Evaluation of Early Corticosteroid Therapy in Management of Pediatric Septic Shock in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients: A Randomized Clinical Study

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia

RATIONALE

New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

PANEL DESIGN

The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting.

METHODS

After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework.

RESULTS

In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Pediatric Sepsis Diagnosis, Management, and Sub-phenotypes

Sepsis and septic shock are major causes of morbidity, mortality, and health care costs for children worldwide, including >3 million deaths annually and, among survivors, risk for new or worsening functional impairments, including reduced quality of life, new respiratory, nutritional, or technological assistance, and recurrent severe infections. Advances in understanding sepsis pathophysiology highlight a need to update the definition and diagnostic criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock, whereas new data support an increasing role for automated screening algorithms and biomarker combinations to assist earlier recognition. Once sepsis or septic shock is suspected, attention to prompt initiation of broad-spectrum empiric antimicrobial therapy, fluid resuscitation, and vasoactive medications remain key components to initial management with several new and ongoing studies offering new insights into how to optimize this approach. Ultimately, a key goal is for screening to encompass as many children as possible at risk for sepsis and trigger early treatment without increasing unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics and preventable hospitalizations. Although the role for adjunctive treatment with corticosteroids and other metabolic therapies remains incompletely defined, ongoing studies will soon offer updated guidance for optimal use. Finally, we are increasingly moving toward an era in which precision therapeutics will bring novel strategies to improve outcomes, especially for the subset of children with sepsis-induced multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and sepsis subphenotypes for whom antibiotics, fluid, vasoactive medications, and supportive care remain insufficient.

Pediatric Shock Review

Shock occurs when there is energy failure due to inadequate oxygen/glucose delivery to meet metabolic demands. Shock is a leading cause of death and disability in children worldwide. Types of shock include hypovolemic, cardiogenic, distributive, and obstructive. This review provides an overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and clinical signs and symptoms of each of these types of shock, followed by a discussion of advancements in diagnostic tests and tools and management/treatment principles for different categories of shock.

The Association of Early Corticosteroid Therapy With Clinical and Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Children With Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroids are commonly used in the treatment of pediatric septic shock without clear evidence of the potential benefits or risks. This study examined the association of early corticosteroid therapy with patient-centered clinically meaningful outcomes.

DESIGN

Subsequent cohort analysis of data derived from the prospective Life After Pediatric Sepsis Evaluation (LAPSE) investigation. Outcomes among patients receiving hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone on study day 0 or 1 were compared with those who did not use a propensity score-weighted analysis that controlled for age, sex, study site, and measures of first-day illness severity.

SETTING

Twelve academic PICUs in the United States.

PATIENTS

Children with community-acquired septic shock 1 month to 18 years old enrolled in LAPSE, 2013-2017. Exclusion criteria included a history of chronic corticosteroid administration.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among children enrolled in LAPSE, 352 of 392 met analysis inclusion criteria, and 155 of 352 (44%) received early corticosteroid therapy. After weighting corticosteroid therapy administration propensity across potentially confounding baseline characteristics, differences in outcomes associated with treatment were not statistically significant (adjusted effect or odds ratio [95% CI]): vasoactive-inotropic support duration (-0.37 d [-1.47 to 0.72]; p = 0.503), short-term survival without new morbidity (1.37 [0.83-2.28]; p = 0.218), new morbidity among month-1 survivors (0.70 [0.39-1.23]; p = 0.218), and persistent severe deterioration of health-related quality of life or mortality at month 1 (0.70 [0.40-1.23]; p = 0.212).

CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the association of early corticosteroid therapy with mortality and morbidity among children encountering septic shock. After adjusting for variables with the potential to confound the relationship between early corticosteroid administration and clinically meaningful end points, there was no improvement in outcomes associated with this therapy. Results from this propensity analysis provide additional justification for equipoise regarding corticosteroid therapy for pediatric septic shock and ascertain the need for a well-designed clinical trial to examine benefit/risk for this intervention.

Effects of Early Initiation of High-Dose Dexamethasone Therapy on Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines and Mortality in LPS-Challenged Mice

This study aims to explore the effects of early dexamethasone therapy at low to high doses on the survival and inflammatory responses in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-challenged mice. We performed two-series experiments to explore the impact of early dexamethasone therapy at different doses (0.5 mg/kg, 1.5 mg/kg, and 5 mg/kg; PO) on pro-inflammatory cytokine levels, including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), as well as survival in LPS-treated mice (10 mg/kg, IP). Dexamethasone was administered daily from 24 h before and 5 days after LPS challenge. Dose-dependent improved survival was demonstrated with dexamethasone (p < 0.05). Body weight was significantly decreased within 24 h of LPS injection, with significantly greater weight loss in the dexamethasone groups (p < 0.05). Weight changes were significantly associated with the days after LPS administration (p < 0.01), but not with the dexamethasone dose (p > 0.05). Mice treated with high-dose dexamethasone (5 mg/kg) had a significantly lowered serum TNF-α (134.41 ± 15.83 vs. 408.83 ± 18.32) and IL-6 (22.08 ± 4.34 vs. 91.27 ± 8.56) compared with those without dexamethasone. This study provides essential insights that the suppression of early-phase hyperactivation of pro-inflammatory activities through the early initiation of high-dose dexamethasone therapy increases sepsis-related prognosis.

Medication and Fluid Management of Pediatric Sepsis and Septic Shock

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

Latin American Consensus on the Management of Sepsis in Children: Sociedad Latinoamericana de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos [Latin American Pediatric Intensive Care Society] (SLACIP) Task Force: Executive Summary

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), more specifically in Latin America. Design: A panel was formed consisting of 27 experts with experience in the treatment of pediatric sepsis and two methodologists working in Latin American countries. The experts were organized into 10 nominal groups, each coordinated by a member. Methods: A formal consensus was formed based on the modified Delphi method, combining the opinions of nominal groups of experts with the interpretation of available scientific evidence, in a systematic process of consolidating a body of recommendations. The systematic search was performed by a specialized librarian and included specific algorithms for the Cochrane Specialized Register, PubMed, Lilacs, and Scopus, as well as for OpenGrey databases for grey literature. The GRADEpro GDT guide was used to classify each of the selected articles. Special emphasis was placed on search engines that included original research conducted in LMICs. Studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese were covered. Through virtual meetings held between February 2020 and February 2021, the entire group of experts reviewed the recommendations and suggestions. Result: At the end of the 12 months of work, the consensus provided 62 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric sepsis in LMICs. Overall, 60 were strong recommendations, although 56 of these had a low level of evidence. Conclusions: These are the first consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and management of pediatric sepsis focused on LMICs, more specifically in Latin American countries. The consensus shows that, in these regions, where the burden of pediatric sepsis is greater than in high-income countries, there is little high-level evidence. Despite the limitations, this consensus is an important step forward for the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric sepsis in Latin America.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

[Paediatric Life Support]

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill or injured infants, children and adolescents before, during and after respiratory/cardiac arrest.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Paediatric Life Support

These European Resuscitation Council Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill infants and children, before, during and after cardiac arrest.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Management of Pediatric Septic Shock and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Thailand: A Survey of Pediatricians

Introduction: Pediatric septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome (pARDS) are major causes of morbidity and mortality in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). While standardized guidelines for sepsis and pARDS are published regularly, their implementation and adherence to guidelines are different in resource-rich and resource-limited countries. The purpose of this study was to conduct a survey to ascertain variation in current clinician-reported practice in pediatric septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and the clinician skills in a variety of hospital settings throughout Thailand. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey in pediatricians throughout the country between August 2020 and February 2021 using multiple choice questions and clinical case scenarios based on the 2017 American College of Critical Care Medicine's Consensus guideline for pediatric and neonatal septic shock and the 2015 Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference. Results: The survey elicited responses from 255 pediatricians (125 general pediatricians, 38 pulmonologists, 27 cardiologists, 32 intensivists, and 33 other subspecialists), with 54.5% of the respondents having <5 years of PICU experience. Among the six sepsis scenarios, 72.5 and 78.4% of the respondents had good adherence to the guidelines for managing fluid refractory shock and sedation for intubation, respectively. The ICU physicians reported greater adherence during more complex shock. In ARDS scenarios, 80.8% of the respondents reported having difficulty diagnosing ARDS mimic conditions and used lesser PEEP than the recommendation. Acceptance of permissive hypercapnia and mild hypoxemia was accepted by 62.4 and 49.4% of respondents, respectively. The ICU physicians preferred decremental PEEP titration, whereas general pediatricians preferred incremental PEEP titration. Conclusion: This survey variation could be the result of resource constraints, knowledge gaps, or ambiguous guidelines. Understanding the perspective and rationale for variation in pediatricians' practices is critical for successful guideline implementation.

Multidisciplinary Guidance Regarding the Use of Immunomodulatory Therapies for Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Pediatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Immune-mediated lung injury and systemic hyperinflammation are characteristic of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults. Although the majority of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in pediatric populations result in minimal or mild COVID-19 in the acute phase of infection, a small subset of children develop severe and even critical disease in this phase with concomitant inflammation that may benefit from immunomodulation. Therefore, guidance is needed regarding immunomodulatory therapies in the setting of acute pediatric COVID-19. This document does not provide guidance regarding the recently emergent multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of pediatric subspecialty physicians and pharmacists with expertise in infectious diseases, rheumatology, hematology/oncology, and critical care medicine was convened. Guidance statements were developed based on best available evidence and expert opinion.

RESULTS

The panel devised a framework for considering the use of immunomodulatory therapy based on an assessment of clinical disease severity and degree of multiorgan involvement combined with evidence of hyperinflammation. Additionally, the known rationale for consideration of each immunomodulatory approach and the associated risks and benefits was summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunomodulatory therapy is not recommended for the majority of pediatric patients, who typically develop mild or moderate COVID-19. For children with severe or critical illness, the use of immunomodulatory agents may be beneficial. The risks and benefits of such therapies are variable and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from appropriate specialty services. When available, the panel strongly favors immunomodulatory agent use within the context of clinical trials. The framework presented herein offers an approach to decision-making regarding immunomodulatory therapy for severe or critical pediatric COVID-19 and is informed by currently available data, while awaiting results of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

Controversies in the application of corticosteroids for pediatric septic shock treatment: a preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis-compliant updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Septic shock is the major cause of childhood mortality. However, the application of corticosteroids remains controversial. This work aimed to analyze the source of controversy based on existing data and recent randomized controlled trials by meta-analysis and to assess whether it can avoid these factors to guide clinical treatment.

METHODS

We searched the public databases up to 8 June 2019 and included only randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was mortality. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and dose-response meta-analysis were performed in this work.

RESULTS

We included twelve studies consisting of 701 children in the meta-analysis. For primary outcome, the fixed-effect model showed steroids could significantly reduce the mortality compared to the control (Odds Ratio: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.98; P = .041). However, the random-effect model showed a negative result (Odds Ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-1.51; P = .252). None of the subgroup results rejected the null hypothesis that the overall effect equaled zero. Dose-response effect analysis showed that increased dosage at a low dosage might reduce the mortality, while at a high dosage, increasing the dose might increase the mortality. Moreover, the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation level of evidence is low for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid application is not recommended for septic shock children under current medical conditions.

Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-Associated Organ Dysfunction in Children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Critical Care Management: Sepsis and Disseminated and Local Infections

Local and systemic infections are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised children, including but not limited to patients with hematologic and solid malignancies, congenital or acquired immunodeficiencies, or hematopoietic cell or solid organ transplantation patients. Progression to septic shock can be rapid and profound and thus requires specific diagnostic and treatment approaches. This chapter will discuss the diagnosis and the initial hemodynamic management strategies of septic shock in immunocompromised children, including strategies to improve oxygen delivery, reduce metabolic demand, and monitor hemodynamic response to resuscitation. This chapter also discusses strategies to reverse septic shock pathobiology, including the use of both empiric and targeted anti-infective strategies and pharmacologic and cell therapy-based immunomodulation. Specific consideration is also paid to the management of high-risk subpopulations and the care of septic shock patients with resolving injury.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) in critically ill patients (Part I): Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) 2017

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2008 consensus statements for the diagnosis and management of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) in adult and pediatric patients.

PARTICIPANTS

A multispecialty task force of 16 international experts in Critical Care Medicine, endocrinology, and guideline methods, all of them members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and/or the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

DESIGN/METHODS

The recommendations were based on the summarized evidence from the 2008 document in addition to more recent findings from an updated systematic review of relevant studies from 2008 to 2017 and were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The strength of each recommendation was classified as strong or conditional, and the quality of evidence was rated from high to very low based on factors including the individual study design, the risk of bias, the consistency of the results, and the directness and precision of the evidence. Recommendation approval required the agreement of at least 80% of the task force members.

RESULTS

The task force was unable to reach agreement on a single test that can reliably diagnose CIRCI, although delta cortisol (change in baseline cortisol at 60 min of <9 µg/dl) after cosyntropin (250 µg) administration and a random plasma cortisol of <10 µg/dl may be used by clinicians. We suggest against using plasma free cortisol or salivary cortisol level over plasma total cortisol (conditional, very low quality of evidence). For treatment of specific conditions, we suggest using intravenous (IV) hydrocortisone <400 mg/day for ≥3 days at full dose in patients with septic shock that is not responsive to fluid and moderate- to high-dose vasopressor therapy (conditional, low quality of evidence). We suggest not using corticosteroids in adult patients with sepsis without shock (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). We suggest the use of IV methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg/day in patients with early moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO₂/FiO₂ < 200 and within 14 days of onset) (conditional, moderate quality of evidence). Corticosteroids are not suggested for patients with major trauma (conditional, low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and major trauma have been developed by a multispecialty task force.

Corticosteroids in sepsis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is associated with a dysregulated host response to infection and impaired endogenous corticosteroid metabolism. As such, therapeutic use of exogenous corticosteroids is a promising adjunctive intervention. Despite a large number of trials examining this research question, uncertainty persists regarding the effect of corticosteroids on survival in sepsis. Several large randomised controlled trials have been published recently prompting a re-evaluation of the available literature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A rigorous and reproducible search and screening process from a Cochrane review on the same topic was comprehensive to October 2014. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane trial registry and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible randomised controlled trials investigating the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis from September 2014. Outcomes have been chosen by a semi-independent guideline panel, created in the context of a parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation on the topic. This panel includes clinicians, content experts, methodologists and patient representatives, who will help identify patient-important outcomes that are critical for deciding whether to use or not use corticosteroids in sepsis. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies; a third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. We will use RevMan to pool effect estimates from included studies for each outcome using a random-effect model. We will present the results as relative risk with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% CI. We will assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will conduct a priori subgroup analyses, which have been chosen by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the updated evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017058537.