Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.)

Pyrexia, procalcitonin, immune activation and survival in cardiogenic shock: the potential importance of bacterial translocation

AIMS: Exposure to bacterial endotoxin, perhaps due to bowel congestion or ischaemia and altered gut permeability, may result in immune activation that is characteristic for patients with severe heart failure. It is known that blood procalcitonin rises in response to bacterial endotoxin exposure. METHODS: We measured procalcitonin in a group of 29 patients with acute cardiogenic shock and no sign of infection (all without bacteraemia) and 26 with septic shock. Blood was analysed for procalcitonin, interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), c-reactive protein (CRP) and neopterin. Patients were managed conventionally in an intensive care unit with no further experimental procedures. RESULTS: Three cardiogenic (10%) and seven septic shock patients (27%) survived. Most patients with acute heart failure surviving 12 h or more (18 of 20) developed a pyrexia (738.0 degrees C) of unknown origin in the absence of positive cultures, with a rise in procalcitonin (1.4+/-0.8 to 48.0+/-16.2 ng/ml, P<0.001), CRP (76.5+/-16.4 to 154.7+/-22.9 mg/l, P<0.001) and neopterin (20.7+/-3.5 to 41.2+/-6.7 nmol/l, P<0.001). Patients with septic shock had higher initial levels of cytokines, and higher peak levels. Those with heart failure surviving (n=3) and those dying in the first 12 h (n=9) had no rise in cytokine levels. The patients with high procalcitonin had a higher temperature (38.9+/-0.3 vs. 37.3+/-0.23 degrees C, P<0.05), TNF-alpha (43.95+/-9.64 vs. 16.43+/-4.33 pg/ml; P<0.005) and CRP (146.1+/-18.4 vs. 68.2+/-39.6 mg/ml, P<0.005). Peak procalcitonin levels correlated with peak temperature (r=0.74, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Cardiogenic shock causes a pyrexia of unknown origin in patients surviving for 12 h and that is associated with a rise in procalcitonin levels. This lends support to the hypothesis that patients with cardiogenic shock may be being exposed to bacterial endotoxin at a time when bowel wall congestion and or ischaemia is likely to be present

Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis:For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

IMPORTANCE: The Third International Consensus Definitions Task Force defined sepsis as “life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection.” The performance of clinical criteria for this sepsis definition is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of clinical criteria to identify patients with suspected infection who are at risk of sepsis. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND POPULATION: Among 1.3 million electronic health record encounters from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012, at 12 hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania, we identified those with suspected infection in whom to compare criteria. Confirmatory analyses were performed in 4 data sets of 706 399 out-of-hospital and hospital encounters at 165 US and non-US hospitals ranging from January 1, 2008, until December 31, 2013. EXPOSURES: Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) score, and a new model derived using multivariable logistic regression in a split sample, the quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score (range, 0-3 points, with 1 point each for systolic hypotension [≤100 mm Hg], tachypnea [≥22/min], or altered mentation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For construct validity, pairwise agreement was assessed. For predictive validity, the discrimination for outcomes (primary: in-hospital mortality; secondary: in-hospital mortality or intensive care unit [ICU] length of stay ≥3 days) more common in sepsis than uncomplicated infection was determined. Results were expressed as the fold change in outcome over deciles of baseline risk of death and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: In the primary cohort, 148 907 encounters had suspected infection (n = 74 453 derivation; n = 74 454 validation), of whom 6347 (4%) died. Among ICU encounters in the validation cohort (n = 7932 with suspected infection, of whom 1289 [16%] died), the predictive validity for in-hospital mortality was lower for SIRS (AUROC = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.62-0.66) and qSOFA (AUROC = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68) vs SOFA (AUROC = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.76; P < .001 for both) or LODS (AUROC = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.76; P < .001 for both). Among non-ICU encounters in the validation cohort (n = 66 522 with suspected infection, of whom 1886 [3%] died), qSOFA had predictive validity (AUROC = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82) that was greater than SOFA (AUROC = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.78-0.80; P < .001) and SIRS (AUROC = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.75-0.77; P < .001). Relative to qSOFA scores lower than 2, encounters with qSOFA scores of 2 or higher had a 3- to 14-fold increase in hospital mortality across baseline risk deciles. Findings were similar in external data sets and for the secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ICU encounters with suspected infection, the predictive validity for in-hospital mortality of SOFA was not significantly different than the more complex LODS but was statistically greater than SIRS and qSOFA, supporting its use in clinical criteria for sepsis. Among encounters with suspected infection outside of the ICU, the predictive validity for in-hospital mortality of qSOFA was statistically greater than SOFA and SIRS, supporting its use as a prompt to consider possible sepsis

Rehabilitation interventions for postintensive care syndrome: a systematic review

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: An increasing number of ICU patients survive and develop mental, cognitive, or physical impairments. Various interventions support recovery from this postintensive care syndrome. Physicians in charge of post-ICU patients need to know which interventions are effective. DATA SOURCES: Systematic literature search in databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycInfo, CINAHL; 1991-2012), reference lists, and hand search. STUDY SELECTION: We included comparative studies of rehabilitation interventions in adult post-ICU patients if they considered health-related quality of life, frequency/severity of postintensive care syndrome symptoms, functional recovery, need for care, autonomy in activities of daily living, mortality, or hospital readmissions. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 4,761 publications, 18 studies with 2,510 patients were included. Studies addressed 20 outcomes, using 45 measures, covering inpatient (n = 4 trials), outpatient (n = 9), and mixed (n = 5) healthcare settings. Eight controlled trials with moderate to high quality were considered for evaluation of effectiveness. They investigated inpatient geriatric rehabilitation, ICU follow-up clinic, outpatient rehabilitation, disease management, and ICU diaries. Five of these trials assessed posttraumatic stress disorder, with four trials showing positive effects: first, ICU diaries reduced new-onset posttraumatic stress disorder (5% vs 13%, p = 0.02) after 3 months and second showed a lower mean Impact of Event Scale-Revised score (21.0 vs 32.1, p = 0.03) after 12 months. Third, aftercare by ICU follow-up clinic reduced Impact of Event Scale for women (20 vs 31; p < 0.01). Fourth, a self-help manual led to fewer patients scoring high in the Impact of Event Scale after 8 weeks (p = 0.026) but not after 6 months. For none of the other outcomes did more than one study report positive impacts. CONCLUSION: Interventions which have substantial effects in post-ICU patients are rare. Positive effects were seen for ICU-diary interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder. More interventions for the growing number of ICU survivors are needed

Long-Term Courses of Sepsis Survivors: Effects of a Primary Care Management Intervention

BACKGROUND: Sepsis survivors face mental and physical sequelae even years after discharge from the intensive care unit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term courses of sepsis survivors and the effects of a primary care management intervention in sepsis aftercare. METHODS: This study presents a 24-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial that recruited 291 patients who survived sepsis (including septic shock) from nine German intensive care units. Participants were randomized to usual care (n=143) or to a 12-month-intervention (n=148). The intervention included training of patients and their primary care physicians (PCP) in evidence-based post-sepsis care, case management provided by trained nurses, and clinical decision support for PCPs by consulting physicians. Usual care was provided by PCPs in the control group. At the 24-month follow-up, 12 months after the 1-year-intervention, survival and measures of mental and physical health were collected by telephone interviews. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six (63.9%, 98 intervention, 88 control) of 291 patients completed the 24-month follow-up, showing both increased mortality and recovery from functional impairment. Unlike the intervention group, the control group showed a significant increase of posttraumatic stress symptoms according to the Posttraumatic Symptom Scale (difference between baseline and 24-months follow-up values, mean [standard deviation] 3.7 [11.8] control vs -0.7 [12.1] intervention; P=.016). There were no significant differences in all other outcomes between the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months after completion, a primary care management intervention among survivors of sepsis did not improve mental health-related quality of life. Patients in the intervention group showed less posttraumatic stress symptoms