Reversal of late septic shock with supraphysiologic doses of hydrocortisone

Glucocorticoid therapy for sepsis in the AI era: a survey on current and future approaches

Sepsis, a life-threatening medical condition, manifests as new or worsening organ failures due to a dysregulated host response to infection. Many patients with sepsis have manifested a hyperinflammatory phenotype leading to the identification of inflammatory modulation by corticosteroids as a key treatment modality. However, the optimal use of corticosteroids in sepsis treatment remains a contentious subject, necessitating a deeper understanding of their physiological and pharmacological effects. Our study conducts a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on traditional corticosteroid treatment in sepsis, alongside an analysis of evolving clinical guidelines. Additionally, we explore the emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, particularly in diagnosing, prognosticating, and treating sepsis. AI's advanced data processing capabilities reveal new avenues for enhancing corticosteroid therapeutic strategies in sepsis. The integration of AI in sepsis treatment has the potential to address existing gaps in knowledge, especially in the application of corticosteroids. Our findings suggest that combining corticosteroid therapy with AI-driven insights could lead to more personalized and effective sepsis treatments. This approach holds promise for improving clinical outcomes and presents a significant advancement in the management of this complex and often fatal condition.

Effectiveness of Fludrocortisone Plus Hydrocortisone versus Hydrocortisone Alone in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Rationale: The use of hydrocortisone in adult patients with septic shock is controversial, and the effectiveness of adding fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone remains uncertain. Objectives: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone, hydrocortisone alone, and placebo or usual care in adults with septic shock. Methods: A systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis of peer-reviewed randomized trials were conducted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at last follow-up. Treatment effects are presented as relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Placebo or usual care was the reference treatment. Measurements and Main Results: Among 7,553 references, we included 17 trials (7,688 patients). All-cause mortality at last follow-up was lowest with fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone (RR, 0.85; 95% CrI, 0.72-0.99; 98.3% probability of superiority, moderate-certainty evidence), followed by hydrocortisone alone (RR, 0.97; 95% CrI, 0.87-1.07; 73.1% probability of superiority, low-certainty evidence). The comparison of fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone alone was based primarily on indirect evidence (only two trials with direct evidence). Fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone was associated with a 12% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with hydrocortisone alone (RR, 0.88; 95% CrI, 0.74-1.03; 94.2% probability of superiority, moderate-certainty evidence). Conclusions: In adult patients with septic shock, fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality at last follow-up than placebo and hydrocortisone alone. The scarcity of head-to-head trials comparing fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone alone led our network meta-analysis to rely primarily on indirect evidence for this comparison. Although we undertook several sensitivity analyses and assessments, these findings should be considered while also acknowledging the heterogeneity of included trials.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia

RATIONALE

New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

PANEL DESIGN

The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting.

METHODS

After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework.

RESULTS

In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Diastolic/systolic blood pressure ratio for predicting febrile children with sepsis and progress to septic shock in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Given the scarcity of studies analyzing the clinical predictors of pediatric septic cases that would progress to septic shock, this study aimed to determine strong predictors for pediatric emergency department (PED) patients with sepsis at risk for septic shock and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted chart reviews of patients with ≥ 2 age-adjusted quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (qSOFA) criteria to recognize patients with an infectious disease in two tertiary PEDs between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2022. The age range of included patients was 1 month to 18 years. The primary outcome was development of septic shock within 48 h of PED attendance. The secondary outcome was sepsis-related 28-day mortality. Initial important variables in the PED and hemodynamics with the highest and lowest values during the first 24 h of admission were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 417 patients were admitted because of sepsis and met the eligibility criteria for the study. Forty-nine cases progressed to septic shock within 48 h after admission and 368 were discharged without progression. General demographics, laboratory data, and hemodynamics were analyzed by multivariate analysis. Only the minimum diastolic blood pressure/systolic blood pressure ratio (D/S ratio) during the first 24 h after admission remained as an independent predictor of progression to septic shock and 28-day mortality. The best cutoff values of the D/S ratio for predicting septic shock and 28-day mortality were 0.52 and 0.47, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The D/S ratio is a practical bedside scoring system in the PED and had good discriminative ability in predicting the progression of septic shock and in-hospital mortality in PED patients. Further validation is essential in other settings.

Do We Need to Administer Fludrocortisone in Addition to Hydrocortisone in Adult Patients With Septic Shock? An Updated Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and an Observational Study With Target Trial Emulation

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone combined with fludrocortisone or hydrocortisone alone, compared with placebo in adult patients with septic shock.

DATA SOURCES

By extending a prior Cochrane review, databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov , along with other relevant websites, were searched until August 31, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using target trial emulation were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was short-term mortality with an emphasis on 28- or 30-day mortality as the main measure and in-hospital or ICU mortality as the nearest surrogate of this measure. Three of the most common adverse events, namely, gastroduodenal bleeding, superinfection, and hyperglycemia, were also considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 19 studies involving 95,841 patients were included. Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone showed the lowest short-term mortality versus placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.79; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.64-0.99; number needed to treat [NNT]: 21, range: 12-500; low certainty of evidence) in terms of informative priors. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve values for hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, hydrocortisone alone, and placebo were 0.9469, 0.4542, and 0.0989, respectively. Consistent results were observed in RCTs alone and those using a daily 200-mg dose of hydrocortisone. Although gastroduodenal bleeding or superinfection showed no clear increase, hyperglycemia risk increased. The ORs were 0.53 for placebo versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 0.64 for placebo versus hydrocortisone alone, with very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with septic shock, hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone improved short-term survival with minimal adverse events compared with hydrocortisone alone or placebo. However, these findings are not definitive due to the limited certainty of evidence and wide NNT range. Additional large-scale, placebo-controlled RCTs are needed to provide conclusive evidence.

Adverse Effects Related to Corticosteroid Use in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

DATA EXTRACTION

We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 47 RCTs (n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29-1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

Sepsis and Adrenal Insufficiency

In sepsis, dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, alterations in cortisol metabolism, and tissue resistance to glucocorticoids can all result in relative adrenal insufficiency or critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI). The symptoms and signs of CIRCI during sepsis are nonspecific, generally including decreased mental status, unexplained fever, or hypotension refractory to fluids, and the requirement of vasopressor therapy to maintain adequate blood pressure. While we have been aware of this syndrome for over a decade, it remains a poorly understood condition, challenging to diagnose, and associated with significantly diverging practices among clinicians, particularly regarding the optimal dosing and duration of corticosteroid therapy. The existing literature on corticosteroid use in patients with sepsis and septic shock is vast with dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted across the past 4 decades. These studies have universally demonstrated reduced duration of shock, though the effects of corticosteroids on mortality have been inconsistent, and their use has been associated with adverse effects including hyperglycemia, neuromuscular weakness, and an increased risk of infection. In this article, we aim to provide a thorough, evidence-based, and practical review of the current recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with sepsis who develop CIRCI, explore the controversies surrounding this topic, and highlight what lies on the horizon as new evidence continues to shape our practice.

Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome encompassing physiologic and biological abnormalities caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis progression into septic shock is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality, hence the importance of early identification and treatment. Over the last two decades, the definition of sepsis has evolved to improve early sepsis recognition and screening, standardize the terms used to describe sepsis and highlight its association with organ dysfunction and higher mortality. The early 2000s witnessed the birth of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), which showed a dramatic reduction in mortality leading to its wide adoption, and the surviving sepsis campaign (SSC), which has been instrumental in developing and updating sepsis guidelines over the last 20 years. Outside of early fluid resuscitation and antibiotic therapy, sepsis management has transitioned to a less aggressive approach over the last few years, shying away from routine mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous pressure monitoring and excessive fluids resuscitation, inotropes use, and red blood cell transfusions. Peripheral vasopressor use was deemed safe and is rising, and resuscitation with balanced crystalloids and a restrictive fluid strategy was explored. This review will address some of sepsis management's most important yet controversial components and summarize the available evidence from the last two decades.

The Eight Unanswered and Answered Questions about the Use of Vasopressors in Septic Shock

Septic shock is mainly characterized-in addition to hypovolemia-by vasoplegia as a consequence of a release of inflammatory mediators. Systemic vasodilatation due to depressed vascular tone results in arterial hypotension, which induces or worsens organ hypoperfusion. Accordingly, vasopressor therapy is mandatory to correct hypotension and to reverse organ perfusion due to hypotension. Currently, two vasopressors are recommended to be used, norepinephrine and vasopressin. Norepinephrine, an α₁-agonist agent, is the first-line vasopressor. Vasopressin is suggested to be added to norepinephrine in cases of inadequate mean arterial pressure instead of escalating the doses of norepinephrine. However, some questions about the bedside use of these vasopressors remain. Some of these questions have been well answered, some of them not clearly addressed, and some others not yet answered. Regarding norepinephrine, we firstly reviewed the arguments in favor of the choice of norepinephrine as a first-line vasopressor. Secondly, we detailed the arguments found in the recent literature in favor of an early introduction of norepinephrine. Thirdly, we reviewed the literature referring to the issue of titrating the doses of norepinephrine using an individualized resuscitation target, and finally, we addressed the issue of escalation of doses in case of refractory shock, a remaining unanswered question. For vasopressin, we reviewed the rationale for adding vasopressin to norepinephrine. Then, we discussed the optimal time for vasopressin administration. Subsequently, we addressed the issue of the optimal vasopressin dose, and finally we discussed the best strategy to wean these two vasopressors when combined.

Corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG): spatiotemporal distribution of cortisol in sepsis

Corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG) is a 50-60 kDa circulating glycoprotein with high affinity for cortisol. CBG is adapted for sepsis; its cortisol binding is reduced reversibly by pyrexia and acidaemia, and reduced irreversibly by neutrophil elastase (NE) cleavage, converting high cortisol-binding affinity CBG to a low affinity form. These characteristics allow for the targeted delivery of immunomodulatory cortisol to tissues at the time and body site where cortisol is required in sepsis and septic shock. In addition, high titer inflammatory cytokines in sepsis suppress CBG hepatic synthesis, increasing the serum free cortisol fraction. Recent clinical studies have highlighted the importance of CBG in septic shock, with CBG deficiency independently associated with mortality.

Expert Consensus on the Prevention and Treatment of Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome

Abstract

Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) is an acute zoonosis with a global distribution. China is one of the countries with a high incidence of HFRS, which has long endangered the lives and health of the Chinese people. The Infectious Disease Branch of the Chinese Preventive Medicine Association and the Infectious Diseases Branch of the Chinese Medical Association organized national multidisciplinary experts, based on domestic and international research results combined with experts’ practical experiences, to reach this consensus after thorough discussion. This consensus contains 17 recommendations aimed at prevention and identification of important clinical issues to further standardize the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of HFRS.

Cardiac and vascular effects of low-dose steroids during the early phase of septic shock: An echocardiographic study

Background

Low-dose steroids are known to increase arterial pressure during septic shock through restoration of vasopressor response to norepinephrine. However, their effects on cardiac performance and ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) have never been scrutinized during human septic shock. The aim of this study was to perform a comprehensive description of the cardiovascular effects of low-dose steroids using modern echocardiographic tools (including speckle tracking imaging).

Methods

This prospective study was conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital in France. Consecutive adult patients admitted for septic shock and requiring low-dose steroid therapy were prospectively enrolled within 24 h of septic shock onset. We recorded hemodynamic and echocardiographic data to explore left ventricle (LV) contractility, loading conditions and VAC just before the initiation of low-dose steroids (50 mg intravenous hydrocortisone plus 50 μg enteral fludrocortisone) and 2–4 h after.

Results

Fifty patients [65 (55–73) years; 33 men] were enrolled. Arterial pressure, heart rate, almost all LV afterload parameters, and most cardiac contractility parameters significantly improved after steroids. VAC improved with steroid therapy and less patients had uncoupled VAC (> 1.36) after (24%) than before (44%) treatment.

Conclusion

In this comprehensive echocardiographic study, we confirmed an improvement of LV afterload after initiation of low-dose steroids. We also observed an increase in LV contractility with improved cardiovascular efficiency (less uncoupling with decreased VAC).

Efficacy and Safety of Neostigmine Adjunctive Therapy in Patients With Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Neostigmine has been found to improve survival in animal models of sepsis. However, its feasibility, efficacy, and safety in patients with sepsis or septic shock have not been investigated.

Aim: This parallel randomized controlled double-blinded design aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of neostigmine as an adjunctive therapy in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Patients and Methods: A total of 167 adult patients with sepsis or septic shock were assessed for eligibility; 50 patients were randomized to receive a continuous infusion of neostigmine (0.2 mg/h for 120 h; neostigmine arm) or 0.9% saline (control arm) in addition to standard therapy. The primary outcome was the change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores 120 h after therapy initiation. Secondary outcomes included mortality rates and changes in procalcitonin level.

Results: The median (interquartile range) change in SOFA scores improved significantly in the neostigmine arm [−2 (−5, 1)] as compared with the control arm [1.5 (0, 2.8); p = 0.007]. Progression from sepsis to septic shock was more frequent in the control arm (p = 0.01). The incidence of shock reversal in patients with septic shock was significantly lower in the control arm than in the neostigmine arm (p = 0.04). Differences in 28-days mortality rates did not reach statistical significance between the control and neostigmine arms (p = 0.36). Percentage change in procalcitonin levels was similar in both arms (p = 0.74).

Conclusion: Neostigmine adjunctive therapy may be safe and effective when administered in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04130230.

Corticosterone and Adrenocorticotrophic Hormone Secretion Is Recovered after Immune Challenge or Acute Restraint Stress in Sepsis Survivor Animals

BACKGROUND

Clinical and experimental studies report a dysregulation of hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis during sepsis that causes impairment in hormone secretion in the late phase contributing for the pathophysiology of the disease. However, it is unclear whether this alteration persists even after the disease remission.

METHODS

We evaluated the effect of an immune challenge or restraint stress on the hormone secretion of HPA axis in sepsis survivor rats. Sepsis was induced by cecal ligation-puncture (CLP) surgery. Naive or animals that survive 5 or 10 days after CLP were submitted to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) injection or restraint stress. After 60 min, blood was collected for plasma nitrate, cytokines, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and corticosterone (CORT) and brain for synaptophysin and hypothalamic cytokines.

RESULTS

Five days survivor animals showed increased plasma nitrate (p < 0.001) and interleukin (IL)-1β levels (p < 0.05) that were abolished in the 10 days survivors. In the hypothalamus of both survivors, the reverse was seen with IL-6 increased (p < 0.01), while IL-1β did not show any alteration. Synaptophysin expression was reduced in both survivors and did not change after any stimuli. Only the LPS administration increased plasma and/or inflammatory mediators levels in both groups (survivors and naive) being apparently lower in the survivors. There was no difference in the increased secretion pattern of ACTH and CORT observed in the naive and sepsis survivor animals submitted to immune challenge or restraint stress.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the HPA axis is already recovered soon after 5 days of sepsis induction responding with normal secretion of ACTH and CORT when required.

Effect of adjunctive vitamin C, glucocorticoids, and vitamin B1 on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and a component network meta-analysis

We aimed to compare the effects of vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo or usual care on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched. The final search was carried out on September 3rd, 2021. Multiple reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing very-high-dose vitamin C (≥ 12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (< 12, ≥ 6 g/day), vitamin C (< 6 g/day), glucocorticoid (< 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone), vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo/usual care. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis and, where applicable, a random-effects component network meta-analysis. We used the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework to assess the degree of treatment effect certainty. The primary outcome was longer-term mortality (90-days to 1-year). Secondary outcomes were severity of organ dysfunction over 72 h, time to cessation of vasopressor therapy, and length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU). Forty-three RCTs (10,257 patients) were eligible. There were no significant differences in longer-term mortality between treatments and placebo/usual care or between treatments (10 RCTs, 7,096 patients, moderate to very-low-certainty). We did not find any evidence that vitamin C or B1 affect organ dysfunction or ICU length of stay. Adding glucocorticoid to other treatments shortened duration of vasopressor therapy (incremental mean difference, - 29.8 h [95% CI - 44.1 to - 15.5]) and ICU stay (incremental mean difference, - 1.3 days [95% CI - 2.2 to - 0.3]). Metabolic resuscitation with vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, or combinations of these drugs was not significantly associated with a decrease in longer-term mortality.

What Is the Role of Steroids for Septic Shock in 2021?

Corticosteroids have been used for decades in the adjunctive treatment of severe infections in intensive care. The most frequent scenario in intensive care is in septic shock, where low doses of glucocorticoids appear to restore vascular responsiveness to norepinephrine. There is a strong body of evidence suggesting that hydrocortisone reduces time on vasopressor, and may modulate the immune response. In this review, we explore the current evidence supporting the use of corticosteroids in septic shock, its benefits, and potential harms. In addition to landmark clinical trials, we will also describe new frontiers for the use of corticosteroids in septic shock which should be explored in future studies.

Corticosteroids for Treating Sepsis in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed. This review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of corticosteroids on patients with sepsis were included. The quality of outcomes in the included articles was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The data were pooled by using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). The random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled MD or RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Fifty RCTs that included 12,304 patients with sepsis were identified. Corticosteroids were not associated with the mortality in 28-day (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87–1.02; evidence rank, moderate) and long-term mortality (>60 days) (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.05) in patients with sepsis (evidence rank, low). However, corticosteroids may exert a significant effect on the mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.83–0.97), in-hospital (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99; evidence rank, moderate) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (evidence rank, low). Furthermore, corticosteroids probably achieved a tiny reduction in the length of hospital stay and ICU. Corticosteroids were associated with a higher risk of hypernatremia and hyperglycemia; furthermore, they appear to have no significant effect on superinfection and gastroduodenal bleeding.

Conclusions

Corticosteroids had no significant effect on the 28-day and long-term mortality; however, they decreased the ICU and hospital mortality. The findings suggest that the clinical corticosteroids may be an effective therapy for patients with sepsis during the short time.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INPLASY-Protocol-1074-4.pdf

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Steroid, ascorbic acid, and thiamine in adults with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis

To assess the effect from individual component in combinations of steroid, ascorbic acid, and thiamine on outcomes in adults with sepsis and septic shock with component network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that studied the use of glucocorticoid, fludrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Citations screening, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two authors. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary outcomes were longer-term mortality, time to resolution of shock and duration of mechanical ventilation. Thirty-three RCTs including 9898 patients presented on short-term mortality. In additive component NMA, patients on ascorbic acid alone (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.97) or the combination of glucocorticoid and fludrocortisone (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99) had lower short-term mortality, but only the latter was associated with improved long-term mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98). The use of glucocorticoid or the combination of glucocorticoid, ascorbic acid and thiamine hastened resolution of shock. Component NMA showed glucocorticoid (MD - 0.96, 95% CI - 1.61 to - 0.30) but not ascorbic acid or thiamine shortened the time to resolution of shock. Glucocorticoid shortened the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.48, 95% CI - 2.43 to - 0.52). In adults with sepsis and septic shock, the combination of glucocorticoid and fludrocortisone improved short-term and longer-term mortality. Glucocorticoid shortened the time to resolution of shock and duration of mechanical ventilation. There was no strong evidence supporting the routine use of thiamine and ascorbic acid, but they were associated with minimal adverse effects.

Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition

Despite the abundant literature on vasopressor therapy, few studies have focused on vasopressor-sparing strategies in patients with shock. We performed a scoping-review of the published studies evaluating vasopressor-sparing strategies by analyzing the results from randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with shock, with a focus on vasopressor doses and/or duration reduction. We analyzed 143 studies, mainly performed in septic shock. Our analysis demonstrated that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are associated with a decrease in the duration of vasopressor therapy. These strategies are as follows: implementing a weaning strategy, vasopressin use, systemic glucocorticoid administration, beta-blockers, and normothermia. On the contrary, early goal directed therapies, including fluid therapy, oral vasopressors, vitamin C, and renal replacement therapy, are not associated with an increase in vasopressor-free days. Based on these results, we proposed an evidence-based vasopressor management strategy.

New Evidence of Potential Benefits of Dexamethasone and Added on Therapy of Fludrocortisone on Clinical Outcomes of Corticosteroid in Sepsis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes of corticosteroid treatment in patients with sepsis or septic shock. An electronic keyword searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were conducted per PRISMA guidelines. The pooled analyses on the corticosteroid impact on mortality, adverse events, and clinical outcomes were performed. Subgroup analyses on the clinical outcomes in relation to corticosteroid dose, duration, and agents were performed. Pooled analyses of 21 randomized control trials revealed substantially reduced mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99, p = 0.02) and length of stay in intensive care unit (SMD -1.66, 95% CI -1.91--1.40, p < 0.00001) without increased risks of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96-1.12, p = 0.38). No significant improvements of other clinical outcomes were observed. Subgroup analyses demonstrated substantially reduced mortality with short-term (≤7 days) low-dose (<400 mg/day) corticosteroid treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95, p < 0.0001). Moreover, dexamethasone (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.81, p = 0.01) and combined hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone treatment (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.94, p < 0.00001) provided substantial reduction of mortality whereas hydrocortisone alone did not reduce the mortality risk in sepsis patients. Thus, further controlled studies on the clinical outcomes of potential corticosteroid options on sepsis-related clinical outcomes are warranted.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency in dogs with systemic inflammatory response syndrome: A pilot study in 21 dogs

Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) refers to a lack of adequate corticosteroid activity, which occurs in up to 48% of dogs with sepsis. However, data regarding the occurrence of CIRCI in critically-ill dogs are still scarce. This study aimed to assess: (1) the relationship between CIRCI and clinicopathological inflammatory markers, hypotension and mortality; and (2) the impact of low-dose hydrocortisone treatment on survival. Twenty-one dogs diagnosed with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) were enrolled in a prospective case-control study. All dogs were initially evaluated for adrenal function with an ACTH stimulation test and dogs with Δcortisol ≤ 3 μg/dL were diagnosed with CIRCI. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), white blood cell (WBC), band neutrophils (bNs), c-reactive protein (CRP), and 28-day mortality rate were assessed. Fourteen dogs were treated with low-dose hydrocortisone. The relationships between CIRCI and MAP, WBC, bN, CRP, basal cortisol and mortality were investigated, as was the association between mortality and hydrocortisone treatment. Ten of 21 (48%) dogs were diagnosed with CIRCI. Increased bNs were associated with the presence of CIRCI (P = 0.0075). CRP was higher in dogs with CIRCI (P = 0.02). Fourteen of 21 (66%) dogs died during the study (6/14 had CIRCI). Basal hypercortisolemia (>5 μg/dL) was associated with increased risk of mortality (P = 0.025). Based on our diagnostic criteria, CIRCI occurs frequently in dogs with SIRS and was associated with increased bNs and increased CRP. In this study, CIRCI and low-dose hydrocortisone treatment were not significantly associated with mortality, but basal hypercortisolemia was associated with increased mortality.

Intensity of Vasopressor Therapy and In-Hospital Mortality for Infants and Children: An Opportunity for Counseling Families

CONTEXT

Most pediatric deaths occur in an intensive care unit, and treatment specific predictors of mortality could help clinicians and families make informed decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the intensity of vasopressor therapy for pediatric patients, regardless of diagnosis, predicts in-hospital mortality.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective medical chart review of children aged 0-17 who were admitted between 2005 and 2015 at a pediatric tertiary care center in the U.S. and received any vasopressor medication-dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, norepinephrine, or hydrocortisone.

RESULTS

During the 10-year period, 1654 patients received at least one vasopressor medication during a hospitalization. Median age at the time of hospitalization was three months, and the median duration of hospitalization was 23 days; 8% of patients had two to five hospitalizations in which they received vasopressors. There were 176 total patients who died while receiving vasopressors; most (93%) died during their first hospitalization. The most common diagnosis was sepsis (34%), followed by congenital heart disease (17%). Dopamine was the most commonly prescribed first-line vasopressor (70%), and hydrocortisone was the most commonly prescribed second-line vasopressor (49%) for all pediatric patients. The incidence of mortality rose sequentially with escalating vasopressor support, increasing from under 10% with the first vasopressor to 48% at the maximum number of agents. The odds of death almost doubled with the addition of each new vasopressor.

CONCLUSIONS

The intensity of vasopressor therapy for pediatric patients, regardless of diagnosis, is associated with in-hospital mortality; vasopressor escalation should trigger intensive palliative care supports.

Heart failure and sepsis: practical recommendations for the optimal management

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a common clinical challenge that a wide spectrum of physicians encounters in every practice. In many cases, AHF is due to decompensation of chronic heart failure. This decompensation may be triggered by various reasons, with sepsis being a notable one. Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by the dysregulated host response to infection and is associated with a very high mortality, which may reach 25%. Alarmingly, the increase in the mortality rate of patients with combined cardiac dysfunction and sepsis is extremely high (may reach 90%). Thus, these patients need urgent intervention. Management of patients with AHF and sepsis is challenging since cornerstone interventions for AHF may be contraindicated in sepsis and vice versa (e.g., diuretic treatment). Unfortunately, no relevant guidelines are yet available, and treatment remains empirical. This review attempts to shed light on the intricacies of the available interventions and suggests routes of action based on the existing bibliography.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Comparison of shock reversal with high or low dose hydrocortisone in intensive care unit patients with septic shock: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aims to describe differences in shock reversal between hydrocortisone 200 mg and 300 mg per day dosing regimens in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

This is a multi-center retrospective study including patients admitted to intensive care units with septic shock receiving vasopressors and hydrocortisone between 2013 and 2018. We compared patients who received low dose hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 h) versus high dose hydrocortisone (100 mg every 8 h) on the primary outcome of shock reversal.

RESULTS

319 patients (low dose group, n = 134 and high dose group, n = 185) were included. In the multivariate regression model, high-dose steroids were associated with shock reversal [OR (95% CI) = 2.278 (1.063-4.880), p = 0.034]. This was not confirmed in the propensity score matched analysis [OR (95% CI) =2.202 (0.892-5.437), p = 0.087]. High dose steroids were associated with a lower need for additional vasopressor therapy (22% vs. 34%, p = 0.012) and lower shock recurrence (6.7% vs. 16%, p = 0.013), which was confirmed with propensity score matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Low and high dose hydrocortisone have similar rates of shock reversal in septic shock patients. Hydrocortisone 100 mg every 8 h may reduce rates of recurrence of shock and reduce the need for additional vasopressors.

Effectiveness of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis or septic shock using the new third international consensus definitions (Sepsis-3): A retrospective observational study

Background

The effects of intravenous corticosteroids in patients with sepsis remain controversial due to mixed results from randomized trials. Moreover, updated definitions of sepsis, Sepsis-3, were proposed in 2016, and findings related to the effects of corticosteroids in patients defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria are scarce.

Objective

To investigate the effectiveness of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis or septic shock using real-world data to complement the findings of randomized controlled trials, and to determine whether the treatment effects differ by sepsis definitions.

Methods

We conducted this study by utilizing a large, multi-center healthcare database, eICU, in which we identified patients with sepsis admitted to 208 intensive care units across the US from 2014 to 2015 based on two different definitions: prior explicit definitions (i.e., based on diagnosis codes) and the Sepsis-3 definitions (i.e., based on SOFA score). The association between intravenous corticosteroids and in-hospital survival up to 50 days in patients with sepsis was retrospectively analyzed. A parametric hazard model with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weight adjustment was used to control for baseline confounders.

Results

Of the 7,158 patients identified based on the explicit definition, 562 (7.9%) received corticosteroids; of the 5,009 patients identified based on the Sepsis-3 definition, 465 (9.3%) received corticosteroids. In the explicit cohort, adjusted in-hospital survival at day 50 was 0.62 in the treated vs 0.57 in the non-treated, with a survival difference of 0.05 (95%CI: -0.11, 0.17). Similar results were seen in the Sepsis-3 cohort (0.58 vs 0.56 in treated and non-treated, respectively), with a 50-day survival difference of 0.02 (95%CI: -0.19, 0.17).

Conclusions

In patients with sepsis or septic shock, intravenous corticosteroids were not associated with a higher in-hospital survival up to 50 days regardless of the sepsis definitions. Further research may be necessary to definitively confirm effectiveness in real-world practice.

Hydrocortisone treatment is associated with a longer duration of MODS in pediatric patients with severe sepsis and immunoparalysis

Background

Severe critical illness-induced immune suppression, termed immunoparalysis, is associated with longer duration of organ dysfunction in septic children. mRNA studies have suggested differential benefit of hydrocortisone in septic children based on their immune phenotype, but this has not been shown using a functional readout of the immune response. This study represents a secondary analysis of a prospectively conducted immunophenotyping study of pediatric severe sepsis to test the hypothesis that hydrocortisone will be differentially associated with clinical outcomes in children with or without immunoparalysis.

Methods

Children with severe sepsis/septic shock underwent blood sampling within 48 h of sepsis onset. Immune function was measured by quantifying whole blood ex vivo LPS-induced TNFα production capacity, with a TNFα response < 200 pg/ml being diagnostic of immunoparalysis. The primary outcome measure was number of days in 14 with MODS. Univariate and multivariable negative binomial regression models were used to examine associations between hydrocortisone use, immune function, and duration of MODS.

Results

One hundred two children were enrolled (age 75 [6–160] months, 60% male). Thirty-one subjects received hydrocortisone and were more likely to be older (106 [52–184] vs 38 [3–153] months, p = 0.04), to have baseline immunocompromise (32 vs 8%, p = 0.006), to have higher PRISM III (13 [8–18] vs 7 [5–13], p = 0.0003) and vasoactive inotrope scores (20 [10–35] vs 10 [3–15], p = 0.0002) scores, and to have more MODS days (3 [1–9] vs 1 [0–3], p = 0.002). Thirty-three subjects had immunoparalysis (TNFα response 78 [52–141] vs 641 [418–1047] pg/ml, p < 0.0001). Hydrocortisone use was associated with longer duration of MODS in children with immunoparalysis after adjusting for covariables (aRR 3.7 [1.8–7.9], p = 0.0006) whereas no association with MODS duration was seen in children without immunoparalysis (aRR 1.2 [0.6–2.3], p = 0.67).

Conclusion

Hydrocortisone use was independently associated with longer duration of MODS in septic children with immunoparalysis but not in those with more robust immune function. Prospective clinical trials using a priori immunophenotyping are needed to understand optimal hydrocortisone strategies in this population.

Biomaterial-Driven Immunomodulation: Cell Biology-Based Strategies to Mitigate Severe Inflammation and Sepsis

Inflammation is an essential component of a wide variety of disease processes and oftentimes can increase the deleterious effects of a disease. Finding ways to modulate this essential immune process is the basis for many therapeutics under development and is a burgeoning area of research for both basic and translational immunology. In addition to developing therapeutics for cellular and molecular targets, the use of biomaterials to modify innate and adaptive immune responses is an area that has recently sparked significant interest. In particular, immunomodulatory activity can be engineered into biomaterials to elicit heightened or dampened immune responses for use in vaccines, immune tolerance, or anti-inflammatory applications. Importantly, the inherent physicochemical properties of the biomaterials play a significant role in determining the observed effects. Properties including composition, molecular weight, size, surface charge, and others affect interactions with immune cells (i.e., nano-bio interactions) and allow for differential biological responses such as activation or inhibition of inflammatory signaling pathways, surface molecule expression, and antigen presentation to be encoded. Numerous opportunities to open new avenues of research to understand the ways in which immune cells interact with and integrate information from their environment may provide critical solutions needed to treat a variety of disorders and diseases where immune dysregulation is a key inciting event. However, to elicit predictable immune responses there is a great need for a thorough understanding of how the biomaterial properties can be tuned to harness a designed immunological outcome. This review aims to systematically describe the biological effects of nanoparticle properties-separate from additional small molecule or biologic delivery-on modulating innate immune cell responses in the context of severe inflammation and sepsis. We propose that nanoparticles represent a potential polypharmacological strategy to simultaneously modify multiple aspects of dysregulated immune responses where single target therapies have fallen short for these applications. This review intends to serve as a resource for immunology labs and other associated fields that would like to apply the growing field of rationally designed biomaterials into their work.

Automated Blood Pressure Control

Arterial pressure management is a crucial task in the operating room and intensive care unit. In high-risk surgical and in critically ill patients, sustained hypotension is managed with continuous infusion of vasopressor agents, which most commonly have direct α agonist activity like phenylephrine or norepinephrine. The current standard of care to guide vasopressor infusion is manual titration to an arterial pressure target range. This approach may be improved by using automated systems that titrate vasopressor infusions to maintain a target pressure. In this article, we review the evidence behind blood pressure management in the operating room and intensive care unit and discuss current and potential future applications of automated blood pressure control.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Corticosteroids Therapy in Adult Critical Ill Patients With Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock.

METHODS

The PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to March 24, 2018. To identify randomized controlled trials that evaluating the role of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The second outcomes included 90-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in ICU, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock, and superinfection.

RESULTS

A total of 18 randomized controlled trials involving 8,128 adult critical ill patients with septic shock fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of this meta-analysis showed that corticosteroids therapy did not significantly reduce the 28-day mortality [RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; Z = 1.07 (P = 0.285)]. However, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU [WMD = -1.55; 95% CI, -2.19 to -0.91; Z = 4.74 (P = 0.000)]. 90-day mortality, ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock, and superinfection had no significant difference between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo therapy (P > 0.05). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to the dose of corticosteroids (high dose or low does).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU among adult critical ill patients with septic shock. The mortality was similar between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo.

Effect of hydrocortisone versus methylprednisolone on clinical outcomes in oncology patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are used as adjunctive treatment of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency in patients with septic shock. This study aims to compare the impact of hydrocortisone versus methylprednisolone on duration of septic shock in critically ill oncology patients.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving hydrocortisone ≥200 mg/day or methylprednisolone ≥40 mg/day with septic shock. The primary outcome was time to shock reversal defined as time to systolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg without vasopressors for ≥24 h.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were included, 49 patients received hydrocortisone and 39 patients received methylprednisolone. Solid tumor malignancy was more common in the hydrocortisone group, while hematological malignancy was more common in the methylprednisolone group (p = 0.009). Time to shock reversal was similar between hydrocortisone and methylprednisolone groups (72.4 versus 70.4 h; p = 0.825). Intensive care unit mortality occurred in 51.02% versus 53.85% of patients in hydrocortisone versus methylprednisolone, respectively (p = 0.792). Patients who received methylprednisolone had higher rates of mechanical ventilation (89.74% versus 55.1%, p < 0.001) and longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (4.2 versus 11.4 days and 14.3 versus 25.7 days; p < 0.001) compared to hydrocortisone. No differences were seen in incidence of steroid-related adverse effects between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In oncology patients with septic shock, the use of hydrocortisone versus methylprednisolone does not appear to affect time to shock reversal.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Optimal Regimen of Corticosteroids in Sepsis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Conventional systematic reviews have indicated that corticosteroids might result in a slight reduction in mortality in sepsis. However, the efficacy, safety, and optimal regimen of different corticosteroids partly remain unknown. In this study, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of currently used corticosteroids in sepsis.

Diastolic shock index and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock

Background

Loss of vascular tone is a key pathophysiological feature of septic shock. Combination of gradual diastolic hypotension and tachycardia could reflect more serious vasodilatory conditions. We sought to evaluate the relationships between heart rate (HR) to diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) ratios and clinical outcomes during early phases of septic shock.

Methods

Diastolic shock index (DSI) was defined as the ratio between HR and DAP. DSI calculated just before starting vasopressors (Pre-VPs/DSI) in a preliminary cohort of 337 patients with septic shock (January 2015 to February 2017) and at vasopressor start (VPs/DSI) in 424 patients with septic shock included in a recent randomized controlled trial (ANDROMEDA-SHOCK; March 2017 to April 2018) was partitioned into five quantiles to estimate the relative risks (RR) of death with respect to the mean risk of each population (assumed to be 1). Matched HR and DAP subsamples were created to evaluate the effect of the individual components of the DSI on RRs. In addition, time-course of DSI and interaction between DSI and vasopressor dose (DSI*NE.dose) were compared between survivors and non-survivors from both populations, while ROC curves were used to identify variables predicting mortality. Finally, as exploratory observation, effect of early start of vasopressors was evaluated at each Pre-VPs/DSI quintile from the preliminary cohort.

Results

Risk of death progressively increased at gradual increments of Pre-VPs/DSI or VPs/DSI (One-way ANOVA, p < 0.001). Progressive DAP decrease or HR increase was associated with higher mortality risks only when DSI concomitantly increased. Areas under the ROC curve for Pre-VPs/DSI, SOFA and initial lactate were similar, while mean arterial pressure and systolic shock index showed poor performances to predict mortality. Time-course of DSI and DSI*NE.dose was significantly higher in non-survivors from both populations (repeated-measures ANOVA, p < 0.001). Very early start of vasopressors exhibited an apparent benefit at higher Pre-VPs/DSI quintile.

Conclusions

DSI at pre-vasopressor and vasopressor start points might represent a very early identifier of patients at high risk of death. Isolated DAP or HR values do not clearly identify such risk. Usefulness of DSI to trigger or to direct therapeutic interventions in early resuscitation of septic shock need to be addressed in future studies.

Corticosteroids for Septic Shock: Another Chapter in the Saga

The use of corticosteroids in the management of septic shock has been a highly debated topic for quite some time. Corticosteroids have the ability to combat hyperinflammatory and exaggerated vasodilatory responses, as well as to sensitize adrenergic receptors to decrease the duration of shock. While helpful clinically, this has not translated to consistent mortality benefits. Conflicting results from 2 landmark trials published in 2002 and 2008 have led to varying clinical practices, and a clearly defined role of corticosteroids in septic shock is lacking. A decade later, an influx of new data derived from 2 more large trials continues to echo diverging viewpoints regarding patient mortality. In combination with fluctuating study designs (eg, adjunctive therapies and shock management) and patient populations (eg, illness severity), generalized conclusions are still difficult to draw. Despite these challenges, this review critically analyzes recently published data in the context of historical debate to provide an updated comment on the role of corticosteroids in septic shock. In summary, hydrocortisone therapy is likely to demonstrate maximal benefit when initiated on patients with septic shock and organ failure refractory to vasopressor therapy and should be used judiciously in other settings as it comes without a demonstrated benefit in mortality and increased potential for adverse effects.

Low-dose corticosteroids in septic shock: Has the pendulum shifted?

PURPOSE

The utility of low-dose corticosteroids in septic shock is reviewed.

SUMMARY

Low-dose corticosteroids are suggested as treatment for septic shock patients who remain hemodynamically unstable despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. However, the risks and benefits of corticosteroids are unclear in this patient population. Previous multicenter trials have yielded conflicting results on the survival benefits of corticosteroids. The recently published Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trials provide valuable but opposing insight into this ongoing debate. Discordant findings related to mortality in these trials are likely related to differences in study design, corticosteroid regimen, and baseline characteristics among enrolled patients. The utility of adding fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone compared with using hydrocortisone alone is unclear. There does not appear to be an advantage to administering corticosteroids as a continuous infusion to reduce the rate of hyperglycemia or providing a taper to prevent rebound hypotension.

CONCLUSION

The mortality benefit of corticosteroids appears to be greatest in septic shock patients with high vasopressor requirements, evidence of multiorgan failure, and primary lung infections. Corticosteroids consistently lead to a faster reversal of shock and may shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation. Corticosteroids do not seem to increase the risk of superinfection at low doses but frequently lead to a higher frequency of hyperglycemia. We recommend the administration of corticosteroids to septic shock patients with escalating doses of vasopressors and evidence of multiorgan dysfunction.

Effects and safety of separate low-dose hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock: A meta-analysis

Objective:

The aim of this study was to explore the effects and safety of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock.

Methods:

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception until 1 August 2018. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently.

Results:

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that low-dose hydrocortisone use had no survival benefit in patients with septic shock (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 0.88–1.05; P = 0.37). But low-dose hydrocortisone use was useful for shock reverse (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 1.00–1.19; P = 0.04) and in shortening the time of vasopressor support (weighted mean difference = −1.79, 95% confidence interval = −2.05 to −1.52; P < 0.00001). In addition, use of low-dose hydrocortisone was associated with a higher risk of hyperglycemia (relative risk = 1.21; 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.40; P = 0.01) and hypernatremia (relative risk = 6.34; 95% confidence interval = 1.19–33.81; P = 0.03). There was no significant improvement of intensive care unit mortality (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 0.93–1.33; P = 0.23) or hospital mortality (relative risk = 1.08; 95% confidence interval = 0.94–1.24; P = 0.29), length of intensive care unit (weighted mean difference = −1.84; 95% confidence interval = −5.80 to 2.11; P = 0.36) or length of hospital (weighted mean difference = 0.11; 95% confidence interval = −2.06 to 2.29; P = 0.98), and time of mechanical support (weighted mean difference = −0.69; 95% confidence interval = −1.76 to −0.38; P = 0.20) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone. There was no significant difference in secondary infection (relative risk = 1.04; 95% confidence interval = 0.91–1.18; P = 0.57), recurrence of shock (relative risk = 1.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.64–3.39; P = 0.36), and gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk = 1.41; 95% confidence interval = 0.89–2.22; P = 0.14) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone.

Conclusion:

Although there was no effect of low-dose hydrocortisone on survival of patients with septic shock, it is associated with a higher rate of shock reversal and shortening duration of vasopressor support; thus, low-dose hydrocortisone may be an alternative drug in septic shock patients who are refractory to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors.

Corticosteroids for treating sepsis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failure. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Thus, providing corticosteroids may benefit patients. The original review was published in 2004 and was updated in 2010 and 2015 prior to this update.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of corticosteroids on death in children and adults with sepsis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and the WHO Clinical Trials Search Portal, on 25 July 2019. In addition, we conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors, to identify additional studies as needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care (antimicrobials, fluid replacement, and vasopressor therapy as needed) in children and adults with sepsis. We also included RCTs of continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus of corticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors screened and selected studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data, which was checked by the others, and by the lead author of the primary study when possible. We obtained unpublished data from the authors of some trials. We assessed the methodological quality of trials and applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Review authors did not contribute to assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, nor to data extraction, for trials they had participated in.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 trials (12,192 participants), of which six included only children, two included children and adults, and the remaining trials included only adults. Nine studies are ongoing and will be considered in future versions of this review. We judged 19 trials as being at low risk of bias. Corticosteroids versus placebo or usual care Compared to placebo or usual care, corticosteroids probably slightly reduce 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; 11,233 participants; 50 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in long-term mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03; 6236 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably slightly reduce hospital mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 8183 participants; 26 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids reduced length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for all participants (mean difference (MD) -1.07 days, 95% CI -1.95 to -0.19; 7612 participants; 21 studies; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in a large reduction in length of hospital stay for all participants (MD -1.63 days, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.33; 8795 participants; 22 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44; 6145 participants; 6 studies; high-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably do not increase the risk of superinfection (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19; 5356 participants; 25 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids increase the risk of hypernatraemia (high-certainty evidence) and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia (moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that there is probably little or no difference in gastroduodenal bleeding, stroke, or cardiac events, and low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in neuropsychiatric events. Continuous infusion of corticosteroids versus intermittent bolus We are uncertain about the effects of continuous infusion of corticosteroids compared with intermittent bolus administration. Three studies reported data for this comparison, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids probably reduce 28-day and hospital mortality among patients with sepsis. Corticosteroids result in large reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the risk of major complications; however, corticosteroids increase the risk of muscle weakness and hypernatraemia, and probably increase the risk of hyperglycaemia. The effects of continuous versus intermittent bolus administration of corticosteroids are uncertain.

Corticosteroids in Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1411-1420. [PMID: 29979221 DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000003262]

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with sepsis.

DATA SOURCES

We updated a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and LILACS, and unpublished sources for randomized controlled trials that compared any corticosteroid to placebo or no corticosteroid in critically ill children and adults with sepsis.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers conducted duplicate screening of citations, data abstraction, and, using a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool, individual study risk of bias assessment.

DATA EXTRACTION

A parallel guideline committee provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. We assessed overall certainty in evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology and performed all analyses using random-effect models. For subgroup analyses, we performed metaregression and considered p value less than 0.05 as significant.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-two randomized controlled trials including 10,194 patients proved eligible. Based on low certainty, corticosteroids may achieve a small reduction or no reduction in the relative risk of dying in the short-term (28-31 d) (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03; 1.8% absolute risk reduction; 95% CI, 4.1% reduction to 0.8% increase), and possibly achieve a small effect on long-term mortality (60 d to 1 yr) based on moderate certainty (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00; 2.2% absolute risk reduction; 95% CI, 4.1% reduction to no effect). Corticosteroids probably result in small reductions in length of stay in ICU (mean difference, -0.73 d; 95% CI, -1.78 to 0.31) and hospital (mean difference, -0.73 d; 95% CI, -2.06 to 0.60) (moderate certainty). Corticosteroids result in higher rates of shock reversal at day 7 (relative risk, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42) and lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 (mean difference, -1.39; 95% CI, -1.88 to -0.89) (high certainty). Corticosteroids likely increase the risk of hypernatremia (relative risk, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03) and hyperglycemia (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24) (moderate certainty), may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52) (low certainty), and appear to have no other adverse effects (low or very low certainty). Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a credible subgroup effect on any of the outcomes of interest (p > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with sepsis, corticosteroids possibly result in a small reduction in mortality while also possibly increasing the risk of neuromuscular weakness.

Impact and Beneficial Critical Points of Clinical Outcome in Corticosteroid Management of Adult Patients With Sepsis: Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment

Background: With new randomised pieces of evidence and the latest clinical practice guideline from the BMJ emerging in 2018, an updated analysis of best available evidence on the controversial effects of corticosteroids in sepsis is warranted. Objectives: To comprehensively evaluate whether corticosteroids are beneficial in reducing mortality and what cumulative dosage, daily dosage, and duration of corticosteroid treatment would enable adult patients with sepsis to reach the critical point of benefits. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMbase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS database were searched until March 22, 2019. Results: Thirty RCTs with 8,836 participants were identified. Long course low-dose corticosteroid therapy could improve 28-day mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.84-0.97; high quality), intensive care unit mortality (RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.79-0.95; moderate quality), and in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.79-0.997; high quality). However, we found no benefits for 90-day, 180-day, and 1-year mortality. Subgroup results of long course corticosteroid treatment in a population with septic shock and vasopressor-dependent septic shock, corticosteroid regimen with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, corticosteroid dosing strategies including bolus dosing and infusion dosing, the strategies of abrupt discontinuation, timing of randomisation ≤24 h, impact factor of ≥10, and sample size ≥500 were associated with a marginally reduction in 28-day mortality. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found that the long course low-dose and not short course high-dose corticosteroid treatment could marginally improve short-term 28-day mortality with high quality, especially septic shock and vasopressor-dependent septic shock, and it is recommended that long course (about 7 days) low-dose (about 200-300mg per day) hydrocortisone (or equivalent) with cumulative dose (at least about 1,000mg) may be a viable management option for overall patients with sepsis, and it can be also adapted to patient with septic shock alone. Early hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone administration, via continuous infusion or bolus dosing, is also particularly important for the prognosis. Abrupt discontinuation of corticosteroids, as opposed to the conventional tapered discontinuation, may be considered as a desirable option in 28-day mortality. The safety profile of long course low-dose corticosteroid treatment, including adverse hyperglycaemia and hypernatraemia events, remains a concern, although these events could be easily treated. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD 42018092849.

Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Septic Shock

Two recent randomized controlled trials have provided new data to inform opinion on the use of corticosteroids in septic shock. This article discusses the background and rationale for corticosteroid use, compares the findings and methodologies of the new trials, and provides suggestions for practice.

Is Inappropriate Response to Cosyntropin Stimulation Test an Indication of Corticosteroid Resistance in Septic Shock?

We recently published a comparison of two hydrocortisone dosage regimens in patients with septic shock. We compare the results conferred by the two regimens as a function of the response to cosyntropin stimulation test (CST). Patients with septic shock were treated by one of two hydrocortisone regimens: either a 50-mg intravenous bolus every 6 h during 7 days (200 mg group; n = 49), or a 100-mg initial bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 300 mg daily for 5 days (300 mg group; n = 50). Nonresponders was defined as a CST response of 9 μg/dL or less. Nonresponders had more severe septic shock, greater fluid resuscitation needs, and greater vasopressor dependence than responders. When analyzed only as a function of CST results, there was no difference in survival between responders and nonresponders. However, analyses crossing CST results and the treatment regimens showed that patients who were responders and in the 300 mg group had significantly less intensive care unit mortality compared with responders in the 200 mg group (respective mortality of 24% vs. 55% [relative risk 0.43, 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.94, P = 0.018]). Multivariate analysis identified baseline blood cortisol as an independent prognostic factor for 28-day mortality in all groups (hazard ratio 1.002, 95% confidence interval, 1.001 to 1.002, P ≤ 0.0001). The results suggest that in patients who respond to CST, hydrocortisone can provide a dose-dependent benefit. In contrast, nonresponse may indicate corticosteroid resistance. This heterogeneity of response to hydrocortisone may explain the difficulties encountered when trying to demonstrate its benefit in septic shock.

Hydrocortisone Reduces 28-day Mortality in Septic Patients: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

The goal of this study was to determine the utility of hydrocortisone in septic shock and its effect on mortality. We performed a systematic search from inception until March 01, 2018, according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines comparing hydrocortisone to placebo in septic shock patients and selected studies according to our pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Four reviewers extracted data into the predefined tables in the Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., New Mexico, US) sheet. We used RevMan software to perform a meta-analysis and draw Forest plots. We used a random effects model to estimate risk ratios. A two-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of five randomized control trials (RCTs) with 5,838 patients were included in our analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) and in-hospital mortality, mortality at 90 days and one year, reversal of shock, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, incidence of superinfections, and incidence of limb and/or cerebral ischemia. The 28-day mortality was significantly reduced with hydrocortisone, 808 vs. 880 with placebo, Risk Ratio (RR)=0.92, confidence interval (CI) =0.85-0.99, p=0.04, I²=0%. There was no difference in ICU mortality (RR=0.93, CI=0.81-1.08), in-hospital mortality (RR=0.95, CI=0.84-1.08), 90-day mortality (RR=0.93, CI=0.84-1.02, p=0.10), and one-year mortality (RR=0.97, CI=0.84-1.12). Superinfections were significantly common with hydrocortisone, RR=1.16, CI=1.05-1.28, p=0.003. In conclusion, the use of hydrocortisone showed a significant reduction in mortality at 28 days and a trend toward reduced ICU mortality. This mortality reduction was observed at the cost of significantly higher superinfections.

Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

What Is Known and Objective. To reevaluate the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Methods. This study was performed based on PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central RCTs, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1980 to April 2018. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis to indicate the possibility of type I or II errors and calculate the information size. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was applying to assess the certainty of evidence at the primary outcome level. Results. Twenty-one RCTs were identified and analyzed. Patients treated with corticosteroid had a 7% reduction in relative risk in 28-day all-cause mortality compared to controls (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99). However, there were no significant differences for the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) or in-hospital mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11). Corticosteroids shortened the length of ICU stay by 1.04 days (RR -1.04, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.36) and the length of hospital stay by 2.49 days (RR -2.49, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.02). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16) but not gastroduodenal bleeding (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37) or superinfection (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15). However, some date on secondary outcomes were unavailable because they were not measured or not reported in the included studies which may cause a lack of power or selective outcome reporting. The information size was calculated at 10044 patients. Trial sequential analysis showed that the meta-analysis was conclusive and the risk of type 2 error was minimal. What Is New and Conclusion. Corticosteroids are likely to be effective in reducing 28-day mortality and attenuating septic shock without increasing the rate of life-threatening complications. TSA showed that the risk of type II error in this meta-analysis was minimal and the result was conclusive.

Association of Corticosteroid Treatment With Outcomes in Adult Patients With Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Although corticosteroids are widely used for adults with sepsis, both the overall benefit and potential risks remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until March 20, 2018, and updated on August 10, 2018. The terms corticosteroids, sepsis, septic shock, hydrocortisone, controlled trials, and randomized controlled trial were searched alone or in combination. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included that compared administration of corticosteroids with placebo or standard supportive care in adults with sepsis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Two independent reviewers completed citation screening, data abstraction, and risk assessment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Twenty-eight-day mortality.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 37 RCTs (N = 9564 patients). Eleven trials were rated as low risk of bias. Corticosteroid use was associated with reduced 28-day mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; I2 = 27%) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94; I2 = 0%) and in-hospital mortality (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99; I2 = 38%). Corticosteroids were significantly associated with increased shock reversal at day 7 (MD, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.80-3.11) and vasopressor-free days (MD, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.80-3.11) and with ICU length of stay (MD, -1.16; 95% CI, -2.12 to -0.20), the sequential organ failure assessment score at day 7 (MD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.89), and time to resolution of shock (MD, -1.35; 95% CI, -1.78 to -0.91). However, corticosteroid use was associated with increased risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.24-1.99).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that administration of corticosteroids is associated with reduced 28-day mortality compared with placebo use or standard supportive care. More research is needed to associate personalized medicine with the corticosteroid treatment to select suitable patients who are more likely to show a benefit.

Hydrocortisone in Vasodilatory Shock

Vasodilatory shock is the most common type of circulatory shock in critically ill patients; sepsis the predominant cause. Steroid use in septic shock gained favor in the 1970s; however, studies of high-dose steroids demonstrated excess morbidity and mortality. Lower dosage steroid use was driven by trials demonstrating improved hemodynamic status and the possibility of relative adrenal insufficiency; however, divergent results led to uncertainty about hydrocortisone treatment. Two recent trials are likely to reinforce the role of steroids in septic shock and change the recommendation in future clinical practice guidelines. Future work could include elucidating mechanisms of shock reversal, interaction of hydrocortisone with other agents, identifying steroid responsiveness using biochemical or gene signatures, and clarifying the role of fludrocortisone.