Association Between Hypocholesterolemia and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the association between cholesterol and triglyceride levels on ICU admission and mortality in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on PubMed and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: All observational studies reporting ICU admission cholesterol and triglyceride levels in critically ill patients with sepsis were included. Authors were contacted for further data. DATA EXTRACTION: Eighteen observational studies were identified, including 1,283 patients with a crude overall mortality of 33.3%. Data were assessed using Revman (Version 5.1, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs, p values, and I2 values. DATA SYNTHESIS: Admission levels of total cholesterol (17 studies, 1,204 patients; MD = 0.52 mmol/L [0.27–0.77 mmol/L]; p < 0.001; I2 = 91%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol (14 studies, 991 patients; MD = 0.08 mmol/L [0.01–0.15 mmol/L]; p = 0.02; I2 = 61%), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (15 studies, 1,017 patients; MD = 0.18 mmol/L [0.04–0.32 mmol/L]; p = 0.01; I2 = 71%) were significantly lower in eventual nonsurvivors compared with survivors. No association was seen between admission triglyceride levels and mortality (15 studies, 1,070 patients; MD = 0.00 mmol/L [–0.16 to 0.15 mmol/L]; p = –0.95; I2 = 79%). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was associated with lower levels of total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol, but not triglyceride levels, in patients admitted to ICU with sepsis. The impact of cholesterol replacement on patient outcomes in sepsis, particularly in at-risk groups, merits investigation. KEYWORDS: cholesterol levels; intensive care unit; lipids; sepsis; triglyceride

Efficacy of Losartan in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19-Induced Lung Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed. Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021. Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants. Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Quantitative and Qualitative Assessments of Cholesterol Association With Bacterial Infection Type in Sepsis and Septic Shock

BackgroundReduced cholesterol levels are associated with increased organ failure and mortality in sepsis. Cholesterol levels may vary by infection type (gram negative vs positive), possibly reflecting differences in cholesterol-mediated bacterial clearance.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a combined data set of 2 prospective cohort studies of adult patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria. Infection types were classified as gram negative, gram positive, or culture negative. We investigated quantitative (levels) and qualitative (dysfunctional high-density lipoprotein [HDL]) cholesterol differences. We used multivariable logistic regression to control for disease severity.ResultsAmong 171 patients with sepsis, infections were gram negative in 67, gram positive in 46, and culture negative in 47. Both gram-negative and gram-positive infections occurred in 11 patients. Total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) levels were lower for culture-positive sepsis at enrollment (TC, P &lt; .001; LDL-C, P &lt; .001; HDL-C, P = .011) and persisted after controlling for disease severity. Similarly, cholesterol levels were lower among culture-positive patients at 48 hours (TC, P = .012; LDL-C, P = .029; HDL-C, P = .002). Triglyceride (TG) levels were lower at enrollment (P =.033) but not at 48 hours (P = .212). There were no differences in dysfunctional HDL. Among bacteremic patients, cholesterol levels were lower at enrollment (TC, P = .010; LDL-C, P = .010; HDL-C, P ≤ .001; TG, P = .005) and at 48 hours (LDL-C, P = .027; HDL-C, P &lt; .001; TG, P = .020), except for 48 hour TC (P = .051). In the bacteremia subgroup, enrollment TC and LDL-C were lower for gram-negative versus gram-positive infections (TC, P = .039; LDL-C, P = .023).ConclusionCholesterol levels are significantly lower among patients with culture-positive sepsis and bacteremia

Association of Early Serum Phosphate Levels and Mortality in Patients with Sepsis

Background: Metabolic derangements in sepsis influence phosphate levels, which may predict mortality outcomes. We investigated the association between initial phosphate levels and 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with sepsis. Initial (first 24 hours) phosphate levels were divided into phosphate quartile groups for comparisons. We used repeated-measures mixed-models to assess differences in 28-day mortality across the phosphate groups, adjusting for other predictors identified by the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator variable selection technique.Results: A total of 1,855 patients were included with 13% overall 28-day mortality (n=237). The highest phosphate quartile (&gt;4.0 milligrams per deciliter [mg/dL]) had a higher mortality rate (28%) than the three lower quartiles (P&lt;0.001). After adjustment (age, organ failure, vasopressor administration, liver disease), the highest initial phosphate was associated with increased odds of 28-day mortality. Patients in the highest phosphate quartile had 2.4 times higher odds of death than the lowest (≤2.6 mg/dL) quartile (P&lt;0.01), 2.6 times higher than the second (2.6-3.2 mg/dL) quartile (P&lt;0.01), and 2.0 times higher than the third (3.2-4.0 mg/dL) quartile (P=0.04).Conclusion: Septic patients with the highest phosphate levels had increased odds of mortality. Hyperphosphatemia may be an early indicator of disease severity and risk of adverse outcomes from sepsis