Clinical review: Influence of vasoactive and other therapies on intestinal and hepatic circulations in patients with septic shock

The organs of the hepatosplanchnic system are considered to play a key role in the development of multiorgan failure during septic shock. Impaired oxygenation of the intestinal mucosa can lead to disruption of the intestinal barrier, which may promote a vicious cycle of inflammatory response, increased oxygen demand and inadequate oxygen supply. Standard septic shock therapy includes supportive treatment such as fluid resuscitation, administration of vasopressors (adrenergic and nonadrenergic drugs), and respiratory and renal support. These therapies may have beneficial or detrimental effects not only on systemic haemodynamics but also on splanchnic haemodynamics, at both the macrocirculatory and microcirculatory levels. This clinical review focuses on the splanchnic haemodynamic and metabolic effects of standard therapies used in patients with septic shock, as well as on the recently described nonconventional therapies such as vasopressin, prostacyclin and N-acetyl cysteine

A randomized controlled trial

Objective We report on the effect of hemoadsorption therapy to reduce cytokines in septic patients with respiratory failure. Methods This was a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter trial. Mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome were eligible for study inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned to either therapy with CytoSorb hemoperfusion for 6 hours per day for up to 7 consecutive days (treatment), or no hemoperfusion (control). Primary outcome was change in normalized IL-6-serum concentrations during study day 1 and 7. Results 97 of the 100 randomized patients were analyzed. We were not able to detect differences in systemic plasma IL-6 levels between the two groups (n = 75; p = 0.15). Significant IL-6 elimination, averaging between 5 and 18% per blood pass throughout the entire treatment period was recorded. In the unadjusted analysis, 60-day-mortality was significantly higher in the treatment group (44.7%) compared to the control group (26.0%; p = 0.039). The proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy at the time of enrollment was higher in the treatment group (31.9%) when compared to the control group (16.3%). After adjustment for patient morbidity and baseline imbalances, no association of hemoperfusion with mortality was found (p = 0.19). Conclusions In this patient population with predominantly septic shock and multiple organ failure, hemoadsorption removed IL-6 but this did not lead to lower plasma IL-6-levels. We did not detect statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes multiple organ dysfunction score, ventilation time and time course of oxygenation

Sex Differences in Clinical Course and Intensive Care Unit Admission in a National Cohort of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

Males have a higher risk for an adverse outcome of COVID-19. The aim of the study was to analyze sex differences in the clinical course with focus on patients who received intensive care. Research was conducted as an observational retrospective cohort study. A group of 23,235 patients from 83 hospitals with PCR-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 between 4 February 2020 and 22 March 2021 were included. Data on symptoms were retrieved from a separate registry, which served as a routine infection control system. Males accounted for 51.4% of all included patients. Males received more intensive care (ratio OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.51–1.71) and mechanical ventilation (invasive or noninvasive, OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.73–2.01). A model for the prediction of mortality showed that until the age 60 y, mortality increased with age with no substantial difference between sexes. After 60 y, the risk of death increased more in males than in females. At 90 y, females had a predicted mortality risk of 31%, corresponding to males of 84 y. In the intensive care unit (ICU) cohort, females of 90 y had a mortality risk of 46%, equivalent to males of 72 y. Seventy-five percent of males over 90 died, but only 46% of females of the same age. In conclusion, the sex gap was most evident among the oldest in the ICU. Understanding sex-determined differences in COVID-19 can be useful to facilitate individualized treatments

Potential Contributors to Increased Pulmonary Embolism Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From the German-Wide Helios Hospital Network

Background: After the first COVID-19 infection wave, a constant increase of pulmonary embolism (PE) hospitalizations not linked with active PCR-confirmed COVID-19 was observed, but potential contributors to this observation are unclear. Therefore, we analyzed associations between changes in PE hospitalizations and (1) the incidence of non-COVID-19 pneumonia, (2) the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), (3) volume depletion, and (4) preceding COVID-19 infection numbers in Germany. Methods: Claims data of Helios hospitals in Germany were used, and consecutive cases with a hospital admission between May 6 and December 15, 2020 (PE surplus period), were analyzed and compared to corresponding periods covering the same weeks in 2016–2019 (control period). We analyzed the number of PE cases in the target period with multivariable Poisson general linear mixed models (GLMM) including (a) cohorts of 2020 versus 2016–2019, (b) the number of cases with pneumonia, (c) CTPA, and (d) volume depletion and adjusted for age and sex. In order to associate the daily number of PE cases in 2020 with the number of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infections in Germany, we calculated the average number of daily infections (divided by 10,000) occurring between 14 up to 90 days with increasing window sizes before PE cases and modeled the data with Poisson regression. Results: There were 2,404 PE hospitalizations between May 6 and December 15, 2020, as opposed to 2,112–2,236 (total 8,717) in the corresponding 2016–2019 control periods (crude rate ratio [CRR] 1.10, 95% CI 1.05–1.15, P < 0.01). With the use of multivariable Poisson GLMM adjusted for age, sex, and volume depletion, PE cases were significantly associated with the number of cases with pneumonia (CRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07–1.10, P < 0.01) and with CTPA (CRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.09–1.10, P < 0.01). The increase of PE cases in 2020 compared with the control period remained significant (CRR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02–1.12, P < 0.01) when controlling for those factors. In the 2020 cohort, the number of preceding average daily COVID-19 infections was associated with increased PE case incidence in all investigated windows, i.e., including preceding infections from 14 to 90 days. The best model (log likelihood −576) was with a window size of 4 days, i.e., average COVID-19 infections 14–17 days before PE hospitalization had a risk of 1.20 (95% CI 1.12–1.29, P < 0.01). Conclusions: There is an increase in PE cases since early May 2020 compared to corresponding periods in 2016–2019. This surplus was significant even when controlling for changes in potential modulators such as demographics, volume depletion, non-COVID-19 pneumonia, CTPA use, and preceding COVID-19 infections. Future studies are needed (1) to investigate a potential causal link for increased risk of delayed PE with preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection and (2) to define optimal screening for SARS-CoV-2 in patients presenting with pneumonia and PE

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

[Arginine-vasopressin in septic and vasodilatorial shock]

Current therapy of septic/vasodilatory cardiovascular failure includes volume resuscitation and infusion of inotropic and vasopressor agents. Norepinephrine is the first-line vasoconstrictor, and can stabilize hemodynamic variables in most patients. Nonetheless, irreversible cardiovascular failure which is resistant to conventional hemodynamic therapies still is the main cause of death in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. In such advanced, catecholamine-resistant shock states, arginine-vasopressin (AVP) has repeatedly caused an increase in mean arterial blood pressure, a decrease in toxic norepinephrine-dosages, as well as further beneficial hemodynamic, endocrinologic and renal effects. Although AVP exerted negative inotropic effects in previous clinical trials and in selected animal experiments, a continuous low-dose AVP infusion during advanced septic/vasodilatory shock caused a decrease in cardiac index only in patients with a hyperdynamic circulation. Adverse effects on gastrointestinal circulation and the systemic microcirculation can not be excluded, but have not yet been confirmed in clinical prospective trials. Negative side effects of a supplementary AVP therapy are an increase in total bilirubin concentrations, and a decrease in platelet count. A transient increase in hepatic transaminases during AVP infusion is most likely related to preceding hypotensive episodes. Important points which must be considered when using AVP as a "rescue vasopressor" in septic/vasodilatory shock states are: 1) AVP infusion only in advanced shock states that can not be adequately reversed by conventional hemodynamic therapy (e.g. norepinephrine >0,5-0,6 mug/kg/min), 2) presence of normovolemia, 3) AVP infusion only in combination with norepinephrine, 4) strict avoidance of bolus injections and dosages >4 IU/h. Effects of a supplementary AVP infusion in advanced vasodilatory shock on survival are currently examined in a large, prospective multicenter trial in North America and Australia

Potential Contributors to Increased Pulmonary Embolism Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From the German-Wide Helios Hospital Network

Background: After the first COVID-19 infection wave, a constant increase of pulmonary embolism (PE) hospitalizations not linked with active PCR-confirmed COVID-19 was observed, but potential contributors to this observation are unclear. Therefore, we analyzed associations between changes in PE hospitalizations and (1) the incidence of non-COVID-19 pneumonia, (2) the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), (3) volume depletion, and (4) preceding COVID-19 infection numbers in Germany. Methods: Claims data of Helios hospitals in Germany were used, and consecutive cases with a hospital admission between May 6 and December 15, 2020 (PE surplus period), were analyzed and compared to corresponding periods covering the same weeks in 2016–2019 (control period). We analyzed the number of PE cases in the target period with multivariable Poisson general linear mixed models (GLMM) including (a) cohorts of 2020 versus 2016–2019, (b) the number of cases with pneumonia, (c) CTPA, and (d) volume depletion and adjusted for age and sex. In order to associate the daily number of PE cases in 2020 with the number of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infections in Germany, we calculated the average number of daily infections (divided by 10,000) occurring between 14 up to 90 days with increasing window sizes before PE cases and modeled the data with Poisson regression. Results: There were 2,404 PE hospitalizations between May 6 and December 15, 2020, as opposed to 2,112–2,236 (total 8,717) in the corresponding 2016–2019 control periods (crude rate ratio [CRR] 1.10, 95% CI 1.05–1.15, P < 0.01). With the use of multivariable Poisson GLMM adjusted for age, sex, and volume depletion, PE cases were significantly associated with the number of cases with pneumonia (CRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07–1.10, P < 0.01) and with CTPA (CRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.09–1.10, P < 0.01). The increase of PE cases in 2020 compared with the control period remained significant (CRR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02–1.12, P < 0.01) when controlling for those factors. In the 2020 cohort, the number of preceding average daily COVID-19 infections was associated with increased PE case incidence in all investigated windows, i.e., including preceding infections from 14 to 90 days. The best model (log likelihood −576) was with a window size of 4 days, i.e., average COVID-19 infections 14–17 days before PE hospitalization had a risk of 1.20 (95% CI 1.12–1.29, P < 0.01). Conclusions: There is an increase in PE cases since early May 2020 compared to corresponding periods in 2016–2019. This surplus was significant even when controlling for changes in potential modulators such as demographics, volume depletion, non-COVID-19 pneumonia, CTPA use, and preceding COVID-19 infections. Future studies are needed (1) to investigate a potential causal link for increased risk of delayed PE with preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection and (2) to define optimal screening for SARS-CoV-2 in patients presenting with pneumonia and PE