Outcomes in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy who were admitted to intensive care (CARTTAS): an international, multicentre, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy can induce side-effects such as cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), which often require intensive care unit admission. The aim of this study was to describe management of critically ill CAR T-cell recipients in intensive care. METHODS: This international, multicentre, observational cohort study was done in 21 intensive care units in France, Spain, the USA, the UK, Russia, Canada, Germany, and Austria. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had received CAR T-cell therapy in the past 30 days; and had been admitted to intensive care for any reason. Investigators retrospectively included patients admitted between Feb 1, 2018, and Feb 1, 2019, and prospectively included patients admitted between March 1, 2019, and Feb 1, 2020. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, treatment, and outcome data were extracted from medical records. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Factors associated with mortality were identified using a Cox proportional hazard model. FINDINGS: 942 patients received CAR T-cell therapy, of whom 258 (27%) required admission to intensive care and 241 (26%) were included in the analysis. Admission to intensive care was needed within median 4·5 days (IQR 2·0-7·0) of CAR T-cell infusion. 90-day mortality was 22·4% (95% CI 17·1-27·7; 54 deaths). At initial evaluation on admission, isolated cytokine release syndrome was identified in 101 patients (42%), cytokine release syndrome and ICANS in 93 (39%), and isolated ICANS in seven (3%) patients. Grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome within 1 day of admission to intensive care was found in 50 (25%) of 200 patients and grade 3-4 ICANS in 38 (35%) of 108 patients. Bacterial infection developed in 30 (12%) patients. Life-saving treatments were used in 75 (31%) patients within 24 h of admission to intensive care, primarily vasoactive drugs in 65 (27%) patients. Factors independently associated with 90-day mortality by multivariable analysis were frailty (hazard ratio 2·51 [95% CI 1·37-4·57]), bacterial infection (2·12 [1·11-4·08]), and lifesaving therapy within 24 h of admission (1·80 [1·05-3·10]). INTERPRETATION: Critical care management is an integral part of CAR T-cell therapy and should be standardised. Studies to improve infection prevention and treatment in these high-risk patients are warranted. FUNDING: Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique.

Expert Statements on the Standard of Care in Critically Ill Adult Patients With Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.

A typical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) presents similarly to thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) and other causes or conditions with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), such as disseminated intravascular coagulation or sepsis. Similarity in clinical presentation may hinder diagnosis and optimal treatment selection in the urgent setting in the ICU. However, there is currently no consensus on the diagnosis or treatment of aHUS for ICU specialists. This review aims to summarize available data on the diagnosis and treatment strategies of aHUS in the ICU to enhance the understanding of aHUS diagnosis and outcomes in patients managed in the ICU. To this end, a review of the recent literature (January 2009-March 2016) was performed to select the most relevant articles for ICU physicians. Based on the paucity of adult aHUS cases overall and within the ICU, no specific recommendations could be formally graded for the critical care setting. However, we recognize a core set of skills required by intensivists for diagnosing and managing patients with aHUS: recognizing thrombotic microangiopathies, differentiating aHUS from related conditions, recognizing involvement of other organ systems, understanding the pathophysiology of aHUS, knowing the diagnostic workup and relevant outcomes in critically ill patients with aHUS, and knowing the standard of care for patients with aHUS based on available data and guidelines. In conclusion, managing critically ill patients with aHUS requires basic skills that, in the absence of sufficient data from patients treated within the ICU, can be gleaned from an increasingly relevant literature outside the ICU. More data on critically ill patients with aHUS are needed to validate these conclusions within the ICU setting.