Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A Review of Terlipressin in Hepatorenal Syndrome: Targeting Endothelial Dysfunction and Subsequent Cardiovascular Adverse Events

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a serious complication of decompensated liver cirrhosis that results in acute kidney injury (AKI). The mortality rate is high. Endothelial dysfunction secondary to liver cirrhosis is a key driver of the development of portal hypertension, which is eventually complicated by ascites and HRS. Ultimately, splanchnic vasodilation and excess gut lymph production result in ascites, low effective arterial blood volume, and maladaptive compensatory mechanisms that contribute to renal hypoperfusion and injury. While the only curative treatment is liver transplantation, vasoconstrictors and albumin have been the mainstay of treatment for candidates who are ineligible or waiting for transplantation. On September 14, 2022, terlipressin, a V1 vasopressin receptor agonist, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HRS-AKI. In clinical trials, terlipressin plus albumin have been superior to albumin alone and equivocal to noradrenaline plus albumin in renal function improvement. Terlipressin, however, does not improve survival, is costly, and is associated with severe adverse events-including severe cardiac and vascular complications. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of terlipressin pharmacology, adverse events-with a focus on cardiovascular complications-and comparative randomized controlled trials that resulted in the Food and Drug Administration's approval of terlipressin. New literature since its approval and ongoing clinical trials will also be highlighted.

Review article: Emerging and current management of acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a clinically and pathophysiologically distinct condition from acutely decompensated cirrhosis and is characterised by systemic inflammation, extrahepatic organ failure, and high short-term mortality.

AIMS

To provide a narrative review of the diagnostic criteria, prognosis, epidemiology, and general management principles of ACLF. Four specific interventions that are explored in detail are intravenous albumin, extracorporeal liver assist devices, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and liver transplantation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published up to July 2023.

RESULTS

Approximately 35% of hospital inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis have ACLF. There is significant heterogeneity in the criteria used to diagnose ACLF; different definitions identify different phenotypes with varying mortality. Criteria established by the European Association for the Study of the Liver were developed in prospective patient cohorts and are, to-date, the most well validated internationally. Systemic haemodynamic instability, renal dysfunction, coagulopathy, neurological dysfunction, and respiratory failure are key considerations when managing ACLF in the intensive care unit. Apart from liver transplantation, there are no accepted evidence-based treatments for ACLF, but several different approaches are under investigation.

CONCLUSION

The recognition of ACLF as a distinct entity from acutely decompensated cirrhosis has allowed for better patient stratification in clinical settings, facilitating earlier engagement with the intensive care unit and liver transplantation teams. Research priorities over the next decade should focus on exploring novel treatment strategies with a particular focus on which, when, and how patients with ACLF should be treated.

Exploring Horizons in the Treatment of Vasoplegia in Shock Syndromes

Vasoplegic endothelial dysfunction stands out as one of the most prominent shock syndromes in the intensive care unit, and despite continual therapeutic advances, it is still associated with poor prognosis in critical cases. This scenario is compatible with a significant inflammatory disturbance, with a propensity for increased vascular permeability and deterioration of endothelial response to modulators: a microcirculation disaster. The hemodynamic support's backbone is based primarily on fluid replacement and the use of vasopressor and inotropic agents in nonresponsive patients, aiming to establish a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mmHg and therefore promote adequate tissue reperfusion. The present study's primary target is to discuss the combination of 3 concepts as a useful strategy for improving results against the high rates of mortality in critically ill patients. These 3 concepts are (1) the use of "broad-spectrum vasopressors," (2) vasopressorsparing strategy, and (3) microcirculation protection.

Efficacy and Safety of Vasopressin Alone or in Combination With Catecholamines in the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review

Septic shock is one of the life-threatening emergencies in hospital settings. Patients with septic shock have been treated with various vasopressors alone as a first-line or in combination with other agents to improve blood pressure and increase the chance of survival. Our study focuses particularly on the efficacy and safety of vasopressin (VP) alone and in combination with other vasopressors. Our study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 2020 to do our systematic review. We searched thoroughly for articles in PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Medline, and ScienceDirect. To locate all pertinent papers, we employed the medical subject headings (MeSH) systematic search technique. Twelve papers that were related to the study's issue and passed the quality check were extracted after we applied inclusion/exclusion criteria and reviewed the titles and abstracts. We used a variety of assessment methods for diverse study designs as a quality check. We compared all included studies after reviewing them thoroughly. VP and its synthetic variants (Terlipressin and Selepressin) have always been given as adjuvants to catecholamine, especially with Noradrenaline, in low to moderate doses with continuous infusion in patients with septic shock. Furthermore, VP is a better adjuvant agent than Dopamine and Dobutamine. Though VP has been proven superior to other vasopressors as an adjuvant agent in patients with septic shock, it can cause digital ischemia in high doses.

[Vasoactive drugs in the treatment of septic shock]

Septic shock is a high mortality complication frequently associated with sepsis. Early initiation of vasopressor treatment, even before completion of initial fluid resuscitation, is a determining factor in prognosis. In this sense, norepinephrine continues to be the drug of first choice, although there is increasing evidence of benefit combining it with other non-adrenergic drugs, such as vasopressin, instead of escalating norepinephrine doses. The pathophysiology of septic shock is multifactorial, and sometimes is associated with a situation of myocardial dysfunction that contributes to hemodynamic instability. It is essential to identify this situation since it worsens the prognosis and may benefit from combined treatment with inotropic drugs. There are novel vasoactive agents under study, more selective than the classic ones that in a next future could help to design more individualized and precise treatments. In the present work, the current knowledge about vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of septic shock is summarized according to the most recent scientific evidence.

Non-catecholamine vasopressors in the treatment of adult patients with septic shock-evidence from meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Norepinephrine (NE) has currently been the first-choice vasopressor in treating septic shock despite generally insufficient for patients with refractory septic shock. The aim of this update meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of a combination of non-catecholamine vasopressors (vasopressin/pituitrin/terlipressin/selepressin/angiotensin II) and NE versus NE in managing adult septic shock patients.

METHODS

We conducted this study of literatures published from the inception to April 30, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials comparing NE with non-catecholamine vasopressors among adult septic shock patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled effects of relative risk (RR) or standard mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies covering 4380 participants were finally enrolled. The combined analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in 90-day/ICU/hospital mortality except for a decreased in 28-day mortality (n = 4217; RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.99; P = 0.02). This favorable result was subsequently verified by the subgroup analyses of low risk of bias studies (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P = 0.02) and catecholamine-resistant refractory shock patients group (RR, 0.84; 95% CI = 0.70-1.00; P = 0.048). The pooled analysis of non-catecholamine vasopressors showed a 14% higher success rate of shock reversal at 6 h, a 29% decreased risk of continuous renal replacement therapy, but a 51% increased risk of hyponatremia and a 2.43 times higher risk of digital ischemia. Besides, the pooled data showed that non-catecholamine vasopressors decreased heart rate (HR) (SMD, - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.66 - - 0.19; P < 0.001), serum creatinine (- 0.15; 95% CI - 0.29 - - 0.01; P = 0.04), and the length of mechanical ventilation (MV) (- 0.19; 95% CI - 0.31 - - 0.07; P < 0.01, but there was no significant difference in other parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Current pooled results suggest that the addition of NE to non-catecholamine vasopressors was associated with a marginally significant reduction in 28-day mortality. Moreover, they were able to shorten the length of MV, improved renal function, decreased HR, and increased the 6-h shock reversal success rate at the expense of increased the risk of hyponatremia and digital ischemia.