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

Abrupt Discontinuation Versus Taper of Hydrocortisone in Patients With Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Although not mentioned in the most recent guidelines, the 2016 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend to taper corticosteroids once vasopressors are no longer needed; however, at the time of publication, there were no studies comparing taper versus abrupt discontinuation of corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the impact of abrupt versus taper discontinuation of corticosteroids in septic shock.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that included patients who received an initial dose of 200 to 300 mg of hydrocortisone for septic shock. Participants were then divided into "abrupt" and "taper" groups. The primary outcome assessed was hemodynamic instability during taper or within 72 hours of the last corticosteroid dose. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, incidence of hyperglycemia or hypernatremia, and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The primary outcome of reinitiation of vasopressor therapy occurred in a larger proportion of patients in the taper group compared with the abrupt group (21.9% vs 10.7%). The ICU length of stay (7.6 days abrupt vs 9 days taper) and hospital length of stay (14.9 vs 15.3 days) were similar between groups. There was a statistically significant increase in patients who experienced hyperglycemia within 24 hours of the last corticosteroid dose in the abrupt group. All other secondary outcomes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The abrupt discontinuation of hydrocortisone in the treatment of septic shock was associated with a nonstatistically significant 50% absolute reduction in the need for vasopressor reinitiation.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in immunocompetent patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017062198.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists in critically ill adults - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Background

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been widely used as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effect of SUP on clinical outcomes in critically ill adults.

Methods

Literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of clinical trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SUP, with PPI or H2RA, versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients from database inception through 1 June 2019. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and overt GI bleeding. Conventional meta-analysis with random-effects model and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

Results

Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, of which four RCTs were judged as low risk of bias. Overall, SUP could reduce the incident of clinically important GI bleeding [relative risk (RR) = 0.58; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42–0.81] and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36–0.63), these results were confirmed by the sub-analysis of trials with low risk of bias, TSA indicated a firm evidence on its beneficial effects on the overt GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.31–0.75), but lack of sufficient evidence on the clinically important GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.23–1.51). Among patients who received enteral nutrition (EN), SUP was associated with a decreased risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44–0.85; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.16–2.38) and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42–0.96; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.12–3.35), but these benefits disappeared after adjustment with TSA. Among patients who did not receive EN, SUP had only benefits in reducing the risk of overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25–0.55; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.22–0.63), but not the clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.04–2.09).

Conclusions

SUP has benefits on the overt GI bleeding in critically ill patients who did not receive EN, however, its benefits on clinically important GI bleeding still needs more evidence to confirm.

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.