Factors influencing plasma transfusion practices in paediatric intensive care units around the world

Background and Objectives Plasma transfusions are a frequent treatment worldwide, but many studies have reported a wide variation in the indications to transfuse. Recently, an international paediatric study also showed wide variation in frequency in the use of plasma transfusions: 25% of the centres transfused plasma to >5% of their patients, whereas another 25% transfused plasma to <1% of their patients. The objective of this study was to explore the factors associated with different plasma transfusion practices in these centres. Materials and Methods Online survey sent to the local investigators of the 101 participating centres, in February 2016. Four areas were explored: beliefs regarding plasma transfusion, patients’ case‐mix in each unit, unit's characteristics, and local blood product transfusion policies and processes. Results The response rate was 82% (83/101). 43% of the respondents believed that plasma transfusions can arrest bleeding, whereas 27% believe that plasma transfusion can prevent bleeding. Centres with the highest plasma transfusion rate were more likely to think that hypovolaemia and mildly abnormal coagulation tests are appropriate indications for plasma transfusions (P = 0·02 and P = 0·04, respectively). Case‐mix, centre characteristics or local transfusion services were not identified as significant relevant factors. Conclusion Factors influencing plasma transfusion practices reflect beliefs about indications and the efficacy of transfusion in the prevention and management of bleeding as well as effects on coagulation tests. Educational and other initiatives to target these beliefs should be the focus of research

New or Progressive Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome in Pediatric Severe Sepsis: A Sepsis Phenotype With Higher Morbidity and Mortality

Objectives: To describe the epidemiology, morbidity, and mortality of new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in children with severe sepsis. Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective, cross-sectional, point prevalence study. Setting: International, multicenter PICUs. Patients: Pediatric patients with severe sepsis identified on five separate days over a 1-year period. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 567 patients from 128 PICUs in 26 countries enrolled, 384 (68%) developed multiple organ dysfunction syndrome within 7 days of severe sepsis recognition. Three hundred twenty-seven had multiple organ dysfunction syndrome on the day of sepsis recognition. Ninety-one of these patients developed progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, whereas an additional 57 patients subsequently developed new multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, yielding a total proportion with severe sepsis-associated new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome of 26%. Hospital mortality in patients with progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome was 51% compared with patients with new multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (28%) and those with single-organ dysfunction without multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (10%) (p < 0.001). Survivors of new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome also had a higher frequency of moderate to severe disability defined as a Pediatric Overall Performance Category score of greater than or equal to 3 and an increase of greater than or equal to 1 from baseline: 22% versus 29% versus 11% for progressive, new, and no multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Development of new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome is common (26%) in severe sepsis and is associated with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality than severe sepsis without new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Our data support the use of new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome as an important outcome in trials of pediatric severe sepsis although efforts are needed to validate whether reducing new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome leads to improvements in more definitive morbidity and mortality endpoints

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee