescribing. Despite the lack of solid evidence on the efficacy of cannabinoids, their use among patients with pain, including those using opioids, is currently increasing. This use is supported by data suggesting that cannabinoids could potentially contribute to a better pain management and to a reduction in opioid doses while maintaining effective analgesia with minimum side effects. The scientific basis for supporting the use of cannabis is extensive, although it does not necessarily translate into relevant clinical outcomes. The use of cannabinoids in acute pain did not always consistently show statistically significant results in improving acute pain. Large randomized, controlled trials evaluating diverse cannabis extracts are needed in different clinical pain populations to determine safety and efficacy.

Nerve Blocks for Craniotomy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postcraniotomy headache (PCH) is a common adverse event and can lead to various complications and decreased quality of life. RECENT FINDINGS: To reduce postcraniotomy pain and associated complications, a multimodal pain therapy including analgesics, analgesic adjuncts, and regional anesthesia is essential. The use of opioids should be minimized to facilitate prompt postoperative neurosurgical assessment. Here, we provide an update on the latest evidence regarding the role of scalp nerve blocks in the pain management of patients undergoing craniotomy procedure. Nerve blocks are effective in alleviating postoperative pain after craniotomy. Scalp blocks contribute to lower pain levels and less opioid consumption in the first 48 h following surgery. Moreover, there is a significant decrease in patients suffering from PONV among patients who receive scalp block.

Transitional Pain Service: An Update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic Postsurgical Pain (CPSP) and the risk for long-term opioid dependency are known complications following major surgery. The idea of Transitional Pain Service (TPS) has been introduced as an interdisciplinary setting to manage pain in the perioperative continuum. We expand on the basic framework and principles of TPS and summarize the current evidence of the TPS and possible interventions to adress postoperative pain. Areas of future work in TPS-related research are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies support the effectiveness of TPS in reducing opioid consumption in the perioperative period and following discharge. Some studies also show an improvement in functional outcome with TPS with patients reporting lower pain severity and pain interference. The TPS aims to halt the progress of acute postoperative pain to CPSP by providing longitudinal support with patient-centered care. While some studies suggest a positive impact of TPS implementation in terms of reduction in postoperative opioid consumption and improvement of some functional outcomes, direct evidence in terms of reduction in the incidence of CPSP is still missing. The cost-effectiveness of TPS and the expansion of TPS through e-health services and digital applications also need to be evaluated.

Decoding the meaning of medical guidelines and their medicolegal implications.

Medical practice guidelines (MPGs) are important in medicine to ensure well tolerated and effective healthcare. They provide evidence-based recommendations for healthcare professionals in daily clinical settings. MPGs help patients and practitioners make informed decisions, ensure quality of care, allocate healthcare resources effectively and reduce legal liability. MPGs have medicolegal implications, as they influence clinical decision-making and patient outcomes, which can impact liability and malpractice cases. They define the standard of care within the healthcare industry and provide best practice recommendations. MPGs are a cornerstone of the informed consent process, as they facilitate a shared decision support system and they provide valuable evidence-based recommendations on various treatments or medical options. Finally, MPGs are also relevant in medical claims; thus, adherence to MPGs is highly encouraged in order to assure the best medical care. Nonetheless, MPGs have limitations and we advocate for wise usage of MPGs combined with the expertise of trained physicians that allows for individualisation and evidence-based recommendations. In this review, we describe the potential legal implications that MPGs may represent for healthcare providers and the role that MPGs have in daily practice at different stages in the doctor--patient relationship.

Airway management in neonates and infants: European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and British Journal of Anaesthesia joint guidelines.

Airway management is required during general anaesthesia and is essential for life-threatening conditions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Evidence from recent trials indicates a high incidence of critical events during airway management, especially in neonates or infants. It is important to define the optimal techniques and strategies for airway management in these groups. In this joint European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) guideline on airway management in neonates and infants, we present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing safe and effective medical care. We identified seven main areas of interest for airway management: i) preoperative assessment and preparation; ii) medications; iii) techniques and algorithms; iv) identification and treatment of difficult airways; v) confirmation of tracheal intubation; vi) tracheal extubation, and vii) human factors. Based on these areas, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to formulate the recommendations based on those studies included with consideration of their methodological quality (strong '1' or weak '2' recommendation with high 'A', medium 'B' or low 'C' quality of evidence). In summary, we recommend: 1. Use medical history and physical examination to predict difficult airway management (1С). 2. Ensure adequate level of sedation or general anaesthesia during airway management (1B). 3. Administer neuromuscular blocker before tracheal intubation when spontaneous breathing is not necessary (1С). 4. Use a videolaryngoscope with an age-adapted standard blade as first choice for tracheal intubation (1B). 5. Apply apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in neonates (1B). 6. Consider a supraglottic airway for rescue oxygenation and ventilation when tracheal intubation fails (1B). 7. Limit the number of tracheal intubation attempts (1C). 8. Use a stylet to reinforce and preshape tracheal tubes when hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades are used and when the larynx is anatomically anterior (1C). 9. Verify intubation is successful with clinical assessment and end-tidal CO 2 waveform (1C). 10. Apply high-flow nasal oxygenation, continuous positive airway pressure or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for postextubation respiratory support, when appropriate (1B).

European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care consensus document on sustainability: 4 scopes to achieve a more sustainable practice.

Climate change is a defining issue for our generation. The carbon footprint of clinical practice accounts for 4.7% of European greenhouse gas emissions, with the European Union ranking as the third largest contributor to the global healthcare industry's carbon footprint, after the United States and China. Recognising the importance of urgent action, the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) adopted the Glasgow Declaration on Environmental Sustainability in June 2023. Building on this initiative, the ESAIC Sustainability Committee now presents a consensus document in perioperative sustainability. Acknowledging wider dimensions of sustainability, beyond the environmental one, the document recognizes healthcare professionals as cornerstones for sustainable care, and puts forward recommendations in four main areas: direct emissions, energy, supply chain and waste management, and psychological and self-care of healthcare professionals. Given the urgent need to cut global carbon emissions, and the scarcity of evidence-based literature on perioperative sustainability, our methodology is based on expert opinion recommendations. A total of 90 recommendations were drafted by 13 sustainability experts in anaesthesia in March 2023, then validated by 36 experts from 24 different countries in a two-step Delphi validation process in May and June 2023. To accommodate different possibilities for action in high- versus middle-income countries, an 80% agreement threshold was set to ease implementation of the recommendations Europe-wide. All recommendations surpassed the 80% agreement threshold in the first Delphi round, and 88 recommendations achieved an agreement >90% in the second round. Recommendations include the use of very low fresh gas flow, choice of anaesthetic drug, energy and water preserving measures, "5R" policies including choice of plastics and their disposal, and recommendations to keep a healthy work environment or on the importance of fatigue in clinical practice. Executive summaries of recommendations in areas 1, 2 and 3 are available as cognitive aids that can be made available for quick reference in the operating room.

Spinal anesthesia in ambulatory patients.

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW: To assess current practice in the use of spinal anesthesia in major ambulatory surgery, highlighting its advantages over general anesthesia and identifying potential areas for improvement to facilitate a transition to a sustainable healthcare system. RECENT FINDINGS: Spinal anesthesia might be preferred in selected populations when compared to general anesthesia providing the highest standards of healthcare quality.The use of local anesthetics with short half-life has proven to be efficient in achieving high anesthesia success rates. Spinal anesthesia does not increase perioperative complications; instead, it has shown a reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting, an improvement in patient comfort, and a favorable economic impact when compared to general anesthesia. SUMMARY: Spinal anesthesia is an appropriate method for anesthesia in ambulatory patients, offering advantages over general anesthesia in selected populations.The use of spinal anesthesia is expanding to meet surgical needs. Therefore, it is crucial to plan ahead and anticipate organizational failures in the ambulatory setting to maintain safety and efficiency during outpatient procedures and surgeries.

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition.

BACKGROUND: Severe trauma represents a major global public health burden and the management of post-traumatic bleeding continues to challenge healthcare systems around the world. Post-traumatic bleeding and associated traumatic coagulopathy remain leading causes of potentially preventable multiorgan failure and death if not diagnosed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. This sixth edition of the European guideline on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury aims to advise clinicians who care for the bleeding trauma patient during the initial diagnostic and therapeutic phases of patient management. METHODS: The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma included representatives from six European professional societies and convened to assess and update the previous version of this guideline using a structured, evidence-based consensus approach. Structured literature searches covered the period since the last edition of the guideline, but considered evidence cited previously. The format of this edition has been adjusted to reflect the trend towards concise guideline documents that cite only the highest-quality studies and most relevant literature rather than attempting to provide a comprehensive literature review to accompany each recommendation. RESULTS: This guideline comprises 39 clinical practice recommendations that follow an approximate temporal path for management of the bleeding trauma patient, with recommendations grouped behind key decision points. While approximately one-third of patients who have experienced severe trauma arrive in hospital in a coagulopathic state, a systematic diagnostic and therapeutic approach has been shown to reduce the number of preventable deaths attributable to traumatic injury. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidelines are pillars of best practice in the management of severely injured trauma patients. Further improvement in outcomes will be achieved by optimising and standardising trauma care in line with the available evidence across Europe and beyond.

Cultural Framing and the Impact On Acute Pain and Pain Services.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Optimal treatment requires a thorough understanding of all factors contributing to pain in the individual patient. In this review, we investigate the influence of cultural frameworks on pain experience and management. RECENT FINDINGS: The loosely defined concept of culture in pain management integrates a predisposing set of diverse biological, psychological and social characteristics shared within a group. Cultural and ethnic background strongly influence the perception, manifestation, and management of pain. In addition, cultural, racial and ethnic differences continue to play a major role in the disparate treatment of acute pain. A holistic and culturally sensitive approach is likely to improve pain management outcomes, will better cover the needs of diverse patient populations and help reduce stigma and health disparities. Mainstays include awareness, self-awareness, appropriate communication, and training.

Peri-operative management of neuromuscular blockade: A guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care.

Recent data indicated a high incidence of inappropriate management of neuromuscular block, with a high rate of residual paralysis and relaxant-associated postoperative complications. These data are alarming in that the available neuromuscular monitoring, as well as myorelaxants and their antagonists basically allow well tolerated management of neuromuscular blockade. In this first European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) guideline on peri-operative management of neuromuscular block, we aim to present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians provide best medical care and ensure patient safety. We identified three main clinical questions: Are myorelaxants necessary to facilitate tracheal intubation in adults? Does the intensity of neuromuscular blockade influence a patient's outcome in abdominal surgery? What are the strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of residual paralysis? On the basis of this, PICO (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. A stepwise approach was used to reduce the number of trials of the initial research ( n  = 24 000) to the finally relevant clinical studies ( n  = 88). GRADE methodology (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used for formulating the recommendations based on the findings of the included studies in conjunction with their methodological quality. A two-step Delphi process was used to determine the agreement of the panel members with the recommendations: R1 We recommend using a muscle relaxant to facilitate tracheal intubation (1A). R2 We recommend the use of muscle relaxants to reduce pharyngeal and/or laryngeal injury following endotracheal intubation (1C). R3 We recommend the use of a fast-acting muscle relaxant for rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII) such as succinylcholine 1 mg kg -1 or rocuronium 0.9 to 1.2 mg kg -1 (1B). R4 We recommend deepening neuromuscular blockade if surgical conditions need to be improved (1B). R5 There is insufficient evidence to recommend deep neuromuscular blockade in general to reduce postoperative pain or decrease the incidence of peri-operative complications. (2C). R6 We recommend the use of ulnar nerve stimulation and quantitative neuromuscular monitoring at the adductor pollicis muscle to exclude residual paralysis (1B). R7 We recommend using sugammadex to antagonise deep, moderate and shallow neuromuscular blockade induced by aminosteroidal agents (rocuronium, vecuronium) (1A). R8 We recommend advanced spontaneous recovery (i.e. TOF ratio >0.2) before starting neostigmine-based reversal and to continue quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade until a TOF ratio of more than 0.9 has been attained. (1C).

Retailoring training programmes in anaesthesia and intensive care after the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we want to collect all the adaptations that anaesthesiology training has faced because of the health crisis and social distancing measures resulting from coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). We reviewed new teaching tools launched during the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide and particularly those implemented by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EACTAIC). RECENT FINDINGS: Globally, COVID-19 has interrupted health services and all aspects of training programmes. These unprecedented changes have led to teaching and trainee support innovation tools, focusing on online learning and simulation programmes. Airway management, critical care and regional anaesthesia, have been enhanced during the pandemic, while there were major obstacles in paediatrics, obstetrics and pain medicine. SUMMARY: The COVID-19 pandemic has altered profoundly the functioning of health systems worldwide. Anaesthesiologists and trainees have fought on the front lines of the battle against COVID-19. As a result, training in anaesthesiology during the last 2 years has focused on managing patients in intensive care. New training programmes have been designed to continue teaching residents of this speciality, focusing on e-learning and advanced simulation. It is necessary to present a review describing the impact that this turbulent period has had on the different subsections of anaesthesiology and to review the innovative measures that have been implemented to address these possible deficits in education and training.

Ambulatory anesthesia: restructuring for success.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review current evidence about organizational structures, patient selection criteria, safety measures, economic considerations, quality management, and staffing challenges in ambulatory anesthesia. The focus is on the facilitators and barriers related to the peri-interventional period and the potential concepts and innovations for the future development of ambulatory anesthesia services. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent findings shed light on organizational structures in ambulatory anesthesia, including hospital-based centers, freestanding ambulatory centers, and office-based practices. Patient selection for ambulatory anesthesia involves a two-step process, considering both surgical and anesthetic factors. Safety measures, such as standardized guidelines and scoring systems, aim to ensure patient well being during the perioperative course. Economic considerations pose challenges due to the complexities of managing operating room efficiency and the variations in reimbursement systems. Quality management in ambulatory anesthesia emphasizes the need for outcome studies and patient-centered quality indicators. Staffing requirements necessitate highly skilled professionals with both technical and nontechnical skills, and structured education and training are essential. SUMMARY: Ambulatory anesthesia is gaining importance due to advancements in surgical techniques and peri-interventional care. The review highlights the need for addressing challenges related to organizational structures, patient selection, patient safety, economic considerations, quality management, and staffing in ambulatory anesthesia. Understanding and addressing these factors are crucial for promoting the further development and improvement of ambulatory anesthesia services.

COVID-19 psychological impact in 3109 healthcare workers in Spain: The PSIMCOV group.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has a great impact worldwide. Healthcare workers play an essential role and are one of the most exposed groups. Information about the psychosocial impact on healthcare workers is limited. METHODS: 3109 healthcare workers completed a national, internet-based, cross-sectional 45-item survey between 9 and 19 April 2020. The objective is to assess the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spanish healthcare workers. A Psychological Stress and Adaptation at work Score (PSAS) was defined combining four modified versions of validated psychological assessment tests (A) Healthcare Stressful Test, (B) Coping Strategies Inventory, (C) Font-Roja Questionnaire and (D) Trait Meta-Mood Scale. RESULTS: The highest psychosocial impact was perceived in Respiratory Medicine, the mean (S.D.) PSAS was 48.3 (13.6) and Geriatrics 47.6 (16.4). Higher distress levels were found in the geographical areas with the highest incidence of COVID-19 (>245.5 cases per 100 000 people), PSAS 46.8 (15.2); p < 0.001. The least stress respondents were asymptomatic workers PSAS, 41.3 (15.4); p < 0.001, as well as those above 60 years old, PSAS, 37.6 (16); p < 0.001. Workers who needed psychological therapy and did not receive it, were more stressed PSAS 52.5 (13.6) than those who did not need it PSAS 39.7 (13.9); p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The psychological impact in healthcare workers in Spain during COVID-19 emergency has been studied. The stress perceived is parallel to the number of cases per 100 000 people. Psychotherapy could have a major role to mitigate the experimented stress level.

Four Decades of Randomized Clinical Trials Influencing Mortality in Critically Ill and Perioperative Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) represent the highest level of scientific evidence. The aim of this review was to map and summarize the main characteristics and publication trends of RCTs with a statistically significant effect on mortality in critically ill and perioperative patients. DESIGN: A mapping review of RCTs published between January 1982 and January 2021. The authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs reporting mortality data. A descriptive analysis was conducted, including general and methodologic information of all these RCTs with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors identified 340 studies published in 115 journals from 42 countries. The most represented clinical areas were ventilatory support (n = 58, 17%) and hemodynamics (n = 56, 16%). A detrimental effect on survival was described in 47 (14%) RCTs. Denmark had the highest number of published trials per million inhabitants. A total of 40 (12%) RCTs were led by a female author. The intention-to-treat principle was applied overall in 60% of RCTs, though this percentage increased up to 75% when the study was published in journals with high impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest contemporary RCTs database of interventions significantly influencing mortality, the authors found an increase in scientific production. United States, China, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom contributed with 172 (51%) RCTs over 40 years. Only 20% of the studies were multinational collaborations, though this percentage increased over time. The presence of women as first authors was 1 out of 8 RCTs.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.