Is cytomegalovirus reactivation increasing the mortality of patients with severe sepsis?

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a ubiquitous virus present in approximately two-thirds of the healthy population. This virus rarely causes an active disease in healthy individuals, but it is among the most common opportunistic infections in immunocompromised patients such as solid organ transplant recipients, patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer or patients with human immunodeficiency virus. Critically ill patients who are immunocompetent before intensive care unit admission may also become more prone to develop active CMV infection if they have prolonged hospitalizations, high disease severity, and severe sepsis. The development of active CMV infection in these critically ill patients has been associated with a significantly higher risk of death in several previous studies. The present issue of Critical Care brings a new study by Heininger and colleagues in which the authors found that patients with severe sepsis who developed active CMV infection had significantly longer intensive care unit and hospital stays, prolonged mechanical ventilation, but no changes in mortality compared to patients without CMV infection. We discuss the possible reasons for their findings (for example, selection bias and low (20%) statistical power to detect mortality endpoints), and also perform an update of our previous meta-analysis with the addition of Heininger and colleagues' study to verify whether the higher mortality rate with CMV holds. Our updated meta-analysis with approximately 1,000 patients shows that active CMV infection continues to be associated with a significant 81% higher mortality rate than that in critically ill patients without active CMV infection

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir ( \u3c /=10 days) and either baricitinib ( \u3c /=14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.)

Treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: Hospital-acquired pneumonia remains the most lethal and expensive nosocomial infection worldwide. Optimal therapy remains controversial. We aimed to compare mortality and clinical response outcomes in patients treated with either linezolid or vancomycin. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Evidence-based Medicine BMJ and abstracts from infectious diseases and critical care meetings were searched through April 2013. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies All randomised clinical trials comparing linezolid to vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia. Data extraction Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. One author extracted the data and two authors rechecked and verified all data. Results: Nine randomised trials with a total of 4026 patients were included. The adjusted absolute mortality risk difference (RD) between linezolid and vancomycin was 0.01% (95% CI −2.1% to 2.1%; p=0.992; I2=13.5%. The adjusted absolute clinical response difference was 0.9% (95% CI −1.2% to 3.1%; p=0.409; I2=0%. The risk of both microbiological (RD=5.6%, 95% CI −2.2% to 13.3%; p=0.159; I2=0%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (RD=6.4%, 95% CI −4.1% to 16.9%; p=0.230; I2=0%) eradication were not different between linezolid and vancomycin. Gastrointestinal side effects were more frequent with linezolid (RD=0.8% (95% CI 0% to 1.5%; p=0.05), but no differences were found with renal failure, thrombocytopenia and drug discontinuation due to adverse events. Our sample size provided 99.9% statistical power to detect differences between drugs regarding clinical response and mortality. Conclusions: Linezolid and vancomycin have similar efficacy and safety profiles. The high statistical power and the near-zero efficacy difference between both antibiotics demonstrates that no drug is superior for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia

recommendations based on placebo-controlled trial evidence

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.BACKGROUND: Immunomodulatory therapy has been extensively studied in randomized clinical trials for the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inconsistent findings. Guideline committees, reviewing the same clinical trial data, have generated different recommendations for immunomodulatory therapy. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that trial design differences, specifically whether the study utilized an open-label or placebo-controlled design, accounted for the inconsistent mortality effects reported in clinical trials of immunomodulator therapies for COVID-19. SOURCES: We reviewed COVID-19 treatment guidelines (World Health Organization [WHO], Infectious Diseases Society of America [IDSA] and The National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and identified the meta-analyses associated with glucocorticoids, IL-6 inhibitors, JAK kinase inhibitors, and complement C5a inhibitors that were available to the guideline authors at the time recommendations were either made or updated. CONTENT: We identified a meta-analysis for each of the immunomodulator classes that are included in current COVID-19 treatment guidelines: glucocorticoids [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), IL-6 antagonists [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), JAK inhibitors [Kramer A, Prinz C, Fichtner F, Fischer AL, Thieme V, Grundeis F, et al. Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6:CD015209] (cited 34), and complement C5a inhibitors [Tsai CL, Lai CC, Chen CY, Lee HS. The efficacy and safety of complement C5a inhibitors for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023;21:77-86] (cited 1). Using the same randomized clinical trials, we evaluated the four meta-analyses accounting for trial design: placebo-controlled or open-label. Glucocorticoids (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.91 [95% CI, 0.49-1.69]), IL-6 inhibitors sarilumab (RR 1.17 [95% CI, 0.96-01.43]), and tocilizumab (RR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.19]) did not reduce mortality in placebo-controlled trials, whereas baricitinib did confer a large survival benefit (RR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). The complement C5a inhibitor, vilobelimab, also reduced mortality in a single placebo-controlled trial (RR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.0]). IMPLICATIONS: Placebo-controlled trial evidence indicates that baricitinib should be the first choice immunomodulator for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who require any form of oxygen support-low- or high-flow oxygen, non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Vilobelimab warrants study in a large placebo-controlled trial. Treatment guidelines for future pandemics should prioritize the results of placebo-controlled trials.proofepub_ahead_of_prin

a clinical approach

Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.Severe acute respiratory infections, such as community-acquired pneumonia, hospital-acquired pneumonia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia, constitute frequent and lethal pulmonary infections in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite optimal management with early appropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy and adequate supportive care, mortality remains high, in part attributable to the aging, growing number of comorbidities, and rising rates of multidrug resistance pathogens. Biomarkers have the potential to offer additional information that may further improve the management and outcome of pulmonary infections. Available pathogen-specific biomarkers, for example, Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary antigen test and galactomannan, can be helpful in the microbiologic diagnosis of pulmonary infection in ICU patients, improving the timing and appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy since these tests have a short turnaround time in comparison to classic microbiology. On the other hand, host-response biomarkers, for example, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin, used in conjunction with the clinical data, may be useful in the diagnosis and prediction of pulmonary infections, monitoring the response to treatment, and guiding duration of antimicrobial therapy. The assessment of serial measurements overtime, kinetics of biomarkers, is more informative than a single value. The appropriate utilization of accurate pathogen-specific and host-response biomarkers may benefit clinical decision-making at the bedside and optimize antimicrobial stewardship.publishersversionpublishe

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19.METHODS: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care).FINDINGS: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality.INTERPRETATION: Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19.FUNDING: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.</p

guide to clinicians

Funding This work received an unrestricted grant from GSK Portugal and was supported by Sociedade Portuguesa de Ginecologia (SPG).Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. In this context, biomarkers could be considered as indicators of either infection or dysregulated host response or response to treatment and/or aid clinicians to prognosticate patient risk. More than 250 biomarkers have been identified and evaluated over the last few decades, but no biomarker accurately differentiates between sepsis and sepsis-like syndrome. Published data support the use of biomarkers for pathogen identification, clinical diagnosis, and optimization of antibiotic treatment. In this narrative review, we highlight how clinicians could improve the use of pathogen-specific and of the most used host-response biomarkers, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein, to improve the clinical care of patients with sepsis. Biomarker kinetics are more useful than single values in predicting sepsis, when making the diagnosis and assessing the response to antibiotic therapy. Finally, integrated biomarker-guided algorithms may hold promise to improve both the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis. Herein, we provide current data on the clinical utility of pathogen-specific and host-response biomarkers, offer guidance on how to optimize their use, and propose the needs for future research.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Inactivated Monovalent Non-Adjuvanted Vaccine in Elderly and Immunocompromised Patients

Background\ud \ud Immunosuppressed individuals present serious morbidity and mortality from influenza, therefore it is important to understand the safety and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination among them.\ud Methods\ud \ud This multicenter cohort study evaluated the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of an inactivated, monovalent, non-adjuvanted pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccine among the elderly, HIV-infected, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), cancer, kidney transplant, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. Participants were included during routine clinical visits, and vaccinated according to conventional influenza vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition assay, before and 21 days after vaccination.\ud Results\ud \ud 319 patients with cancer, 260 with RA, 256 HIV-infected, 149 elderly individuals, 85 kidney transplant recipients, and 83 with JIA were included.\ud \ud The proportions of seroprotection, seroconversion, and the geometric mean titer ratios postvaccination were, respectively: 37.6%, 31.8%, and 3.2 among kidney transplant recipients, 61.5%, 53.1%, and 7.5 among RA patients, 63.1%, 55.7%, and 5.7 among the elderly, 59.0%, 54.7%, and 5.9 among HIV-infected patients, 52.4%, 49.2%, and 5.3 among cancer patients, 85.5%, 78.3%, and 16.5 among JIA patients. The vaccine was well tolerated, with no reported severe adverse events.\ud Conclusions\ud \ud The vaccine was safe among all groups, with an acceptable immunogenicity among the elderly and JIA patients, however new vaccination strategies should be explored to improve the immune response of immunocompromised adult patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01218685)Fundação Butantan funded the study, and employed several of the authors. The funder had a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Advanced Preparation Makes Research in Emergencies and Isolation Care Possible: The Case of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

The optimal time to initiate research on emergencies is before they occur. However, timely initiation of high-quality research may launch during an emergency under the right conditions. These include an appropriate context, clarity in scientific aims, preexisting resources, strong operational and research structures that are facile, and good governance. Here, Nebraskan rapid research efforts early during the 2020 coronavirus disease pandemic, while participating in the first use of U.S. federal quarantine in 50 years, are described from these aspects, as the global experience with this severe emerging infection grew apace. The experience has lessons in purpose, structure, function, and performance of research in any emergency, when facing any threat