Control groups in recent septic shock trials: a systematic review

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019- results from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sepsis and septic shock remain drivers for mortality in critically ill patients. The heterogeneity of the syndrome hinders the generation of reproducible numbers on mortality risks. Consequently, mortality rates range from 15 to 56%. We aimed to update and extend the existing knowledge from meta-analyses and estimate 30- and 90-day mortality rates for sepsis and septic shock separately, stratify rates by region and study type and assess mortality rates across different sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of articles published in PubMed or in the Cochrane Database, between 2009 and 2019 in English language including interventional and observational studies. A meta-analysis of pooled 28/30- and 90-day mortality rated separately for sepsis and septic shock was done using a random-effects model. Time trends were assessed via Joinpoint methodology and for the assessment of mortality rate over different SOFA scores, and linear regression was applied.

Results

Four thousand five hundred records were identified. After title/abstract screening, 783 articles were assessed in full text for eligibility. Of those, 170 studies were included. Average 30-day septic shock mortality was 34.7% (95% CI 32.6–36.9%), and 90-day septic shock mortality was 38.5% (95% CI 35.4–41.5%). Average 30-day sepsis mortality was 24.4% (95% CI 21.5–27.2%), and 90-day sepsis mortality was 32.2% (95% CI 27.0–37.5%). Estimated mortality rates from RCTs were below prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Rates varied between regions, with 30-day septic shock mortality being 33.7% (95% CI 31.5–35.9) in North America, 32.5% (95% CI 31.7–33.3) in Europe and 26.4% (95% CI 18.1–34.6) in Australia. A statistically significant decrease of 30-day septic shock mortality rate was found between 2009 and 2011, but not after 2011. Per 1-point increase of the average SOFA score, average mortality increased by 1.8–3.3%.

Conclusion

Trends of lower sepsis and continuous septic shock mortality rates over time and regional disparities indicate a remaining unmet need for improving sepsis management. Further research is needed to investigate how trends in the burden of disease influence mortality rates in sepsis and septic shock at 30- and 90-day mortality over time.

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock.

METHODS

CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population.

DISCUSSION

The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.

Metabolic support in the critically ill: a consensus of 19

Metabolic alterations in the critically ill have been studied for more than a century, but the heterogeneity of the critically ill patient population, the varying duration and severity of the acute phase of illness, and the many confounding factors have hindered progress in the field. These factors may explain why management of metabolic alterations and related conditions in critically ill patients has for many years been guided by recommendations based essentially on expert opinion. Over the last decade, a number of randomized controlled trials have been conducted, providing us with important population-level evidence that refutes several longstanding paradigms. However, between-patient variation means there is still substantial uncertainty when translating population-level evidence to individuals. A cornerstone of metabolic care is nutrition, for which there is a multifold of published guidelines that agree on many issues but disagree on others. Using a series of nine questions, we provide a review of the latest data in this field and a background to promote efforts to address the need for international consistency in recommendations related to the metabolic care of the critically ill patient. Our purpose is not to replace existing guidelines, but to comment on differences and add perspective.

Effect of physostigmine on recovery from septic shock following intra-abdominal infection - Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, monocentric pilot trial (Anticholium® per Se)

PURPOSE

The cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway has been shown to be accessible by physostigmine salicylate in animal models. However, the cholinesterase inhibitor is not approved for adjunctive therapy in sepsis, and tolerability and safety of high initial doses followed by continuous infusion have not been investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this trial, 20 patients with perioperative septic shock due to intra-abdominal infection were eligible. The physostigmine group received an initial dose of 0.04 mg/kg physostigmine salicylate, followed by continuous infusion of 1 mg/h for 120 h; the placebo group was treated with 0.9% sodium chloride. Primary outcome was the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score during treatment and up to 14 days.

RESULTS

Administration of physostigmine salicylate was well tolerated. Mean SOFA scores were 8.9 ± 2.5 and 11.3 ± 3.6 (mean ± SD) for physostigmine and placebo group, respectively. Adjusted for age, difference between means was not statistically significant (-2.37, 95% CI: -5.43 to 0.70, p = 0.121). Norepinephrine doses required only appeared lower in the physostigmine group (p = 0.064), along with a more rapid reduction from an elevated heart rate possibly indicating less hemodynamic instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with physostigmine salicylate was feasible and safe. Further studies are justified to assess the effect on recovery from septic shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number 2012-001650-26, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03013322.

Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates

Purpose

Although the definition of septic shock has been standardized, some variation in mortality rates among clinical trials is expected. Insights into the sources of heterogeneity may influence the design and interpretation of septic shock studies. We set out to identify inclusion criteria and baseline characteristics associated with between-trial differences in control group mortality rates.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs published between 2006 and 2018 that included patients with septic shock. The percentage of variance in control-group mortality attributable to study heterogeneity rather than chance was measured by I². The association between control-group mortality and population characteristics was estimated using linear mixed models and a recursive partitioning algorithm.

Results

Sixty-five septic shock RCTs were included. Overall control-group mortality was 38.6%, with significant heterogeneity (I² = 93%, P < 0.0001) and a 95% prediction interval of 13.5–71.7%. The mean mortality rate did not differ between trials with different definitions of hypotension, infection or vasopressor or mechanical ventilation inclusion criteria. Population characteristics univariately associated with mortality rates were mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (standardized regression coefficient (β) = 0.57, P = 0.007), mean serum creatinine (β = 0.48, P = 0.007), the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation (β = 0.61, P < 0.001), and the proportion with vasopressors (β = 0.57, P = 0.002). Combinations of population characteristics selected with a linear model and recursive partitioning explained 41 and 42%, respectively, of the heterogeneity in mortality rates.

Conclusions

Among 65 septic shock trials, there was a clinically relevant amount of heterogeneity in control group mortality rates which was explained only partly by differences in inclusion criteria and reported baseline characteristics.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5134-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Appropriate endpoints for evaluation of new antibiotic therapies for severe infections: a perspective from COMBACTE's STAT-Net

PURPOSE

In this era of rising antimicrobial resistance, slowly refilling antibiotic development pipelines, and an aging population, we need to ensure that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) determine the added benefit of new antibiotic agents effectively and in a valid way, especially for severely ill patients. Unfortunately, universally accepted endpoints for the evaluation of new drugs in severe infections are lacking.

METHODS

We review and discuss the current practices and challenges regarding endpoints in RCTs in this field and propose novel approaches.

RESULTS

Usual endpoints actually recommended for drug development suffer from important flaws. Mortality requires large sample size and only partly related to the infectious process. Clinical cure rate is highly subjective in critically ill patients where symptoms may be related to other intercurrent events. Currently, composite endpoints, hierarchical nested designs, and competing risks analysis seem to be the most promising new tools for designing and analyzing clinical trials in this area, although they require further validation.

CONCLUSION

Regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and clinicians need to agree on the most appropriate clinical endpoints for severe infections to ensure efficient approval of new, effective antibiotic agents.