Effect of Hydrocortisone on Development of Shock Among Patients With Severe Sepsis: The HYPRESS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy is suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in refractory septic shock only. The efficacy of hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis without shock remains controversial. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone therapy in patients with severe sepsis prevents the development of septic shock. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted from January 13, 2009, to August 27, 2013, with a follow-up of 180 days until February 23, 2014. The trial was performed in 34 intermediate or intensive care units of university and community hospitals in Germany, and it included 380 adult patients with severe sepsis who were not in septic shock. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 either to receive a continuous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone for 5 days followed by dose tapering until day 11 (n = 190) or to receive placebo (n = 190). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was development of septic shock within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were time until septic shock, mortality in the intensive care unit or hospital, survival up to 180 days, and assessment of secondary infections, weaning failure, muscle weakness, and hyperglycemia (blood glucose level >150 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]). Results: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 353 patients (64.9% male; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [14.4] years). Septic shock occurred in 36 of 170 patients (21.2%) in the hydrocortisone group and 39 of 170 patients (22.9%) in the placebo group (difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%; P = .70). No significant differences were observed between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups for time until septic shock; mortality in the intensive care unit or in the hospital; or mortality at 28 days (15 of 171 patients [8.8%] vs 14 of 170 patients [8.2%], respectively; difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.7%; P = .86), 90 days (34 of 171 patients [19.9%] vs 28 of 168 patients [16.7%]; difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 11.4%; P = .44), and 180 days (45 of 168 patients [26.8%] vs 37 of 167 patients [22.2%], respectively; difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -4.6% to 13.7%; P = .32). In the hydrocortisone vs placebo groups, 21.5% vs 16.9% had secondary infections, 8.6% vs 8.5% had weaning failure, 30.7% vs 23.8% had muscle weakness, and 90.9% vs 81.5% had hyperglycemia. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with severe sepsis not in septic shock, use of hydrocortisone compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of septic shock within 14 days. These findings do not support the use of hydrocortisone in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00670254.

Source attribution of community-acquired cases of Legionnaires' disease-results from the German LeTriWa study; Berlin, 2016-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Sources of infection of most cases of community-acquired Legionnaires' disease (CALD) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Identification of sources of infection of CALD. SETTING: Berlin; December 2016-May 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adult cases of CALD reported to district health authorities and consenting to the study; age and hospital matched controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of cases of CALD with attributed source of infection. METHODS: Analysis of secondary patient samples for monoclonal antibody (MAb) type (and sequence type); questionnaire-based interviews, analysis of standard household water samples for Legionella concentration followed by MAb (and sequence) typing of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (Lp1) isolates; among cases taking of additional water samples to identify the infectious source as appropriate; recruitment of control persons for comparison of exposure history and Legionella in standard household water samples. For each case an appraisal matrix was filled in to attribute any of three source types (external (non-residence) source, residential non-drinking water (RnDW) source (not directly from drinking water outlet), residential drinking water (RDW) as source) using three evidence types (microbiological results, cluster evidence, analytical-comparative evidence (using added information from controls)). RESULTS: Inclusion of 111 study cases and 202 controls. Median age of cases was 67 years (range 25-93 years), 74 (67%) were male. Among 65 patients with urine typable for MAb type we found a MAb 3/1-positive strain in all of them. Compared to controls being a case was not associated with a higher Legionella concentration in standard household water samples, however, the presence of a MAb 3/1-positive strain was significantly associated (odds ratio (OR) = 4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 11). Thus, a source was attributed by microbiological evidence if it contained a MAb 3/1-positive strain. A source was attributed by cluster evidence if at least two cases were exposed to the same source. Statistically significant general source types were attributed by calculating the population attributable risk (analytical-comparative evidence). We identified an external source in 16 (14%) cases, and RDW as source in 28 (25%). Wearing inadequately disinfected dentures was the only RnDW source significantly associated with cases (OR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.8) and led to an additional 8% of cases with source attribution, for a total of 48% of cases attributed. CONCLUSION: Using the appraisal matrix we attributed almost half of all cases of CALD to an infectious source, predominantly RDW. Risk for LD seems to be conferred primarily by the type of Legionella rather than the amount. Dentures as a new infectious source needs further, in particular, integrated microbiological, molecular and epidemiological confirmation.