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

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.

Initial emergency department mechanical ventilation strategies for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging viral pathogen that causes the novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) and may result in hypoxemic respiratory failure necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation in the most severe cases.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of COVID-19 related respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

DISCUSSION

In severe cases, COVID-19 leads to hypoxemic respiratory failure that may meet criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The mainstay of treatment for ARDS includes a lung protective ventilation strategy with low tidal volumes (4-8 mL/kg predicted body weight), adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and maintaining a plateau pressure of < 30 cm H₂O. While further COVID-19 specific studies are needed, current management should focus on supportive care, preventing further lung injury from mechanical ventilation, and treating the underlying cause.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of COVID-19 related respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

Can we use interleukin-6 (IL-6) blockade for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced cytokine release syndrome (CRS)?

The emergent outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a global pandemic. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiorgan dysfunction are among the leading causes of death in critically ill patients with COVID-19. The elevated inflammatory cytokines suggest that a cytokine storm, also known as cytokine release syndrome (CRS), may play a major role in the pathology of COVID-19. However, the efficacy of corticosteroids, commonly utilized antiinflammatory agents, to treat COVID-19-induced CRS is controversial. There is an urgent need for novel therapies to treat COVID-19-induced CRS. Here, we discuss the pathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-induced CRS, compare the CRS in COVID-19 with that in SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and summarize the existing therapies for CRS. We propose to utilize interleukin-6 (IL-6) blockade to manage COVID-19-induced CRS and discuss several factors that should be taken into consideration for its clinical application.

Adverse events associated with prophylactic corticosteroid use before extubation: a cohort study

Background

Systemic corticosteroid use is recommended before extubation in mechanically ventilated patients to prevent postextubation airway complications and reintubation. However, the adverse events associated with such use remain unclear. This study aimed to describe the incidence of adverse events associated with prophylactic corticosteroid use before extubation in mechanically ventilated adult patients.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 251 mechanically ventilated adults who received prophylactic corticosteroids in the intensive care units of four tertiary-care hospitals. The patients received 20 mg methylprednisolone at 12, 8, 4, and 0 hours before extubation (total dose, 80 mg) and were followed for 72 hours after extubation. The primary outcome was a clinically significant increase in blood glucose levels of ≥100 mg/dL within 24 and 72 hours after prophylactic corticosteroid administration.

Results

Fifty-seven (23.1%) out of 247 patients and 73 (30.3%) out of 241 patients showed a clinically significant increase in blood glucose levels within 24 and 72 hours after receiving prophylactic corticosteroids, respectively. The clinically significant increase in blood glucose levels was significantly associated with underlying diabetes mellitus and was not significantly associated with hyperglycemia within 3 days before the initiation of prophylactic corticosteroids or with patient age. New-onset infections and delirium were also common, with incidences of 7.6% and 7.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

Prophylactic corticosteroid use before extubation was associated with adverse events, the most common of which was increased blood glucose levels. Lower doses of prophylactic corticosteroids may need to be considered in patients with diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia.

COVID-19: A review of therapeutics under investigation

The COVID-19 outbreak has disrupted global health care networks and caused thousands of deaths and an international economic downturn. Multiple drugs are being used on patients with COVID-19 based on theoretical and in vitro therapeutic targets. Several of these therapies have been studied, but many have limited evidence behind their use, and clinical trials to evaluate their efficacy are either ongoing or have not yet begun. This review summarizes the existing evidence for medications currently under investigation for treatment of COVID-19, including remdesivir, chloroquine/hydroxychlorquine, convalescent plasma, lopinavir/ritonavir, IL-6 inhibitors, corticosteroids, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Interim Guidelines on Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19

Since the first case was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on December 12, 2019, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread widely to other countries since January 2020. As of April 16, 2020, 10635 confirmed cases have been reported, with 230 deaths in Korea. COVID-19 patients may be asymptomatic or show various clinical manifestations, including acute symptoms such as fever, fatigue, sore throat; pneumonia presenting as acute respiratory distress syndrome; and multiple organ failure. As COVID-19 has such varied clinical manifestations and case fatality rates, no standard antiviral therapy regimen has been established other than supportive therapy. In the present guideline, we aim to introduce potentially helpful antiviral and other drug therapies based on in vivo and in vitro research and clinical experiences from many countries.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

METHODS

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

METHODS

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Optimal Regimen of Corticosteroids in Sepsis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Conventional systematic reviews have indicated that corticosteroids might result in a slight reduction in mortality in sepsis. However, the efficacy, safety, and optimal regimen of different corticosteroids partly remain unknown. In this study, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of currently used corticosteroids in sepsis.

Effect of Very Low-Dose Hydrocortisone on Shock Reversal in Patients With Septic Shock

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

In patients with septic shock, hydrocortisone 200–400 mg/d has been shown to reverse shock compared with placebo. Lower doses of hydrocortisone have not previously been studied, and there are no previous studies comparing two different doses of hydrocortisone. At our institution, some clinicians routinely prescribe doses less than 200 mg/d. This study aims to compare the effect of lower doses of hydrocortisone to standard doses on shock reversal and adverse events in septic shock.

Corticosteroids for Septic Shock: Another Chapter in the Saga

The use of corticosteroids in the management of septic shock has been a highly debated topic for quite some time. Corticosteroids have the ability to combat hyperinflammatory and exaggerated vasodilatory responses, as well as to sensitize adrenergic receptors to decrease the duration of shock. While helpful clinically, this has not translated to consistent mortality benefits. Conflicting results from 2 landmark trials published in 2002 and 2008 have led to varying clinical practices, and a clearly defined role of corticosteroids in septic shock is lacking. A decade later, an influx of new data derived from 2 more large trials continues to echo diverging viewpoints regarding patient mortality. In combination with fluctuating study designs (eg, adjunctive therapies and shock management) and patient populations (eg, illness severity), generalized conclusions are still difficult to draw. Despite these challenges, this review critically analyzes recently published data in the context of historical debate to provide an updated comment on the role of corticosteroids in septic shock. In summary, hydrocortisone therapy is likely to demonstrate maximal benefit when initiated on patients with septic shock and organ failure refractory to vasopressor therapy and should be used judiciously in other settings as it comes without a demonstrated benefit in mortality and increased potential for adverse effects.

ICU-acquired weakness

Critically ill patients often acquire neuropathy and/or myopathy labeled ICU-acquired weakness. The current insights into incidence, pathophysiology, diagnostic tools, risk factors, short- and long-term consequences and management of ICU-acquired weakness are narratively reviewed. PubMed was searched for combinations of “neuropathy”, “myopathy”, “neuromyopathy”, or “weakness” with “critical illness”, “critically ill”, “ICU”, “PICU”, “sepsis” or “burn”. ICU-acquired weakness affects limb and respiratory muscles with a widely varying prevalence depending on the study population. Pathophysiology remains incompletely understood but comprises complex structural/functional alterations within myofibers and neurons. Clinical and electrophysiological tools are used for diagnosis, each with advantages and limitations. Risk factors include age, weight, comorbidities, illness severity, organ failure, exposure to drugs negatively affecting myofibers and neurons, immobility and other intensive care-related factors. ICU-acquired weakness increases risk of in-ICU, in-hospital and long-term mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation and of hospitalization and augments healthcare-related costs, increases likelihood of prolonged care in rehabilitation centers and reduces physical function and quality of life in the long term. RCTs have shown preventive impact of avoiding hyperglycemia, of omitting early parenteral nutrition use and of minimizing sedation. Results of studies investigating the impact of early mobilization, neuromuscular electrical stimulation and of pharmacological interventions were inconsistent, with recent systematic reviews/meta-analyses revealing no or only low-quality evidence for benefit. ICU-acquired weakness predisposes to adverse short- and long-term outcomes. Only a few preventive, but no therapeutic, strategies exist. Further mechanistic research is needed to identify new targets for interventions to be tested in adequately powered RCTs.

Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Corticosteroids as Adjunctive Therapy in the Treatment of Influenza: An Updated Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroids may be beneficial in sepsis, but uncertainty remains over their effects in severe influenza. This systematic review updates the current evidence regarding corticosteroids in the treatment of influenza and examines the effect of dose on outcome.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) and trial registries were searched to October 2018 for randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and observational cohort studies reporting corticosteroid versus no corticosteroid treatment in individuals with influenza.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (randomized controlled trials) or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). Where appropriate, we estimated the effect of corticosteroids by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. Meta-regression analysis was used to assess the association of corticosteroid dose and mortality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 30 eligible studies, all observational apart from one randomized controlled trial. Twenty-one observational studies were included in the meta-analysis of mortality, which suggested an adverse association with corticosteroid therapy (odds ratio, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.31-6.60; 15 studies; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.02; six studies). Risk of bias assessment was consistent with potential confounding by indication. Pooled analysis of seven studies showed increased odds of hospital-acquired infection in people treated with corticosteroids (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.51-4.95). Meta-regression of the effect of dose on mortality did not reveal an association, but reported doses of corticosteroids in included studies were high (mostly > 40 mg methylprednisolone [or equivalent] per day).

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid treatment in influenza is associated with increased mortality and hospital-acquired infection, but the evidence relates mainly to high corticosteroid doses and is of low quality with potential confounding by indication a major concern.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-Associated Organ Dysfunction in Children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Health economic evaluations of sepsis interventions in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review

Background

Sepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

We identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

There is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42018095980

Effects and safety of separate low-dose hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock: A meta-analysis

Objective:

The aim of this study was to explore the effects and safety of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock.

Methods:

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception until 1 August 2018. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently.

Results:

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that low-dose hydrocortisone use had no survival benefit in patients with septic shock (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 0.88–1.05; P = 0.37). But low-dose hydrocortisone use was useful for shock reverse (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 1.00–1.19; P = 0.04) and in shortening the time of vasopressor support (weighted mean difference = −1.79, 95% confidence interval = −2.05 to −1.52; P < 0.00001). In addition, use of low-dose hydrocortisone was associated with a higher risk of hyperglycemia (relative risk = 1.21; 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.40; P = 0.01) and hypernatremia (relative risk = 6.34; 95% confidence interval = 1.19–33.81; P = 0.03). There was no significant improvement of intensive care unit mortality (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 0.93–1.33; P = 0.23) or hospital mortality (relative risk = 1.08; 95% confidence interval = 0.94–1.24; P = 0.29), length of intensive care unit (weighted mean difference = −1.84; 95% confidence interval = −5.80 to 2.11; P = 0.36) or length of hospital (weighted mean difference = 0.11; 95% confidence interval = −2.06 to 2.29; P = 0.98), and time of mechanical support (weighted mean difference = −0.69; 95% confidence interval = −1.76 to −0.38; P = 0.20) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone. There was no significant difference in secondary infection (relative risk = 1.04; 95% confidence interval = 0.91–1.18; P = 0.57), recurrence of shock (relative risk = 1.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.64–3.39; P = 0.36), and gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk = 1.41; 95% confidence interval = 0.89–2.22; P = 0.14) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone.

Conclusion:

Although there was no effect of low-dose hydrocortisone on survival of patients with septic shock, it is associated with a higher rate of shock reversal and shortening duration of vasopressor support; thus, low-dose hydrocortisone may be an alternative drug in septic shock patients who are refractory to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors.

Hydrocortisone with fludrocortisone for septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Combined hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone therapy for septic shock has not been evaluated with an independent systematic review. We aimed to elucidate the beneficial effects of a dual corticosteroid treatment regime involving both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for adult patients with septic shock on mortality.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI databases for reports published before April 2019. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone with either corticosteroid-free or hydrocortisone-only treatments on adult patients with septic shock. Three researchers independently reviewed the studies. The meta-analyses were undertaken to assess primary outcome (28-day mortality) and secondary outcomes (in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, shock reversal, and adverse events).

RESULTS

Among the four studies eligible for data synthesis, we included 2,050 patients from three studies for quantitative synthesis. All studies used similar regimens (hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for 7 days without tapering). The 28-day mortality rate was reduced after dual corticosteroid treatment (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.78-0.99). The heterogeneity between the studies was low (I 2 = 0%). Patients who underwent dual corticosteroid treatment had lower long-term mortality rates (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) and higher rate of shock reversal after 28 days (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12) than control patients. Adverse events (except for hyperglycemia) were similar among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that a combination of fludrocortisone and hydrocortisone is more effective than adjunctive therapy and could be recommended for septic shock.

Sepsis and septic shock: current approaches to management

Sepsis, defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection, is recognised by the World Health Organization as a global health priority. Each year, 5000 of the 18 000 adults with sepsis treated in Australian intensive care units die, with survivors suffering long-term physical, cognitive and psychological dysfunction, which is poorly recognised and frequently untreated. There are currently no effective pharmacological treatments for sepsis, making early recognition, resuscitation and immediate treatment with appropriate antibiotics the key to reducing the burden of resulting disease. The majority of sepsis, around 70-80%, is community acquired making emergency departments and primary care key targets to improve recognition and early management. Case fatality rates for sepsis are decreasing in many countries with the reduction attributed to national or regional screening and quality improvement programmes focused on early identification and immediate treatment. The optimum approach to treating established sepsis has been informed by high-quality, multicentre investigator initiated randomised trials with much of the valuable data coming from National Health and Medical Research Council-funded trials run from Australia. While early recognition and improved management of the acute episode are important steps in reducing death and disability from sepsis, a substantial reduction in the burden of sepsis-related disease requires action across the entire healthcare system. In this narrative review, we provide a summary of current knowledge on epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock and recommendations on the optimum approach to the management of these conditions in adults.

Corticosteroids for treating sepsis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failure. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Thus, providing corticosteroids may benefit patients. The original review was published in 2004 and was updated in 2010 and 2015 prior to this update.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of corticosteroids on death in children and adults with sepsis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and the WHO Clinical Trials Search Portal, on 25 July 2019. In addition, we conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors, to identify additional studies as needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care (antimicrobials, fluid replacement, and vasopressor therapy as needed) in children and adults with sepsis. We also included RCTs of continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus of corticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors screened and selected studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data, which was checked by the others, and by the lead author of the primary study when possible. We obtained unpublished data from the authors of some trials. We assessed the methodological quality of trials and applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Review authors did not contribute to assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, nor to data extraction, for trials they had participated in.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 trials (12,192 participants), of which six included only children, two included children and adults, and the remaining trials included only adults. Nine studies are ongoing and will be considered in future versions of this review. We judged 19 trials as being at low risk of bias. Corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care Compared to placebo or usual care, corticosteroids probably slightly reduce 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; 11,233 participants; 50 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in long-term mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03; 6236 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably slightly reduce hospital mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 8183 participants; 26 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids reduced length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for all participants (mean difference (MD) -1.07 days, 95% CI -1.95 to -0.19; 7612 participants; 21 studies; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in a large reduction in length of hospital stay for all participants (MD -1.63 days, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.33; 8795 participants; 22 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44; 6145 participants; 6 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably do not increase the risk of superinfection (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19; 5356 participants; 25 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of hypernatraemia (high-certainty evidence) and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia (moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that there is probably little or no difference in gastroduodenal bleeding, stroke, or cardiac events, and low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in neuropsychiatric events. Continuous infusion of corticosteroids versus intermittent bolus We are uncertain about the effects of continuous infusion of corticosteroids compared with intermittent bolus administration. Three studies reported data for this comparison, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids probably reduce 28-day and hospital mortality among patients with sepsis. Corticosteroids result in large reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of major complications; however, corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness and hypernatraemia, and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia. The effects of continuous versus intermittent bolus administration of corticosteroids are uncertain.

Impact and Beneficial Critical Points of Clinical Outcome in Corticosteroid Management of Adult Patients With Sepsis: Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment

Background: With new randomised pieces of evidence and the latest clinical practice guideline from the BMJ emerging in 2018, an updated analysis of best available evidence on the controversial effects of corticosteroids in sepsis is warranted. Objectives: To comprehensively evaluate whether corticosteroids are beneficial in reducing mortality and what cumulative dosage, daily dosage, and duration of corticosteroid treatment would enable adult patients with sepsis to reach the critical point of benefits. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMbase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS database were searched until March 22, 2019. Results: Thirty RCTs with 8,836 participants were identified. Long course low-dose corticosteroid therapy could improve 28-day mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.84-0.97; high quality), intensive care unit mortality (RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.79-0.95; moderate quality), and in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.79-0.997; high quality). However, we found no benefits for 90-day, 180-day, and 1-year mortality. Subgroup results of long course corticosteroid treatment in a population with septic shock and vasopressor-dependent septic shock, corticosteroid regimen with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, corticosteroid dosing strategies including bolus dosing and infusion dosing, the strategies of abrupt discontinuation, timing of randomisation ≤24 h, impact factor of ≥10, and sample size ≥500 were associated with a marginally reduction in 28-day mortality. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found that the long course low-dose and not short course high-dose corticosteroid treatment could marginally improve short-term 28-day mortality with high quality, especially septic shock and vasopressor-dependent septic shock, and it is recommended that long course (about 7 days) low-dose (about 200-300mg per day) hydrocortisone (or equivalent) with cumulative dose (at least about 1,000mg) may be a viable management option for overall patients with sepsis, and it can be also adapted to patient with septic shock alone. Early hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone administration, via continuous infusion or bolus dosing, is also particularly important for the prognosis. Abrupt discontinuation of corticosteroids, as opposed to the conventional tapered discontinuation, may be considered as a desirable option in 28-day mortality. The safety profile of long course low-dose corticosteroid treatment, including adverse hyperglycaemia and hypernatraemia events, remains a concern, although these events could be easily treated. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD 42018092849.

Angiotensin II in Decompensated Cirrhosis Complicated by Septic Shock

This case describes the first reported use of human-derived synthetic angiotensin II (Ang-2) in a patient with decompensated cirrhosis and septic shock. The patient presented in vasodilatory shock from Enterobacter cloacae bacteremia with a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score of 14 and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 36. This case is significant because liver failure was an exclusion criterion in the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock (ATHOS-3) trial, but the liver produces angiotensinogen, which is key precursor to Ang-2 in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Resuscitation with Ang-2 is a potentially beneficial medication when conventional vasopressors have failed to control mean arterial pressure in this population.

Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Septic Shock

Two recent randomized controlled trials have provided new data to inform opinion on the use of corticosteroids in septic shock. This article discusses the background and rationale for corticosteroid use, compares the findings and methodologies of the new trials, and provides suggestions for practice.

Are Corticosteroids Beneficial for Sepsis and Septic Shock? Based on Pooling Analysis of 16 Studies

Background: A host of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were carried out to estimate the role of corticosteroids in sepsis and septic shock. Discordant opinions were investigated to determine whether patients who experienced sepsis and septic shock could benefit from corticosteroids treatment. Our purpose is to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses, to explore the role of corticosteroids in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock.

Method: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and LILACS were searched for eligible studies. Two authors individually extracted the relevant data and evaluated the quality of the meta-analysis using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and ROBIS. The Jadad decision algorithm was implemented to identify the meta-analyses that offered the optimal level of evidence.

Result: Sixteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria. None of the studies that reported mortality illustrated a significant improvement on mortality (14-day and 90-day), but a 28-day mortality on a long course of a low dose corticosteroids was described. Only four studies stated that a long course of low-dose corticosteroids had advantageous effect on 28-day mortality. A meta-analysis by Fang et al. was regarded as the highest level of evidence in the Jadad decision algorithm among the meta-analyses that were investigated in this systematic review.

Conclusion: The 28-day mortality was reduced, as well as the mortality in the ICU and hospital and the length of stay in the ICU, using a long course of low-dose corticosteroids. This was demonstrated by a meta-analysis of the current optimal available evidence. Additionally, significant improvements on the adverse events of hyperglycemia and hypernatraemia have been made.

Adrenal function and dysfunction in critically ill patients

Critical illnesses are characterized by increased systemic cortisol availability, which is a vital part of the stress response. Relative adrenal failure (later termed critical-illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI)) is a condition in which the systemic availability of cortisol is assumed to be insufficiently high to face the stress of the illness and is most typically thought to occur in the acute phase of septic shock. Researchers suggested that CIRCI could be diagnosed by a suppressed incremental cortisol response to an injection of adrenocorticotropic hormone, irrespective of the baseline plasma cortisol. This concept triggered several randomized clinical trials on the impact of large stress doses of hydrocortisone to treat CIRCI, which gave conflicting results. Recent novel insights into the response of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis to acute and prolonged critical illnesses challenge the concept of CIRCI, as currently defined, as well as the current practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. In this Review, these novel insights are integrated within a novel conceptual framework that can be used to re-appreciate adrenocortical function and dysfunction in the context of critical illness. This framework opens new avenues for further research and for preventive and/or therapeutic innovations.

Glucocorticosteroids for sepsis in children. A protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is the primary diagnosis in more than 8% of all critically ill children and sepsis is among the ten leading causes of death in children <10 years. Glucocorticosteroids are currently recommended in septic children with fluid or catecholamine resistant refractory shock. Glucocorticosteroids are widely used for severe sepsis in paediatric intensive care units worldwide. However, the evidence on the clinical effects of glucocorticosteroids for sepsis in children is unclear.

METHODS

We will perform a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of glucocorticosteroids vs placebo or no intervention as an add-on therapy to standard care for sepsis in children. For the assessment of harms, we will also include quasi-randomised studies and observational studies identified during our searches for randomised clinical trials.

DISCUSSION

This review will seek to assess whether glucocorticosteroids indeed have their therapeutic place in the standard treatment for sepsis in children.

Sepsis: Inflammation Is a Necessary Evil

Sepsis is one of the leading causes of deaths world-wide and yet there are no therapies available other than ICU treatment. The patient outcome is determined by a complex interplay between the pro and anti-inflammatory responses of the body i.e., a homeostatic balance between these two competing events to be achieved for the patient’s recovery. The initial attempts on drug development mainly focused on controlling inflammation, however, without any tangible outcome. This was despite most deaths occurring during the immune paralysis stage of this biphasic disease. Recently, the focus has been shifting to understand immune paralysis (caused by apoptosis and by anti-inflammatory cytokines) to develop therapeutic drugs. In this review we put forth an argument for a proper understanding of the molecular basis of inflammation as well as apoptosis for developing an effective therapy.

Sepsis - What's new in 2019?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sepsis-3 guidelines have implications in a deeper understanding of the biopathology of the disease. Further, the review focuses on timely topics and new literature on fluid resuscitation, the value of steroids in sepsis, and new therapeutic options such as angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine as well as the emerging role of procalcitonin (PCT) in managing antibiotics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Traditional therapies such as type of crystalloid fluid administration and steroid therapy for sepsis are currently under re-evaluation. Angiotensin II is investigated for reversing vasodilatory shock. The role of capillary endothelium leak and cellular metabolism can be affected by vitamin C and thiamine levels. Biomarker level trends, specifically PCT, can aid clinical suspicion of infection.

SUMMARY

Sepsis-3 shifts the focus from a noninfectious inflammatory process and an emphasis on a dysregulated host response to infection. Hyperchloremic crystalloid resuscitation is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Steroid administration can reverse shock physiology; however, mortality benefits remain uncertain. Angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine are novel treatment options that need further validation. PCT assays can help discern between infectious and noninfectious inflammation.

Risk related therapy in meta-analyses of critical care interventions: Bayesian meta-regression analysis

PURPOSE

The relationship between treatment efficacy and patient risk is explored in a series of meta-analyses from the critical care domain, focusing on mortality outcome.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials were identified by electronic search over the period 2002 to July 2018. A Bayesian meta-regression model was employed, using the risk difference metric to estimate the relationship between mortality difference and control arm risk, and estimate the mortality difference with and without adjusting for control arm risk.

RESULTS

Of 780 initially identified published systematic reviews, 113 had appropriate mortality data comprising 123 analysable groups. The 123 meta-analyses were pharmaceutical therapeutic (59.3%), non-pharmaceutical therapeutic (24.4%) and nutritional (16.3%), with a 25% overall average control arm mortality. In 25/123 (20%) analyses, meta-regression indicated significant baseline risk (Bayesian 95% credible intervals excluding zero). In all analyses, the relationship between risk-difference and control arm risk was negative indicating a positive treatment effect with increasing control arm risk. Adjusted estimates identified six studies with significant positive treatment effects, not evident until after adjustment for control arm risk.

CONCLUSION

Underlying risk-related therapy is apparent in meta-analyses of the critically-ill and identification is of importance to both the conduct and interpretation of these meta-analyses.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline risk of mortality in critically ill patients: re-analysis of three recent sepsis and ARDS randomised controlled trials

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) generate heterogeneous trial populations. Non-random variation in the treatment effect of an intervention due to differences in the baseline risk of death between patients in a population represents one form of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). We assessed whether HTE in two sepsis and one ARDS RCTs could explain indeterminate trial results and inform future trial design.

Methods

We assessed HTE for vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan in sepsis and simvastatin in ARDS patients, on 28-day mortality, using the total Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score as the baseline risk measurement, comparing above (high) and below (low) the median score. Secondary risk measures were the acute physiology component of APACHE II and predicted risk of mortality using the APACHE II score. HTE was quantified both in additive (difference in risk difference (RD)) and multiplicative (ratio of relative risks (RR)) scales using estimated treatment differences from a logistic regression model with treatment risk as the interaction term.

Results

The ratio of the odds of death in the highest APACHE II quartile was 4.9 to 7.4 times compared to the lowest quartile, across the three trials. We did not observe HTE for vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan in the two sepsis trials. In the HARP-2 trial, simvastatin reduced mortality in the low APACHE II group and increased mortality in the high APACHE II group (difference in RD = 0.34 (0.12, 0.55) (p = 0.02); ratio of RR 3.57 (1.77, 7.17) (p < 0.001). The HTE patterns were inconsistent across the secondary risk measures. The sensitivity analyses of HTE effects for vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan were consistent with the main analyses and attenuated for simvastatin.

Conclusions

We assessed HTE in three recent ICU RCTs, using multivariable baseline risk of death models. There was considerable within-trial variation in the baseline risk of death. We observed potential HTE for simvastatin in ARDS, but no evidence of HTE for vasopressin, hydrocortisone or levosimendan in the two sepsis trials. Our findings could be explained either by true lack of HTE (no benefit of vasopressin, hydrocortisone or levosimendan vs comparator for any patient subgroups) or by lack of power to detect HTE. Our results require validation using similar trial databases.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2446-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of sepsis in neutropenic cancer patients: 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) and Intensive Care Working Party (iCHOP) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Sepsis and septic shock are major causes of mortality during chemotherapy-induced neutropenia for malignancies requiring urgent treatment. Thus, awareness of the presenting characteristics and prompt management is most important. Improved management of sepsis during neutropenia may reduce the mortality of cancer therapies. However, optimal management may differ between neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients. The aim of the current guideline is to give evidence-based recommendations for hematologists, oncologists, and intensive care physicians on how to manage adult patients with neutropenia and sepsis.

The Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) Protocol: a prospective, multi-center, double-blind, adaptive sample size, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Sepsis accounts for 30% to 50% of all in-hospital deaths in the United States. Other than antibiotics and source control, management strategies are largely supportive with fluid resuscitation and respiratory, renal, and circulatory support. Intravenous vitamin C in conjunction with thiamine and hydrocortisone has recently been suggested to improve outcomes in patients with sepsis in a single-center before-and-after study. However, before this therapeutic strategy is adopted, a rigorous assessment of its efficacy is needed.

METHODS

The Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) trial is a prospective, multi-center, double-blind, adaptive sample size, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. It will enroll patients with sepsis causing respiratory or circulatory compromise or both. Patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g), thiamine (100 mg), and hydrocortisone (50 mg) every 6 h or matching placebos until a total of 16 administrations have been completed or intensive care unit discharge occurs (whichever is first). Patients randomly assigned to the comparator group are permitted to receive open-label stress-dose steroids at the discretion of the treating clinical team. The primary outcome is consecutive days free of ventilator and vasopressor support (VVFDs) in the 30 days following randomization. The key secondary outcome is mortality at 30 days. Sample size will be determined adaptively by using interim analyses with pre-stated stopping rules to allow the early recognition of a large mortality benefit if one exists and to refocus on the more sensitive outcome of VVFDs if an early large mortality benefit is not observed.

DISCUSSION

VICTAS is a large, multi-center, double-blind, adaptive sample size, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that will test the efficacy of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone as a combined therapy in patients with respiratory or circulatory dysfunction (or both) resulting from sepsis. Because the components of this therapy are inexpensive and readily available and have very favorable risk profiles, demonstrated efficacy would have immediate implications for the management of sepsis worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509350 . First registered on April 26, 2018, and last verified on December 20, 2018. Protocol version: 1.4, January 9, 2019.

Vasoactive Agent Use in Septic Shock: Beyond First-Line Recommendations

Septic shock is a life-threatening disorder associated with high mortality rates requiring rapid identification and intervention. Vasoactive agents are often required to maintain goal hemodynamics and preserve tissue perfusion. However, guidance regarding the proper administration of adjunct agents for the management of septic shock is limited in patients who are refractory to norepinephrine. This review summarizes vasopressor agents and describes the nuanced application of these agents in patients with septic shock, specifically focusing on clinical scenarios with limited guidance including patients who are nonresponsive to first-line agents and individuals with mixed shock states, tachyarrhythmias, obesity, valvular abnormalities, or other comorbid conditions.

Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza

BACKGROUND

Specific treatments for influenza are limited to neuraminidase inhibitors and adamantanes. Corticosteroids show evidence of benefit in sepsis and related conditions, most likely due to their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. Although commonly prescribed for severe influenza, there is uncertainty over their potential benefits or harms. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza, taking into account differences in timing and doses of corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 9), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 1, 2018), Embase (1980 to 3 October 2018), CINAHL (1981 to 3 October 2018), LILACS (1982 to 3 October 2018), Web of Science (1985 to 3 October 2018), abstracts from the last three years of major infectious disease and microbiology conferences, and references of included articles. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry on 3 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and observational studies that compared corticosteroid treatment with no corticosteroid treatment for influenza or influenza-like illness. We did not restrict studies by language of publication, influenza subtypes, clinical setting, or age of participants. We selected eligible studies in two stages: sequential examination of title and abstract, followed by full text.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled estimates of effect using a random-effects model, where appropriate. We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 30 studies (one RCT with two arms and 29 observational studies) with a total of 99,224 participants. We included 19 studies in the original review (n = 3459), all of which were observational, with 13 studies included in the meta-analysis for mortality. We included 12 new studies in this update (one RCT and 11 observational studies), and excluded one study in the original review as it has been superceded by a more recent analysis. Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis (9536 individuals), of which 15 studied people infected with 2009 influenza A H1N1 virus (H1N1pdm09). Data specific to mortality were of very low quality, based predominantly on observational studies, with inconsistent reporting of variables potentially associated with the outcomes of interest, differences between studies in the way in which they were conducted, and with the likelihood of potential confounding by indication. Reported doses of corticosteroids used were high, and indications for their use were not well reported. On meta-analysis, corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio (OR) 3.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31 to 6.60; I² = 68%; 15 studies). A similar increase in risk of mortality was seen in a stratified analysis of studies reporting adjusted estimates (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 5 studies). An association between corticosteroid therapy and increased mortality was also seen on pooled analysis of six studies which reported adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.02; I² = 69%). Increased odds of hospital-acquired infection related to corticosteroid therapy were found on pooled analysis of seven studies (pooled OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.95; I² = 90%); all were unadjusted estimates, and we graded the data as of very low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found one RCT of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy for treating people with community-acquired pneumonia, but the number of people with laboratory-confirmed influenza in the treatment and placebo arms was too small to draw conclusions regarding the effect of corticosteroids in this group, and we did not include it in our meta-analyses of observational studies. The certainty of the available evidence from observational studies was very low, with confounding by indication a major potential concern. Although we found that adjunctive corticosteroid therapy is associated with increased mortality, this result should be interpreted with caution. In the context of clinical trials of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in sepsis and pneumonia that report improved outcomes, including decreased mortality, more high-quality research is needed (both RCTs and observational studies that adjust for confounding by indication). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids for people with influenza.