Corticosteroids in Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1411-1420. [PMID: 29979221 DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000003262]

Thiamine, Ascorbic Acid, and Hydrocortisone As a Metabolic Resuscitation Cocktail in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Sepsis is a common condition in the ICU. Despite much research, its prognosis remains poor. In 2017, a retrospective before/after study reported promising results using a combination of thiamine, ascorbic acid, and hydrocortisone called "metabolic resuscitation cocktail" and several randomized controlled trials assessing its effectiveness were performed.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in septic ICU patients to assess the effects of this combination therapy.

SETTING

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March of 2021. Data were extracted independently by two authors. The main outcome was the change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included renal composite endpoints (acute kidney injury) Kidney Disease - Improving Global Outcome organization stage 3 or need for renal replacement therapy, vasopressor duration, and 28-day mortality.

SUBJECTS

We included randomized controlled trials with patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis or septic shock.

INTERVENTION

The trials compared a combination of thiamine, ascorbic acid, and hydrocortisone to standard care or placebo in patients admitted to ICU with sepsis or septic shock.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We included eight randomized controlled trials (n = 1,335 patients). Within 72 hours, the median of mean improvement was -1.8 and -3.2 in the control and intervention groups, respectively (eight randomized controlled trials, n = 1,253 patients); weighted mean difference -0.82 (95% CI, -1.15 to -0.48). Data were homogeneous and the funnel plot did not suggest any publication bias. Duration of vasopressor requirement was significantly reduced in the intervention group (six randomized controlled trials). There was no evidence of a difference regarding the ICU mortality and the renal composite outcome (acute kidney injury KDIGO 3 or need for renal replacement therapy, seven randomized controlled trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Metabolic resuscitation cocktail administrated in ICU septic patients improves change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score within 72 hours. However, this improvement is modest and its clinical relevance is questionable. The impact on renal failure and mortality remains unclear.

Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A safety perspective

The goal of this review is to report a balanced perspective of current evidence for efficacy of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) against the historical safety of these treatments as of May 2021. We preselected therapies of interest for COVID-19 based on national guidelines and modified over time. We searched PubMed and Medline for these specific COVID-19 treatments and data related to their efficacy. We also searched for prior randomized controlled trials of each therapy to assess adverse effects, and we obtained the Food and Drug Administration Approval label for this information. Several drugs have been approved for the treatment of COVID-19, and many more are under study. This includes dexamethasone, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinvir/ritonavir, interferon or interleukin inhibitors, convalescent plasma and several vitamins and minerals. The strongest evidence for benefit is mortality benefit with dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and hypoxemia, although there is a signal of harm if this is started too early. There are several other promising therapies, like interleukin inhibitors and ivermectin. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinvir/ritonavir, and convalescent plasma do not have enough evidence of benefit to outweigh the known risks of these drugs.

Beyond the bundle: Clinical controversies in the management of sepsis in emergency medicine patients

Sepsis is a condition characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. The emergency department (ED) serves as a crucial entry point for patients presenting with sepsis. Given the heterogeneous presentation and high mortality rate associated with sepsis and septic shock, several clinical controversies have emerged in the management of sepsis. These include the use of novel therapeutic agents like angiotensin II, hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, thiamine ("HAT") therapy, and levosimendan, Additionally, controversies with current treatments in vasopressor dosing, and the use of and balanced or unbalanced crystalloid are crucial to consider. The purpose of this review is to discuss clinical controversies in the management of septic patients, including the use of novel medications and dosing strategies, to assist providers in appropriately determining what treatment strategy is best suited for patients.

Potential role of herbal medicines as a novel approach in sepsis treatment

The growing number of deaths related to sepsis has become a major concern for past few years. Sepsis is a complex pathological reactions that is explained by series of host response to microbial insult. The resulted systemic reactions are manifested by early appearance of proinflammatory cytokines leading to hyperinflammatory phase which is followed by septic shock and death of the patient. The present study has revealed that antibiotics are not self-sufficient to control the complex mechanism of sepsis. Moreover prolonged and unnecessary administration of antibiotics may lead to antibiotic resistance to pathogens. In addition to this, immunosuppressive medications are selective and have targeted approach to certain study population. Drugs from herbal origin have shown to possess a mammoth of immunomodulatory potential by suppressing proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines exhibiting no or minimal unwanted secondary responses. Concomitantly, herbal plants tend to modulate oxidative stress level and haematological imbalance during inflammatory diseased conditions. Natural compounds have gained much attention for the treatment of several clinical complications. Considering the promising responses of medicinal plants with less/no side effects and easy procurement, comprehensive research on herbal plants to treat sepsis should be contemplated.

Hemodynamic monitoring and management of pediatric septic shock

Sepsis remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among children worldwide. Furthermore, refractory septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome are the most critical groups which account for a high mortality rate in pediatric sepsis, and their clinical course often deteriorates rapidly. Resuscitation based on hemodynamics can provide objective values for identifying the severity of sepsis and monitoring the treatment response. Hemodynamics in sepsis can be divided into two groups: basic and advanced hemodynamic parameters. Previous therapeutic guidance of early-goal directed therapy (EGDT), which resuscitated based on the basic hemodynamics (central venous pressure and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2)) has lost its advantage compared with “usual care”. Optimization of advanced hemodynamics, such as cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance, has now been endorsed as better therapeutic guidance for sepsis. Despite this, there are still some important hemodynamics associated with prognosis. In this article, we summarize the common techniques for hemodynamic monitoring, list important hemodynamic parameters related to outcomes, and update evidence-based therapeutic recommendations for optimizing resuscitation in pediatric septic shock.

Association Between Lack of Blinding and Mortality Results in Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether intervention effect estimates for mortality differ between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care. We used a meta-epidemiological approach, comparing effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials for the same research question.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention on mortality in critical care, published between January 2009 and March 2019 in high impact factor general medical or critical care journals and by Cochrane.

DATA EXTRACTION

For each randomized controlled trial included in eligible meta-analyses, we evaluated whether the trial was blinded (i.e., double-blinded and/or reporting adequate methods) or not (i.e., open-label, single-blinded, or unclear). We collected risk of bias evaluated by the review authors and extracted trial results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Within each meta-analysis, we compared intervention effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials by using a ratio of odds ratio (< 1 indicates larger estimates in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials). We then combined ratio of odds ratios across meta-analyses to obtain the average relative difference between nonblinded and blinded trials. Among 467 randomized controlled trials included in 36 meta-analyses, 267 (57%) were considered blinded and 200 (43%) nonblinded. Intervention effect estimates were statistically significantly larger in nonblinded than blinded trials (combined ratio of odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). We found no heterogeneity across meta-analyses (p = 0.72; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0). Sensitivity analyses adjusting the main analysis on risk of bias items yielded consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention effect estimates of mortality were slightly larger in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care, but confounding cannot be excluded. Blinding of both patients and personnel is important to consider when possible in critical care trials, even when evaluating mortality.

Corticosteroids for Treating Sepsis in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed. This review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of corticosteroids on patients with sepsis were included. The quality of outcomes in the included articles was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The data were pooled by using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). The random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled MD or RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Fifty RCTs that included 12,304 patients with sepsis were identified. Corticosteroids were not associated with the mortality in 28-day (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87–1.02; evidence rank, moderate) and long-term mortality (>60 days) (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.05) in patients with sepsis (evidence rank, low). However, corticosteroids may exert a significant effect on the mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.83–0.97), in-hospital (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99; evidence rank, moderate) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (evidence rank, low). Furthermore, corticosteroids probably achieved a tiny reduction in the length of hospital stay and ICU. Corticosteroids were associated with a higher risk of hypernatremia and hyperglycemia; furthermore, they appear to have no significant effect on superinfection and gastroduodenal bleeding.

Conclusions

Corticosteroids had no significant effect on the 28-day and long-term mortality; however, they decreased the ICU and hospital mortality. The findings suggest that the clinical corticosteroids may be an effective therapy for patients with sepsis during the short time.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INPLASY-Protocol-1074-4.pdf

Therapeutic Approaches in Modulating the Inflammatory and Immunological Response in Patients With Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Pancreatitis: An Expert Opinion Review

Immunomodulation has long been an adjunct approach in treating critically ill patients with sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and acute pancreatitis (AP). Hyperactive immune response with immunopathogenesis leads to organ dysfunction and alters the clinical outcomes in critically ill. Though the immune response in the critically ill might have been overlooked, it has gathered greater attention during this novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Modulating hyperactive immune response, the cytokine storm, especially with steroids, has shown to improve the outcomes in COVID-19 patients. In this review, we find that immune response pathogenesis in critically ill patients with sepsis, ARDS, and AP is nearly similar. The use of immunomodulators such as steroids, broad-spectrum serine protease inhibitors such as ulinastatin, thymosin alpha, intravenous immunoglobulins, and therapies such as CytoSorb and therapeutic plasma exchange may help in improving the clinical outcomes in these conditions. As the experience of the majority of physicians in using such therapeutics may be limited, we provide our expert comments regarding immunomodulation to optimize outcomes in patients with sepsis/septic shock, ARDS, and AP.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity.  We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.  We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet.  Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo  We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies.  All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution.  New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics.  Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence).    Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids  We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to  adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants).  There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable.  We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

Intensive care management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

The syndrome of acute-on-chronic liver failure combines deterioration of liver function in a patient with chronic liver disease, with the development of extrahepatic organ failure and high short-term mortality. Its successful management demands a rapid and coherent response to the development of dysfunction and failure of multiple organ systems in an intensive care unit setting. This response recognises the features that distinguish it from other critical illness and addresses the complex interplay between the precipitating insult, the many organ systems involved and the disordered physiology of underlying chronic liver disease. An evidence base is building to support the approaches currently adopted and outcomes for patients with this condition are improving, but mortality remains unacceptably high. Herein, we review practical considerations in critical care management, as well as discussing key knowledge gaps and areas of controversy that require further focussed research.

Corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, use and misuse: a brief review

Corticosteroids use in severe and critical COVID-19 patients is recommended by international guidelines, as they reduce mortality. However, the use outside of these indications could be harmful and should be discouraged. The scope of this brief review is to examine the beneficial mechanisms of corticosteroids treatment in COVID-19 and when they should be adopted.

Dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in critical illness: a narrative review for emergency physicians

The stress response to acute disease is characterized by activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and the sympathoadrenal system, increased serum cortisol levels, increased percentage of its free fraction and increased nuclear translocation of the glucocorticoid-receptor complex, even though many pathways may be inhibited by poorly understood mechanisms. There is no consensus about the cutoff point of serum cortisol levels for defining adrenal insufficiency. Furthermore, recent data point to the participation of tissue resistance to glucocorticoids in acute systemic inflammatory processes. In this review, we evaluate the evidence on HPA axis dysfunction during critical illness, particularly its action on the inflammatory response, during acute severe injury and some pitfalls surrounding the issue. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency was defined as a dynamic condition characterized by inappropriate cellular activity of corticosteroids for the severity of the disease, manifested by persistently elevated proinflammatory mediators. There is no consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria and treatment indications of this syndrome. Therefore, the benefits of administering corticosteroids to critically ill patients depend on improvements in our knowledge about the possible disruption of its fragile signalling structure in the short and long term.

Benefits of combination therapy of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid and thiamine in sepsis and septic shock: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sepsis and septic shock are severe medical conditions that can damage multiple organs with a higher risk of mortality. Recently, the combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid and thiamine (HAT) was hypothesized to work synergistically to reverse septic shock and reduce mortality.

AIM

To ascertain the efficacy of HAT therapy and compare whether HAT therapy is more beneficial compared to the standard of care in sepsis and septic shock patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase are databases that were used to identify trials that conducted a study of the combination of HAT in sepsis or septic shock.

RESULTS

There were 134 articles identified through a database search and 16 from other sources, which were subsequently reduced to 11 trials (six randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) that were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this review. Most of the outcomes from these studies focused on mortality, the need for renal replacement therapy, duration of vasopressor use, changes in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, procalcitonin clearance and lengths of intensive care unit stay.

CONCLUSION

Due to inconsistent results from clinical studies, the benefits of HAT therapy cannot be confirmed at this point in sepsis and septic shock. Currently, there are at least 20 randomized controlled trials testing HAT in various combinations and dosages in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The results of these studies are required before definitive conclusions can be made regarding the impact of this novel treatment strategy on the morbidity and mortality of patients with sepsis.

High-Density Lipoproteins and Acute Kidney Injury

High-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles, best known for their anti-atherosclerotic effects, also may play a beneficial role during acute renal stress. HDL from healthy human beings also shows anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant capacities, promotes endothelial function and repair, and serves as a systemic signaling mechanism facilitating rapid interorgan communication during times of physiologic stress. Higher concentrations of HDL are associated with less acute kidney injury after sepsis, cardiac and vascular surgery, and contrast-exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions. A better understanding of the interplay between HDL and the kidney both under homeostatic conditions and under acute physiologic stress could lead to the identification of novel risk factors and therapeutic targets for acute kidney injury prevention and treatment in the future.

GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings

OBJECTIVE

To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance.

RESULTS

Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating.

CONCLUSION

GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.

Blind spot in sepsis management - Tissue level changes in microcirculation

In sepsis cytokine-mediated inflammation, clotting cascade activation and glycocalyx shedding impair both function and structure of the microcirculation, compromising adequate tissue oxygenation/perfusion. Such mismatch results in "dysoxia", an imbalance in mitochondrial respiration.Microvessel injuries can be grouped into four types: cytotoxic oedema, micro-vessel heterogeneity, sluggish/absent flow, and focal anaemia. Recognition of such diversity in microcirculatory pathology, alongside with the implementation of novel biomarkers might reveal previously unobserved heterogeneity in adults diagnosed with sepsis. Early identification of distinct subtypes may help not only to better stratify disease severity but may also provide explanation to the often seen insufficient/absent response to resuscitative treatment. Experimental evidence suggests that impaired microcirculatory flow may correlate with organ dysfunction and mortality. Therefore, reliable/reproducible diagnostic tools, that provide real-time information about the dynamic state of the microcirculation, might be practice changers in managing the critically ill.The sublingual mucosa and the nailfolds provide easy access to microcirculation via hand-held, point-of-care devices. Accessing these windows, clinicians may recognise, understand and potentially correct the underlying tissue oxygenation/perfusion mismatch. This new clinical information might facilitate an individualised approach vs protocolised care aiming to administer the right balance of intravenous fluids/vasopressors, time/dose auxiliary treatment modalities and, most importantly, might also guide determining the optimal duration of resuscitation to avoid/minimise harm and maximise benefits in sepsis management. However, before every-day clinical use of such point-of-care microcameras, validation studies are needed to establish not only feasibility but reliability and reproducibility as well.

Evaluation of the Initiation Timing of Hydrocortisone in Adult Patients With Septic Shock

INTRODUCTION

Clinical studies evaluating the use of hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock are heterogeneous in design with conflicting results. The appropriate time in which to initiate hydrocortisone after shock onset is unknown. This study sought to compare clinical outcomes including vasopressor duration and mortality in patients with septic shock who received hydrocortisone based on timing of initiation after shock onset.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients between 2011 and 2017 admitted to 10 medical, surgical, and neurosciences intensive care units (ICUs) at a large, tertiary care academic medical center. Adult patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock who received hydrocortisone were included. Patients were divided into five timing cohorts based on time after shock onset: 0-6, 6-12, 12-24, 24-48, or >48 h. The primary outcome was days alive and free from vasopressors.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred seventy patients were included: 567 (38.6%) received hydrocortisone between 0 and 6 h, 231 (15.7%) 6 and 12 h, 260 (17.7%) 12 and 24 h, 195 (13.3%) 24 and 48 h, and 217 (14.8%) >48 h after shock onset. Patients who received hydrocortisone earlier were sicker at baseline with higher APACHE III scores, lactate concentrations, and norepinephrine requirements. On univariate analysis, days alive and free from vasopressors did not significantly differ amongst the timing groups (median 3.3 days for 0-6 h; 1.9 for 6-12 h; 1.9 for 12-24 h; 0 for 24-48 h; 0 for >48 h; P = 0.39); similarly, ICU mortality did not differ. On multivariable linear regression, timing of hydrocortisone was independently associated with more days alive and free from vasopressors when comparing initiation within 0 to 6 h with >48 h (beta-coefficient 2.8 days [95% CI 0.8-4.7]), 6-12 h with >48 h (2.5 days [95% CI 0.2-4.7]), and 12-24 h with >48 h (2.3 days [95% CI 0.2-4.5]). On multivariable logistic regression, timing of hydrocortisone was associated with reduced ICU mortality when comparing receipt within 0 to 6 h of shock onset to >48 h after shock onset (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients in whom hydrocortisone is prescribed for vasopressor-dependent septic shock, timing is crucial and hydrocortisone should be started within the first 12 h after shock onset.

Bridging animal and clinical research during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A new-old challenge

Many milestones in medical history rest on animal modeling of human diseases. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has evoked a tremendous investigative effort primarily centered on clinical studies. However, several animal SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 models have been developed and pre-clinical findings aimed at supporting clinical evidence rapidly emerge. In this review, we characterize the existing animal models exposing their relevance and limitations as well as outline their utility in COVID-19 drug and vaccine development. Concurrently, we summarize the status of clinical trial research and discuss the novel tactics utilized in the largest multi-center trials aiming to accelerate generation of reliable results that may subsequently shape COVID-19 clinical treatment practices. We also highlight areas of improvement for animal studies in order to elevate their translational utility. In pandemics, to optimize the use of strained resources in a short time-frame, optimizing and strengthening the synergy between the preclinical and clinical domains is pivotal.

Sepsis in Immunocompromised Patients Without Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Sepsis remains among the most common complications from infectious diseases worldwide. The morbidity and mortality rates associated with sepsis range from 20% to 50%. The advances in care for patients with an immunocompromised status have been remarkable over the last 2 decades, but sepsis continues to be a major cause of death in this population Immunocompromised patients who are recipients of a solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant are living longer with a better quality of life. However, some of these patients need lifelong treatment with immunosuppressive medications to maintain their transplant status. A consequence of the need for this permanent immunosuppression is the high risk of opportunistic, community, and hospital-acquired infections, all of which can lead to sepsis. In addition, the detection of serious infections may be more challenging owing to patients' lower ability to mount the clinical symptoms that usually accompany sepsis. This article provides an update on the current knowledge of sepsis in immunocompromised patients without human immunodeficiency virus. It reviews the most pertinent causes of sepsis in this population, and addresses the specific diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in neutropenia and solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Concomitant use of dexamethasone and tetracyclines: a potential therapeutic option for the management of severe COVID-19 infection?

Introduction: The global coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed a critical challenge to the research community as well as to the healthcare systems. Severe COVID-19 patients are at a higher risk of developing serious complications and mortality. There is a dire need for safe and effective pharmacotherapy for addressing unmet needs of these patients. Concomitant use of dexamethasone and tetracyclines, by virtue of their immunomodulatory and other relevant pharmacological properties, offers a potential strategy for synergy aimed at improving clinical outcomes.Areas covered: Here we review the potential benefits of combining dexamethasone and tetracyclines (minocycline or doxycycline) for the management of severe COVID-19 patients. We have critically examined the evidence obtained from in silico, experimental, and clinical research. We have also discussed the plausible mechanisms, advantages, and drawbacks of this proposed combination therapy for managing severe COVID-19.Expert opinion: The concomitant use of dexamethasone and one of the tetracyclines among severe COVID-19 patients offers several advantages in terms of additive immunomodulatory effects, cost-effectiveness, wide-availability, and well-known pharmacological properties including adverse-effect profile and contraindications. There is an urgent need to facilitate pilot studies followed by well-designed and adequately-powered multicentric clinical trials to generate conclusive evidence related to utility of this approach.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Emerging therapeutic targets for sepsis

Introduction: Sepsis is characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis-associated morbidity/mortality demands concerted research efforts toward therapeutic interventions which are reliable, broadly effective, and etiologically based. More intensive and extensive investigations on alterations in cellular signaling pathways, gene targeting as a means of modifying the characteristic hyper and/or hypo-immune responses, prevention through optimization of the microbiome, and the molecular pathways underlying the septic immune response could improve outcomes.] Areas covered: The authors discuss key experimental mammalian models and clinical trials. They provide an evaluation of evolving therapeutics in sepsis and how they have built upon past and current treatments. Relevant literature was derived from a PubMed search spanning 1987-2020.Expert opinion: Given the complex nature of sepsis and the elicited immune response, it is not surprising that a single cure-all therapeutic intervention, which is capable of effectively and reliably improving patient outcomes has failed to emerge. Innovative approaches seek to address not only the disease process but modify underlying patient factors. A true improvement in sepsis-associated morbidity/mortality will require a combination of unique therapeutic modalities.

Sepsis and Septic Shock; Current Treatment Dilemma and Role of Stem Cell Therapy in Pediatrics

Context: Sepsis’s primary therapy consists of antibiotics therapy, supportive therapies, and source control of infection. The failure rate of this approach is about 20 - 40%. The widespread use of antibiotics has caused multiple drug resistance in primary etiological agents of sepsis in community-acquired and healthcare-associated infections. In the absence of new antibiotic options, alternative treatment modalities seem necessary. Evidence Acquisition: Herein, we have reviewed and discussed current problems with sepsis management and stem cell therapy in sepsis, preclinical, experimental studies, and early-phase clinical trials using stem cells to treat sepsis. In the preparation of the paper, PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), Scopus, and the web address (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were searched by the keywords (sepsis and cell therapy, septic shock, and cell therapy). Results: After the inclusion of criteria, we reviewed 301 original articles. Few articles were found for phase II and phase III clinical trials. Eighty-three articles were included in the current review article. Besides problems with infection source control, the host immune response to the infection enumerated for primary underlying pathophysiologic dysregulation of sepsis and complicated the treatment. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) therapy offers a promising treatment option for sepsis. Indeed, immunomodulatory properties, antimicrobial activity, the capacity of protection against organ failure, enhance the resolution of tissue injury, tissue repair, and restoration after sepsis confer MSCs with a significant advantage to treat the immune and inflammatory dysfunctions associated with severe sepsis and septic shock. Conclusions: It seems that MSCs therapy exhibits an appropriate safety index. Future trials should focus on strengthening study quality, reporting MSCs’ therapeutic effects and adverse events. Although early clinical trials seem promising and have beneficial effects, we need more controlled clinical studies, especially in phases II and III.

The Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Determines Clinical Efficacy of Corticosteroid Therapy in Patients with COVID-19

Corticosteroid therapy is now recommended as a treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. But one key question is how to objectively identify severely ill patients who may benefit from such therapy. Here, we assigned 12,862 COVID-19 cases from 21 hospitals in Hubei Province equally to a training and a validation cohort. We found that a neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 6.11 at admission discriminated a higher risk for mortality. Importantly, however, corticosteroid treatment in such individuals was associated with a lower risk of 60-day all-cause mortality. Conversely, in individuals with an NLR ≤ 6.11 or with type 2 diabetes, corticosteroid treatment was not associated with reduced mortality, but rather increased risks of hyperglycemia and infections. These results show that in the studied cohort corticosteroid treatment is associated with beneficial outcomes in a subset of COVID-19 patients who are non-diabetic and with severe symptoms as defined by NLR.

Interpretation of the endocrinology of hospital inpatients

Blood tests to assess the endocrine system are commonly performed in patients admitted to hospital. This may be because an endocrinopathy is thought to be aetiological in the presenting disease or suspected as an incidental occurrence by the clinician. Many patients, in addition to the pathology leading to admission, frequently have one or more comorbidities, a change in nutritional status and polypharmacy. Added to this, presentation with acute illness is a major life stress. All of these are likely to impact on one or more endocrine axes, although often only transiently. Endocrine evaluation in the vast majority of cases can be safely deferred to the outpatient setting. This article considers the most common endocrine anomalies discovered in hospital, the confounders, and provides guidance on how to investigate these further.

The protective effect of rheumatic disease agents in COVID-19

Several immunosuppressive therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for patients with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Notable examples include corticosteroids, interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 1 (IL-1), Janus kinase (JAK), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze the mechanistic rationale and available evidence for these selected anti-rheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Currently, only corticosteroids have consistently proven to be effective in decreasing mortality and are recommended in clinical guidelines for the treatment of severe and critical COVID-19. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are ongoing to determine the role of other immunosuppressants.

Adjunctive treatments for the management of septic shock - a narrative review of the current evidence

Septic shock is a leading cause of death and morbidity worldwide. The cornerstones of management include prompt identification of sepsis, early initiation of antibiotic therapy, adequate fluid resuscitation and organ support. Over the past two decades, there have been considerable improvements in our understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis and the host response, including regulation of inflammation, endothelial disruption and impaired immunity. This has offered opportunities for innovative adjunctive treatments such as vitamin C, corticosteroids and beta-blockers. Some of these approaches have shown promising results in early phase trials in humans, while others, such as corticosteroids, have been tested in large, international, multicentre randomised controlled trials. Contemporary guidelines make a weak recommendation for the use of corticosteroids to reduce mortality in sepsis and septic shock. Vitamin C, despite showing initial promise in observational studies, has so far not been shown to be clinically effective in randomised trials. Beta-blocker therapy may have beneficial cardiac and non-cardiac effects in septic shock, but there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend their use for this condition. The results of ongoing randomised trials are awaited. Crucial to reducing heterogeneity in the trials of new sepsis treatments will be the concept of enrichment, which refers to the purposive selection of patients with clinical and biological characteristics that are likely to be responsive to the intervention being tested.

Targeting pivotal inflammatory pathways in COVID-19: A mechanistic review

As an emerging global health crisis, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been labeled a worldwide pandemic. Growing evidence is revealing further pathophysiological mechanisms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Amongst these dysregulated pathways inflammation seems to play a more critical role toward COVID-19 complications. In the present study, precise inflammatory pathways triggered by SARS-CoV-2, along with potential therapeutic candidates have been discussed. Prevailing evidence has indicated a close correlation of inflammatory cascades with severity, pathological progression, and organ damages in COVID-19 patients. From the mechanistic point of view, interleukin-6, interleukin-1β receptor, interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor-alpha receptor, toll-like receptor, receptor tyrosine kinases, growth factor receptor, Janus kinase/signal transducers and transcription pathway, mammalian target of rapamycin, cytokine storm and macrophage activation have shown to play critical roles in COVID-19 complications. So, there is an urgent need to provide novel mechanistic-based anti-inflammatory agents. This review highlights inflammatory signaling pathways of SARS-CoV-2. Several therapeutic targets and treatment strategies have also been provided in an attempt to tackle COVID-19 complications.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in immunocompetent patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND

The use of corticosteroids in septic shock has been studied for many decades but yielded conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of corticosteroids in immunocompetent patients with septic shock.

METHODS

Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 2020. Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with a control group for immunocompetent patients with septic shock. Data were abstracted and reported following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Intervention and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The efficacy outcome included mortality and shock reversal. The safety outcomes were infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hyperglycemia.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with a total of 1,298 patients were included. Compared with the control group, corticosteroid group did not lower the short-term (28 or 30 days) mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.06, inconsistency [I ²]=0%, trial sequential analysis [TSA]-adjusted CI 0.83 to 1.09, moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids significantly shortened the time to shock reversal compared with the control group (mean difference [MD] -21.56 hours; 95% CI -32.95 to -10.16, I ²=0%; TSA-adjusted CI -33.33 to -9.78, moderate-certainty evidence). The corticosteroid treatment was associated with an increased risk of hyperglycemia but not the infection or gastrointestinal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The corticosteroid treatment is not associated with lower short- or long- term mortality compared with placebo in immunocompetent patients with septic shock. However, corticosteroids significantly shorten the time to shock reversal without increasing the risk of infection. The patient's immune status should also be considered during clinical treatment and clinical trials in future.

Management of Pediatric Septic Shock and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Thailand: A Survey of Pediatricians

Introduction: Pediatric septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome (pARDS) are major causes of morbidity and mortality in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). While standardized guidelines for sepsis and pARDS are published regularly, their implementation and adherence to guidelines are different in resource-rich and resource-limited countries. The purpose of this study was to conduct a survey to ascertain variation in current clinician-reported practice in pediatric septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and the clinician skills in a variety of hospital settings throughout Thailand. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey in pediatricians throughout the country between August 2020 and February 2021 using multiple choice questions and clinical case scenarios based on the 2017 American College of Critical Care Medicine's Consensus guideline for pediatric and neonatal septic shock and the 2015 Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference. Results: The survey elicited responses from 255 pediatricians (125 general pediatricians, 38 pulmonologists, 27 cardiologists, 32 intensivists, and 33 other subspecialists), with 54.5% of the respondents having <5 years of PICU experience. Among the six sepsis scenarios, 72.5 and 78.4% of the respondents had good adherence to the guidelines for managing fluid refractory shock and sedation for intubation, respectively. The ICU physicians reported greater adherence during more complex shock. In ARDS scenarios, 80.8% of the respondents reported having difficulty diagnosing ARDS mimic conditions and used lesser PEEP than the recommendation. Acceptance of permissive hypercapnia and mild hypoxemia was accepted by 62.4 and 49.4% of respondents, respectively. The ICU physicians preferred decremental PEEP titration, whereas general pediatricians preferred incremental PEEP titration. Conclusion: This survey variation could be the result of resource constraints, knowledge gaps, or ambiguous guidelines. Understanding the perspective and rationale for variation in pediatricians' practices is critical for successful guideline implementation.

Multidisciplinary Guidance Regarding the Use of Immunomodulatory Therapies for Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Pediatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Immune-mediated lung injury and systemic hyperinflammation are characteristic of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults. Although the majority of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in pediatric populations result in minimal or mild COVID-19 in the acute phase of infection, a small subset of children develop severe and even critical disease in this phase with concomitant inflammation that may benefit from immunomodulation. Therefore, guidance is needed regarding immunomodulatory therapies in the setting of acute pediatric COVID-19. This document does not provide guidance regarding the recently emergent multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of pediatric subspecialty physicians and pharmacists with expertise in infectious diseases, rheumatology, hematology/oncology, and critical care medicine was convened. Guidance statements were developed based on best available evidence and expert opinion.

RESULTS

The panel devised a framework for considering the use of immunomodulatory therapy based on an assessment of clinical disease severity and degree of multiorgan involvement combined with evidence of hyperinflammation. Additionally, the known rationale for consideration of each immunomodulatory approach and the associated risks and benefits was summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunomodulatory therapy is not recommended for the majority of pediatric patients, who typically develop mild or moderate COVID-19. For children with severe or critical illness, the use of immunomodulatory agents may be beneficial. The risks and benefits of such therapies are variable and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from appropriate specialty services. When available, the panel strongly favors immunomodulatory agent use within the context of clinical trials. The framework presented herein offers an approach to decision-making regarding immunomodulatory therapy for severe or critical pediatric COVID-19 and is informed by currently available data, while awaiting results of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

Administration with corticosteroid relieving pain following total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of corticosteroid in relieving pain and inflammation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials in PubMed (1996 to March 2020), Embase (1996 to March 2020), and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, March 2020) compared corticosteroid and placebo in pain in TKA patients were identified by a software and manual searching. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed. Sensitivity analysis was performed by omitting each study in turn. The major outcomes of the studies were analyzed by the Stata 12.0.

RESULTS

13 randomized controlled trials that involved 193 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. The results of the study revealed a significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) score of pain at rest in the corticosteroid group (12 hours: weighted mean difference (WMD)=-1.35, P = .005; 24 hours: WMD=-1.11, P = .000; 48 hours: WMD=-0.31, P = .000; 72 hours: WMD = -0.30, P = .000). And Postoperative VAS scores during mobilization at 12 hours and 24  hours were significantly lower at corticosteroid group when compared with control group (12 hours: WMD = -0.81, P = 0.000; 24 hours: WMD = -1.66, P = .018). Meta-analyses show that administration of corticosteroid can reduce the length of hospital stay, incidence nausea and the C-reactive protein level. While no significant difference was observed in the VAS scores during mobilization at 48 hours and 72 hours and total morphine consumption (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the control group, intraoperative corticosteroid was benefit to the pain management in TKA. However, more high-quality studies are still warranted to further validate our findings, considering there are several limitations in this meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis or septic shock using the new third international consensus definitions (Sepsis-3): A retrospective observational study

Background

The effects of intravenous corticosteroids in patients with sepsis remain controversial due to mixed results from randomized trials. Moreover, updated definitions of sepsis, Sepsis-3, were proposed in 2016, and findings related to the effects of corticosteroids in patients defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria are scarce.

Objective

To investigate the effectiveness of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis or septic shock using real-world data to complement the findings of randomized controlled trials, and to determine whether the treatment effects differ by sepsis definitions.

Methods

We conducted this study by utilizing a large, multi-center healthcare database, eICU, in which we identified patients with sepsis admitted to 208 intensive care units across the US from 2014 to 2015 based on two different definitions: prior explicit definitions (i.e., based on diagnosis codes) and the Sepsis-3 definitions (i.e., based on SOFA score). The association between intravenous corticosteroids and in-hospital survival up to 50 days in patients with sepsis was retrospectively analyzed. A parametric hazard model with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weight adjustment was used to control for baseline confounders.

Results

Of the 7,158 patients identified based on the explicit definition, 562 (7.9%) received corticosteroids; of the 5,009 patients identified based on the Sepsis-3 definition, 465 (9.3%) received corticosteroids. In the explicit cohort, adjusted in-hospital survival at day 50 was 0.62 in the treated vs 0.57 in the non-treated, with a survival difference of 0.05 (95%CI: -0.11, 0.17). Similar results were seen in the Sepsis-3 cohort (0.58 vs 0.56 in treated and non-treated, respectively), with a 50-day survival difference of 0.02 (95%CI: -0.19, 0.17).

Conclusions

In patients with sepsis or septic shock, intravenous corticosteroids were not associated with a higher in-hospital survival up to 50 days regardless of the sepsis definitions. Further research may be necessary to definitively confirm effectiveness in real-world practice.

Effects of low-dose hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone in adults with septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

INTRODUCTION

The benefits and risks of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock have been investigated in numerous randomised controlled trials and trial-level meta-analyses. Yet, the routine use of this treatment remains controversial. To overcome the limitations of previous meta-analyses inherent to the use of aggregate data, we will perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) on the effect of hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone compared with placebo or usual care on 90-day mortality and other outcomes in patients with septic shock.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To assess the benefits and risks of hydrocortisone, with or without fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock, we will search major electronic databases from inception to September 2020 (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), complimented by a search for unpublished trials. The primary analysis will compare hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone to placebo or no treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Secondary analyses will compare hydrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), and hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone. The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days. We will conduct both one-stage IPDMA using mixed-effect models and machine learning with targeted maximum likelihood analyses. We will assess the risk of bias related to unshared data and related to the quality of individual trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This IPDMA will use existing data from completed randomised clinical trials and will comply with the ethical and regulatory requirements regarding data sharing for each of the component trials. The findings of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-review journal with straightforward policy for open access.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017062198.

Sepsis and Coronavirus Disease 2019: Common Features and Anti-Inflammatory Therapeutic Approaches

Great efforts are being made worldwide to identify the specific clinical characteristics of infected critically ill patients that mediate the associated pathogenesis, including vascular dysfunction, thrombosis, dysregulated inflammation, and respiratory complications. Recently, coronavirus disease 2019 has been closely related to sepsis, which suggests that most deaths in ICUs in infected patients are produced by viral sepsis. Understanding the physiopathology of the disease that lead to sepsis after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection is a current clinical need to improve intensive care-applied therapies applied to critically ill patients. Although the whole representative data characterizing the immune and inflammatory status in coronavirus disease 2019 patients are not completely known, it is clear that hyperinflammation and coagulopathy contribute to disease severity. Here, we present some common features shared by severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients and sepsis and describe proposed anti-inflammatory therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 which have been previously evaluated in sepsis.

A systematic review of corticosteroid treatment for noncritically ill patients with COVID-19

The World Health Organization (WHO) has published guidance recommending systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of patients with severe or critical COVID-19 and no corticosteroids for those with nonsevere COVID-19. Although their recommendations for critical cases were based on the results from seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), those for noncritical cases were based on the results from only one RCT, the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial. In search of additional evidence of corticosteroids’ effect on COVID-19, we systematically reviewed controlled observational studies, besides RCTs, that assessed the impact of corticosteroid treatment on any type of mortality and/or other outcomes in noncritical patients. Of the 4037 titles and abstracts screened, we ultimately included the RECOVERY trial and five controlled observational studies using propensity score matching, (accessed on September 8, 2020). Two of the controlled observational studies assessed the association between corticosteroid treatment and in-hospital mortality, without finding statistical significance. Four of the controlled observational studies assessed corticosteroids’ effect on other outcomes, demonstrating that they were associated with reduced risk of intubation in patients requiring oxygen and with longer hospitalization and viral shedding in mild or moderate cases. These results support the WHO recommendations not to use corticosteroids for nonsevere COVID-19.

Disease-Causing Mutations and Rearrangements in Long Non-coding RNA Gene Loci

The classic understanding of molecular disease-mechanisms is largely based on protein-centric models. During the past decade however, genetic studies have identified numerous disease-loci in the human genome that do not encode proteins. Such non-coding DNA variants increasingly gain attention in diagnostics and personalized medicine. Of particular interest are long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) genes, which generate transcripts longer than 200 nucleotides that are not translated into proteins. While most of the estimated ~20,000 lncRNAs currently remain of unknown function, a growing number of genetic studies link lncRNA gene aberrations with the development of human diseases, including diabetes, AIDS, inflammatory bowel disease, or cancer. This suggests that the protein-centric view of human diseases does not capture the full complexity of molecular patho-mechanisms, with important consequences for molecular diagnostics and therapy. This review illustrates well-documented lncRNA gene aberrations causatively linked to human diseases and discusses potential lessons for molecular disease models, diagnostics, and therapy.

Renal gluconeogenesis: an underestimated role of the kidney in systemic glucose metabolism

Glucose levels are tightly regulated at all times. Gluconeogenesis is the metabolic pathway dedicated to glucose synthesis from non-hexose precursors. Gluconeogenesis is critical for glucose homoeostasis, particularly during fasting or stress conditions. The renal contribution to systemic gluconeogenesis is increasingly recognized. During the post-absorptive phase, the kidney accounts for ∼40% of endogenous gluconeogenesis, occurring mainly in the kidney proximal tubule. The main substrate for renal gluconeogenesis is lactate and the process is regulated by insulin and cellular glucose levels, but also by acidosis and stress hormones. The kidney thus plays an important role in the maintenance of glucose and lactate homoeostasis during stress conditions. The impact of acute and chronic kidney disease and proximal tubular injury on gluconeogenesis is not well studied. Recent evidence shows that in both experimental and clinical acute kidney injury, impaired renal gluconeogenesis could significantly participate in systemic metabolic disturbance and thus alter the prognosis. This review summarizes the biochemistry of gluconeogenesis, the current knowledge of kidney gluconeogenesis, its modifications in kidney disease and the clinical relevance of this fundamental biological process in human biology.

Are prognostic tools losing accuracy? Development and performance of a novel age-calibrated severity scoring system for critically ill patients

Objective

This study aimed to assess the performance of a commonly used ICU severity score (SAPS3) and determine whether an alternative scoring system may be more accurate across all age strata.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study in a general ICU in Brazil. A secondary analysis was performed with clinical and epidemiological data, present in the first 24 hours of unit admission. Then, a binary logistic regression, followed by cross-validation, was made to develop a novel prognostic tool. ICU mortality was the primary outcome evaluated.

Results

A total of 3042 patients were included over the study period between August 2015 and July 2018 with a median age of 67 ± 18.4 years. SAPS3 performed fairly in prediction of ICU mortality, particularly in the 80 years or older subset. Multivariable regression identified variables independently associated with mortality that were used to develop the Age Calibrated ICU Score (ACIS) tool that performed similarly to SAPS3 across age categories, being slightly superior in the very elderly population (AUC 0.80 vs 0.72).

Conclusions

The ACIS offers a robust and simple tool to predict ICU mortality, particularly in an increasingly elderly critical care population.

A Review of Malaysian Herbal Plants and Their Active Constituents with Potential Therapeutic Applications in Sepsis

Sepsis refers to organ failure due to uncontrolled body immune responses towards infection. The systemic inflammatory response triggered by pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from Gram-negative bacteria, is accompanied by the release of various proinflammatory mediators that can lead to organ damage. The progression to septic shock is even more life-threatening due to hypotension. Thus, sepsis is a leading cause of death and morbidity globally. However, current therapies are mainly symptomatic treatment and rely on the use of antibiotics. The lack of a specific treatment demands exploration of new drugs. Malaysian herbal plants have a long history of usage for medicinal purposes. A total of 64 Malaysian plants commonly used in the herbal industry have been published in Malaysian Herbal Monograph 2015 and Globinmed website (http://www.globinmed.com/). An extensive bibliographic search in databases such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus revealed that seven of these plants have antisepsis properties, as evidenced by the therapeutic effect of their extracts or isolated compounds against sepsis-associated inflammatory responses or conditions in in vitro or/and in vivo studies. These include Andrographis paniculata, Zingiber officinale, Curcuma longa, Piper nigrum, Syzygium aromaticum, Momordica charantia, and Centella asiatica. Among these, Z. officinale is the most widely studied plant and seems to have the highest potential for future therapeutic applications in sepsis. Although both extracts as well as active constituents from these herbal plants have demonstrated potential antisepsis activity, the activity might be primarily contributed by the active constituent(s) from each of these plants, which are andrographolide (A. paniculata), 6-gingerol and zingerone (Z. officinale), curcumin (C. longa), piperine and pellitorine (P. nigrum), biflorin (S. aromaticum), and asiaticoside, asiatic acid, and madecassoside (C. asiatica). These active constituents have shown great antisepsis effects, and further investigations into their clinical therapeutic potential may be worthwhile.

Association between thrombomodulin and high mobility group box 1 in sepsis patients

BACKGROUND

High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) has been studied as a molecule associated with severe outcomes in sepsis and thrombomodulin (TM) seems to decrease HMGB1 activity.

AIM

To investigate the role of the thrombomodulin/high mobility group box 1 (T/H) ratio in patients with sepsis and their association with their clinic, testing the hypothesis that higher ratios are associated with better outcomes.

METHODS

Twenty patients diagnosed with sepsis or septic shock, according to the 2016 criteria sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3), were studied. Patients were followed until they left the intensive care unit or until they achieved 28 d of hospitalization (D28). The following clinical outcomes were observed: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score; Need for mechanical pulmonary ventilation; Presence of septic shock; Occurrence of sepsis-induced coagulopathy; Need for renal replacement therapy (RRT); and Death.

RESULTS

The results showed that patients with SOFA scores greater than or equal to 12 points had higher serum levels of TM: 76.41 ± 29.21 pg/mL vs 37.41 ± 22.55 pg/mL among those whose SOFA scores were less than 12 points, P = 0.003. The T/H ratio was also higher in patients whose SOFA scores were greater than or equal to 12 points, P = 0.001. The T/H ratio was, on average, three times higher in patients in need of RRT (0.38 ± 0.14 vs 0.11 ± 0.09), P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Higher serum levels of TM and, therefore, higher T/H ratio in the first 24 h after the diagnosis of sepsis were associated with more severe disease and the need for renal replacement therapy, while those with better clinical outcomes and those who were discharged before D28 showed a tendency for lower T/H ratio values.

The Septic Patient

Anesthesiologists are uniquely positioned to facilitate emergent care of patients with sepsis in the perioperative setting. A subset of sepsis patients presents with surgical pathology. Emphasis is on timely intervention with source control, antibiotic therapy, and aggressive resuscitation. Ileus, aspiration, and cardiovascular collapse must be considered when inducing patients with sepsis. Dynamic fluid responsiveness may prove an effective tool in minimizing over-resuscitation. Assessment of circulatory failure and drug therapy involves an understanding of preload, afterload, and contractility. Timely, targeted resuscitation and early source control have persisted and remain fundamental to sepsis care.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates

This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline.

Clinical question

What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?

Context

The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.

What is new?

The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.

About this guideline

This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.

Future recommendations

Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.

Update on diagnosis and management of sepsis in cirrhosis: Current advances

Sepsis and septic shock are catastrophic disease entities that portend high mortality in patients with cirrhosis. In cirrhosis, hemodynamic perturbations, immune dysregulation, and persistent systemic inflammation with altered gut microbiota in the background of portal hypertension enhance the risk of infections and resistance to antimicrobials. Patients with cirrhosis develop recurrent life-threatening infections that progress to multiple organ failure. The definition, pathophysiology, and treatment options for sepsis have been ever evolving. In this exhaustive review, we discuss novel advances in the understanding of sepsis, describe current and future biomarkers and scoring systems for sepsis, and delineate newer modalities and adjuvant therapies for the treatment of sepsis from existing literature to extrapolate the same concerning the management of sepsis in cirrhosis. We also provide insights into the role of gut microbiota in initiation and progression of sepsis and finally, propose a treatment algorithm for management of sepsis in patients with cirrhosis.

Early administration of glucocorticoid for thyroid storm: analysis of a national administrative database

Background

Thyroid storm is a life-threatening disease with a mortality rate of over 10%. Although glucocorticoids have been recommended as a treatment option for thyroid storm, supportive evidence based on a large-scale clinical research is lacking. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the beneficial effects of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe thyroid storm.

Methods

A retrospective nationwide cohort study was conducted using a Japanese national administrative claims database. Patients admitted to intensive care units due to severe thyroid storm between the financial years 2013 and 2017 were included in the study. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were mortality within 30 days and insulin administration during hospitalization. Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and Bayesian estimation using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods (MCMC), in addition to propensity score matching (PSM), were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 811 patients were included in the study, of which 600 patients were treated with glucocorticoids, and 211 patients were treated without glucocorticoids. The early administration of glucocorticoids was not associated with a significant improvement in the in-hospital mortality of patients with thyroid storm [adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 1.77 (0.95–3.34), 1.44 (1.14–1.93), and 1.46 (0.72–3.00) in the GLMM (MLE), GLMM (MCMC), and PSM, respectively]. The results of mortality within 30 days were almost identical to the results of in-hospital mortality. However, insulin use was significantly higher in the glucocorticoid group.

Conclusions

This analysis of a nationwide administrative database indicates that the administration of glucocorticoids does not improve the survival of patients with thyroid storm.