Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock. The VANISH Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock; however, early vasopressin use has been proposed as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A factorial (2×2), double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 general adult intensive care units in the United Kingdom between February 2013 and May 2015, enrolling adult patients who had septic shock requiring vasopressors despite fluid resuscitation within a maximum of 6 hours after the onset of shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to vasopressin (titrated up to 0.06 U/min) and hydrocortisone (n = 101), vasopressin and placebo (n = 104), norepinephrine and hydrocortisone (n = 101), or norepinephrine and placebo (n = 103). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was kidney failure-free days during the 28-day period after randomization, measured as (1) the proportion of patients who never developed kidney failure and (2) median number of days alive and free of kidney failure for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both. Rates of renal replacement therapy, mortality, and serious adverse events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients (median age, 66 years; men, 58.2%) were included in the study, with a median time to study drug administration of 3.5 hours after diagnosis of shock. The number of survivors who never developed kidney failure was 94 of 165 patients (57.0%) in the vasopressin group and 93 of 157 patients (59.2%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -13.0% to 8.5%]). The median number of kidney failure-free days for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both was 9 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1 to -24) in the vasopressin group and 13 days (IQR, 1 to -25) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -4 days [95% CI, -11 to 5]). There was less use of renal replacement therapy in the vasopressin group than in the norepinephrine group (25.4% for vasopressin vs 35.3% for norepinephrine; difference, -9.9% [95% CI, -19.3% to -0.6%]). There was no significant difference in mortality rates between groups. In total, 22 of 205 patients (10.7%) had a serious adverse event in the vasopressin group vs 17 of 204 patients (8.3%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -3.3% to 8.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with septic shock, the early use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine did not improve the number of kidney failure-free days. Although these findings do not support the use of vasopressin to replace norepinephrine as initial treatment in this situation, the confidence interval included a potential clinically important benefit for vasopressin, and larger trials may be warranted to assess this further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ISRCTN 20769191

Programmed cell death and its role in inflammation

Cell death plays an important role in the regulation of inflammation and may be the result of inflammation. The maintenance of tissue homeostasis necessitates both the recognition and removal of invading microbial pathogens as well as the clearance of dying cells. In the past few decades, emerging knowledge on cell death and inflammation has enriched our molecular understanding of the signaling pathways that mediate various programs of cell death and multiple types of inflammatory responses. This review provides an overview of the major types of cell death related to inflammation. Modification of cell death pathways is likely to be a logical therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases

Protease-activated receptor-3 (PAR3) regulates PAR1 signaling by receptor dimerization

Thrombin activates endothelial cell signaling by cleaving the protease-activated receptor-1 (PAR1). However, the function of the apparently nonsignaling receptor PAR3 also expressed in endothelial cells is unknown. We demonstrate here the crucial role of PAR3 in potentiating the responsiveness of PAR1 to thrombin. We tested the hypothesis that PAR1/PAR3 heterodimerization and its effect in modifying G protein selectivity was responsible for PAR3 regulation of PAR1 sensitivity. Using bioluminescent resonance energy transfer-2, we showed that PAR1 had comparable dimerization affinity for PAR3 as for itself. We observed increased Gα(13) coupling between the PAR1/3 heterodimer compared with the PAR1/1 homodimer. Moreover, knockdown of PAR3 moderated the PAR1-activated increase in endothelial permeability. These results demonstrate a role of PAR3 in allosterically regulating PAR1 signaling governing increased endothelial permeability. Because PAR3 is a critical determinant of PAR1 function, targeting of PAR3 may mitigate the effects of PAR1 in activating endothelial responses such as vascular inflammation

The acute respiratory distress syndrome in 2013

Acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome are major causes of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. This review focuses on new developments in definitions, epidemiology, clinical and basic research, and promising new directions in treatment. There is new information about the potential contribution of environmental factors, especially exposure to cigarette smoke. Pathologic findings in ARDS have been limited to case reports of open lung biopsies and post-mortem studies but there is some new information from a recent pathology study relative to the frequency of diffuse alveolar damage and the severity of arterial hypoxemia. Further, therapy with lung-protective ventilation and fluid conservative protocol has improved outcomes, but several new trials are in progress to test several promising strategies