Ketamine analgo-sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A rapid practice guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Ketamine Analgo-sedation for Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults: A Rapid Practice Guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence­based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n=898) and 9 observational studies (n=1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids.

PURPOSE: This is the first of three parts of the clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) on resuscitation fluids in adult critically ill patients. This part addresses fluid choice and the other two will separately address fluid amount and fluid removal. METHODS: This guideline was formulated by an international panel of clinical experts and methodologists. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision. RESULTS: For volume expansion, the guideline provides conditional recommendations for using crystalloids rather than albumin in critically ill patients in general (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with acute respiratory failure (very low certainty of evidence) and in patients in the perioperative period and patients at risk for bleeding (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than albumin in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using albumin rather than crystalloids in patients with cirrhosis (very low certainty of evidence). The guideline provides conditional recommendations for using balanced crystalloids rather than isotonic saline in critically ill patients in general (low certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (low certainty of evidence) and in patients with kidney injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than balanced crystalloids in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic crystalloids rather than small-volume hypertonic crystalloids in critically ill patients in general (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: This guideline provides eleven recommendations to inform clinicians on resuscitation fluid choice in critically ill patients.

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids

Purpose This is the first of three parts of the clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) on resuscitation fluids in adult critically ill patients. This part addresses fluid choice and the other two will separately address fluid amount and fluid removal. Methods This guideline was formulated by an international panel of clinical experts and methodologists. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision. Results For volume expansion, the guideline provides conditional recommendations for using crystalloids rather than albumin in critically ill patients in general (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with acute respiratory failure (very low certainty of evidence) and in patients in the perioperative period and patients at risk for bleeding (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than albumin in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using albumin rather than crystalloids in patients with cirrhosis (very low certainty of evidence). The guideline provides conditional recommendations for using balanced crystalloids rather than isotonic saline in critically ill patients in general (low certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (low certainty of evidence) and in patients with kidney injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than balanced crystalloids in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic crystalloids rather than small-volume hypertonic crystalloids in critically ill patients in general (very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions This guideline provides eleven recommendations to inform clinicians on resuscitation fluid choice in critically ill patients.

Mapping the landscape of medical research in the Arab world countries: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the productivity, performance, and impact of medical research in the Arab world countries. METHODS: We carried out a bibliometric analysis using Clarivate Analytics databases from January 2017 to March 2023. We reported research productivity, national and international research collaboration patterns, impact of Arab medical research output compared to the global average, top medical journals publishing Arab-affiliated research, and performance of the most productive Arab institutions. RESULTS: The Arab world contributed 2.72% to global medical research publication, with a citation impact of 11.98 compared to the global impact of 12.02. Qatar, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia led medical research publications per million population among Arab countries, ranking 26th, 36th, and 37th globally. Medical research publications increased by 87% annually from 2017-2022, with 70% of research originating from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. National collaborations accounted for 15% of Arab world publications, while international collaborations represented 66%. The median impact factor across the top 20 medical journals with Arab-affiliated authors was 5.14, with 50% being quartile one journals. The top 10 Arab-origin medical journals had a median impact factor of 3.13. Approximately 80% of the top 20 Arab institutions were academic, with a median publication count of 3,162.5 and a median citation impact of 14.5. CONCLUSION: The study provides insights into the state of medical research in the Arab countries, indicating room for improvement in the region's medical research.

Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing whether the use of antipsychotic medications in critically ill adult patients with delirium impacts patient-important outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A medical librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and Wiley's Cochrane Library as well as clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Independently and in duplicate, reviewers screened abstracts and titles for eligibility, then full text of qualifying studies. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included critically ill adult patients with delirium. The intervention group was required to receive antipsychotic medications at any dose, whereas the control group received usual care or placebo. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate using a piloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4). DATA SYNTHESIS: Five RCTs ( n = 1750) met eligibility criteria. The use of antipsychotic medications compared with placebo did not increase the number of delirium- or coma-free days (mean difference 0.90 d; 95% CI, -0.32 to 2.12; moderate certainty), nor did it result in a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, or hospital length of stay. The use of antipsychotics did not result in an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.27; 95% CI, 0.71-2.30; high certainty). Subgroup analysis of typical versus atypical antipsychotics did not identify any subgroup effect for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in delirium- or coma-free days when delirious critically ill adults are treated with antipsychotic medications. Further studies in the subset of patients with hyperactive delirium may be of benefit.

Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU.

RATIONALE: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL DESIGN: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements. RESULTS: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Mean Arterial Pressure Targets and Patient-Important Outcomes in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether targeting a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared with a lower MAP in adults with shock results in differences in patient important outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to identify potentially eligible studies, then full text for final eligibility. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult patients with a diagnosis of shock requiring vasoactive medications. The higher MAP group was required to receive vasoactive medications to target a higher MAP as established by study authors, whereas the lower MAP group received vasoactive medications to target lower MAP. DATA EXTRACTION: In triplicate, reviewers independently extracted data using a prepiloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using the RevMan software Version 5.3. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six randomized controlled trials (n = 3,690) met eligibility criteria. Targeting a higher MAP (75-85 mm Hg) compared with lower MAP of 65 mm Hg resulted in no difference in mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15; I2 = 0%; p = 0.12; moderate certainty. Targeting a higher MAP resulted in no difference in the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.11; I2 = 24%; p = 0.57; moderate certainty); however, a subgroup analysis comparing patients with and without chronic hypertension demonstrated that a higher MAP may reduce the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; I2 = 0%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in mortality when a higher MAP is targeted in critically ill adult patients with shock. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of mean arterial pressure on need for renal replacement therapy in this population.

Score Gains on the NBME Subject Examinations in Internal Medicine Among Clerkship Students: a Two-Year Longitudinal Study from the United Arab Emirates.

Background: The impact of clinical proficiency on individual student scores on the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Subject Examinations remains uncertain. We hypothesised that increasing the length of time spent in a clinical environment would augment students' performance. Methods: Performance on the NBME Subject Examination in Internal Medicine (NBME-IM) of three student cohorts was observed longitudinally. Scores at the end of two unique internal medicine clerkships held at the third and fourth years were compared. The score differences between the two administrations were compared using paired t-tests, and the effect size was measured using Cohen's d. Moreover, linear regression was used to assess the correlation between the NBME-IM score gains and performance on a pre-clinical Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (CBSE). A two-tailed p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Of the 236 students enrolled during the third year, age, gender, CBSE, and NBME-IM scores were similar across all cohorts. The normalised score gain on the NBME-IM at the fourth year was 9.5% (range -38 to +45%) with a Cohen's d of 0.47. However, a larger effect size with a Cohen's d value of 0.96 was observed among poorly scoring students. Performance on the CBSE was a significant predictor of score gain on the NBME-IM (R 0.51, R 2 0.26, p-value < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite the increased length of clinical exposure, modest improvement in students' performance on repeated NBME-IM examination was observed. Medical educators need to reconsider how the NBME-IM is used in clerkship assessments.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021: highlights for the practicing clinician.

The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines provided evidence-based recommendations for adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. This iteration of the guidelines placed increased emphasis on a diverse, global perspective, as well as on the long-term sequelae of sepsis experienced by patients and their families. The guidelines encompassed the following sections: 1) screening and early treatment; 2) infection; 3) hemodynamic management; 4) ventilation; 5) additional therapies; and 6) goals of care and long-term outcomes. In this review, we provide a summary of key recommendations of interest to the practicing clinician, which are either novel or require a change in practice, as well as those for which the evidence has substantially evolved in the 5 years since the 2016 iteration of the Guidelines. Rather than reviewing the underlying evidence, we emphasize the practical aspects of interpretation, dissemination, and implementation of these recommendations in the clinical setting.

Dexmedetomidine vs other sedatives in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI - 2.89 to - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD - 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.42 to - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.

Venous and arterial thrombosis in COVID-19: An updated narrative review.

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Several observational studies have described hemostatic derangements and thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current evidence on pathologic findings, pathophysiology, coagulation and hemostatic abnormalities, D-dimer's role in prognostication epidemiology and risk factors of thrombotic complications, and the role of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. While existing evidence is limited in quality, COVID-19 appears to increase micro-and macro-vascular thrombosis rates in hospitalized and critically ill patients, which may contribute to the burden of disease. D-dimer can be used for risk stratification of hospitalized patients, but its role to guide anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. Evidence of higher quality is needed to address the role of therapeutic anticoagulation or high-intensity venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. TAKE-HOME POINTS.

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section.

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.