OBJECTIVE: In October 2020, the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) consensus statement for management of patients with neurological diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was published. Due to important changes and developments that have happened since then, the need has arisen to critically reassess the original recommendations and address new challenges.
METHODS: In step 1, the original items were critically reviewed by the EAN COVID-19 Task Force. In addition, new recommendations were defined. In step 2, an online survey with the recommendations forged in step 1 was sent to the Managing Groups of all Scientific and Coordinating Panels of EAN. In step 3, the final set of recommendations was made.
RESULTS: In step 1, out of the original 36 recommendations, 18 were judged still relevant. They were edited to reflect the advances in knowledge and practice. In addition, 21 new recommendations were formulated to address the new knowledge and challenges. In step 2, out of the 39 recommendations sent for the survey, nine were approved as they were, whilst suggestions for improvement were given for the rest. In step 3, the recommendations were further edited, and some new items were formed to accommodate the participants\' suggestions, resulting in a final set of 41 recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: This revision of the 2020 EAN Statement provides updated comprehensive and structured guidance on good clinical practice in people with neurological disease faced with SARS-CoV-2 infection. It now covers the issues from the more recent domains of COVID-19-related care, vaccine complications and post-COVID-19 conditions.

BACKGROUND: Complete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies is critical to their utility in evidence synthesis and public health decision making. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a checklist that aims to improve reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies. Adherence to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the completeness of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting by the ROSES-S guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine whether guideline publication was associated with reporting completeness, and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness.
METHODS: A random sample from the SeroTracker living systematic review database was evaluated. For each reporting item in the guideline, the percentage of studies that were adherent was calculated, as well as median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence across all items and by item domain. Beta regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of adherence to ROSES-S.
RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine studies were analyzed. Median adherence was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%-55.2%) per study, with overall adherence ranging from 8.8% to 72.7%. The laboratory methods domain had the lowest median adherence (33.3% [IQR 25.0%-41.7%]). The discussion domain had the highest median adherence (75.0% [IQR 50.0%-100.0%]). Reporting adherence to ROSES-S before and after guideline publication did not significantly change. Publication source (p < 0.001), study risk of bias (p = 0.001), and sampling method (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: Completeness of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was suboptimal. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Authors should improve adherence to the ROSES-S guideline with support from stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses\' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses.
RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the \'other\' ethnicity subgroup.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients\' experience of care.
UNASSIGNED: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required.
CONCLUSIONS: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients\' experience of care.
UNASSIGNED: CONSORT and CONSERVE.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

UNASSIGNED: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), an infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese Rapid/Living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCG.
UNASSIGNED: The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on September 9, 2020, and this is the revised edition (version 5.0; released on July 15, 2022). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following 10 drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), anticoagulants (CQ7), baricitinib (CQ8), casirivimab/imdevimab (CQ9-1), sotrovimab (CQ9-2), molnupiravir (CQ10), and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (CQ11).
UNASSIGNED: Favipiravir is not suggested for all patients with COVID-19 (GRADE 2C). Remdesivir is suggested for patients with mild COVID-19 who do not require oxygen, and patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (both GRADE 2B). Corticosteroids are recommended for moderate and severe COVID-19 (GRADE 1B, 1A). However, their administration is not recommended for mild COVID-19 (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is suggested for moderate and severe COVID-19 (GRADE 2B, 2C). Anticoagulant administration is recommended for moderate and severe COVID-19 (Good Practice Statement). Baricitinib is suggested for moderate and severe COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). Casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab are recommended for mild COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are recommended for mild COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains emerge occasionally, and each time, the treatment policy at clinics is forced to change drastically. We ask health-care professionals in the field to refer to the recommendations in these guidelines and use these to keep up to date with COVID-19 epidemiological information.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCG.
METHODS: The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on September 9, 2020, and this document is the revised edition (version 4.0; released on September 9, 2021). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following seven drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), anticoagulants (CQ7), baricitinib (CQ8), and casirivimab/imdevimab (CQ9). Two CQs (hydroxychloroquine [CQ3] and ciclesonide [CQ6]) were retrieved in this updated version.
CONCLUSIONS: Favipiravir is not suggested for all patients with COVID-19 (GRADE 2C). Remdesivir is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Corticosteroids are recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 1B) and for patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (GRADE 1A); however, their administration is not recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Anticoagulant administration is recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization and patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (good practice statement). Baricitinib is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2C). Casirivimab/imdevimab is recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). We hope that these updated clinical practice guidelines will help medical professionals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19.

Observational studies indicate that children hospitalized with COVID-19-related illness, like adults, are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). A multicenter phase 2 clinical trial of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in children hospitalized with COVID-19-related illness has recently been initiated in the United States. To date, there remains a paucity of high-quality evidence to inform clinical practice world-wide. Therefore, the objective of this scientific statement is to provide consensus-based recommendations on the use of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in children hospitalized for COVID-19-related illnesses, and to identify priorities for future research.
We surveyed 20 pediatric hematologists and pediatric critical care physicians from several continents who were identified by Pediatric/Neonatal Hemostasis and Thrombosis Subcommittee leadership as having experience and expertise in the use of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis and/or the management of COVID-19-related illness in children. A comprehensive review of the literature on COVID-19 in children was also performed.
Response rate was 90%. Based on consensus of expert opinions, we suggest the administration of low-dose low molecular weight heparin subcutaneously twice-daily as anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis (in the absence of contraindications, and in combination with mechanical thromboprophylaxis with sequential compression devices, where feasible) in children hospitalized for COVID-19-related illness (including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C]) who have markedly elevated D-dimer levels or superimposed clinical risk factors for hospitalassociated VTE. For children who are clinically unstable or have severe renal impairment, we suggest the use of unfractionated heparin by continuous intravenous infusion as anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. In addition, continued efforts to characterize VTE risk and risk factors in children with COVID-19, as well as to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis strategies in children hospitalized with COVID-19-related illness (including MIS-C) via cooperative multicenter trials, were identified among several key priorities for future research.
These consensus-based recommendations on the use of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in children hospitalized for COVID-19-related illnesses and priorities for future research will be updated as high-quality evidence emerges.