Glucocorticosteroids for sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Adjunctive immunotherapeutic agents in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a multidisciplinary consensus of 23

BACKGROUND

In the last decades, several adjunctive treatments have been proposed to reduce mortality in septic shock patients. Unfortunately, mortality due to sepsis and septic shock remains elevated and NO trials evaluating adjunctive therapies were able to demonstrate any clear benefit. In light of the lack of evidence and conflicting results from previous studies, in this multidisciplinary consensus, the authors considered the rational, recent investigations and potential clinical benefits of targeted adjunctive therapies.

METHODS

A panel of multidisciplinary experts defined clinical phenotypes, treatments and outcomes of greater interest in the field of adjunctive therapies for sepsis and septic shock. After an extensive systematic literature review, the appropriateness of each treatment for each clinical phenotype was determined using the modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

RESULTS

The consensus identified two distinct clinical phenotypes: patients with overwhelming shock and patients with immune paralysis. Six different adjunctive treatments were considered the most frequently used and promising: (i) corticosteroids, (ii) blood purification, (iii) immunoglobulins, (iv) granulocyte/monocyte colony-stimulating factor and (v) specific immune therapy (i.e. interferon-gamma, IL7 and AntiPD1). Agreement was achieved in 70% of the 25 clinical questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although clinical evidence is lacking, adjunctive therapies are often employed in the treatment of sepsis. To address this gap in knowledge, a panel of national experts has provided a structured consensus on the appropriate use of these treatments in clinical practice.

Hydrocortisone-associated death and hospital length of stay in patients with sepsis: A retrospective cohort of large-scale clinical care data

PURPOSE

Sepsis is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with approximately 50 million annual cases. There is ongoing debate on the clinical benefit of hydrocortisone in the prevention of death in septic patients. Here we evaluated the association between hydrocortisone treatment and mortality in patients diagnosed with sepsis in a large-scale clinical dataset.

METHODS

Data from patients between 2008 and 2019 were extracted from the retrospective Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Patients who received hydrocortisone after diagnosis were matched using propensity-score matching with patients who did not, to balance confounding (by indication and contraindication) factors between the groups. 90-day mortality and survivors' length of hospital stay was compared between patients who did or did not receive hydrocortisone.

RESULTS

A total of 31,749 septic patients were included in the study (mean age: 67, men: 57.3%, in-hospital mortality: 15.6%). 90-day mortality was higher among the 1802 patients receiving hydrocortisone when compared with the 6348 matched non-users (hazard ratio: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.24-1.47). Hydrocortisone treatment was also associated with increased in-hospital mortality (40.9% vs. 27.6%, p < 0.0001) and prolonged hospital stay in those who survived until discharge (median 12.6 days vs. 10.8 days, p < 0.0001). Stratification for age, gender, ethnicity, occurrence of septic shock, and the need for vasopressor drug administration such as (nor)epinephrine did not reveal sub-population(s) benefiting of hydrocortisone use.

CONCLUSION

Hydrocortisone treatment is associated with increased risk of death as well as prolonged hospital stay in septic patients. Although residual confounding (by indication) cannot be ruled out completely due to the observational nature of the study, the present study suggests clinical implication of hydrocortisone use in patients with sepsis.

Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome encompassing physiologic and biological abnormalities caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis progression into septic shock is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality, hence the importance of early identification and treatment. Over the last two decades, the definition of sepsis has evolved to improve early sepsis recognition and screening, standardize the terms used to describe sepsis and highlight its association with organ dysfunction and higher mortality. The early 2000s witnessed the birth of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), which showed a dramatic reduction in mortality leading to its wide adoption, and the surviving sepsis campaign (SSC), which has been instrumental in developing and updating sepsis guidelines over the last 20 years. Outside of early fluid resuscitation and antibiotic therapy, sepsis management has transitioned to a less aggressive approach over the last few years, shying away from routine mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous pressure monitoring and excessive fluids resuscitation, inotropes use, and red blood cell transfusions. Peripheral vasopressor use was deemed safe and is rising, and resuscitation with balanced crystalloids and a restrictive fluid strategy was explored. This review will address some of sepsis management's most important yet controversial components and summarize the available evidence from the last two decades.

Emerging concepts in the care of patients with cirrhosis and septic shock

Septic shock impacts approximately 6% of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Although a number of landmark clinical trials have paved the way for incremental improvements in the diagnosis and management of septic shock in the general population, patients with cirrhosis have largely been excluded from these studies and critical knowledge gaps continue to impact the care of these individuals. In this review, we discuss nuances in the care of patients with cirrhosis and septic shock using a pathophysiology-based approach. We illustrate that septic shock may be challenging to diagnose in this population in the context of factors such as chronic hypotension, impaired lactate metabolism, and concomitant hepatic encephalopathy. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the application of routine interventions such as intravenous fluids, vasopressors, antibiotics, and steroids should be carefully considered among those with decompensated cirrhosis in light of hemodynamic, metabolic, hormonal, and immunologic disturbances. We propose that future research should include and characterize patients with cirrhosis in a systematic manner, and clinical practice guidelines may need to be refined accordingly.

2-Furyl-6-Nitro-1,2,4-Triazolo [1,5-a]Pyrimidin-7-One

A sodium salt of 2-(fur-2-yl)-6-nitro-1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-7-one as a close structural analogue of ZM-241385 was obtained. This heterocycle can serve as an effector for A2a adenosine receptors and possesses antiseptic activity. The structures of compounds were confirmed based on the data of 1H, 13C NMR spectroscopy, IR spectroscopy, and an elemental analysis. The structure of sodium salt 2-furyl-6-nitro-1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-7-one was confirmed by an X-ray diffraction analysis.

Feedback for Promoting Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis

Feedback can be used as an effective teaching method in physical education (PE) to promote students' learning of motor skills. However, there is no objective synthetic evidence to support the role of feedback in PE. Additionally, the effect of each feedback subtype on students' motor skill learning is still unclear. This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the effects of feedback and feedback subtypes on students' motor skill learning. Nine databases were searched through September 2022 to identify appropriate literature. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 software and TSA was performed using TSA version 0.9.5.10 beta software. Fifteen studies were included. Feedback significantly improved students' motor skill learning in PE (SMD 0.47; 95% CI 0.01, 0.93; Z = 2.02; p = 0.04). The TSA confirmed the result of the meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses showed that the subtypes of feedback, including visual feedback, visual combined verbal feedback, visual self-model, visual expert model, corrective feedback, and teacher-regulated feedback, significantly improved students' learning of motor skills. In contrast, verbal, evaluative, and informational feedback did not produce changes in motor skill learning. Both complex and simple motor skills were improved by feedback. The use of feedback in PE benefits motor skill learning, regardless of whether the motor skills are complex or simple.

Medication and Fluid Management of Pediatric Sepsis and Septic Shock

Sepsis is a life-threatening response to infection that contributes significantly to neonatal and pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide. The key tenets of care include early recognition of potential sepsis, rapid intervention with appropriate fluids to restore adequate tissue perfusion, and empiric antibiotics to cover likely pathogens. Vasoactive/inotropic agents are recommended if tissue perfusion and hemodynamics are inadequate following initial fluid resuscitation. Several adjunctive therapies have been suggested with theoretical benefit, though definitive recommendations are not yet supported by research reports. This review focuses on the recommendations for medication and fluid management of pediatric sepsis and septic shock, highlighting issues related to antibiotic choices and antimicrobial stewardship, selection of intravenous fluids for resuscitation, and selection and use of vasoactive/inotropic medications. Controversy remains regarding resuscitation fluid volume and type, antibiotic choices depending upon infectious risks in the patient's community, and adjunctive therapies such as vitamin C, corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, and methylene blue. We include best practice recommendations based on international guidelines, a review of primary literature, and a discussion of ongoing clinical trials and the nuances of therapeutic choices.

PRCTC: a machine learning model for prediction of response to corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 patients

Corticosteroid has been proved to be one of the few effective treatments for COVID-19 patients. However, not all the patients were suitable for corticosteroid therapy. In this study, we aimed to propose a machine learning model to forecast the response to corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 patients. We retrospectively collected the clinical data about 666 COVID-19 patients receiving corticosteroid therapy between January 27, 2020, and March 30, 2020, from two hospitals in China. The response to corticosteroid therapy was evaluated by hospitalization time, oxygen supply duration, and the outcomes of patients. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) was applied for feature selection. Five prediction models were applied in the training cohort and assessed in an internal and an external validation dataset, respectively. Finally, two (C reactive protein, lymphocyte percent) of 36 candidate immune/inflammatory features were finally used for model development. All five models displayed promising predictive performance. Notably, the ensemble model, PRCTC (prediction of response to corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 patients), derived from three prediction models including Gradient Boosted Decision Tree (GBDT), Neural Network (NN), and logistic regression (LR), achieved the best performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.810 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.760-0.861) in internal validation cohort and 0.845 (95% CI 0.779-0.911) in external validation cohort to predict patients' response to corticosteroid therapy. In conclusion, PRCTC proposed with universality and scalability is hopeful to provide tangible and prompt clinical decision support in management of COVID-19 patients and potentially extends to other medication predictions.

Effect of combining anticoagulant and glucocorticoid therapy on mortality in patients with severe COVID-19

Introduction

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread rapidly to more than 200 countries and regions worldwide. Although several options have been implemented in attempts to control the rate of COVID-19 infection, the mortality rates remain high. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether patients with severe COVID-19 will benefit from the combination of anticoagulant and glucocorticoid therapy.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 was performed. Several factors influencing patients with COVID-19 have been analyzed retrospectively, including basic conditions, inflammatory factors, coagulation parameters, medications, and outcomes. Continuous and categorical variables have been evaluated via binary logistic regression analysis to predict mortality. The association between anticoagulant treatment and outcomes has also been evaluated, stratifying patients according to glucocorticoid treatment.

Results

61 patients with severe COVID-19, including 23 critically ill patients have been enrolled in the study. In those with severe and critical illness COVID-19, mortality rate was lower in those who received combined anticoagulant and glucocorticoid with odds ratio of 0.003 ( p = 0.042) and 0.031 ( p = 0.046), respectively. In cases of severe COVID-19, those who were treated with both anticoagulant and glucocorticoid had lower mortality (17.6%) than those treated with glucocorticoid alone (31.8%), although this did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.321). In the critically ill COVID-19 patients who received both anticoagulant and glucocorticoid, there was significantly lower mortality (30%) than those who received glucocorticoid alone (77.8%) ( p = 0.047). Seventy-five percent of non-survivors of COVID-19 met the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (total points ≥5).

Conclusion

Patients with severe COVID-19 or critically ill patients with COVID-19 may benefit from the combination therapy of anticoagulant and glucocorticoid. As the disease getting severe, more benefits may be obtained from the combination therapy.

Systemic corticosteroids for management of COVID-19: Saving lives or causing harm?

The underlying cause of many complications associated with severe COVID-19 is attributed to the inflammatory cytokine storm that leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which appears to be the leading cause of death in COVID-19. Systemic corticosteroids have anti-inflammatory activity through repression of pro-inflammatory genes and inhibition of inflammatory cytokines, which makes them a potential medical intervention to diminish the upregulated inflammatory response. Early in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the role of corticosteroids was unclear. Corticosteroid use in other indications such as ARDS and septic shock has proven benefit while its use in other respiratory viral pneumonias is associated with reduced viral clearance and increased secondary infections. This review article evaluates the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 to assist clinicians in improving patient outcomes, including patient safety. Dexamethasone up to 10 days is the preferred regimen to reduce mortality risk in COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. If dexamethasone is unavailable, other corticosteroids can be substituted at equivalent doses. Higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients who develop ARDS. Corticosteroids should be avoided early in the disease course when patients do not require oxygen support because of potential harms.

MIF but not MIF-2 recruits inflammatory macrophages in an experimental polymicrobial sepsis model

Excessive inflammation drives the progression from sepsis to septic shock. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is of interest because MIF promoter polymorphisms predict mortality in different infections, and anti-MIF antibody improves survival in experimental models when administered 8 hours after infectious insult. The recent description of a second MIF superfamily member, D-dopachrome tautomerase (D-DT/MIF-2), prompted closer investigation of MIF-dependent responses. We subjected Mif-/- and Mif-2-/- mice to polymicrobial sepsis and observed a survival benefit with Mif but not Mif-2 deficiency. Survival was associated with reduced numbers of small peritoneal macrophages (SPMs) that, in contrast to large peritoneal macrophages (LPMs), were recruited into the peritoneal cavity. LPMs produced higher quantities of MIF than SPMs, but SPMs expressed higher levels of inflammatory cytokines and the MIF receptors CD74 and CXCR2. Adoptive transfer of WT SPMs into Mif-/- hosts reduced the protective effect of Mif deficiency in polymicrobial sepsis. Notably, MIF-2 lacks the pseudo-(E)LR motif present in MIF that mediates CXCR2 engagement and SPM migration, supporting a specific role for MIF in the recruitment and accumulation of inflammatory SPMs.

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

Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department

Early management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients' prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic patients is likely to occur, emergency physicians play an essential role in the early phases of patient management, which consists of accurate initial diagnosis, resuscitation, and early antibiotic treatment. Since the issuing of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2016, several studies have been published on different aspects of sepsis management, adding a substantial amount of new information on the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis and septic shock. In light of this emerging evidence, the present narrative review provides a comprehensive account of the recent advances in septic patient management in the ED.

Cost Analysis of Adjunctive Hydrocortisone Therapy for Septic Shock: U.S. Payer Perspective

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a cost analysis of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy for severe septic shock from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States.

DESIGN

Estimates of outcomes were aggregate data from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials. In these trials, the outcomes of interests were ICU length of stay, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving blood transfusion. Each outcome was monetized into a set of mutually exclusive components and was aggregated to estimate the cost-per-patient based on each trial. Cost inputs for each outcome were obtained from literature and adjusted based on the medical care consumer price index. To estimate the budget impact using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, per-patient avoided cost was multiplied by expected septic shock annual incidence. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis evaluated the robustness of the findings, and Monte Carlo simulation estimated 95% CI of the findings.

SETTING

A total of 103 medical-surgical ICU (69 for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and 34 for Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock).

PATIENTS

Adults greater than or equal to 18 years old with septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy (hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/d for 7 d for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and hydrocortisone at a 50 mg IV bolus every 6 hr and fludrocortisone as a 50 μg tablet once daily).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Per Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $8,111 (95% CI, $3,914-$12,307) per patient, driven by improvements in ICU-free days, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and blood transfusion proportion. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $750 million. Per Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $25,539 per patient (95% CI, $22,853-$28,224), driven by improvements in ICU free-days, vasopressor-free days, and ventilation-free days. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $2.3 billion. The deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis showed the cost of ICU stays to be the most influential factor in both analyses. The sensitivity analysis using the reported median showed a greater monetized benefit of $10,658 (Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock) and $30,911 (Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock) per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy yields a significant monetized benefit based on inputs from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials.

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.

Heart failure and sepsis: practical recommendations for the optimal management

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a common clinical challenge that a wide spectrum of physicians encounters in every practice. In many cases, AHF is due to decompensation of chronic heart failure. This decompensation may be triggered by various reasons, with sepsis being a notable one. Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by the dysregulated host response to infection and is associated with a very high mortality, which may reach 25%. Alarmingly, the increase in the mortality rate of patients with combined cardiac dysfunction and sepsis is extremely high (may reach 90%). Thus, these patients need urgent intervention. Management of patients with AHF and sepsis is challenging since cornerstone interventions for AHF may be contraindicated in sepsis and vice versa (e.g., diuretic treatment). Unfortunately, no relevant guidelines are yet available, and treatment remains empirical. This review attempts to shed light on the intricacies of the available interventions and suggests routes of action based on the existing bibliography.

[What is evidence-based in the treatment of sepsis?]

BACKGROUND

The term sepsis was redefined in 2016 as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by an inadequate host response to an infection. The German S3 guidelines for the treatment of sepsis were published in 2018.

OBJECTIVE

What is evidence-based in the treatment of patients with sepsis?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Discussion of the S3 guidelines and inclusion of study results after 2018.

RESULTS

The cornerstones for the treatment of sepsis continue to consist of early hemodynamic stabilization, anti-infection treatment and organ support procedures. Supportive and extracorporeal treatments are controversially discussed and continue to be intensively investigated.

CONCLUSION

Despite an improved understanding of the pathophysiology, there is still no effective causal sepsis treatment, i.e. directed against the pathological host reaction. The treatment of patients with sepsis is therefore still based on the basic principles of correction of volume deficits, anti-infective agents, source control and organ support, including the symptomatic treatment of vasoplegia with catecholamines.

Pharmacological principles guiding prolonged glucocorticoid treatment in ARDS

Current literature addressing the pharmacological principles guiding glucocorticoid (GC) administration in ARDS is scant. This paucity of information may have led to the heterogeneity of treatment protocols and misinterpretation of available findings. GCs are agonist compounds that bind to the GC receptor (GR) producing a pharmacological response. Clinical efficacy depends on the magnitude and duration of exposure to GR. We updated the meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating GC treatment in ARDS, focusing on treatment protocols and response. We synthesized the current literature on the role of the GR in GC therapy including genomic and non-genomic effects, and integrated current clinical pharmacology knowledge of various GCs, including hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone and dexamethasone. This review addresses the role dosage, timing of initiation, mode of administration, duration, and tapering play in achieving optimal response to GC therapy in ARDS. Based on RCTs’ findings, GC plasma concentration–time profiles, and pharmacodynamic studies, optimal results are most likely achievable with early intervention, an initial bolus dose to achieve close to maximal GRα saturation, followed by a continuous infusion to maintain high levels of response throughout the treatment period. In addition, patients receiving similar GC doses may experience substantial between-patient variability in plasma concentrations affecting clinical response. GC should be dose-adjusted and administered for a duration targeting clinical and laboratory improvement, followed by dose-tapering to achieve gradual recovery of the suppressed hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis. These findings have practical clinical relevance. Future RCTs should consider these pharmacological principles in the study design and interpretation of findings.

Hydrocortisone mitigates ICU-AW by fine-tuning of muscle atrophic and hypertrophic signaling pathways in a sepsis model with limb immobilization

AIMS

Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is a complex spectrum of disability that delays recovery of critically ill-immobilized patients with sepsis. Much discrepancy remain on the use of corticosteroids and their impact on muscle regeneration in critical illness management. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether hydrocortisone (HCT) modulates muscle mass turnover in ICU-AW induced by sepsis with limb immobilization (SI).

MAIN METHODS

Sepsis by cecal ligation puncture (CLP) with forelimb-immobilization were performed in rats. The study consisted of four groups: Sham (left forelimb-immobilization), Sham HCT (left forelimb-immobilization + HCT), SI (CLP + left forelimb-immobilization) and SI HCT (CLP + left forelimb-immobilization + HCT). Motor force, blood and muscle sampling were assessed.

KEY FINDINGS

HCT prevented body weight loss associated with SI and attenuated systemic and muscular inflammation. Besides, myosin was restituted in SI HCT group in conjunction to muscle mass and strength restoration. Pro-hypertrophic calcineurin (PP2B-Aβ) and nuclear factor of activated T-cells C3 (NFATc3) but not protein kinase B (Akt) were re-activated by HCT. Finally, pro-atrophic extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK1/2) and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases (p38) but not nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-kB) were inhibited in SI HCT group.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study unravels new molecular events thought to control muscle protein synthesis in ICU-AW induced by sepsis and limb immobilization. HCT has a potential to fine-tune muscle-signaling pathways and to reduce the negative outcomes of ICU-AW.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Corticosteroids Therapy in Adult Critical Ill Patients With Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock.

METHODS

The PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to March 24, 2018. To identify randomized controlled trials that evaluating the role of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The second outcomes included 90-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in ICU, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock, and superinfection.

RESULTS

A total of 18 randomized controlled trials involving 8,128 adult critical ill patients with septic shock fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of this meta-analysis showed that corticosteroids therapy did not significantly reduce the 28-day mortality [RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; Z = 1.07 (P = 0.285)]. However, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU [WMD = -1.55; 95% CI, -2.19 to -0.91; Z = 4.74 (P = 0.000)]. 90-day mortality, ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock, and superinfection had no significant difference between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo therapy (P > 0.05). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to the dose of corticosteroids (high dose or low does).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU among adult critical ill patients with septic shock. The mortality was similar between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo.

Glucocorticoids in Sepsis: To Be or Not to Be

Sepsis is a highly lethal syndrome resulting from dysregulated immune and metabolic responses to infection, thereby compromising host homeostasis. Activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis and subsequently adrenocortical glucocorticoid (GC) production during sepsis are important regulatory processes to maintain homeostasis. Multiple preclinical studies have proven the pivotal role of endogenous GCs in tolerance against sepsis by counteracting several of the sepsis characteristics, such as excessive inflammation, vascular defects, and hypoglycemia. Sepsis is however often complicated by dysfunction of the HPA axis, resulting from critical-illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) and GC resistance. Therefore, GCs have been tested as an adjunctive therapy in sepsis and septic shock in different randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Nonetheless, these studies produced conflicting results. Interestingly, adding vitamin C and thiamin to GC therapy enhances the effects of GCs, probably by reducing GC resistance, and this results in an impressive reduction in sepsis mortality as was shown in two recent preliminary retrospective before–after studies. Multiple RCTs are currently underway to validate this new combination therapy in sepsis.

Chronic Corticosteroid Use as a Risk Factor for Perioperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis may be caused by or concurrent with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, which rely on chronic corticosteroids regimens for treatment. If a total knee or hip arthroplasty is needed, this chronic treatment method has been associated with poorer surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data collected by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was conducted. The Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify 403,566 total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty patients who were then stratified by the use of chronic corticosteroids for univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Forteen thousand seven hundred seventy-four of the patients identified were prescribed chronic corticosteroid regimens. A statistically significant difference was observed in perioperative complications for patients prescribed with corticosteroids, including higher rates of surgical site infection (P = 0.0001), occurrence of deep incisional surgical site infection (P < 0.0001), occurrences of organ space surgical site infection (P < 0.0001), wound dehiscence (P < 0.0001), general would infection (P < 0.0001), pneumonia (P < 0.0001), occurrences of unplanned intubation (P = 0.0002), urinary tract infection (P < 0.0001), and readmission (P < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was observed in the 30-day mortality between the 2 groups (0.63), venous thromboembolic event (0.42), cerebrovascular accident (0.12), myocardial infarction (0.49), cardiac arrest (0.098), deep vein thrombosis (0.17), or sepsis (0.52).

CONCLUSION

Many of the notable differences in complications may be directly attributed to the immunosuppressive nature of corticosteroids. With increased knowledge of which perioperative complications to monitor, surgeons can tailor treatment strategies to this population that reduce morbidity and improve outcomes.

Impact of oxidative stress on treatment outcomes in adult patients with sepsis: A prospective study

PURPOSE

Oxidative stress has been shown to reflect on the development of sepsis and disease severity. In the present study, we evaluated the effects of increased levels of oxidative stress and decreased antioxidant coactivity in patients with sepsis, and the importance of oxidative stress on treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Biomarkers of oxidative stress (thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances [TBARS]) and antioxidant capacity (glutathione peroxidase [GPx] and glutathione content [thiol]) were prospectively evaluated along with biochemical and clinical data in 100 patients with sepsis on days 1, 4, and 7 after admission.

RESULTS

The TBARS level of the non-survivor group was significantly higher than that of the survivor group on day 1 and day 4 and negatively correlated with thiol upon admission. However, thiol was positively correlated with lactate concentration. The TBARS and lactate levels upon admission were independent predictors of fatality.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a TBARS cut-off value of 18.30 μM can be used to predict fatality, and an increase in the TBARS concentration by 1 μM will increase the fatality rate by 0.94%. In the panel of biomarkers, the TBARS assay can be considered as a prognostic biomarker for the treatment of patients with sepsis.

Quality assessment of meta-analyses evaluating randomized clinical trials to improve the prognosis of septic shock: an overview of systematic reviews

Objective: Clinical guidelines for the treatment of septic shock are based on the studies with the best scientific evidence, which are meta-analyses of clinical trials. However, these meta-analyses may have methodological limitations that prevent their conclusions from being extrapolated to routine clinical practice. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the quality of these meta-analyses through a systematic review.Methods: In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE from inception to May 2019. We selected meta-analyses from clinical trials that determined the effectiveness of an intervention in reducing the incidence of mortality in patients with septic shock. All items were extracted from the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), which collects information from both systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Results: A total of 34 studies were included. Most elements of the OQAQ were conducted satisfactorily, although 35.3% of meta-analyses did not use a quality assessment of the studies included in other analyses. In 52.9% of meta-analyses, the quality of the studies was high or very high.Conclusions: The methods used to obtain the results should be taken into account when recommending an intervention to treat septic shock if the evidence comes from a meta-analysis of the analyzed characteristics.

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.

Dexamethasone in the era of COVID-19: friend or foe? An essay on the effects of dexamethasone and the potential risks of its inadvertent use in patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND

The disclosure in the media of a benefit with the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 infection sets precedents for self-medication and inappropriate use of corticosteroids.

METHODS

This is a critical interpretive synthesis of the data available in the literature on the effects of the use of corticosteroids and the impact that their indiscriminate use may have on patients with diabetes. Reviews and observational and experimental studies published until June 18, 2020 were selected.

RESULTS

Corticosteroids are substances derived from cholesterol metabolism that interfere with multiple aspects of glucose homeostasis. Interactions between corticoid receptors and target genes seem to be among the mechanisms responsible for the critical functions of glucocorticoids for survival and anti-inflammatory effects observed with these medications. Corticosteroids increase hepatic gluconeogenesis, reduce peripheral use of glucose and increase insulin levels. Previous studies have shown that glucocorticoids have a pro-adipogenic function, increasing deposition of abdominal fat, and lead to glucose intolerance and hypertriglyceridemia. In addition, these drugs play a role in controlling liver metabolism and can lead to the development of hepatic steatosis. Glucocorticoids reduce the recruitment of osteoblasts and increase the number of osteoclasts, which results in increased bone resorption and greater bone fragility. Moreover, these medications cause water and sodium retention and increase the response to circulating vasoconstrictors, which results in increased blood pressure levels. Chronic or high-dose use of corticosteroids can, by itself, lead to the onset of diabetes. For those who were already diagnosed with diabetes, studies show that chronic use of corticosteroids leads to a 94% higher risk of hospitalization due to diabetes complications. In addition to the direct effects on glycemic control, the effects on arterial pressure control, lipids and bone metabolism also have a potential for severe consequences in patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

Fear and uncertainty toward a potentially serious infection may lead people to self-medication and the inappropriate and abusive use of corticosteroids. More than ever, it is necessary for health professionals to be alert and able to predict damages related to the use of these drugs, which is the first step to minimize the potential damages to come.

Corticosteroids in Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with sepsis.

DATA SOURCES

We updated a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and LILACS, and unpublished sources for randomized controlled trials that compared any corticosteroid to placebo or no corticosteroid in critically ill children and adults with sepsis.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers conducted duplicate screening of citations, data abstraction, and, using a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool, individual study risk of bias assessment.

DATA EXTRACTION

A parallel guideline committee provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. We assessed overall certainty in evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology and performed all analyses using random-effect models. For subgroup analyses, we performed metaregression and considered p value less than 0.05 as significant.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-two randomized controlled trials including 10,194 patients proved eligible. Based on low certainty, corticosteroids may achieve a small reduction or no reduction in the relative risk of dying in the short-term (28-31 d) (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03; 1.8% absolute risk reduction; 95% CI, 4.1% reduction to 0.8% increase), and possibly achieve a small effect on long-term mortality (60 d to 1 yr) based on moderate certainty (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00; 2.2% absolute risk reduction; 95% CI, 4.1% reduction to no effect). Corticosteroids probably result in small reductions in length of stay in ICU (mean difference, -0.73 d; 95% CI, -1.78 to 0.31) and hospital (mean difference, -0.73 d; 95% CI, -2.06 to 0.60) (moderate certainty). Corticosteroids result in higher rates of shock reversal at day 7 (relative risk, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42) and lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 (mean difference, -1.39; 95% CI, -1.88 to -0.89) (high certainty). Corticosteroids likely increase the risk of hypernatremia (relative risk, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03) and hyperglycemia (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24) (moderate certainty), may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52) (low certainty), and appear to have no other adverse effects (low or very low certainty). Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a credible subgroup effect on any of the outcomes of interest (p > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with sepsis, corticosteroids possibly result in a small reduction in mortality while also possibly increasing the risk of neuromuscular weakness.

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.

Study of the strength of the evidence and the redundancy of the research on pharmacological treatment for Alzheimer's disease: a cumulative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

To study the strength of the evidence on efficacy, safety and acceptability of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) and memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD); and to determine the number of redundant post-authorisation trials.

METHODS

A cumulative meta-analysis with a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed. Primary outcomes were cognitive function assessed with ADAS-cog or SIB scales, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and discontinuation for any reason. The redundancy of post-authorisation clinical trials was studied by determining the novel aspects of each study on patient, intervention, comparator and trial outcome characteristics. Two criteria of futile trial (lenient and strict) were used.

RESULTS

A total of 63 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (16,576 patients) were included. It was conclusive that neither ChEI nor memantine achieved clinically significant improvement in cognitive function. In relation to safety, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that donepezil caused a clinically relevant increase on dropouts due to AE whereas the evidence was inconclusive for the remaining interventions. Regarding acceptability, it was conclusive that no ChEI improved treatment discontinuation while it was uncertain for memantine. The proportion of redundant trials was 5.6% with the lenient criteria and 42.6% with the strict one.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is conclusive that ChEI and memantine do not achieve clinically significant symptomatic improvement in AD while the acceptability of ChEI is unsatisfactory. Although evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions for AD and acceptability of memantine is inconclusive, no further RCTs are needed as their efficacy is not clinically relevant. Redundant trials were identified but their number depends on the criteria of futility used.

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.

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.

Hydrocortisone Reduces 28-day Mortality in Septic Patients: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

The goal of this study was to determine the utility of hydrocortisone in septic shock and its effect on mortality. We performed a systematic search from inception until March 01, 2018, according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines comparing hydrocortisone to placebo in septic shock patients and selected studies according to our pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Four reviewers extracted data into the predefined tables in the Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., New Mexico, US) sheet. We used RevMan software to perform a meta-analysis and draw Forest plots. We used a random effects model to estimate risk ratios. A two-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of five randomized control trials (RCTs) with 5,838 patients were included in our analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) and in-hospital mortality, mortality at 90 days and one year, reversal of shock, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, incidence of superinfections, and incidence of limb and/or cerebral ischemia. The 28-day mortality was significantly reduced with hydrocortisone, 808 vs. 880 with placebo, Risk Ratio (RR)=0.92, confidence interval (CI) =0.85-0.99, p=0.04, I²=0%. There was no difference in ICU mortality (RR=0.93, CI=0.81-1.08), in-hospital mortality (RR=0.95, CI=0.84-1.08), 90-day mortality (RR=0.93, CI=0.84-1.02, p=0.10), and one-year mortality (RR=0.97, CI=0.84-1.12). Superinfections were significantly common with hydrocortisone, RR=1.16, CI=1.05-1.28, p=0.003. In conclusion, the use of hydrocortisone showed a significant reduction in mortality at 28 days and a trend toward reduced ICU mortality. This mortality reduction was observed at the cost of significantly higher superinfections.

Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

What Is Known and Objective. To reevaluate the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Methods. This study was performed based on PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central RCTs, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1980 to April 2018. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis to indicate the possibility of type I or II errors and calculate the information size. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was applying to assess the certainty of evidence at the primary outcome level. Results. Twenty-one RCTs were identified and analyzed. Patients treated with corticosteroid had a 7% reduction in relative risk in 28-day all-cause mortality compared to controls (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99). However, there were no significant differences for the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) or in-hospital mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11). Corticosteroids shortened the length of ICU stay by 1.04 days (RR -1.04, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.36) and the length of hospital stay by 2.49 days (RR -2.49, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.02). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16) but not gastroduodenal bleeding (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37) or superinfection (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15). However, some date on secondary outcomes were unavailable because they were not measured or not reported in the included studies which may cause a lack of power or selective outcome reporting. The information size was calculated at 10044 patients. Trial sequential analysis showed that the meta-analysis was conclusive and the risk of type 2 error was minimal. What Is New and Conclusion. Corticosteroids are likely to be effective in reducing 28-day mortality and attenuating septic shock without increasing the rate of life-threatening complications. TSA showed that the risk of type II error in this meta-analysis was minimal and the result was conclusive.

Targeting the Blood-Brain Barrier to Prevent Sepsis-Associated Cognitive Impairment

Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory disease resulting from an infection. This disorder affects 750 000 people annually in the United States and has a 62% rehospitalization rate. Septic symptoms range from typical flu-like symptoms (eg, headache, fever) to a multifactorial syndrome known as sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE). Patients with SAE exhibit an acute altered mental status and often have higher mortality and morbidity. In addition, many sepsis survivors are also burdened with long-term cognitive impairment. The mechanisms through which sepsis initiates SAE and promotes long-term cognitive impairment in septic survivors are poorly understood. Due to its unique role as an interface between the brain and the periphery, numerous studies support a regulatory role for the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in the progression of acute and chronic brain dysfunction. In this review, we discuss the current body of literature which supports the BBB as a nexus which integrates signals from the brain and the periphery in sepsis. We highlight key insights on the mechanisms that contribute to the BBB's role in sepsis which include neuroinflammation, increased barrier permeability, immune cell infiltration, mitochondrial dysfunction, and a potential barrier role for tissue non-specific alkaline phosphatase (TNAP). Finally, we address current drug treatments (eg, antimicrobials and intravenous immunoglobulins) for sepsis and their potential outcomes on brain function. A comprehensive understanding of these mechanisms may enable clinicians to target specific aspects of BBB function as a therapeutic tool to limit long-term cognitive impairment in sepsis survivors.

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.

Association of Corticosteroid Treatment With Outcomes in Adult Patients With Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Although corticosteroids are widely used for adults with sepsis, both the overall benefit and potential risks remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until March 20, 2018, and updated on August 10, 2018. The terms corticosteroids, sepsis, septic shock, hydrocortisone, controlled trials, and randomized controlled trial were searched alone or in combination. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included that compared administration of corticosteroids with placebo or standard supportive care in adults with sepsis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Two independent reviewers completed citation screening, data abstraction, and risk assessment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Twenty-eight-day mortality.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 37 RCTs (N = 9564 patients). Eleven trials were rated as low risk of bias. Corticosteroid use was associated with reduced 28-day mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; I2 = 27%) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94; I2 = 0%) and in-hospital mortality (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99; I2 = 38%). Corticosteroids were significantly associated with increased shock reversal at day 7 (MD, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.80-3.11) and vasopressor-free days (MD, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.80-3.11) and with ICU length of stay (MD, -1.16; 95% CI, -2.12 to -0.20), the sequential organ failure assessment score at day 7 (MD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.89), and time to resolution of shock (MD, -1.35; 95% CI, -1.78 to -0.91). However, corticosteroid use was associated with increased risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.24-1.99).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that administration of corticosteroids is associated with reduced 28-day mortality compared with placebo use or standard supportive care. More research is needed to associate personalized medicine with the corticosteroid treatment to select suitable patients who are more likely to show a benefit.

Current use of vasopressors in septic shock

Background

Vasopressors are commonly applied to restore and maintain blood pressure in patients with sepsis. We aimed to evaluate the current practice and therapeutic goals regarding vasopressor use in septic shock as a basis for future studies and to provide some recommendations on their use.

Methods

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of vasoactive drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 17 questions focused on the profile of respondents, triggering factors, first choice agent, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatments, and effects of vasopressors. We investigated whether the answers complied with current guidelines. In addition, a group of 34 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of vasopressors based on 6 questions with sub-questions (total 14).

Results

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries (65% main specialty/activity intensive care) responded. The main trigger for vasopressor use was an insufficient mean arterial pressure (MAP) response to initial fluid resuscitation (83%). The first-line vasopressor was norepinephrine (97%), targeting predominantly a MAP > 60–65 mmHg (70%), with higher targets in patients with chronic arterial hypertension (79%). The experts agreed on 10 recommendations, 9 of which were based on unanimous or strong (≥ 80%) agreement. They recommended not to delay vasopressor treatment until fluid resuscitation is completed but rather to start with norepinephrine early to achieve a target MAP of ≥ 65 mmHg.

Conclusion

Reported vasopressor use in septic shock is compliant with contemporary guidelines. Future studies should focus on individualized treatment targets including earlier use of vasopressors.

Can corticosteroids reduce the mortality of patients with severe sepsis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of corticosteroids on clinical outcomes of patients with sepsis remains controversial. We aimed to further determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis by comparison with placebo.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) as well as the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) Web of Science were searched for all controlled studies that compared corticosteroids and placebo in adult patients with severe sepsis. The primary outcome was the mortality 28-day mortality and the secondary outcomes were mortality at longest follow up, occurrence, and reoccurrence of septic shock.

RESULTS

A total of 19 trials involving 7035 patients were pooled in our final analyses. No significant heterogeneity was found in any of the outcome measures. Compared with placebo, corticosteroids were associated with a lower 28-day mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.98, Z = 2.57, P = 0.01) both in patients having sepsis and in those who developed septic shock (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99, Z = 2.19, P = 0.03), while no significant difference was found in mortality with the longest follow up in patients either having sepsis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-1.00, Z = 1.93, P = 0.05), or occurrence (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56-1.24, Z = 0.90, P = 0.37) or reoccurrence of septic shock (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.16, Z = 1.89, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids were effective in reducing the 28-day mortality in patients with severe sepsis and in those with septic shock.

Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid and Thiamine (HAT Therapy) for the Treatment of Sepsis. Focus on Ascorbic Acid

Sepsis is a devastating disease that carries an enormous toll in terms of human suffering and lives lost. Over 100 novel pharmacologic agents that targeted specific molecules or pathways have failed to improve the outcome of sepsis. Preliminary data suggests that the combination of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid and Thiamine (HAT therapy) may reduce organ failure and mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock. HAT therapy is based on the concept that a combination of readily available, safe and cheap agents, which target multiple components of the host’s response to an infectious agent, will synergistically restore the dysregulated immune response and thereby prevent organ failure and death. This paper reviews the rationale for HAT therapy with a focus on vitamin C.

The glucocorticoid receptor and cortisol levels in pediatric septic shock

Background

There is controversy around the prescription of adjunct corticosteroids in patients with fluid-refractory septic shock, and studies provide mixed results, showing benefit, no benefit, and harm. Traditional means for evaluating whether a patient receives corticosteroids relied on anecdotal experience or measurement of serum cortisol production following stimulation. We set out to measure both serum cortisol and the intracellular signaling receptor for cortisol, the glucocorticoid receptor (GCR), in this group of patients.

Methods

We enrolled pediatric patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit with a diagnosis of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, or septic shock as well as healthy controls. We measured serum cortisol concentration and GCR expression by flow cytometry in peripheral blood leukocytes on the day of admission and day 3.

Results

We enrolled 164 patients for analysis. There was no difference between GCR expression comparing SIRS, sepsis, and septic shock. When all patients with septic shock were compared, those patients with a complicated course, defined as two or more organ failures at day 7 or death by day 28, had lower expression of GCR in all peripheral blood leukocytes. Further analysis suggested that patients with the combination of low GCR and high serum cortisol had higher rates of complicated course (75%) compared with the other three possible combinations of GCR and cortisol levels: low GCR and low cortisol (33%), high GCR and high cortisol (33%), and high GCR and low cortisol (13%; P <0.05).

Conclusions

We show that decreased expression of the GCR correlated with poor outcome from septic shock, particularly in those patients with high serum cortisol. This is consistent with findings from transcriptional studies showing that downregulation of GCR signaling genes portends worse outcome.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2177-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

γ-glutamylcysteine exhibits anti-inflammatory effects by increasing cellular glutathione level

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection and characterized by redox imbalance and severe oxidative stress. Glutathione (GSH) serves several vital functions, including scavenging free radicals and maintaining intracellular redox balance. Extracellular GSH is unable to be taken into the majority of human cells, and the GSH prodrug N-acetyl-l-cysteine (NAC) does not exhibit promising clinical effects. γ-glutamylcysteine (γ-GC), an intermediate dipeptide of the GSH-synthesis pathway and harboring anti-inflammatory properties, represents a relatively unexplored option for sepsis treatment. The anti-inflammatory efficiency of γ-GC and the associated molecular mechanism need to be explored. In vivo investigation showed that γ-GC reduced sepsis lethality and attenuated systemic inflammatory responses in mice, as well as inhibited lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated production of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), and nitric oxide (NO) and the expression of inducible NO synthase and cyclooxygenase 2 in RAW264.7 cells. Moreover, both in vivo and in vitro experiments demonstrated that γ-GC exhibited better therapeutic effects against inflammation compared with N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) and GSH. Mechanistically, γ-GC suppressed LPS-induced reactive oxygen species accumulation and GSH depletion. Inflammatory stimuli, such as LPS treatment, upregulated the expression of glutathione synthetase via activating nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor (Nrf2) and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) pathways, thereby promoting synthesis of GSH from γ-GC. These findings suggested that γ-GC might represent a potential therapeutic agent for sepsis treatment.

•

γ-GC reduces sepsis lethality and attenuates inflammatory responses in BALB/c mice.

•

γ-GC suppresses LPS-induced inflammation, ROS accumulation, and GSH depletion.

•

Nrf2 and NF-κB pathways are essential for upregulating GSS level to promote GSH synthesis from γ-GC.

•

γ-GC is more effective in attenuation inflammation than NAC and GSH.

Effect of adjunctive corticosteroids on clinical outcomes in adult patients with septic shock - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of corticosteroids on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched databases for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to March 12, 2018. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs were identified. Overall, corticosteroid therapy was not associated with a lower short-term mortality compared with placebo. Sub-analysis of trials with a low risk of bias demonstrated a beneficial effect of corticosteroids in reducing short-term mortality. Sub-analysis revealed that a daily dose of 200 mg hydrocortisone provided no benefit in reducing short-term mortality (random-effects RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.06, P = 0.555; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.88-1.09; I² = 0%), and the boundary for futility was crossed. However, a significant reduction in short-term mortality was found in a subgroup of trials that received dual corticosteroids (random-effects RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97, P = 0.013; I² = 0%), but this benefit disappeared after adjustment with TSA (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.76-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Future trials are unlikely to detect a reduction in short-term mortality at a daily doses of 200 mg hydrocortisone. More evidence is required to confirm the beneficial effects of dual corticosteroid therapy.

Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview

Purpose

To study the landscape of funding in intensive care research and assess whether the reported outcomes of industry-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more favorable.

Methods

We systematically assembled meta-analyses evaluating any type of intervention in the critical care setting and reporting the source of funding for each included RCT. Furthermore, when the intervention was a drug or biologic, we searched also the original RCT articles, when their funding information was unavailable in the meta-analysis. We then qualitatively summarized the sources of funding. For binary outcomes, separate summary odds ratios were calculated for trials with and without industry funding. We then calculated the ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics. ROR < 1 implies that the experimental intervention is relatively more favorable in trials with industry funding compared with trials without industry funding. For RCTs included in the ROR analysis, we also examined the conclusions of their abstract.

Results

Across 67 topics with 568 RCTs, 88 were funded by industry and another 73 had both industry and non-profit funding. Across 33 topics with binary outcomes, the sROR was 1.10 [95% CI (0.96–1.26), I² = 1%]. Conclusions were not significantly more commonly unfavorable for the experimental arm interventions in industry-funded trials (21.3%) compared with trials without industry funding (18.2%).

Conclusion

Industry-funded RCTs are the minority in intensive care. We found no evidence that industry-funded trials in intensive care yield more favorable results or are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5325-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The role of glucocorticoids as adjunctive treatment for sepsis in the modern era

Glucocorticoids have been used as adjunctive therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock for more than four decades. The rationale for the use of glucocorticoids is that this class of drugs downregulates the proinflammatory response and limits the anti-inflammatory response while preserving innate immunity. Between 1976 and 2017, 22 randomised placebo-controlled trials have been published evaluating the benefit of glucocorticoids in patients with community-acquired pneumonia, sepsis, and septic shock. These studies produced conflicting results. In 2018, two large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were published evaluating the role of hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock. The Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial reported a reduction in 90-day mortality whereas the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial reported no mortality benefit. This Viewpoint critically appraises these two RCTs and evaluates the use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock in the modern era.

Sini Decoction Improves Adrenal Function and the Short-Term Outcome of Septic Rats through Downregulation of Adrenal Toll-Like Receptor 4 Expression

Background

Sini Decoction (SND) is composed of Aconitum carmichaelii Debeaux, Zingiber officinale Roscoe, and Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch, having been used in China for centuries for collapsing phrase of disease. Studies reported that SND could alleviate inflammatory response, ameliorate microcirculatory disturbances, and improve shock reversal and adrenal gland glucocorticoid stress response during sepsis shock, yet the underlying mechanism is still elusive. Toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 is demonstrated to be crucially correlated with the corticosterone secretion and the impaired adrenal glucocorticoid responses in sepsis.

Materials and Methods

SND at dose of 10 g/kg (in low-dose SND group, LD-SND) and 20 g/kg (in high-dose SND group, HD-SND) was administered to CLP rats. Four days later, overall survival rates of rats were calculated; rat serum and adrenal glands were collected. Basic serum corticosterone levels were determined, and the increase of corticosterone after 0.8 ug/kg ACTH injection was checked to detect the adrenocortical sensitivity to ACTH. The protein and mRNA expression of TLR4 in adrenal glands were measured to study the impact of SND on TLR4 expression. mRNA levels of IL-10 and TNF-a in adrenal glands and IL-10 and TNF-a levels in serum were also determined to study the cytokines profile.

Results

SND improved the cumulative survival rate of CLP rats up to 4 days (P < 0.05 with HD-SND) and adrenocortical sensitivity to 0.8 ug/kg ACTH stimulation (P < 0.05 at 60 mins, 31.02 ± 19.23 ng/ml in LD-SND group and 32.18 ± 14.88 ng/ml in HD-SND group versus 5.03 ± 13.34 ng/ml in CLP group), with a significant decrease of protein (P < 0.05, 29.6% in LD-SND group and 27.8% in HD-SND group), mRNA expression of TLR4 (P < 0.05, 32.9% in LD-SND group and 36.1% in HD-SND group), mRNA expression of IL-10 (P < 0.05, 32.0% in LD-SND group and 29.6% in HD-SND group), TNF-a in adrenal glands (P < 0.05, 26.0% in LD-SND group and 25.3% in HD-SND group), and TNF-a level in serum (P < 0.05, 100.20 ± 19.41 pg/ml in LD-SND group and 92.40 ± 11.66 pg/ml in HD-SND group versus 134.40 ± 27.87 pg/ml in CLP group).

Conclusion

SND increased overall survival rate within 4 days and attenuated adrenal insufficiency in septic rats by downregulating TLR4 mRNA and protein expression in adrenal tissue, inhibiting adrenal production of TNF-α and IL-10, and improving adrenal responsiveness. Our results suggest that SND is able to ameliorate adrenal stress responses in a local immune-adrenal crosstalk way involving downregulated expression of TLR4 in adrenal tissue. SND might be a promising treatment for adrenal insufficiency prevention in prolonged sepsis.