Circulating adrenomedullin estimates survival and reversibility of organ failure in sepsis: the prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock-1 (AdrenOSS-1) study

Background: Adrenomedullin (ADM) regulates vascular tone and endothelial permeability during sepsis. Levels of circulating biologically active ADM (bio-ADM) show an inverse relationship with blood pressure and a direct relationship with vasopressor requirement. In the present prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock 1 (, AdrenOSS-1) study, we assessed relationships between circulating bio-ADM during the initial intensive care unit (ICU) stay and short-term outcome in order to eventually design a biomarker-guided randomized controlled trial. Methods: AdrenOSS-1 was a prospective observational multinational study. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure as defined by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, organ support with focus on vasopressor/inotropic use, and need for renal replacement therapy. AdrenOSS-1 included 583 patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis or septic shock. Results: Circulating bio-ADM levels were measured upon admission and at day 2. Median bio-ADM concentration upon admission was 80.5 pg/ml [IQR 41.5-148.1 pg/ml]. Initial SOFA score was 7 [IQR 5-10], and 28-day mortality was 22%. We found marked associations between bio-ADM upon admission and 28-day mortality (unadjusted standardized HR 2.3 [CI 1.9-2.9]; adjusted HR 1.6 [CI 1.1-2.5]) and between bio-ADM levels and SOFA score (p < 0.0001). Need of vasopressor/inotrope, renal replacement therapy, and positive fluid balance were more prevalent in patients with a bio-ADM > 70 pg/ml upon admission than in those with bio-ADM ≤ 70 pg/ml. In patients with bio-ADM > 70 pg/ml upon admission, decrease in bio-ADM below 70 pg/ml at day 2 was associated with recovery of organ function at day 7 and better 28-day outcome (9.5% mortality). By contrast, persistently elevated bio-ADM at day 2 was associated with prolonged organ dysfunction and high 28-day mortality (38.1% mortality, HR 4.9, 95% CI 2.5-9.8). Conclusions: AdrenOSS-1 shows that early levels and rapid changes in bio-ADM estimate short-term outcome in sepsis and septic shock. These data are the backbone of the design of the biomarker-guided AdrenOSS-2 trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02393781. Registered on March 19, 2015

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

Timing of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Patients with Acute Kidney Injury and Sepsis

IF 79.258 (2017)International audienceBackgroundAcute kidney injury is the most frequent complication in patients with septic shock and is an independent risk factor for death. Although renal-replacement therapy is the standard of care for severe acute kidney injury, the ideal time for initiation remains controversial.MethodsIn a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with early-stage septic shock who had severe acute kidney injury at the failure stage of the risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) classification system but without life-threatening complications related to acute kidney injury to receive renal-replacement therapy either within 12 hours after documentation of failure-stage acute kidney injury (early strategy) or after a delay of 48 hours if renal recovery had not occurred (delayed strategy). The failure stage of the RIFLE classification system is characterized by a serum creatinine level 3 times the baseline level (or ≥4 mg per deciliter with a rapid increase of ≥0.5 mg per deciliter), urine output less than 0.3 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour for 24 hours or longer, or anuria for at least 12 hours. The primary outcome was death at 90 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped early for futility after the second planned interim analysis. A total of 488 patients underwent randomization; there were no significant between-group differences in the characteristics at baseline. Among the 477 patients for whom follow-up data at 90 days were available, 58% of the patients in the early-strategy group (138 of 239 patients) and 54% in the delayed-strategy group (128 of 238 patients) had died (P=0.38). In the delayed-strategy group, 38% (93 patients) did not receive renal-replacement therapy. Criteria for emergency renal-replacement therapy were met in 17% of the patients in the delayed-strategy group (41 patients).ConclusionsAmong patients with septic shock who had severe acute kidney injury, there was no significant difference in overall mortality at 90 days between patients who were assigned to an early strategy for the initiation of renal-replacement therapy and those who were assigned to a delayed strategy. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; IDEAL-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682590.

Non-invasive ventilation versus high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy with apnoeic oxygenation for preoxygenation before intubation of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, multicentre, open-label trial

International audienceBACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation has never been compared with high-flow oxygen to determine whether it reduces the risk of severe hypoxaemia during intubation. We aimed to determine if preoxygenation with non-invasive ventilation was more efficient than high-flow oxygen in reducing the risk of severe hypoxaemia during intubation. METHODS: The FLORALI-2 multicentre, open-label trial was done in 28 intensive care units in France. Adult patients undergoing tracheal intubation for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (a partial pressure of arterial oxygen [PaO2] to fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] ratio of \textless/=300 mm Hg) were randomly assigned (1:1; block size, four participants) to non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen during preoxygenation, with stratification by PaO2/FiO2 ratio (\textless/=200 mm Hg vs \textgreater200 mm Hg). Key exclusion criteria were intubation for cardiac arrest, altered consciousness (defined as a Glasgow coma score of less than eight points), other contraindications to non-invasive ventilation (recent laryngeal, oesophageal, or gastric surgery, and substantial facial fractures), pulse oximetry not available, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and refusal to participate. The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe hypoxaemia (pulse oximetry \textless80%) during the procedure, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02668458. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2016, and Jan 8, 2017, 2079 patients were intubated in the 28 participating units, and 322 were enrolled. We excluded five patients with no recorded data, two who withdrew consent or were under legal protection, one who was not intubated, and one who had a cardiac arrest. Of the 313 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 142 were assigned to non-invasive ventilation and 171 to high-flow oxygen therapy. Severe hypoxaemia occurred in 33 (23%) of 142 patients after preoxygenation with non-invasive ventilation and 47 (27%) of 171 with high-flow oxygen (absolute difference -4.2%, 95% CI -13.7 to 5.5; p=0.39). In the 242 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia (PaO2/FiO2 \textless/=200 mm Hg), severe hypoxaemia occurred less frequently after preoxygenation with non-invasive ventilation than with high-flow oxygen (28 [24%] of 117 patients vs 44 [35%] of 125; adjusted odds ratio 0.56, 0.32 to 0.99, p=0.0459). Serious adverse events did not differ between treatment groups, with the most common immediate complications being systolic arterial hypotension (70 [49%] patients in the non-invasive ventilation group vs 86 [50%] patients in the high-flow oxygen group) and chest infiltrate on x-ray (28 [20%] vs 33 [19%]), and the most common late complications being death at day 28 (53 [37%] vs 58 [34%]) and ventilator-associated pneumonia during ICU stay (31 [22%] vs 35 [20%]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, preoxygenation with non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy did not change the risk of severe hypoxaemia. Future research should explore the effect of preoxygenation method in patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia at baseline. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health

Long-term (180-Day) outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP randomized clinical trial

Importance The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial

Background Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero–one inflated beta regression. Results The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] − 3.30%; 3.40%], − 0.39% [95% CrI − 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI − 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of − 3.55 days [95% CrI − 6.38; − 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI − 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66. Conclusions In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc