Corticosteroids for severe sepsis: an evidence-based guide for physicians

Septic shock is characterized by uncontrolled systemic inflammation that contributes to the progression of organ failures and eventually death. There is now ample evidence that the inability of the host to mount an appropriate hypothalamic-pituitary and adrenal axis response plays a major in overwhelming systemic inflammation during infections. Proinflammatory mediators released in the inflamed sites oppose to the anti-inflammatory response, an effect that may be reversed by exogenous corticosteroids. With sepsis, via nongenomic and genomic effects, corticosteroids restore cardiovascular homeostasis, terminate systemic and tissue inflammation, restore organ function, and prevent death. These effects of corticosteroids have been consistently found in animal studies and in most recent frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses. Corticosteroids should be initiated only in patients with sepsis who require 0.5 μg/kg per minute or more of norepinephrine and should be continued for 5 to 7 days except in patients with poor hemodynamic response after 2 days of corticosteroids and with a cortisol increment of more than 250 nmol/L after a standard adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH) test. Hydrocortisone should be given at a daily dose of 200 mg and preferably combined to enteral fludrocortisone at a dose of 50 μg. Blood glucose levels should be kept below 150 mg/dL

Why Are Clinicians Not Embracing the Results from Pivotal Clinical Trials in Severe Sepsis? A Bayesian Analysis

BACKGROUND: Five pivotal clinical trials (Intensive Insulin Therapy; Recombinant Human Activated Protein C [rhAPC]; Low-Tidal Volume; Low-Dose Steroid; Early Goal-Directed Therapy [EGDT]) demonstrated mortality reduction in patients with severe sepsis and expert guidelines have recommended them to clinical practice. Yet, the adoption of these therapies remains low among clinicians. OBJECTIVES: We selected these five trials and asked: Question 1--What is the current probability that the new therapy is not better than the standard of care in my patient with severe sepsis? Question 2--What is the current probability of reducing the relative risk of death (RRR) of my patient with severe sepsis by meaningful clinical thresholds (RRR >15%; >20%; >25%)? METHODS: Bayesian methodologies were applied to this study. Odds ratio (OR) was considered for Question 1, and RRR was used for Question 2. We constructed prior distributions (enthusiastic; mild, moderate, and severe skeptic) based on various effective sample sizes of other relevant clinical trials (unfavorable evidence). Posterior distributions were calculated by combining the prior distributions and the data from pivotal trials (favorable evidence). MAIN FINDINGS: Answer 1--The analysis based on mild skeptic prior shows beneficial results with the Intensive Insulin, rhAPC, and Low-Tidal Volume trials, but not with the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. All trials' results become unacceptable by the analyses using moderate or severe skeptic priors. Answer 2--If we aim for a RRR>15%, the mild skeptic analysis shows that the current probability of reducing death by this clinical threshold is 88% for the Intensive Insulin, 62-65% for the Low-Tidal Volume, rhAPC, EGDT trials, and 17% for the Low-Dose Steroid trial. The moderate and severe skeptic analyses show no clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of death for all trials. If we aim for a RRR >20% or >25%, all probabilities of benefits become lower independent of the degree of skepticism. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical threshold analysis offers a new bedside tool to be directly applied to the care of patients with severe sepsis. Our results demonstrate that the strength of evidence (statistical and clinical) is weak for all trials, particularly for the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. It is essential to replicate the results of each of these five clinical trials in confirmatory studies if we want to provide patient care based on scientifically sound evidence

Neurofilament light as an outcome predictor after cardiac arrest: a post hoc analysis of the COMACARE trial

Purpose: Neurofilament light (NfL) is a biomarker reflecting neurodegeneration and acute neuronal injury, and an increase is found following hypoxic brain damage. We assessed the ability of plasma NfL to predict outcome in comatose patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We also compared plasma NfL concentrations between patients treated with two different targets of arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2), arterial oxygen tension (PaO2), and mean arterial pressure (MAP). / Methods: We measured NfL concentrations in plasma obtained at intensive care unit admission and at 24, 48, and 72 h after OHCA. We assessed neurological outcome at 6 months and defined a good outcome as Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1–2 and poor outcome as CPC 3–5. / Results: Six-month outcome was good in 73/112 (65%) patients. Forty-eight hours after OHCA, the median NfL concentration was 19 (interquartile range [IQR] 11–31) pg/ml in patients with good outcome and 2343 (587–5829) pg/ml in those with poor outcome, p < 0.001. NfL predicted poor outcome with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–1.00) at 24 h, 0.98 (0.97–1.00) at 48 h, and 0.98 (0.95–1.00) at 72 h. NfL concentrations were lower in the higher MAP (80–100 mmHg) group than in the lower MAP (65–75 mmHg) group at 48 h (median, 23 vs. 43 pg/ml, p = 0.04). PaCO2 and PaO2 targets did not associate with NfL levels. / Conclusions: NfL demonstrated excellent prognostic accuracy after OHCA. Higher MAP was associated with lower NfL concentrations