Terlipressin decreases vascular endothelial growth factor expression and improves oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and shock

GLUT1 regulates the release of VEGF-A in the alveolar epithelium of lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury

Acute lung injury (ALI) is a severe disease with high mortality and poor prognosis, characterized by excessive and uncontrolled inflammatory response. Vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) contributes to the development and progression of ALI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1) in alveolar epithelial VEGF-A production in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced ALI. An ALI mouse model was induced by LPS oropharyngeal instillation. Mice were challenged with LPS and then treated with WZB117, a specific antagonist of GLUT1. For the vitro experiments, cultured A549 cells (airway epithelial cell line) were exposed to LPS, with or without the GLUT1 inhibitors WZB117 or BAY876. LPS significantly upregulated of GLUT1 and VEGF-A both in the lung from ALI mice and in cultured A549. In vivo, treatment with WZB117 not only markedly decreased LPS-induced pulmonary edema, injury, neutrophilia, as well as levels of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), but also reduced VEGF-A production. Yet, the maximum tolerated concentration of WZB117 failed to suppress LPS-induced VEGF-A overexpression in vitro. While administration of BAY876 inhibited gene and protein expression as well as secretion of VEGF-A in response to LPS in A549. These results illustrated that GLUT1 upregulates VEGF-A production in alveolar epithelia from LPS-induced ALI, and inhibition of GLUT1 alleviates ALI.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Current guidelines recommend the use of norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor, whereas adrenergic agonists and vasopressin analogs are also commonly used by physicians. To date, very few studies have synthetically compared the effects of multiple types of vasoactive medications. The aim of this study was to systemically evaluate the efficacy of vasoactive agents both individually and in combination to treat septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to May 12, 2022, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasopressors. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was the ICU length of stay. Adverse events are defined as any undesirable outcomes, including myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, peripheral ischemia, or stroke and cerebrovascular events. Findings: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials comprising 4,966 patients and assessing 8 types of vasoactive treatments were included in the network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve provided a ranking of vasoactive medications in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality from most effective to least effective: norepinephrine plus dobutamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, terlipressin, norepinephrine, norepinephrine plus vasopressin, dopamine, and dobutamine. Dopamine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU stay than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin, whereas other vasoactive medications showed no definite difference in ICU length of stay. Regarding adverse events, norepinephrine was associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Dopamine was associated with the highest incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Epinephrine and terlipressin were associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Interpretation: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that norepinephrine plus dobutamine is associated with a lower risk of 28-day mortality in septic shock patients than other vasoactive medications, and the use of dopamine is associated with a higher risk of 28-day mortality due to septic shock than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin.

Applicability of Vasopressor Trials in Adult Critical Care: A Prospective Multicentre Meta-Epidemiologic Cohort Study

Objective

To assess the applicability of evidence from landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults.

Study Design and Setting

This prospective, multi-center cohort study was conducted at five medical and surgical intensive care units at three tertiary care centers. Consecutive cases of newly initiated vasopressor treatment were included. The primary end point was the proportion of patients (≥18 years) who met the eligibility criteria of 25 RCTs of vasopressor therapy in critically ill adults included in the most recent Cochrane review. Multilevel Poisson regression was used to estimate the eligibility proportions with 95% confidence intervals for each trial. Secondary end points included the eligibility criteria that contributed most to trial ineligibility, and the relationship between eligibility proportions and (i) the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) score, and (ii) the recruitment-to-screening ratio of each RCT. The PRECIS-2 score was used to assess the degree of pragmatism of each trial.

Results

Between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2019, a total of 1189 cases of newly initiated vasopressor therapy were included. The median proportion of cases meeting eligibility criteria for all 25 RCTs ranged from 1.3% to 6.0%. The eligibility criteria contributing most to trial ineligibility were the exceedance of a specific norepinephrine dose, the presence of a particular shock type, and the drop below a particular blood pressure value. Eligibility proportions increased with the PRECIS-2 score but not with the recruitment-to-screening ratio of the trials.

Conclusion

The applicability of evidence from available trials on vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults to patients receiving vasopressors in daily practice is limited. Applicability increases with the degree of study pragmatism but is not reflected in a high recruitment-to-screening ratio. Our findings may help researchers design vasopressor trials and promote standardized assessment and reporting of the degree of pragmatism achieved.

Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition

Despite the abundant literature on vasopressor therapy, few studies have focused on vasopressor-sparing strategies in patients with shock. We performed a scoping-review of the published studies evaluating vasopressor-sparing strategies by analyzing the results from randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with shock, with a focus on vasopressor doses and/or duration reduction. We analyzed 143 studies, mainly performed in septic shock. Our analysis demonstrated that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are associated with a decrease in the duration of vasopressor therapy. These strategies are as follows: implementing a weaning strategy, vasopressin use, systemic glucocorticoid administration, beta-blockers, and normothermia. On the contrary, early goal directed therapies, including fluid therapy, oral vasopressors, vitamin C, and renal replacement therapy, are not associated with an increase in vasopressor-free days. Based on these results, we proposed an evidence-based vasopressor management strategy.

Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Control-arm mortality varies between acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) RCTs.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed ARDS RCTs that commenced recruitment after publication of the American-European Consensus (AECC) definition (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials; January 1994 to October 2020). We assessed concordance of RCT inclusion criteria to ARDS consensus definitions and whether exclusion criteria are strongly or poorly justified. We estimated the proportion of between-trial difference in control-arm 28-day mortality explained by the inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics using meta-regression.

RESULTS

A literature search identified 43 709 records. One hundred and fifty ARDS RCTs were included; 146/150 (97.3%) RCTs defined ARDS inclusion criteria using AECC/Berlin definitions. Deviations from consensus definitions, primarily aimed at improving ARDS diagnostic certainty, frequently related to duration of hypoxaemia (117/146; 80.1%). Exclusion criteria could be grouped by rationale for selection into strongly or poorly justified criteria. Common poorly justified exclusions included pregnancy related, age, and comorbidities (infectious/immunosuppression, hepatic, renal, and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Control-arm 28-day mortality varied between ARDS RCTs (mean: 29.8% [95% confidence interval: 27.0-32.7%; I2=88.8%; τ2=0.02; P<0.01]), and differed significantly between RCTs with different Pao2:FiO2 ratio inclusion thresholds (26.6-39.9 kPa vs <26.6 kPa; P<0.01). In a meta-regression model, inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics accounted for 30.6% of between-trial difference (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In most ARDS RCTs, consensus definitions are modified to use as inclusion criteria. Between-RCT mortality differences are mostly explained by the Pao2:FiO2 ratio threshold within the consensus definitions. An exclusion criteria framework can be applied when designing and reporting exclusion criteria in future ARDS RCTs.

Between-trial heterogeneity in ARDS research

Purpose

Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) revealed indeterminate or conflicting study results. We aimed to systematically evaluate between-trial heterogeneity in reporting standards and trial outcome.

Methods

A systematic review of RCTs published between 2000 and 2019 was performed including adult ARDS patients receiving lung-protective ventilation. A random-effects meta-regression model was applied to quantify heterogeneity (non-random variability) and to evaluate trial and patient characteristics as sources of heterogeneity.

Results

In total, 67 RCTs were included. The 28-day control-group mortality rate ranged from 10 to 67% with large non-random heterogeneity (I² = 88%, p < 0.0001). Reported baseline patient characteristics explained some of the outcome heterogeneity, but only six trials (9%) reported all four independently predictive variables (mean age, mean lung injury score, mean plateau pressure and mean arterial pH). The 28-day control group mortality adjusted for patient characteristics (i.e. the residual heterogeneity) ranged from 18 to 45%. Trials with significant benefit in the primary outcome reported a higher control group mortality than trials with an indeterminate outcome or harm (mean 28-day control group mortality: 44% vs. 28%; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Among ARDS RCTs in the lung-protective ventilation era, there was large variability in the description of baseline characteristics and significant unexplainable heterogeneity in 28-day control group mortality. These findings signify problems with the generalizability of ARDS research and underline the urgent need for standardized reporting of trial and baseline characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-021-06370-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A machine learning and network framework to discover new indications for small molecules

Drug repurposing, identifying novel indications for drugs, bypasses common drug development pitfalls to ultimately deliver therapies to patients faster. However, most repurposing discoveries have been led by anecdotal observations (e.g. Viagra) or experimental-based repurposing screens, which are costly, time-consuming, and imprecise. Recently, more systematic computational approaches have been proposed, however these rely on utilizing the information from the diseases a drug is already approved to treat. This inherently limits the algorithms, making them unusable for investigational molecules. Here, we present a computational approach to drug repurposing, CATNIP, that requires only biological and chemical information of a molecule. CATNIP is trained with 2,576 diverse small molecules and uses 16 different drug similarity features, such as structural, target, or pathway based similarity. This model obtains significant predictive power (AUC = 0.841). Using our model, we created a repurposing network to identify broad scale repurposing opportunities between drug types. By exploiting this network, we identified literature-supported repurposing candidates, such as the use of systemic hormonal preparations for the treatment of respiratory illnesses. Furthermore, we demonstrated that we can use our approach to identify novel uses for defined drug classes. We found that adrenergic uptake inhibitors, specifically amitriptyline and trimipramine, could be potential therapies for Parkinson's disease. Additionally, using CATNIP, we predicted the kinase inhibitor, vandetanib, as a possible treatment for Type 2 Diabetes. Overall, this systematic approach to drug repurposing lays the groundwork to streamline future drug development efforts.

Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficiency of vasopressin or its analogs with sole catecholamines on patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A systematic search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed online databases was performed up to 30 Oct 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing use of vasopressin or its analogs (e.g., terlipressin, selepressin) with administration of catecholamines alone.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs with 4,225 patients in the current study. Compared with solely use of catecholamines, administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), P=0.08, I2 = 0%]. The result of primary endpoint remained unchanged after conducting sensitivity analysis. Despite a significantly higher risk of digital ischemia in patients receiving vasopressin or its analogs [RR=2.65 (95% CI, 1.26-5.56), P < 0.01, I2 = 48%], there was no statistical significance in the pooled estimate for other secondary outcomes, including total adverse events, arrhythmia, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiac arrest, acute mesenteric ischemia, ICU/hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock, while an increased incidence of digital ischemia should be noted in patients receiving agonists for vasopressin receptors.

Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Catecholamines are the first-line vasopressors used in patients with septic shock. However, the search for novel drug candidates is still of great importance due to the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity accompanied by a decrease in catecholamine activity. Terlipressin (TP) is a synthetic vasopressin analogue used in the management of patients with septic shock. In the current study, we aimed to compare the effects of TP and catecholamine infusion in treating septic shock patients.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching articles published in PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between inception and July 2018. We only selected randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of TP and catecholamine in adult patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the ICU length of stay, haemodynamic changes, tissue perfusion, renal function, and adverse events.

Results

A total of 9 studies with 850 participants were included in the analysis. Overall, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the TP and catecholamine groups (risk ratio(RR), 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03); P = 0.09). In patients < 60 years old, the mortality rate was lower in the TP group than in the catecholamine group (RR, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86); P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the ICU length of stay (mean difference, MD), − 0.28 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), − 1.25 to 0.69; P = 0.58). Additionally, TP improved renal function. The creatinine level was decreased in patients who received TP therapy compared to catecholamine-treated participants (standard mean difference, SMD), − 0.65; 95% CI, − 1.09 to − 0.22; P = 0.003). No significant difference was found regarding the total adverse events (Odds Ratio(OR), 1.48(0.51 to 4.24); P = 0.47), whereas peripheral ischaemia was more common in the TP group (OR, 8.65(1.48 to 50.59); P = 0.02).

Conclusion

The use of TP was associated with reduced mortality in septic shock patients less than 60 years old. TP may also improve renal function and cause more peripheral ischaemia. PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872.

Canadian Critical Care Society clinical practice guideline: The use of vasopressin and vasopressin analogues in critically ill adults with distributive shock

PURPOSE

Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock.

METHODS

We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Septic shock is one of the major healthcare problems, affecting millions of people around the world every year. The object of this study is to find the best kind of regimen of vasopressors treatment in septic shock.

Methods

The PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find the included studies. Stata 15.1 was performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Results

After searching and screening the articles, finally we included articles about 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 arms (dopamine, dopexamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, norepinephrine + dopexamine, norepinephrine + epinephrine, norepinephrine + vasopressin, phenylephrine, terlipressin, vasopressin) and total 5,928 patients with septic shock. Compared with dopamine, the regimens (epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, and vasopressin) have significantly lower 28-day mortality. Ranking the regimens in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis for 28-day mortality, the result showed that norepinephrine + dopexamine was the best one (57.3%), followed by norepinephrine + epinephrine (14.8%), norepinephrine + dobutamine (10.9%), dopexamine (11.2%), terlipressin (9.8%), norepinephrine + vasopressin (2.4%), phenylephrine (1.2%), epinephrine (1.0%), vasopressin (0.5%), norepinephrine (0.0%), and dopamine (0.0%). In addition, for the results of arrhythmia and increased heart rate, the combination regimens groups did not showed inferiority to other single regimen groups.

Conclusions

Single dopamine had significantly higher 28d mortality. Combination regimens of vasopressors accounted for the best three therapeutic regimens. In treating patients with septic shock, using combining regimens probably gets more benefits.

Pharmacological agents for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition caused by direct or indirect injury to the lungs. Despite improvements in clinical management (for example, lung protection strategies), mortality in this patient group is at approximately 40%. This is an update of a previous version of this review, last published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in adults with ARDS on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and fitness to return to work at 12 months.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 10 December 2018. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents with control (placebo or standard therapy) to treat adults with established ARDS. We excluded trials of nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclins, partial liquid ventilation, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluid and nutritional interventions and medical oxygen. We excluded studies published earlier than 2000, because of changes to lung protection strategies for people with ARDS since this date.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 RCTs with 6299 participants who had ARDS; two included only participants with mild ARDS (also called acute lung injury). Most studies included causes of ARDS that were both direct and indirect injuries. We noted differences between studies, for example the time of administration or the size of dose, and because of unclear reporting we were uncertain whether all studies had used equivalent lung protection strategies.We included five types of agents as the primary comparisons in the review: corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, and beta-agonists. We included 15 additional agents (sivelestat, mesenchymal stem cells, ulinastatin, anisodimine, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, recombinant human ACE2 (palifermin), AP301, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), levosimendan, prostacyclins, lisofylline, ketaconazole, nitroglycerins, L-2-oxothiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid (OTZ), and penehyclidine hydrochloride).We used GRADE to downgrade outcomes for imprecision (because of few studies and few participants), for study limitations (e.g. high risks of bias) and for inconsistency (e.g. differences between study data).Corticosteroids versus placebo or standard therapyCorticosteroids may reduce all-cause mortality within three months by 86 per 1000 patients (with as many as 161 fewer to 19 more deaths); however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) includes the possibility of both increased and reduced deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05; 6 studies, 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether corticosteroids make little or no difference to late all-cause mortality (later than three months) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.52; 1 study, 180 participants), or to the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) -4.30, 95% CI -9.72 to 1.12; 3 studies, 277 participants). We found that ventilator-free days up to day 28 (VFD) may be improved with corticosteroids (MD 4.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.44; 4 studies, 494 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication, or fitness to return to work at 12 months (FTR).Surfactants versus placebo or standard therapyWe are uncertain whether surfactants make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29; 9 studies, 1338 participants), or whether they reduce late all-cause mortality (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.61; 1 study, 418 participants). Similarly, we are uncertain whether surfactants reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.95 to -0.05; 1 study, 16 participants), make little or no difference to VFD (MD -0.39, 95% CI -2.49 to 1.72; 2 studies, 344 participants), or to adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.44; 2 studies, 88 participants). We are uncertain of these effects because we assessed them as very low-certainty. No studies reported FTR.N-aceytylcysteine versus placeboWe are uncertain whether N-acetylcysteine makes little or no difference to early mortality, because we assessed this as very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.30; 1 study, 36 participants). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, VFD, adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation, or FTR.Statins versus placeboStatins probably make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.26; 3 studies, 1344 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or to VFD (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1342 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statins may make little or no difference to duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 8.95; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not include data for adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation in one study because it was unclearly reported. No studies reported late all-cause mortality or FTR.Beta-agonists versus placebo controlBeta-blockers probably slightly increase early mortality by 40 per 1000 patients (with as many as 119 more or 25 fewer deaths); however, the 95% CI includes the possibility of an increase as well as a reduction in mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 3 studies, 646 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether beta-agonists increase VFD (MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.68 to -0.71; 3 studies, 646 participants), or make little or no difference to adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation (one study reported little or no difference between groups, and one study reported more events in the beta-agonist group). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or FTR.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to determine with certainty whether corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, or beta-agonists were effective at reducing mortality in people with ARDS, or duration of mechanical ventilation, or increasing ventilator-free days. Three studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review. As the potential long-term consequences of ARDS are important to survivors, future research should incorporate a longer follow-up to measure the impacts on quality of life.

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Catecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca²⁺ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed.

Results

A total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n = 1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n = 5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n = 19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n = 43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n = 19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n = 4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n = 3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n = 1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n = 258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n = 37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n = 41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n = 6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n = 127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n = 15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n = 6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n = 10 of 600).

Conclusions

The use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2427-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists in septic shock patients. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. The primary outcome was mortality. And secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of adverse events. In addition, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The results showed vasopressin receptor agonists use was associated with reduced mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, they had no significant effects on ICU length of stay (mean deviation (MD) - 0.08, 95% CI, - 0.68 to 0.52, I2 = 0%) and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 0.58, 95% CI - 1.47 to 0.31, I2 = 57%). Additionally, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between two groups (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.90, I2 = 57%), but vasopressin receptor agonists administration could significantly increase the risk of digital ischemia (RR 4.85, 95% CI 2.81 to 8.39, I2 = 26%). Finally, there was no statistical difference of cardiovascular events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.57, I2 = 1%), arrhythmia (0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.23, I2 = 23%), mesenteric ischemia (0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.55, I2 = 0%), diarrhea (2.47, 95% CI 0.77 to 7.96, I2 = 49%), cerebrovascular events (1.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 10.54, I2 = 0%), and hyponatremia (1.47, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.55, I2 = 0%) between two groups. Egger's test showed there was no significant publication bias among studies (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of vasopressin might result in reduced mortality in patients with septic shock. An increased risk of digital ischemia must be taken into account.

Terlipressin for septic shock patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled study

Background

Catecholamines are commonly used in septic shock but face limitations of their hypo-responsiveness and adverse events due to high dose. Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analog with greater selectivity for the V1-receptor. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin in septic shock.

Methods

We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception up to July 15, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in patients with septic shock and managed with terlipressin or any catecholamines. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were explored.

Results

Ten studies with 928 patients were included. Despite the shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, use of terlipressin did not reduce the risk of mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; I² = 0%; P = 0.28) when compared with control. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In addition, lactate clearance, length of stay in ICU or hospital, total adverse events, digital ischemia, and arrhythmia were also similar between groups, while terlipressin was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and less norepinephrine requirements.

Conclusions

Current results suggest terlipressin did not show added survival benefit in septic shock therapy when compared with catecholamines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0369-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Novel Vasopressors in the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock: A Systematic Review of Angiotensin II, Selepressin, and Terlipressin

Study Objective:

Vasodilatory shock is the most common type of shock. Catecholamine vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic therapy but carry risks. Angiotensin II (AT2) was recently approved, and other novel agents (selepressin and terlipressin) are under investigation and used outside the United States (terlipressin). We performed a systematic review to summarize the efficacy and safety of these novel vasopressors and to offer guidance on their appropriate use.

Design:

Systematic review of controlled trials.

Methods:

Numerous databases were searched using terms related to angiotensin II, selepressin, terlipressin, vasopressor, and shock. Twenty-one citations, including 16 prospective comparative trials and 5 post hoc analyses reporting effects of AT2, selepressin, and terlipressin, were reviewed for data on outcomes related to hemodynamic measures, mortality, severity and duration of illness, concomitant vasopressor utilization, and adverse effects. Findings from eligible literature are described qualitatively using Cochrane methods.

Results:

Fourteen controlled trials were assessed after exclusion of 2 dated trials of a distinct AT2 formulation. Trials are limited for AT2 (n = 2) and selepressin (n = 1), while terlipressin was investigated in 11 small trials. Overall, the trials have an unclear risk of bias. Most report mean arterial pressure (MAP) as primary end point, and all indicate novel vasopressors increase MAP compared to placebo and to a similar degree as with catecholamine vasopressors. Mortality findings are preliminary, as they have been limited to specific subgroups in trials of terlipressin and post hoc analyses of one trial of AT2. Trials reported safety concerns for each agent including thromboembolism with AT2 and ischemia with terlipressin/selepressin.

Conclusion:

In this systematic review, controlled trials of novel vasopressors in treatment of vasodilatory shock were limited and of low quality. Angiotensin II, selepressin, and terlipressin appear to significantly increase MAP, but further study is required, particularly for selepressin, to determine their safety, efficacy, and role in treatment of vasodilatory shock.

Vascular endothelial growth factor increased the permeability of respiratory barrier in acute respiratory distress syndrome model in mice

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with a mortality of 45%. The authors investigated the possible mechanisms and effect of vascular endothelial growth factor on alveolar epithelial barrier permeability in acute respiratory distress syndrome mice model.

Methods

Eighty Male BALB/c mice were randomly assigned to four group: PBS group, LPS group, sFlt group, or LPS + sFlt group. The levels of vascular endothelial growth factor and total protein in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid were compared, together with lung injury score and the histopathology of alveolar epithelial barrier. The expressions of vascular endothelial growth factor and tight junction proteins mRNA in lung tissue were also studied.

Results

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) inhaling was accompanied with increasing lung vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression. Anti-VEGF with soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1) attenuated the lung injury effectively.

Conclusions

Our data indicate that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor with soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 could maintain the normal structure and function of respiratory membrane in acute respiratory distress syndrome mice model and might be a suitable therapeutic tool for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.

Perioperative "remote" acute lung injury: recent update

Perioperative acute lung injury (ALI) is a syndrome characterised by hypoxia and chest radiograph changes. It is a serious post-operative complication, associated with considerable mortality and morbidity. In addition to mechanical ventilation, remote organ insult could also trigger systemic responses which induce ALI. Currently, there are limited treatment options available beyond conservative respiratory support. However, increasing understanding of the pathophysiology of ALI and the biochemical pathways involved will aid the development of novel treatments and help to improve patient outcome as well as to reduce cost to the health service. In this review we will discuss the epidemiology of peri-operative ALI; the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved on the pathological process; the clinical considerations in preventing and managing perioperative ALI and the potential future treatment options.

Vasopressors for hypotensive shock

BACKGROUND

Initial goal-directed resuscitation for hypotensive shock usually includes administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiation of vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics, their effect on patient-relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was published originally in 2004 and was updated in 2011 and again in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to compare the effect of one vasopressor regimen (vasopressor alone, or in combination) versus another vasopressor regimen on mortality in critically ill participants with shock. We further aimed to investigate effects on other patient-relevant outcomes and to assess the influence of bias on the robustness of our effect estimates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS and PsycINFO (from inception to June 2015). We performed the original search in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries to identify ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors abstracted data independently. They discussed disagreements between them and resolved differences by consulting with a third review author. We used a random-effects model to combine quantitative data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28 RCTs (3497 participants) with 1773 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, given alone or in combination, were studied in 12 different comparisons.All 28 studies reported mortality outcomes; 12 studies reported length of stay. Investigators reported other morbidity outcomes in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life nor on anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 11 studies as having low risk of bias for the primary outcome of mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality criteria.In summary, researchers reported no differences in total mortality in any comparisons of different vasopressors or combinations in any of the pre-defined analyses (evidence quality ranging from high to very low). More arrhythmias were observed in participants treated with dopamine than in those treated with norepinephrine (high-quality evidence). These findings were consistent among the few large studies and among studies with different levels of within-study bias risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of substantial differences in total mortality between several vasopressors. Dopamine increases the risk of arrhythmia compared with norepinephrine and might increase mortality. Otherwise, evidence of any other differences between any of the six vasopressors examined is insufficient. We identified low risk of bias and high-quality evidence for the comparison of norepinephrine versus dopamine and moderate to very low-quality evidence for all other comparisons, mainly because single comparisons occasionally were based on only a few participants. Increasing evidence indicates that the treatment goals most often employed are of limited clinical value. Our findings suggest that major changes in clinical practice are not needed, but that selection of vasopressors could be better individualised and could be based on clinical variables reflecting hypoperfusion.

Non-Adrenergic Vasopressors in Patients with or at Risk for Vasodilatory Shock. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Introduction

Hypotensive state is frequently observed in several critical conditions. If an adequate mean arterial pressure is not promptly restored, insufficient tissue perfusion and organ dysfunction may develop. Fluids and catecholamines are the cornerstone of critical hypotensive states management. Catecholamines side effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption and development of arrhythmias are well known. Thus, in recent years, interest in catecholamine-sparing agents such as vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue has increased; however, few randomized trials, mostly with small sample sizes, have been performed. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to investigate the effect of non-catecholaminergic vasopressors on mortality.

Methods

PubMed, BioMed Central and Embase were searched (update December 31^st, 2014) by two independent investigators. Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving a non-catecholaminergic vasopressor, patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock. Exclusion criteria were: crossover studies, pediatric population, non-human studies, studies published as abstract only, lack of data on mortality. Studied drugs were vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue. Primary endpoint was mortality at the longest follow-up available.

Results

A total of 1,608 patients from 20 studies were included in our analysis. The studied settings were sepsis (10/20 studies [50%]), cardiac surgery (7/20 [35%]), vasodilatory shock due to any cause (2/20 [19%]), and acute traumatic injury (1/20 [5%]). Overall, pooled estimates showed that treatment with non-catecholaminergic agents improves survival (278/810 [34.3%] versus 309/798 [38.7%], risk ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.98, p = 0.02). None of the drugs was associated with significant reduction in mortality when analyzed independently. Results were not confirmed when analyzing studies with a low risk of bias.

Conclusions

Catecholamine-sparing agents in patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock may improve survival. Further researches on this topic are needed to confirm the finding.

Effects of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Recovery Phase of Acute Lung Injury in Mice

AIM

To test the hypothesis that exogenous administration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes lung repair in acute lung injury (ALI).

METHODS

ALI was induced by intranasal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration in mice, followed by different treatment protocols for 7 days in 3 groups (n = 6, each) including the LPS, the VEGF and the anti-VEGF group. At day 7, peripheral blood and lungs were collected. Lung wet-to-dry (W/D) ratio and lung injury score were measured. Immunohistochemistry assay was employed to detect the number of pulmonary vessels. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) was detected using flow cytometric analysis, and the apoptosis of lung cells was determined by TUNEL staining.

RESULTS

VEGF treatment reduced W/D ratio and pulmonary neutrophil infiltration in the VEGF group compared with the LPS group. The treatment of VEGF increased the number of pulmonary vessels, and significantly increased the number of circulating EPC cells. Moreover, administration of VEGF decreased the percentage of apoptotic cells in the VEGF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that VEGF may contribute to vascular endothelial repair and function as a protective factor against ALI.

Enforced expression of miR-125b attenuates LPS-induced acute lung injury

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a severe form of acute lung injury (ALI) in humans, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Despite decades of research, few therapeutic strategies for clinical ARDS have emerged. Recent evidence implicated a potential role of miR-125b in development of ALI. Here we evaluated the miR-125b-based strategy in treatment of ARDS using the murine model of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced ALI. We found that up-regulation of miR-125b expression maintained the body weight and survival of ALI mice, and significantly reduced LPS-induced pulmonary inflammation as reflected by reductions in total cell and neutrophil counts, proinflammatory cytokines, as well as chemokines in BAL fluid. Further, enforced expression of miR-125b resulted in remarkable reversal of LPS-induced increases in lung permeability as assessed by reductions in total protein, albumin and IgM in BAL fluid, and ameliorated the histopathology changes of lung in LPS-induced ALI mice. Of interest, serum miR-125b expression was also decreased and inversely correlated with the disease severity in patients with ARDS. Our findings strongly demonstrated that enforced expression of miR-125b could effectively ameliorate the LPS-induced ALI, suggesting a potential application for miR-125b-based therapy to treat clinical ARDS.