Early administration of hydrocortisone replacement after the advent of septic shock: impact on survival and immune response*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:1651-1657. [PMID: 24674923 DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000000318]

Comparison of Early Versus Late Adjunctive Vasopressin and Corticosteroids in Patients With Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Vasopressin (VP) and hydrocortisone (HC) have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with septic shock. However, there is very little literature addressing the impact of the timing of the combination.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of early versus late initiation of both VP and HC on time to shock reversal in septic shock patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center. Data were collected from system-generated reports, which were used to identify patients with septic shock who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and received both VP and HC. The primary endpoint was time to shock reversal. Patients were divided into the "early" group if both VP and HC were initiated within 12 hours of vasopressor initiation or into the "late" group if either VP or HC (or both agents) were initiated after 12 hours of vasopressor initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were included in the analysis. Early initiation was associated with a shorter time to shock reversal (34 hours vs 65 hours; P = 0.012) compared to late initiation. There were no differences in ICU length of stay, mortality, the number patients requiring renal replacement therapy, or the duration of mechanical ventilation in either group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Our study addressed a major gap in the literature and suggests that adding the combination of VP and HC within 12 hours of septic shock may be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Fludrocortisone Plus Hydrocortisone Versus Hydrocortisone Alone as Adjunctive Therapy in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Trials evaluating hydrocortisone (HC) for septic shock are conflicting with all finding decreased time to shock reversal but few with mortality difference. Those with improved mortality included fludrocortisone (FC), but it is unknown if FC affected the outcome or is coincidental as there are no comparative data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of FC + HC versus HC alone as adjunctive therapy in septic shock.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted of medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Patients receiving FC + HC were compared with those receiving HC. Primary outcome was time to shock reversal. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital, 28-, and 90-day mortality; ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS); and safety.

RESULTS

There were 251 patients included (FC + HC, n = 114 vs HC, n = 137). There was no difference in time to shock reversal (65.2 vs 71 hours; P = 0.24). Cox proportional hazards model showed time to first corticosteroid dose, full-dose HC duration, and use of FC + HC were associated with shorter shock duration, while time to vasopressor therapy was not. However, in 2 multivariable models controlling for covariates, use of FC + HC was not an independent predictor of shock reversal at greater than 72 hours and in-hospital mortality. No differences were seen in hospital LOS or mortality. Hyperglycemia occurred more frequently with FC + HC (62.3% vs 45.6%; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

FC + HC was not associated with shock reversal at greater than 72 hours or decreased in-hospital mortality. These data may be useful for determining corticosteroid regimen in patients with septic shock refractory to fluids and vasopressors. Future prospective, randomized studies are needed to further evaluate the role of FC in this patient population.

Early Versus Late Initiation of Hydrocortisone in Patients With Septic Shock: A Prospective Study

Introduction The optimal timing of corticosteroid initiation in septic shock patients is debatable. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommended adding hydrocortisone to septic shock patients who require a vasopressor with a dose of norepinephrine ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min for at least four hours. Nevertheless, the best time to initiate hydrocortisone remains uncertain. Objective Assessing the impact of early (≤3 hours) versus late (>3 hours) initiation of hydrocortisone in septic patients. Methodology We compared the outcomes of septic shock patients who received hydrocortisone within three hours versus those who started treatment after three hours. The inclusion criteria encompassed septic shock patients aged 18 or older who received at least one dose of hydrocortisone. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, do-not-resuscitate orders, the absence of empirical intravenous antibiotics, recent corticosteroid use, recent cardiac arrest, and a history of adrenal insufficiency. Results Eighty-one patients were included (54% were males). The mean age was 59 years, and 56.8% of patients were in the early group. The time needed to discontinue vasopressors was 25 and 37 hours for the early and late groups, respectively (p = 0.009), and more patients achieved reversal of shock (35 vs. 24 patients) and had shorter ICU stays (17 days vs. 20 days). Conclusion Initiating hydrocortisone early, within three hours, reduced the time needed to discontinue vasopressors among the study population. However, both early and late initiation strategies yielded comparable outcomes in terms of ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and shock reversal.

The Timing of Initiating Hydrocortisone and Long-term Mortality in Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on the association between the timing of corticosteroid administration and mortality in septic shock focused only on short-term mortality and produced conflicting results. We performed a retrospective review of a large administrative database of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to evaluate the association between the timing of hydrocortisone initiation and short- and long-term mortality in septic shock. We hypothesized that a longer duration between the first vasopressor use for sepsis and steroid initiation was associated with increased mortality.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Medical Information Mart in the Intensive Care-IV database. We included adults who met Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock and received hydrocortisone. The exposure of interest was the time in hours from vasopressor use to hydrocortisone initiation (>12 as late and ≤12 as early). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between exposure and mortality. Competing risk regression models were used to evaluate the association between exposure and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 844 patients were included in this cohort: 553 in the early group and 291 in the late group. The median time to hydrocortisone initiation was 7 hours (interquartile range, 2.0-19.0 hours). After multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, we found that hydrocortisone initiation >12 hours after vasopressor use was associated with increased 1-year mortality when compared with initiation <12 hours (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.71; P = .002, E-value = 2.13). Hydrocortisone initiation >12 hours was also associated with increased 28-day, 90-day, and in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with septic shock, initiating hydrocortisone >12 hours after vasopressor use was associated with an increased risk of both short-term and long-term mortality, and a prolonged length of hospital stay.

Alternatives to Hydrocortisone for Hemodynamic Support in Septic Shock Management Due to Medication Shortage

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection. Septic shock is when initial fluid resuscitation fails to increase the mean atrial pressure to greater than or equal to 65 mm Hg. The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend corticosteroids for vasopressor and fluid-refractory septic shock patients. Medication shortages can arise, and their etiologies include natural disasters, quality control issues, and manufacturing discontinuation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists announced a shortage of IV hydrocortisone. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone are considered therapeutic alternatives to hydrocortisone. This commentary aims to guide clinicians on the alternative to hydrocortisone among septic shock patients due to medication shortage.

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.

The Association of Corticosteroid Therapy With Mortality and Length of Stay Among Children With Septic Shock: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction Septic shock remains a leading cause of mortality in pediatric patients. Corticosteroids have been used in the management of sepsis and septic shock, but there is conflicting evidence on the potential benefit of corticosteroid therapy. This study assessed the risk of mortality and length of stay in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) among pediatric patients admitted with a septic shock diagnosis. Method A retrospective cohort study was conducted among pediatric patients (up to 14 years old) admitted with a septic shock diagnosis to the PICU of King Abdullah Specialist Children's Hospital in Riyadh from January 2016 to December 2021. The clinical outcomes of patients receiving corticosteroid therapy were compared to those of control patients who were not given corticosteroids. Electronic medical records provided clinical data, severity scores, and the management given for each patient. The patients were followed up from the date of sepsis diagnosis to hospital discharge. Proportional hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to compare the risk of mortality, length of PICU stay, and length of hospital stay. Results A total of 182 pediatric patients were included in the study, and 86 (47%) received corticosteroid therapy. The median age of the study population was 15 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-72 months). Compared to the controls, the patients who received corticosteroids had a higher total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (mean±SD: 5.5±3 vs. 7.1±3.3, respectively; p <0.01) and required more ventilation support (72% vs. 28%, respectively) and the use of inotropes and vasopressors (74% vs. 34% and 32% vs. 6%, respectively). In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between the groups (adjusted HR: 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-10.28). Those patients who received corticosteroids had 42% less risk of staying in the PICU for over six days than those not receiving steroids (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.13-0.98) Conclusion After adjusting for baseline characteristics, severity scores, and medical intervention, no association was found between receiving corticosteroids and mortality (p=0.492). Furthermore, patients who received corticosteroids had less risk of a prolonged stay in the PICU than those who did not.

Glucocorticoid resistance and hyperlactatemia: A tag team to worsen sepsis

Glucocorticoid resistance often dims glucocorticoid's therapeutic efficacy in sepsis. However, the mechanism is incompletely understood. In this issue, Vandewalle et al. (2021) demonstrate that glucocorticoid resistance leads to hyperlactatemia and that this combination facilitates lethal sepsis. This insight gives important clarity to the pathophysiology of sepsis, while further suggesting therapeutic avenues for its treatment.

Combined glucocorticoid resistance and hyperlactatemia contributes to lethal shock in sepsis

Sepsis is a potentially lethal syndrome resulting from a maladaptive response to infection. Upon infection, glucocorticoids are produced as a part of the compensatory response to tolerate sepsis. This tolerance is, however, mitigated in sepsis due to a quickly induced glucocorticoid resistance at the level of the glucocorticoid receptor. Here, we show that defects in the glucocorticoid receptor signaling pathway aggravate sepsis pathophysiology by lowering lactate clearance and sensitizing mice to lactate-induced toxicity. The latter is exerted via an uncontrolled production of vascular endothelial growth factor, resulting in vascular leakage and collapse with severe hypotension, organ damage, and death, all being typical features of a lethal form of sepsis. In conclusion, sepsis leads to glucocorticoid receptor failure and hyperlactatemia, which collectively leads to a lethal vascular collapse.

Comparison of Early Versus Late Initiation of Hydrocortisone in Patients With Septic Shock in the ICU Setting

BACKGROUND

Multiple publications demonstrate an association between time to initiation of corticosteroids and outcomes such as mortality and reversal of shock. However, the optimal time to initiate hydrocortisone remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of early versus late initiation of hydrocortisone in septic shock patients.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicentered, observational study was conducted. Adults admitted from July 1, 2014, to August 31, 2019, diagnosed with septic shock receiving vasopressors and low-dose hydrocortisone were evaluated. Participants were divided into the "early" group if hydrocortisone was initiated within 12 hours or "late" group if initiated after 12 hours of vasopressor initiation. The primary outcome was time to vasopressor discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), vasopressor utilization, fluids administered, and need for renal replacement therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients were identified for inclusion in this propensity score-weighted cohort: 99 in the early group and 99 in the late group. Early initiation was associated with shorter time to vasopressor discontinuation compared with late initiation (40.7 vs 60.6 hours; P = 0.0002). There was also a reduction in ICU LOS (3.6 vs 5.1 days; P = 0.0147) and hospital LOS (8.9 vs 10.9 days; P = 0.0220) seen in the early group. There was no difference in mortality between groups.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this propensity-matched cohort, administration of hydrocortisone within 12 hours from the onset of septic shock was associated with improved time to vasopressor discontinuation and reduced ICU and hospital LOS.

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.

A high leukocyte count and administration of hydrocortisone hamper PCR-based diagnostics for bloodstream infections

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) require an accurate and fast identification of causative pathogens. Molecular diagnostics, in particular polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based approaches for BSI diagnostics directly from whole blood, suffer from limitations such as inhibition leading to invalid results. In this retrospective study, we analyzed 23 parameters for their potential interference with LightCycler SeptiFast PCR tests (n = 2167) routinely performed at our institution. The overall inhibition rate was 9.1%. Test date, type of ward, procalcitonin levels, high leukocyte counts, and absolute neutrophil count were significantly associated with inhibition. For a subset (n = 448), cut-off values for leukocyte counts of < 5700 cells/μL and ≥ 26,900 cells/μL were significantly associated with a low (5%) and high (67%) inhibition risk. For patients with a moderate to high leukocyte count (5700-26,900 cells/μL), the additional administration of hydrocortisone significantly increased the inhibition risk. Furthermore, freezing of blood samples prior to DNA extraction and SF testing appeared to neutralize inhibitory factors. It remains to be investigated whether other molecular diagnostic tests are susceptible to similar inhibiting parameters.

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.

Overexpression of GILZ in macrophages limits systemic inflammation while increasing bacterial clearance in sepsis in mice

Studies support the beneficial effects of glucocorticoids (GCs) during septic shock, steering research toward the potential role of GC-induced proteins in controlling excessive inflammatory responses. GILZ is a glucocorticoid-induced protein involved in the anti-inflammatory effects of GCs. We investigated whether the overexpression of GILZ specifically limited to monocytes and macrophages (M/M) alone could control inflammation, thus improving the outcome of septic shock in animal models. We also monitored the expression of GILZ in M/M from septic mice and septic-shock patients. M/M from patients and septic mice displayed significantly lower expression of GILZ than those isolated from controls. Furthermore, transgenic mice (Tg-mice) experiencing sepsis, with increased expression of GILZ restricted to M/M, showed lower frequencies of inflammatory monocytes than their littermates and lower plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines. Tg-mice also had lower blood bacterial counts. We further established that the upregulation of GILZ in M/M enhanced their phagocytic capacity in in vivo assays. The increase of GILZ in M/M was also sufficient to improve the survival rates of septic mice. These results provide evidence for a central role of both GILZ and M/M in the pathophysiology of septic shock and a possible clue for the modulation of inflammation in this disease.

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.

General Adaptation in Critical Illness: Glucocorticoid Receptor-alpha Master Regulator of Homeostatic Corrections

In critical illness, homeostatic corrections representing the culmination of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, are modulated by the activated glucocorticoid receptor alpha (GRα) and are associated with an enormous bioenergetic and metabolic cost. Appreciation of how homeostatic corrections work and how they evolved provides a conceptual framework to understand the complex pathobiology of critical illness. Emerging literature place the activated GRα at the center of all phases of disease development and resolution, including activation and re-enforcement of innate immunity, downregulation of pro-inflammatory transcription factors, and restoration of anatomy and function. By the time critically ill patients necessitate vital organ support for survival, they have reached near exhaustion or exhaustion of neuroendocrine homeostatic compensation, cell bio-energetic and adaptation functions, and reserves of vital micronutrients. We review how critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency, mitochondrial dysfunction/damage, and hypovitaminosis collectively interact to accelerate an anti-homeostatic active process of natural selection. Importantly, the allostatic overload imposed by these homeostatic corrections impacts negatively on both acute and long-term morbidity and mortality. Since the bioenergetic and metabolic reserves to support homeostatic corrections are time-limited, early interventions should be directed at increasing GRα and mitochondria number and function. Present understanding of the activated GC-GRα's role in immunomodulation and disease resolution should be taken into account when re-evaluating how to administer glucocorticoid treatment and co-interventions to improve cellular responsiveness. The activated GRα interdependence with functional mitochondria and three vitamin reserves (B1, C, and D) provides a rationale for co-interventions that include prolonged glucocorticoid treatment in association with rapid correction of hypovitaminosis.

Corticosteroids for treating sepsis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Controlling glucocorticoid treatment in critically ill patients with rheumatism exemplified by systemic lupus erythematosus]

BACKGROUND

Infections are one of the most common clinical problems in patients with rheumatic diseases who need to be treated with glucocorticoids in an intensive care unit. To date, there are no recommendations for the standardized control of glucocorticoid treatment in such situations.

OBJECTIVE

Based on a literature search this paper provides an overview of evidence-based and eminence-based recommendations for the control of glucocorticoid treatment under intensive care conditions using the example of systemic lupus erythematosus.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out using a MeSH term search in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Infections are one of the most common causes for the treatment of patients with rheumatic diseases in intensive care units. In the case of systemic lupus erythematosus it is particularly challenging to distinguish the infection from increased disease activity or to treat the parallel occurrence. Patients in an intensive care unit are exposed to an increased level of physical stress due to the severity of the disease, which is why special attention should be paid to symptoms of adrenocortical insufficiency. Evidence-based recommendations for prophylaxis of an adrenal crisis only exist in relation to perioperative procedures and not for the situation of severe infections.

CONCLUSION

The use of glucocorticoids in systemic lupus erythematosus is often chronic and there is an increased risk of infections. In the case of infections (or simultaneous disease flare) adequate anti-infective treatment should be administered, the treatment with glucocorticoids should be adjusted accordingly and symptoms of adrenocortical insufficiency should simultaneously be looked for.

Precision Medicine and its Role in the Treatment of Sepsis: A Personalised View

In recent years, a new form of medicine has become increasingly significant, namely, personalised medicine (PM). PM is a form of care in which treatment is tailored for an individual patient.

PM is about using multiple data sets to create a digital human mapping. A person’s biological traits are determined by the interactions of hundreds of genes and gene networks, as well as external factors such as diet and exercise. Combining and then investigating these multiple databases with powerful statistical tools, allows a new understanding of how genetic intricacy drives health and disease and so leads to a closer personalised medical approach that targets each individual’s unique genetic make-up.

Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response to infection, ranging from systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) to septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction syndromes (MODS). Sepsis is the most common cause of death in intensive care patients. Treatments in an ICU may need to be adapted to the continuous and rapid changes of the disease, making it challenging to identify a single target. PM is thus seen as the future of sepsis treatment in the ICU.

The fact that individual patients respond differently to treatment should be regarded as a starting point in the approach to providing treatment. The disease itself comes secondary to this concept.

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.

The controversial role of corticosteroids in septic shock

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials and literature reviews have been conducted to evaluate the impact of corticosteroids on the physiological markers and clinical outcomes of patients in septic shock. While the findings have been somewhat contradictory, there is evidence of moderate benefit from the administration of low-dose corticosteroids to patients in septic shock. In this review, we discuss recent studies evaluating the impact of corticosteroids on morbidity and mortality in septic shock and explore future directions to fully elucidate when and how the administration of corticosteroid therapies can be beneficial.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the Mesh database of PubMed with the term "septic shock" and subheadings "therapeutic use", "drug therapy", "pharmacology", and "therapy" followed by the addition of "steroid". Filters were added to restrict the search to 18+ age, English and human studies, and articles published within the last 10 years. One hundred sixty-five articles were examined and twenty-five were deemed relevant to this review.

RESULTS

The twenty-five articles reviewed here provide conflicting evidence as to the usefulness of corticosteroid treatments during septic shock. Several showed improved physiological outcomes, including rates of organ failure, need for life supporting interventions, adverse effects, inflammatory markers, and perfusion during the course of septic shock, as well as decreased mortality for a statistically significant number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a need for improved therapy for patients in septic shock. Corticosteroids have shown some potential in improving mortality rates and clinical markers. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal role of corticosteroids in septic shock.

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.

Effect of Low-Dose Hydrocortisone Therapy in Adult Patients With Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of low-dose hydrocortisone therapy in the management of septic shock remains controversial in critical care for many years. Hence, we performed this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate its effect on clinical outcome among adult patients with septic shock.

METHODS

We identified relevant RCTs published from inception to March 7, 2018 comparing low-dose hydrocortisone with placebo or no intervention in adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for septic shock. Meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's instrument. Trial sequential analysis was used to pool the results from the included studies for the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were retrieved by our literature search strategy. There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81-1.00; P = .05) and hospital mortality (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.82-1.02; P = .09) between the 2 groups, which were confirmed by TSA. However, there was a significant improvement in shock reversal in the hydrocortisone group (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.02-1.72; P = .03). Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed that hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone statistically reduced the rate of 28-day mortality (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.64-0.97; P = .03), ICU mortality (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63-0.95; P = .02), and hospital mortality (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63-0.95; P = .01) in comparison with the placebo, the results were also confirmed by TSA.

CONCLUSION

Among adult patients with septic shock, the use of low-dose hydrocortisone compared with control did not confer overall survival benefits, albeit improving shock reversal rate. The benefit of reducing 28-day mortality, ICU mortality, and hospital mortality was observed in combination use of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone.

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.

Neuroendocrine Derangements in Early Septic Shock: Pharmacotherapy for Relative Adrenal and Vasopressin Insufficiency

Septic shock is a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units throughout the world. While this disease state represents a highly complex pathophysiology involving numerous organ systems, the early approach to care includes adequate hemodynamic support traditionally achieved via infusions of vasoactive medications after adequate fluid resuscitation. Relative adrenal and vasopressin deficiencies are a common feature of septic shock that contribute to impaired hemodynamics. Hydrocortisone and vasopressin are endocrine system hormone analogues that target the acute neuroendocrine imbalance associated with septic shock. This clinically focused annotated review describes the pathophysiological mechanisms behind their use and explores the potential clinical roles of early administration and synergy when combined.

Low-dose hydrocortisone prolongs survival in a lethal sepsis model in adrenalectomized rats

BACKGROUND

Controversial clinical findings of low-dose hydrocortisone supplementation in septic shock led us to investigate the impact of administration in lethal septic shock in adrenalectomized rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After preliminary experiments, to define the intravenous dose of hydrocortisone delivered in bilaterally adrenalectomized rats with serum cortisol level similar to sham rats, survival experiments were run in 75 rats after intraperitoneal challenge with Escherichia coli. Rats were treated with placebo, ertapenem, hydrocortisone, and a combination. Sacrifice experiments were run to measure gene transcripts in whole blood and in the liver and to assess cytokine stimulation of splenocytes and tissue overgrowth.

RESULTS

The combination of hydrocortisone and ertapenem was superior to any single treatment and mandatory to achieve survival benefit. Splenocytes from infected rats had decreased production of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα); this was reversed with hydrocortisone treatment. Hydrocortisone increased the expression of TNF, Il1r2, and Hdac4 and decreased that of Dnmt3a. Bacterial burden of E. coli in kidney was decreased after hydrocortisone treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of hydrocortisone is a mandatory adjunctive to antimicrobial therapy in a rat model of septic shock after bilateral adrenalectomy. The mechanism of action is related to reversal of sepsis-induced immunosuppression through interaction with histone deacetylases and de novo DNA methyltransferases.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.

METHODS

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

RESULTS

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and Purpose

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version.

Methods

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

Results

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.

Conclusions

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

Glucocorticoid Sensitivity Is Highly Variable in Critically Ill Patients With Septic Shock and Is Associated With Disease Severity

OBJECTIVES

To measure tissue glucocorticoid sensitivity in patients with septic shock and determine its relationship to standard measurements of adrenal function and of outcome.

DESIGN

Prospective observational trial.

SETTING

Teaching hospital ICU.

SUBJECTS

Forty-one patients and 20 controls were studied.

INTERVENTIONS

Glucocorticoid sensitivity was measured by in vitro suppression of cytokine production from lipopolysaccharide-stimulated leukocytes.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups in the relative suppression of cytokine production, although there was a greater range and variance in the patient data. Patients in the lowest quartile of glucocorticoid sensitivity had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (25 [24-28] vs 20 [14-23]; p = 0.02) and a trend toward higher mortality (30% vs 0%; p = 0.2) compared to those in the highest. The mRNA expression of the β variant of the glucocorticoid receptor and the 11-β hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 2 isozyme were significantly higher in patients compared to controls (8.6-fold, p = 0.002 and 10.1-fold, p = 0.0002, respectively). Changes in mRNA expression of these genes did not correlate with measurements of glucocorticoid sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with septic shock and controls do not differ in their median glucocorticoid sensitivity. However, patients exhibited a greater variability in glucocorticoid responsiveness and had evidence of association between increased sickness sensitivity and reduced glucocorticoid sensitivity. Sensitivity to glucocorticoids did not appear to be mediated by changes in the expression of the β variant of the glucocorticoid receptor or the 11-β hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 2 isozyme.

Evaluating the impact of obesity on safety and efficacy of weight-based norepinephrine dosing in septic shock: A single-center, retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Norepinephrine is the first-line vasopressor recommended for patients in septic shock. Weight-based dosing may increase drug exposure and the risk of adverse effects in obese patients. The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of weight-based norepinephrine dosing using actual body weight in the morbidly obese compared with normal weight patients.

METHODS

This was a single centre, retrospective study of adult patients admitted with septic shock requiring norepinephrine for at least 12hours. The primary endpoint was the incidence of tachycardia within 48hours after norepinephrine initiation. Secondary endpoints included timing and dosing of norepinephrine when adjunctive agents were added.

RESULTS

The incidence of tachycardia was similar between groups. Total norepinephrine exposure was significantly greater in obese patients on day 1 (p=0.02). Obese patients were more likely to be started on vasopressin (p<0.001) and steroids at a lower weight-based norepinephrine dose (p=0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Weight-based norepinephrine dosing using actual body weight did not result in more tachycardia in the morbidly obese compared to normal weight patients, despite greater total exposure. These results were limited by the low doses used and a small cohort. However, use of actual body weight in morbidly obese patients appears to be safe.

Timing, method and discontinuation of hydrocortisone administration for septic shock patients

AIM

To characterize the prescribing patterns for hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock and perform an exploratory analysis in order to identify the variables associated with better outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 59 patients with septic shock who received stress-dose hydrocortisone. It was performed at 2 critical care units in academic hospitals from June 1^st, 2015, to July 31^st, 2016. Demographic data, comorbidities, medical management details, adverse effects related to corticosteroids, and outcomes were collected after the critical care physician indicated initiation of hydrocortisone. Univariate comparison between continuous and bolus administration of hydrocortisone was performed, including multivariate analysis, as well as Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare the proportion of shock reversal at 7 d after presentation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined the best cut-off criteria for initiation of hydrocortisone associated with the highest probability of shock reversal. We addressed the effects of the taper strategy for discontinuation of hydrocortisone, noting risk of shock relapse and adverse effects.

RESULTS

All-cause 30-d mortality was 42%. Hydrocortisone was administered as a continuous infusion in 54.2% of patients; time to reversal of shock was 49 h longer in patients who were given a bolus administration [59 h (range, 47.5-90.5) vs 108 h (range, 63.2-189); P = 0.001]. The maximal dose of norepinephrine after initiation of hydrocortisone was lower in patients on continuous infusion [0.19 μg/kg per minute (range, 0.11-0.28 μg)] compared with patients who were given bolus [0.34 μg/kg per minute (range, 0.16-0.49); P = 0.004]. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a higher proportion of shock reversal at 7 d in patients with continuous infusion compared to those given bolus (83% vs 63%; P = 0.004). There was a good correlation between time to initiation of hydrocortisone and time to reversal of shock (r = 0.80; P < 0.0001); ROC curve analysis revealed that the best criteria for prediction of shock reversal was a time to initiation of hydrocortisone of ≤ 13 h after administration of norepinephrine, with an area under the curve of 0.81 (P < 0.001). The maximal dose of norepinephrine at initiation of hydrocortisone with the highest association with shock reversal was ≤ 0.28 μg/kg per minute, with an area under the curve of 0.75 (P = 0.0002). On a logistic regression model, hydrocortisone taper was not associated with a lower risk of shock relapse (RR = 1.29; P = 0.17) but was related to a higher probability of hyperglycemia [odds ratio (OR), 5.3; P = 0.04] and hypokalemia (OR = 10.6; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of hydrocortisone could hasten the resolution of septic shock compared to bolus administration. Earlier initiation corresponds with a higher probability of shock reversal. Tapering strategy is unnecessary.

Misdirected Sympathy: The Role of Sympatholysis in Sepsis and Septic Shock

The spectrum of sepsis and septic shock remains a highly prevalent disease state, carrying a high risk of morbidity and mortality. The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) plays an important role in this initial cascade, enabling the host to respond to invading pathogens; however, prolonged activation can become pathological. The potential for unregulated sympathetic tone to become of detriment in patients with sepsis has fueled interest in the role and impact of sympatholysis, the selective inhibition of sympathetic tone. The cornerstone of septic shock therapy for decades has been the supplementation of catecholamines and thus potential further perpetuation of this sympathetic dysregulation. Although the theory of sympatholysis circulates around cardiovascular effects and stroke volume optimization, the impact of augmenting the SNS may extend well beyond this, including the impacts on the immune system, inflammatory cascade, and even gene transcription. Presently, the most robust clinical evidence involves the use of the cardioselective β-blocker esmolol in patients with septic shock with persistent tachycardia secondary to catecholamine use. Evidence is isolated only to animal models with α-agonists. Future evidence stands to elucidate the balance of sympathetic and autonomic tone as well as the potential role of redirecting and maximizing sympathetic activity.

New horizon in the treatment of sepsis: a systematic review of alternative medicine

BackgroundDespite great advancement in treatment of sepsis, mortality of sepsis remains unacceptably high, even with the modern antibiotic and intensive care technologies. Considering the key role of immune dysfunction in sepsis pathophysiology, different treatments were evaluated, but failed to improve survival of patients. Natural remedies have been tested in various studies to overcome sepsis. In this study, we aim to review some of the evidence from clinical, in vitro and in vivo studies about the effect of alternative medicine on sepsis management. MethodsThe following databases were searched up to March 2014: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid and Google Scholar using combination of Mesh term. All in vitro and in vivo studies, also clinical trials, published in English, which evaluated alternative medicine in management of sepsis were included. Results Out of 95 relevant studies, the inclusion criteria were met for 79 cases. Among them, 18 studies were performed on humans. The most herbal medicine, including Xubijing (n=10) and then Rhubarb (n=3). Most of the reviewed botanical medicines modulate the immune system. Reduction of mortality was also reported in studies. ConclusionsModulation of immune system, anti-inflammatory activities and improvement of survival were the action of herbal medicine. A monovalent approach is not enough for treatment of sepsis, we recommend further studies to identify active component of herbal and use them in combination. Also an animal model of sepsis does not exactly mimic human sepsis, so more clinical studies should be performed. With no new drug on the horizon, herbal medicine will be promising for treatment of sepsis.

Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: insights and comparisons to ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE

Prior to 2001 there was no standard for early management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. In the presence of standard or usual care, the prevailing mortality was over 40-50 %. In response, a systems-based approach, similar to that in acute myocardial infarction, stroke and trauma, called early goal-directed therapy was compared to standard care and this clinical trial resulted in a significant mortality reduction. Since the publication of that trial, similar outcome benefits have been reported in over 70 observational and randomized controlled studies comprising over 70,000 patients. As a result, early goal-directed therapy was largely incorporated into the first 6 hours of sepsis management (resuscitation bundle) adopted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and disseminated internationally as the standard of care for early sepsis management. Recently a trio of trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe), while reporting an all-time low sepsis mortality, question the continued need for all of the elements of early goal-directed therapy or the need for protocolized care for patients with severe and septic shock. A review of the early hemodynamic pathogenesis, historical development, and definition of early goal-directed therapy, comparing trial conduction methodology and the changing landscape of sepsis mortality, are essential for an appropriate interpretation of these trials and their conclusions.

Novel immunotherapeutic strategies for pyelonephritis

Acute pyelonephritis is an infection of the renal parenchyma and renal pelvis. When it is caused by a typical pathogen in an immunocompetent female patient with normal urinary tract, it is considered uncomplicated. In all other cases, sepsis is the most worrisome complication. In the event of sepsis, patients should be hospitalized and treated aggressively with antibiotics, intravenous fluids and agents that enhance the immune response of the host. In this review, we summarize findings from immunomodulatory interventions in experimental studies of acute pyelonephritis and the application of these interventions into clinical practice. Vaccine against bacterial virulence factors and agents aiming to modulate the immune response of the host belong to these interventions and they are discussed.

Corticosteroids for treating sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failures as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of two or higher. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Giving corticosteroids may benefit patients. The original review was published in 2004 and was updated in 2010 and again in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of corticosteroids on death at one month in patients with sepsis, and to examine whether dose and duration of corticosteroids influence patient response to this treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (October 2014), EMBASE (October 2014), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; October 2014) and reference lists of articles, and we contacted trial authors. The original searches were performed in August 2003 and in October 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of corticosteroids versus placebo or supportive treatment in patients with sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors agreed on the eligibility of trials. One review author extracted data, which were checked by the other review authors, and by the primary author of the paper when possible. We obtained some missing data from trial authors. We assessed the methodological quality of trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine additional studies since the last update, for a total of 33 eligible trials (n = 4268 participants). Twenty-three of these 33 trials were at low risk of selection bias, 22 were at low risk of performance and detection bias, 27 were at low risk of attrition bias and 14 were at low risk of selective reporting.Corticosteroids reduced 28-day mortality (27 trials; n = 3176; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.00; P value = 0.05, random-effects model). The quality of evidence for this outcome was downgraded from high to low for imprecision (upper limit of 95% CI = 1) and for inconsistency (significant heterogeneity across trial results). Heterogeneity was related in part to the dosing strategy. Treatment with a long course of low-dose corticosteroids significantly reduced 28-day mortality (22 trials; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; P value = 0.01, fixed-effect model). The quality of evidence was downgraded from high to moderate for inconsistency (owing to non-significant effects shown by one large trial). Corticosteroids also reduced mortality rate in the intensive care unit (13 trials; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; P value = 0.04, random-effects model) and at the hospital (17 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; P value = 0.03, random-effects model). Quality of the evidence for in-hospital mortality was downgraded from high to moderate for inconsistency and imprecision (upper limit of 95% CI for RR approaching 1). Corticosteroids increased the proportion of shock reversal by day seven (12 trials; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.51; P value = 0.0001) and by day 28 (seven trials; n = 1013; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21; P value = 0.01) and reduced the SOFA score by day seven (eight trials; mean difference (MD) -1.53, 95% CI -2.04 to -1.03; P value < 0.00001, random-effects model) and survivors' length of stay in the intensive care unit (10 trials; MD -2.19, 95% CI -3.93 to -0.46; P value = 0.01, fixed-effect model) without inducing gastroduodenal bleeding (19 trials; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0. 92 to 1.67; P value = 0.15, fixed-effect model), superinfection (19 trials; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; P value = 0.81, fixed-effect model) or neuromuscular weakness (three trials; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; P value = 0.40, fixed-effect model). Corticosteroid increased the risk of hyperglycaemia (13 trials; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.37; P value < 0.00001, fixed-effect model) and hypernatraemia (three trials; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.09; P value < 0.0001, fixed-effect model).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, low-quality evidence indicates that corticosteroids reduce mortality among patients with sepsis. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that a long course of low-dose corticosteroids reduced 28-day mortality without inducing major complications and led to an increase in metabolic disorders.

Corticosteroid Therapy Benefits Septic Mice With Adrenal Insufficiency But Harms Septic Mice Without Adrenal Insufficiency

OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroid therapy is frequently used in septic patients given the rationale that there is an increased demand for corticosteroid in sepsis, and up to 60% of severe septic patients experience adrenal insufficiency. However, the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy and whether the therapy should be based on the results of adrenal function testing are highly controversial. The lack of an adrenal insufficiency animal model and our poor understanding of the pathogenesis caused by adrenal insufficiency present significant barriers to address this long-standing clinical issue.

DESIGN

Prospective experimental study.

SETTING

University laboratory.

SUBJECTS

Scavenger receptor BI null and adrenal-specific scavenger receptor BI null mice.

INTERVENTIONS

Sepsis was induced by cecal ligation and puncture.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Using scavenger receptor BI mice as the first relative adrenal insufficiency animal model, we found that corticosteroid therapy significantly improved the survival in cecal ligation and puncture-treated scavenger receptor BI mice but causes more septic death in wild-type mice. We identified a corticosteroid cocktail that provides effective protection 18 hours post cecal ligation and puncture; using adrenal-specific scavenger receptor BI mice as an inducible corticosteroid-deficient animal model, we found that inducible corticosteroid specifically suppresses interleukin-6 production without affecting tumor necrosis factor-α, nitric oxide, and interleukin-10 production. We further found that inducible corticosteroid does not induce peripheral lymphocyte apoptosis but promotes phagocytic activity of macrophages and neutrophils.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that corticosteroid treatment benefits mice with adrenal insufficiency but harms mice without adrenal insufficiency. This study also reveals that inducible corticosteroid has both immunosuppressive and immunopermissive properties, suppressing interleukin-6 production, promoting phagocytosis of immune effector cells, but not inducing peripheral lymphocyte apoptosis. These findings support our hypothesis that corticosteroid is an effective therapy for a subgroup of septic patients with adrenal insufficiency but harms septic patients without adrenal insufficiency and encourage further efforts to test this hypothesis in clinic.

The impact of endocrine supplementation on adverse events in septic shock

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of severe adverse events of vasopressin vs hydrocortisone for endocrine support therapy in patients with septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, propensity-matched cohort of patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit with septic shock between February 2012 and February 2015. Patients were included if vasopressin or hydrocortisone was administered for hemodynamic support secondary to norepinephrine.

RESULTS

In the unmatched cohort of 124 patients, vasopressin was associated with a significant decrease in the number of severe adverse events (P=.03). In the matched cohort, severe adverse events occurred 3 times as often in patients receiving hydrocortisone; however, this difference was not statistically significant. (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-12.11; P=.06). In the matched cohort, vasopressin was associated with a faster time to hemodynamic stability (P<.05) and discontinuation of hemodynamic support (P<.01) with an increased requirement for third-line therapy (P<.01). No statistical differences were seen in length of stay (intensive care unit and hospital), length of mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Given the lower incidence of adverse events and faster time to hemodynamic stability, vasopressin appears to be the most advantageous endocrine agent for hemodynamic support in septic shock.

Clinical impact of stress dose steroids in patients with septic shock: insights from the PROWESS-Shock trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of the administration of intravenous steroids, alone or in conjunction with drotrecogin-alfa (activated) (DrotAA), on the outcomes in septic shock patients.

METHODS

We performed a sub-study of the PROWESS-Shock trial (septic shock patients who received fluids and vasopressors above a predefined threshold for at least 4 hours were randomized to receive either DrotAA or placebo for 96 hours). A propensity score for the administration of intravenous steroids for septic shock at baseline was constructed using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazards model using inverse probability of treatment weighting of the propensity score was used to estimate the effect of intravenous steroids, alone or in conjunction with DrotAA, on 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1695 patients were enrolled of which 49.5% received intravenous steroids for treatment of septic shock at baseline (DrotAA + steroids N = 436; DrotAA + no steroids N = 414; placebo + steroids N = 403; placebo + no steroids N = 442). The propensity weighted risk of 28-day as well as 90-day mortality in those treated vs. those not treated with steroids did not differ among those randomized to DrotAA vs. placebo (interaction p-value = 0.38 and p = 0.27, respectively) nor was a difference detected within each randomized treatment. Similarly, the course of vasopressor use and cardiovascular SOFA did not appear to be influenced by steroid therapy. In patients with lung infection (N = 744), abdominal infection (N = 510), Gram-positive sepsis (N = 420) and Gram-negative sepsis (N = 461), the propensity weighted risk of 28-day as well as 90-day mortality in those treated vs. those not treated with steroids did not differ among those randomized to DrotAA vs. placebo nor was a difference detected within each randomized treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study of septic shock patients, after adjustment for treatment selection bias, we were unable to find noticeable positive impact from intravenous steroids for treatment of septic shock at baseline either in patients randomized for DrotAA or placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00604214 . Registered 24 January 2008.