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

Effect of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone combination on mortality in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the effect of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone combination therapy on the mortality of patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other databases for articles published until October 1, 2023. Only clinical studies that assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone therapy for the treatment of septic shock were included. The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality rate.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 90, 756 patients were included. The study group exhibited lower in-hospital mortality rates (40.8% vs. 42.8%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Compared to the control group, the study group also had lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95), 28-day mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00), 90-day mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01), 180-day mortality (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90), and one-year mortality (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16). Subgroup analyses showed a similar trend, particularly prominent in the pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials, multicenter studies, and ICU patients, the study drug regimen involved hydrocortisone at a dose of 50 mg every 6 h in combination with fludrocortisone at 50 µg daily, with the control group receiving either placebo or standard care. Hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone also increased vasopressor-free days and reduced vasopressor duration, without elevating the risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the potential survival benefits of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone combination therapy for patients with septic shock and its additional advantages, including reduced vasopressor use.

Do We Need to Administer Fludrocortisone in Addition to Hydrocortisone in Adult Patients With Septic Shock? An Updated Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and an Observational Study With Target Trial Emulation

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone combined with fludrocortisone or hydrocortisone alone, compared with placebo in adult patients with septic shock.

DATA SOURCES

By extending a prior Cochrane review, databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov , along with other relevant websites, were searched until August 31, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using target trial emulation were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was short-term mortality with an emphasis on 28- or 30-day mortality as the main measure and in-hospital or ICU mortality as the nearest surrogate of this measure. Three of the most common adverse events, namely, gastroduodenal bleeding, superinfection, and hyperglycemia, were also considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 19 studies involving 95,841 patients were included. Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone showed the lowest short-term mortality versus placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.79; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.64-0.99; number needed to treat [NNT]: 21, range: 12-500; low certainty of evidence) in terms of informative priors. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve values for hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, hydrocortisone alone, and placebo were 0.9469, 0.4542, and 0.0989, respectively. Consistent results were observed in RCTs alone and those using a daily 200-mg dose of hydrocortisone. Although gastroduodenal bleeding or superinfection showed no clear increase, hyperglycemia risk increased. The ORs were 0.53 for placebo versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 0.64 for placebo versus hydrocortisone alone, with very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with septic shock, hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone improved short-term survival with minimal adverse events compared with hydrocortisone alone or placebo. However, these findings are not definitive due to the limited certainty of evidence and wide NNT range. Additional large-scale, placebo-controlled RCTs are needed to provide conclusive evidence.

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.

How Would You Resuscitate This Patient With Septic Shock? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening systemic dysregulatory response to infection, and septic shock occurs when sepsis leads to systemic vasodilation and subsequent tissue hypoperfusion. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines in 2021 on the management of sepsis and septic shock. Here, in the context of a patient with septic shock, 2 critical care specialists discuss and debate conditional guideline recommendations on using lactate to guide resuscitation, the use of balanced crystalloids versus normal saline, and the use of corticosteroids.

The pharmacotherapeutic options in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock

INTRODUCTION

Septic and vasoplegic shock are common types of vasodilatory shock (VS) with high mortality. After fluid resuscitation and the use of catecholamine-mediated vasopressors (CMV), vasopressin, angiotensin II, methylene blue (MB) and hydroxocobalamin can be added to maintain blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED

VS treatment utilizes a phased approach with secondary vasopressors added to vasopressor agents to maintain an acceptable mean arterial pressure (MAP). This review covers additional vasopressors and adjunctive therapies used when fluid and catecholamine-mediated vasopressors fail to maintain target MAP.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence supporting additional vasopressor agents in catecholamine resistant VS is limited to case reports, series, and a few randomized control trials (RCTs) to guide recommendations. Vasopressin is the most common agent added next when MAPs are not adequately supported with CMV. VS patients failing fluids and vasopressors with cardiomyopathy may have cardiotonic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone added before or after vasopressin. Angiotensin II, another class of vasopressor is used in VS to maintain adequate MAP. MB and/or hydoxocobalamin, vitamin C, thiamine and corticosteroids are adjunctive therapies used in refractory VS. More RCTs are needed to confirm the utility of these drugs, at what doses, which combinations and in what order they should be given.

A Standardized Step-by-Step Approach for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Sepsis

Sepsis is the major culprit of death among critically ill patients who are hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). Although sepsis-related mortality is steadily declining year-by-year due to the continuous understanding of the pathophysiological mechanism on sepsis and improvement of the bundle treatment, sepsis-associated hospitalization is rising worldwide. Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines are continuously updating, while their content is extremely complex and comprehensive for a precisely implementation in clinical practice. As a consequence, a standardized step-by-step approach for the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis is particularly important. In the present study, we proposed a standardized step-by-step approach for the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis using our daily clinical experience and the latest researches, which is close to clinical practice and is easy to implement. The proposed approach may assist clinicians to more effectively diagnose and treat septic patients and avoid the emergence of adverse clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in immunocompetent patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact and Beneficial Critical Points of Clinical Outcome in Corticosteroid Management of Adult Patients With Sepsis: Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment

Background: With new randomised pieces of evidence and the latest clinical practice guideline from the BMJ emerging in 2018, an updated analysis of best available evidence on the controversial effects of corticosteroids in sepsis is warranted. Objectives: To comprehensively evaluate whether corticosteroids are beneficial in reducing mortality and what cumulative dosage, daily dosage, and duration of corticosteroid treatment would enable adult patients with sepsis to reach the critical point of benefits. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMbase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS database were searched until March 22, 2019. Results: Thirty RCTs with 8,836 participants were identified. Long course low-dose corticosteroid therapy could improve 28-day mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.84-0.97; high quality), intensive care unit mortality (RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.79-0.95; moderate quality), and in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.79-0.997; high quality). However, we found no benefits for 90-day, 180-day, and 1-year mortality. Subgroup results of long course corticosteroid treatment in a population with septic shock and vasopressor-dependent septic shock, corticosteroid regimen with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, corticosteroid dosing strategies including bolus dosing and infusion dosing, the strategies of abrupt discontinuation, timing of randomisation ≤24 h, impact factor of ≥10, and sample size ≥500 were associated with a marginally reduction in 28-day mortality. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found that the long course low-dose and not short course high-dose corticosteroid treatment could marginally improve short-term 28-day mortality with high quality, especially septic shock and vasopressor-dependent septic shock, and it is recommended that long course (about 7 days) low-dose (about 200-300mg per day) hydrocortisone (or equivalent) with cumulative dose (at least about 1,000mg) may be a viable management option for overall patients with sepsis, and it can be also adapted to patient with septic shock alone. Early hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone administration, via continuous infusion or bolus dosing, is also particularly important for the prognosis. Abrupt discontinuation of corticosteroids, as opposed to the conventional tapered discontinuation, may be considered as a desirable option in 28-day mortality. The safety profile of long course low-dose corticosteroid treatment, including adverse hyperglycaemia and hypernatraemia events, remains a concern, although these events could be easily treated. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD 42018092849.

Are Corticosteroids Beneficial for Sepsis and Septic Shock? Based on Pooling Analysis of 16 Studies

Background: A host of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were carried out to estimate the role of corticosteroids in sepsis and septic shock. Discordant opinions were investigated to determine whether patients who experienced sepsis and septic shock could benefit from corticosteroids treatment. Our purpose is to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses, to explore the role of corticosteroids in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock.

Method: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and LILACS were searched for eligible studies. Two authors individually extracted the relevant data and evaluated the quality of the meta-analysis using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and ROBIS. The Jadad decision algorithm was implemented to identify the meta-analyses that offered the optimal level of evidence.

Result: Sixteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria. None of the studies that reported mortality illustrated a significant improvement on mortality (14-day and 90-day), but a 28-day mortality on a long course of a low dose corticosteroids was described. Only four studies stated that a long course of low-dose corticosteroids had advantageous effect on 28-day mortality. A meta-analysis by Fang et al. was regarded as the highest level of evidence in the Jadad decision algorithm among the meta-analyses that were investigated in this systematic review.

Conclusion: The 28-day mortality was reduced, as well as the mortality in the ICU and hospital and the length of stay in the ICU, using a long course of low-dose corticosteroids. This was demonstrated by a meta-analysis of the current optimal available evidence. Additionally, significant improvements on the adverse events of hyperglycemia and hypernatraemia have been made.