Identification of a sub-group of critically ill patients with high risk of intensive care unit-acquired infections and poor clinical course using a transcriptomic score

Use of Immune Profiling Panel to assess the immune response of septic patients for prediction of worsening as a composite endpoint

Sepsis induces intense, dynamic and heterogeneous host response modulations. Despite improvement of patient management, the risk of mortality and healthcare-associated infections remains high. Treatments to counterbalance immune response are under evaluation, but effective biomarkers are still lacking to perform patient stratification. The design of the present study was defined to alleviate the limitations of existing literature: we selected patients who survived the initial hyperinflammatory response and are still hospitalized at day 5-7 after ICU admission. Using the Immune Profiling Panel (IPP), a fully automated RT-qPCR multiplex prototype, we optimized a machine learning model combining the IPP gene expression levels for the identification of patients at high risk of worsening, a composite endpoint defined as death or secondary infection, within one week after sampling. This was done on 332 sepsis patients selected from two retrospective studies. The IPP model identified a high-risk group comprising 30% of patients, with a significant increased proportion of worsening events at day 28 compared to the low-risk group (49% vs. 28%, respectively). These preliminary results underline the potential clinical application of IPP for sepsis patient stratification in a personalized medicine perspective, that will be confirmed in a larger prospective multicenter study.

Profiling the dysregulated immune response in sepsis: overcoming challenges to achieve the goal of precision medicine

Sepsis is characterised by a dysregulated host immune response to infection. Despite recognition of its significance, immune status monitoring is not implemented in clinical practice due in part to the current absence of direct therapeutic implications. Technological advances in immunological profiling could enhance our understanding of immune dysregulation and facilitate integration into clinical practice. In this Review, we provide an overview of the current state of immune profiling in sepsis, including its use, current challenges, and opportunities for progress. We highlight the important role of immunological biomarkers in facilitating predictive enrichment in current and future treatment scenarios. We propose that multiple immune and non-immune-related parameters, including clinical and microbiological data, be integrated into diagnostic and predictive combitypes, with the aid of machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques. These combitypes could form the basis of workable algorithms to guide clinical decisions that make precision medicine in sepsis a reality and improve patient outcomes.

Persistent NLRP3 inflammasome activation is associated with delayed immunosuppression in septic patients

Sepsis triggers a complex response marked by the simultaneous presence of proinflammatory and immunosuppressive elements, disrupting the mechanisms intended to maintain homeostasis. While the NLRP3 inflammasome has been demonstrated to contribute to the inflammatory side, its connection with delayed sepsis-induced immunosuppression remains unexplored. The present objective was to concomitantly and prospectively assess NLRP3 activation (IL-1β, IL-18, and soluble receptors) and features of immune failure (IL-10, mHLA-DR, myeloid-derived suppressor cells) in septic patients. To validate our findings, we conducted a transcriptomic analysis of mRNA of NLRP3-related genes (IL-18R1, IL-1R2) on an additional cohort of 107 patients. Two distinct endotypes were identified. One cluster displayed moderate inflammation rapidly returning to normal values, while the other exhibited a higher inflammatory response persisting until day 28, which was associated with persistent marked immunosuppression and higher 28-d mortality. Identifying endotypes with different pro/anti-inflammatory trajectories could hold important clinical implications for the management of sepsis.

ICU-acquired infections in immunocompromised patients

Immunocompromised patients account for an increasing proportion of the typical intensive care unit (ICU) case-mix. Because of the increased availability of new drugs for cancer and auto-immune diseases, and improvement in the care of the most severely immunocompromised ICU patients (including those with hematologic malignancies), critically ill immunocompromised patients form a highly heterogeneous patient population. Furthermore, a large number of ICU patients with no apparent immunosuppression also harbor underlying conditions altering their immune response, or develop ICU-acquired immune deficiencies as a result of sepsis, trauma or major surgery. While infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised critically ill patients, little specific data are available on the incidence, microbiology, management and outcomes of ICU-acquired infections in this population. As a result, immunocompromised patients are usually excluded from trials and guidelines on the management of ICU-acquired infections. The most common ICU-acquired infections in immunocompromised patients are ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (which include ventilator-associated pneumonia and tracheobronchitis) and bloodstream infections. Recently, several large observational studies have shed light on some of the epidemiological specificities of these infections-as well as on the dynamics of colonization and infection with multidrug-resistant bacteria-in these patients, and these will be discussed in this review. Immunocompromised patients are also at higher risk than non-immunocompromised hosts of fungal and viral infections, and the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these infections will be covered. Finally, we will suggest some important areas of future investigation.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities.

METHODS

Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article.

RESULTS

A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis?

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Interferon-Gamma-Release assay and absolute CD8 lymphocyte count for acquired immunosuppression monitoring in critically ill patients

Guided biomarker-personalized immunotherapy is advancing rapidly as a means to rejuvenate immune function in injured patients who are the most immunosuppressed. A recent study introduced a fully automated interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) for monitoring the functionality of T lymphocytes in patients with septic shock. While a significant decrease in IFN-γ release capacity was observed, a significant correlation with CD8 lymphocyte absolute count was also reported, raising the question of whether ex-vivo IFN-γ production would be only a surrogate marker for lymphocyte count or if these two parameters conveyed distinct and complementary information. In a large cohort of more than 353 critically ill patients following various injuries (sepsis, trauma, major surgery), the primary objective of the present study was to simultaneously evaluate the association between ex vivo IFN-γ release and CD8 cell count with regard to adverse outcome. Our findings provide a clear-cut result, as they distinctly demonstrate that IGRA offers higher-quality information than CD8 count in terms of an independent association with the occurrence of an adverse outcome. These results strengthen the case for incorporating IGRA into the array of biomarkers of interest for defining endotypes in sepsis. This holds especially true given that fully automated tests are now readily available and could be used in routine clinical practice.

Defining critical illness using immunological endotypes in patients with and without sepsis: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a heterogenous syndrome with limited therapeutic options. Identifying immunological endotypes through gene expression patterns in septic patients may lead to targeted interventions. We investigated whether patients admitted to a surgical intensive care unit (ICU) with sepsis and with high risk of mortality express similar endotypes to non-septic, but still critically ill patients using two multiplex transcriptomic metrics obtained both on admission to a surgical ICU and at set intervals.

METHODS

We analyzed transcriptomic data from 522 patients in two single-site, prospective, observational cohorts admitted to surgical ICUs over a 5-year period ending in July 2020. Using an FDA-cleared analytical platform (nCounter FLEX^®, NanoString, Inc.), we assessed a previously validated 29-messenger RNA transcriptomic classifier for likelihood of 30-day mortality (IMX-SEV-3) and a 33-messenger RNA transcriptomic endotype classifier. Clinical outcomes included all-cause mortality, development of chronic critical illness, and secondary infections. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess for true effect and confounding.

RESULTS

Sepsis was associated with a significantly higher predicted and actual hospital mortality. At enrollment, the predominant endotype for both septic and non-septic patients was adaptive, though with significantly different distributions. Inflammopathic and coagulopathic septic patients, as well as inflammopathic non-septic patients, showed significantly higher frequencies of secondary infections compared to those with adaptive endotypes (p < 0.01). Endotypes changed during ICU hospitalization in 57.5% of patients. Patients who remained adaptive had overall better prognosis, while those who remained inflammopathic or coagulopathic had worse overall outcomes. For severity metrics, patients admitted with sepsis and a high predicted likelihood of mortality showed an inflammopathic (49.6%) endotype and had higher rates of cumulative adverse outcomes (67.4%). Patients at low mortality risk, whether septic or non-septic, almost uniformly presented with an adaptive endotype (100% and 93.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Critically ill surgical patients express different and evolving immunological endotypes depending upon both their sepsis status and severity of their clinical course. Future studies will elucidate whether endotyping critically ill, septic patients can identify individuals for targeted therapeutic interventions to improve patient management and outcomes.

Defining critical illness using immunological endotypes in patients with and without of sepsis: A cohort study

Background: Sepsis is a heterogenous syndrome with limited therapeutic options. Identifying characteristic gene expression patterns, or endotypes, in septic patients may lead to targeted interventions. We investigated whether patients admitted to a surgical ICU with sepsis and with high risk of mortality express similar endotypes to non-septic, but still critically ill patients using two multiplex transcriptomic metrics obtained both on admission to a surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and at set intervals. Methods: We analyzed transcriptomic data from 522 patients in two single-site, prospective, observational cohorts admitted to surgical ICUs over a 5-year period ending in July 2020 . Using an FDA-cleared analytical platform (nCounter FLEX ^® , NanoString, Inc.), we assessed a previously validated 29-messenger RNA transcriptomic classifier for likelihood of 30-day mortality (IMX-SEV-3) and a 33-messenger RNA transcriptomic endotype classifier. Clinical outcomes included all-cause (in-hospital, 30-, 90-day) mortality, development of chronic critical illness (CCI), and secondary infections. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess for true effect and confounding. Results: Sepsis was associated with a significantly higher predicted and actual hospital mortality. At enrollment, the predominant endotype for both septic and non-septic patients was adaptive , though with significantly different distributions. Inflammopathic and coagulopathic septic patients, as well as inflammopathic non-septic patients, showed significantly higher frequencies of secondary infections compared to those with adaptive endotypes (p<0.01). Endotypes changed during ICU hospitalization in 57.5% of patients. Patients who remained adaptive had overall better prognosis, while those who remained inflammopathic or coagulopathic had worse overall outcomes. For severity metrics, patients admitted with sepsis and a high predicted likelihood of mortality showed an inflammopathic (49.6%) endotype and had higher rates of cumulative adverse outcomes (67.4%). Patients at low mortality risk, whether septic or non-septic, almost uniformly presented with an adaptive endotype (100% and 93.4%, respectively). Conclusion : Critically ill surgical patients express different and evolving immunological endotypes depending upon both their sepsis status and severity of their clinical course. Future studies will elucidate whether endotyping critically ill, septic patients can identify individuals for targeted therapeutic interventions to improve patient management and outcomes.