From ICU Syndromes to ICU Subphenotypes: Consensus Report and Recommendations for Developing Precision Medicine in the ICU.

Critical care uses syndromic definitions to describe patient groups for clinical practice and research. There is growing recognition that a "precision medicine" approach is required and that integrated biologic and physiologic data identify reproducible subpopulations that may respond differently to treatment. This article reviews the current state of the field and considers how to successfully transition to a precision medicine approach. To impact clinical care, identification of subpopulations must do more than differentiate prognosis. It must differentiate response to treatment, ideally by defining subgroups with distinct functional or pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). There are now multiple examples of reproducible subpopulations of sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and acute kidney or brain injury described using clinical, physiological, and/or biological data. Many of these subpopulations have demonstrated the potential to define differential treatment response, largely in retrospective studies, and that the same treatment-responsive subpopulations may cross multiple clinical syndromes (treatable traits). To bring about a change in clinical practice, a precision medicine approach must be evaluated in prospective clinical studies requiring novel adaptive trial designs. Several such studies are underway, but there are multiple challenges to be tackled. Such subpopulations must be readily identifiable and be applicable to all critically ill populations around the world. Subdividing clinical syndromes into subpopulations will require large patient numbers. Global collaboration of investigators, clinicians, industry, and patients over many years will therefore be required to transition to a precision medicine approach and ultimately realize treatment advances seen in other medical fields.

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Association Between Medicare's Sepsis Reporting Policy (SEP-1) and the Documentation of a Sepsis Diagnosis in the Clinical Record.

STUDY DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis of a retrospective, electronic health record cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the implementation of Medicare's sepsis reporting measure (SEP-1) and sepsis diagnosis rates as assessed in clinical documentation. BACKGROUND: The role of health policy in the effort to improve sepsis diagnosis remains unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized with suspected infection and organ dysfunction within 6 hours of presentation to the emergency department, admitted to one of 11 hospitals in a multi-hospital health system from January 2013 to December 2017. Clinician-diagnosed sepsis, as reflected by the inclusion of the terms "sepsis" or "septic" in the text of clinical notes in the first two calendar days following presentation. RESULTS: Among 44,074 adult patients with sepsis admitted to 11 hospitals over 5 years, the proportion with sepsis documentation was 32.2% just before the implementation of SEP-1 in the third quarter of 2015 and increased to 37.3% by the fourth quarter of 2017. Of the 9 post-SEP-1 quarters, 8 had odds ratios for a sepsis diagnosis >1 (overall range: 0.98-1.26; P value for a joint test of statistical significance = 0.005). The effects were clinically modest, with a maximum effect of an absolute increase of 4.2% (95% CI: 0.9-7.8) at the end of the study period. The effect was greater in patients who did not require vasopressors compared with patients who required vasopressors ( P value for test of interaction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: SEP-1 implementation was associated with modest increases in sepsis diagnosis rates, primarily among patients who did not require vasoactive medications.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of vilobelimab in COVID-19: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

In a phase 3 trial (PANAMO, NCT04333420), vilobelimab, a complement 5a (C5a) inhibitor, reduced 28-day mortality in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. This post hoc analysis of 368 patients aimed to explore treatment heterogeneity through unsupervised learning. All available clinical variables at baseline were used as input. Treatment heterogeneity was assessed using latent class analysis (LCA), Ward's hierarchical clustering (HC) and the adjudication to previously described clinical sepsis phenotypes. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. For LCA, a 2-class latent model was deemed most suitable. In the LCA model, 82 (22%) patients were assigned to class 1 and 286 (78%) to class 2. Class 1 was defined by more severely ill patients with significantly higher mortality. In an adjusted logistic regression, no heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) between classes was observed (p = 0.998). For HC, no significant classes were found (p = 0.669). Using the previously described clinical sepsis subtypes, 41 patients (11%) were adjudicated subtype alpha (α), 17 (5%) beta (ß), 112 (30%) delta (δ) and 198 (54%) gamma (γ). HTE was observed between clinical subtypes (p = 0.001) with improved 28-day mortality after treatment with vilobelimab for the δ subtype (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.07-0.40, p < 0.001). No signal for harm of treatment with vilobelimab was observed in any class or clinical subtype. Overall, treatment effect with vilobelimab was consistent across different classes and subtypes, except for the δ subtype, suggesting potential additional benefit for the most severely ill patients.

Evolving Real-World Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines and U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 changed frequently as different SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early outpatient treatment with mAbs, overall and by mAb product, presumed SARS-CoV-2 variant, and immunocompromised status, is associated with reduced risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days. DESIGN: Hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial from observational data comparing mAb-treated patients with a propensity score-matched, nontreated control group. SETTING: Large U.S. health care system. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk outpatients eligible for mAb treatment under any EUA with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result from 8 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. INTERVENTION: Single-dose intravenous mAb treatment with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, sotrovimab, bebtelovimab, or intravenous or subcutaneous casirivimab-imdevimab administered within 2 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days among treated patients versus a nontreated control group (no treatment or treatment ≥3 days after SARS-CoV-2 test date). RESULTS: The risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days was 4.6% in 2571 treated patients and 7.6% in 5135 nontreated control patients (risk ratio [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74]). In sensitivity analyses, the corresponding RRs for 1- and 3-day treatment grace periods were 0.59 and 0.49, respectively. In subgroup analyses, those receiving mAbs when the Alpha and Delta variants were presumed to be predominant had estimated RRs of 0.55 and 0.53, respectively, compared with 0.71 for the Omicron variant period. Relative risk estimates for individual mAb products all suggested lower risk for hospitalization or death. Among immunocompromised patients, the RR was 0.45 (CI, 0.28 to 0.71). LIMITATIONS: Observational study design, SARS-CoV-2 variant presumed by date rather than genotyping, no data on symptom severity, and partial data on vaccination status. CONCLUSION: Early mAb treatment among outpatients with COVID-19 is associated with lower risk for hospitalization or death for various mAb products and SARS-CoV-2 variants. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Time to treatment and mortality for clinical sepsis subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is common, deadly, and heterogenous. Prior analyses of patients with sepsis and septic shock in New York State showed a risk-adjusted association between more rapid antibiotic administration and bundled care completion, but not an intravenous fluid bolus, with reduced in-hospital mortality. However, it is unknown if clinically identifiable sepsis subtypes modify these associations. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with sepsis and septic shock enrolled in the New York State Department of Health cohort from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Patients were classified as clinical sepsis subtypes (α, ß, γ, δ-types) using the Sepsis ENdotyping in Emergency CAre (SENECA) approach. Exposure variables included time to 3-h sepsis bundle completion, antibiotic administration, and intravenous fluid bolus completion. Then logistic regression models evaluated the interaction between exposures, clinical sepsis subtypes, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 55,169 hospitalizations from 155 hospitals were included (34% α, 30% ß, 19% γ, 17% δ). The α-subtype had the lowest (N = 1,905, 10%) and δ-subtype had the highest (N = 3,776, 41%) in-hospital mortality. Each hour to completion of the 3-h bundle (aOR, 1.04 [95%CI, 1.02-1.05]) and antibiotic initiation (aOR, 1.03 [95%CI, 1.02-1.04]) was associated with increased risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The association differed across subtypes (p-interactions < 0.05). For example, the outcome association for the time to completion of the 3-h bundle was greater in the δ-subtype (aOR, 1.07 [95%CI, 1.05-1.10]) compared to α-subtype (aOR, 1.02 [95%CI, 0.99-1.04]). Time to intravenous fluid bolus completion was not associated with risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.99 [95%CI, 0.97-1.01]) and did not differ among subtypes (p-interaction = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Timely completion of a 3-h sepsis bundle and antibiotic initiation was associated with reduced risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality, an association modified by clinically identifiable sepsis subtype.

Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Pregnancy : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, no studies have evaluated adverse events and effectiveness of mAbs in pregnant persons compared with no mAb treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of drug-related adverse events and obstetric-associated safety outcomes after treatment with mAb compared with no mAb treatment of pregnant persons, and the association between mAb treatment and a composite of 28-day COVID-19-related hospital admission or emergency department (ED) visit, COVID-19-associated delivery, or mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study. SETTING: UPMC Health System from 30 April 2021 to 21 January 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Persons aged 12 years or older with a pregnancy episode and any documented positive SARS-CoV-2 test (polymerase chain reaction or antigen test). INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab and etesevimab, casirivimab and imdevimab, or sotrovimab treatment compared with no mAb treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Drug-related adverse events, obstetric-associated safety outcomes among persons who delivered, and a risk-adjusted composite of 28-day COVID-19-related hospital admission or ED visit, COVID-19-associated delivery, or mortality. RESULTS: Among 944 pregnant persons (median age [interquartile range (IQR)], 30 years [26 to 33 years]; White (79.5%; n = 750); median Charlson Comorbidity Index score [IQR], 0 [0 to 0]), 552 received mAb treatment (58%). Median gestational age at COVID-19 diagnosis or treatment was 179 days (IQR, 123 to 227), and most persons received sotrovimab (69%; n = 382). Of those with known vaccination status, 392 (62%) were fully vaccinated. Drug-related adverse events were uncommon (n = 8; 1.4%), and there were no differences in any obstetric-associated outcome among 778 persons who delivered. In the total population, the risk ratio for mAb treatment of the composite 28-day COVID-19-associated outcome was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.4). The propensity score-matched risk ratio was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34 to 1.1). There were no deaths among mAb-treated patients compared with 1 death in the nontreated control patients. There were more non-COVID-19-related hospital admissions in the mAb-treated persons in the unmatched cohort (14 [2.5%] vs. 2 [0.5%]; risk ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 21.7); however, there was no difference in the propensity score-matched rates, which were 2.5% mAb-treated vs. 2% untreated (risk ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.58% to 2.8%). LIMITATIONS: Drug-related adverse events were patient and provider reported and potentially underrepresented. Symptom severity at the time of SARS-CoV-2 testing was not available for nontreated patients. CONCLUSION: In pregnant persons with mild to moderate COVID-19, adverse events after mAb treatment were mild and rare. There was no difference in obstetric-associated safety outcomes between mAb treatment and no treatment among persons who delivered. There was no difference in 28-day COVID-19-associated outcomes and non-COVID-19-related hospital admissions for mAb treatment compared with no mAb treatment in a propensity score-matched cohort. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: No funding was received for this study.

Consensus Current Procedural Terminology Code Definition of Source Control for Sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: Unlike antibiotic and perfusion support, guidelines for sepsis source control lack high-quality evidence and are ungraded. Internally valid administrative data methods are needed to identify cases representing source control procedures to evaluate outcomes. METHODS: Over five modified Delphi rounds, two independent reviewers identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes pertinent to source control. In each round, codes with perfect agreement were retained or excluded, whereas disagreements were reviewed by the panelists. Manual review of 400 patient records meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (2010-2017) clinically adjudicated which encounters included source control procedures (gold standard). The performance of consensus codes was compared with the gold standard to assess sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Of 5752 CPT codes, 609 consensus codes represented source control procedures. Of 400 hospitalizations for sepsis, 39 (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.0%-13.1%) underwent gold standard source control procedures and 29 (7.3%; 95% CI 4.9-10.3%) consensus code-defined source control procedures. Thirty consensus codes were identified (20.0% gastrointestinal/intraabdominal, 10.0% genitourinary, 13.3% hepatopancreatobiliary, 23.3% orthopedic/cranial, 23.3% soft tissue, and 10.0% intrathoracic), which had 61.5% (95% CI 44.6%-76.6%) sensitivity, 98.6% (95% CI 96.8%-99.6%) specificity, 83.2% (95% CI 66.6%-92.4%) positive, and 95.9% (95% CI 93.9%-97.2%) negative predictive values. With pretest probability at sample prevalence, an identified consensus code had a posttest probability of 83.0% (95% CI 66.0%-92.0%), whereas consensus code absence had a probability of 4.0% (95% CI 3.0-6.0) for undergoing a source control procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Using modified Delphi methodology, we created and validated CPT codes identifying source control procedures, providing a framework for evaluation of the surgical care of patients with sepsis.

Clinical sepsis phenotypes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: A greater understanding of disease heterogeneity may facilitate precision medicine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Previous work identified four distinct clinical phenotypes associated with outcome and treatment responses in non-COVID-19 sepsis patients, but it is unknown if and how these phenotypes are recapitulated in COVID-19 sepsis patients. METHODS: We applied the four non-COVID-19 sepsis phenotypes to a total of 52,274 critically ill patients, comprising two cohorts of COVID-19 sepsis patients (admitted before and after the introduction of dexamethasone as standard treatment) and three non-COVID-19 sepsis cohorts (non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia sepsis, bacterial pneumonia sepsis, and bacterial sepsis of non-pulmonary origin). Differences in proportions of phenotypes and their associated mortality were determined across these cohorts. RESULTS: Phenotype distribution was highly similar between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia sepsis cohorts, whereas the proportion of patients with the δ-phenotype was greater in both bacterial sepsis cohorts compared to the viral sepsis cohorts. The introduction of dexamethasone treatment was associated with an increased proportion of patients with the δ-phenotype (6% vs. 11% in the pre- and post-dexamethasone COVID-19 cohorts, respectively, p < 0.001). Across the cohorts, the α-phenotype was associated with the most favorable outcome, while the δ-phenotype was associated with the highest mortality. Survival of the δ-phenotype was markedly higher following the introduction of dexamethasone (60% vs 41%, p < 0.001), whereas no relevant differences in survival were observed for the other phenotypes among COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Classification of critically ill COVID-19 patients into clinical phenotypes may aid prognostication, prediction of treatment efficacy, and facilitation of personalized medicine.

Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection. It is considered a major cause of health loss, but data for the global burden of sepsis are limited. As a syndrome caused by underlying infection, sepsis is not part of standard Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) estimates. Accurate estimates are important to inform and monitor health policy interventions, allocation of resources, and clinical treatment initiatives. We estimated the global, regional, and national incidence of sepsis and mortality from this disorder using data from GBD 2017. METHODS: We used multiple cause-of-death data from 109 million individual death records to calculate mortality related to sepsis among each of the 282 underlying causes of death in GBD 2017. The percentage of sepsis-related deaths by underlying GBD cause in each location worldwide was modelled using mixed-effects linear regression. Sepsis-related mortality for each age group, sex, location, GBD cause, and year (1990-2017) was estimated by applying modelled cause-specific fractions to GBD 2017 cause-of-death estimates. We used data for 8·7 million individual hospital records to calculate in-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality, stratified by underlying GBD cause. In-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality was modelled for each location using linear regression, and sepsis incidence was estimated by applying modelled case-fatality to sepsis-related mortality estimates. FINDINGS: In 2017, an estimated 48·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38·9-62·9) incident cases of sepsis were recorded worldwide and 11·0 million (10·1-12·0) sepsis-related deaths were reported, representing 19·7% (18·2-21·4) of all global deaths. Age-standardised sepsis incidence fell by 37·0% (95% UI 11·8-54·5) and mortality decreased by 52·8% (47·7-57·5) from 1990 to 2017. Sepsis incidence and mortality varied substantially across regions, with the highest burden in sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, south Asia, east Asia, and southeast Asia. INTERPRETATION: Despite declining age-standardised incidence and mortality, sepsis remains a major cause of health loss worldwide and has an especially high health-related burden in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh, the British Columbia Children's Hospital Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.

Sepsis Subclasses: A Framework for Development and Interpretation.

Sepsis is defined as a dysregulated host response to infection that leads to life-threatening acute organ dysfunction. It afflicts approximately 50 million people worldwide annually and is often deadly, even when evidence-based guidelines are applied promptly. Many randomized trials tested therapies for sepsis over the past 2 decades, but most have not proven beneficial. This may be because sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome, characterized by a vast set of clinical and biologic features. Combinations of these features, however, may identify previously unrecognized groups, or "subclasses" with different risks of outcome and response to a given treatment. As efforts to identify sepsis subclasses become more common, many unanswered questions and challenges arise. These include: 1) the semantic underpinning of sepsis subclasses, 2) the conceptual goal of subclasses, 3) considerations about study design, data sources, and statistical methods, 4) the role of emerging data types, and 5) how to determine whether subclasses represent "truth." We discuss these challenges and present a framework for the broader study of sepsis subclasses. This framework is intended to aid in the understanding and interpretation of sepsis subclasses, provide a mechanism for explaining subclasses generated by different methodologic approaches, and guide clinicians in how to consider subclasses in bedside care.

Identifying Clinical Research Priorities in Adult Pulmonary and Critical Care. NHLBI Working Group Report.

Preventing, treating, and promoting recovery from critical illness due to pulmonary disease are foundational goals of the critical care community and the NHLBI. Decades of clinical research in acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and sepsis have yielded improvements in supportive care, which have translated into improved patient outcomes. Novel therapeutics have largely failed to translate from promising preclinical findings into improved patient outcomes in late-phase clinical trials. Recent advances in personalized medicine, "big data," causal inference using observational data, novel clinical trial designs, preclinical disease modeling, and understanding of recovery from acute illness promise to transform the methods of pulmonary and critical care clinical research. To assess the current state of, research priorities for, and future directions in adult pulmonary and critical care research, the NHLBI assembled a multidisciplinary working group of investigators. This working group identified recommendations for future research, including 1) focusing on understanding the clinical, physiological, and biological underpinnings of heterogeneity in syndromes, diseases, and treatment response with the goal of developing targeted, personalized interventions; 2) optimizing preclinical models by incorporating comorbidities, cointerventions, and organ support; 3) developing and applying novel clinical trial designs; and 4) advancing mechanistic understanding of injury and recovery to develop and test interventions targeted at achieving long-term improvements in the lives of patients and families. Specific areas of research are highlighted as especially promising for making advances in pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. METHODS: We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. RESULTS: Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).

Strategy to Identify Paramedic Transported Sepsis Cases in an Emergency Department Administrative Database.

Background: To evaluate a new strategy for identifying sepsis in Emergency Department (ED) patients that combines administrative diagnosis codes with clinical information from the point of first contact. Methods: This study linked clinical data from adult patients transported by a provincial Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system to ED and inpatient administrative databases. Sepsis cases were identified by searching ED databases for diagnosis codes consistent with infection and organ dysfunction. Organ dysfunction was further assessed using a partial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score derived from EMS clinical information. Reliability was evaluated by comparing patients' ED diagnosis codes (ICD-10CA) to their inpatient diagnosis codes; criterion validity by comparing cases classified by the new strategy to an existing inpatient administrative algorithm; and construct validity by assessing for clinical characteristics typically associated with sepsis (e.g., mortality). Results: A total of 43,297 patients were included. ED infection codes were more reliable for classifying patients with infection than using ED sepsis codes alone (proportion of agreement with inpatient codes 79% vs. 74%; p-value < 0.001). The novel strategy requiring the presence of an infection code and either an organ dysfunction code or 2 or more SOFA points from EMS clinical information identified 1,379 more ED patients as having sepsis than the inpatient algorithm. These patients had high mortality supporting construct validity. Conclusions: Incorporation of a broader range of diagnostic codes and linking to an electronic database to obtain initial clinical information for the assessment of organ dysfunction improves reliability, criterion, and construct validity for identifying sepsis in ED patients.

Association Between Intravenous Fluid Bolus and Biomarker Trajectory During Prehospital Care.

Background: Patients with acute illness who receive intravenous (IV) fluids prior to hospital arrival may have a lower in-hospital mortality. To better understand whether this is a direct treatment effect or epiphenomenon of downstream care, we tested the association between a prehospital fluid bolus and the change in inflammatory cytokines measured at prehospital and emergency department timepoints in a sample of non-trauma, non-cardiac arrest patients at risk for critical illness. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, we screened 4,013 non-trauma, non-cardiac arrest encounters transported by City of Pittsburgh Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to 2 hospitals from August 2013 to February 2014. In 345 patients, we measured prehospital biomarkers (IL-6, IL-10, and TNF) at 2 time points: the time of prehospital IV access placement by EMS and at ED arrival. We determined the relative change for marker X as: ([XED - XEMS]/XEMS). We determined the risk-adjusted association between prehospital IV fluid bolus and relative change for each marker using multivariable linear regression. Results: Among 345 patients, 88 (26%) received a prehospital IV fluid bolus and 257 (74%) did not. Compared to patients who did not receive prehospital fluids, median prehospital IL-6 was greater initially in subjects receiving a prehospital IV fluid bolus (22.3 [IQR 6.4-113] vs. 11.5 [IQR 5.5-47.6]). Prehospital IL-10 and TNF were similar in both groups (IL-10: 3.5 [IQR 2.2-25.6] vs. 3.0 [IQR 1.9-9.0]; TNF: 7.5 [IQR 6.4-10.4] vs. 6.9 [IQR 6.0-8.3]). After adjustment for demographics, illness severity, and prehospital transport time, we observed a relative decrease in IL-6 at hospital arrival in those receiving a prehospital fluid bolus (adjusted ß = -10.0, 95% CI: -19.4, -0.6, p = 0.04), but we did not detect a significant change in IL-10 (p = 0.34) or TNF (p = 0.53). Conclusions: Among non-trauma, non-cardiac arrest patients at risk for critical illness, a prehospital IV fluid bolus was associated with a relative decrease in IL-6, but not IL-10 or TNF.

Patterns of Opioid Administration Among Opioid-Naive Inpatients and Associations With Postdischarge Opioid Use: A Cohort Study.

Background: Patterns of inpatient opioid use and their associations with postdischarge opioid use are poorly understood. Objective: To measure patterns in timing, duration, and setting of opioid administration in opioid-naive hospitalized patients and to examine associations with postdischarge use. Design: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data from 2010 to 2014. Setting: 12 community and academic hospitals in Pennsylvania. Patients: 148 068 opioid-naive patients (191 249 admissions) with at least 1 outpatient encounter within 12 months before and after admission. Measurements: Number of days and patterns of inpatient opioid use; any outpatient use (self-report and/or prescription orders) 90 and 365 days after discharge. Results: Opioids were administered in 48% of admissions. Patients were given opioids for a mean of 67.9% (SD, 25.0%) of their stay. Location of administration of first opioid on admission, timing of last opioid before discharge, and receipt of nonopioid analgesics varied substantially. After adjustment for potential confounders, 5.9% of inpatients receiving opioids had outpatient use at 90 days compared with 3.0% of those without inpatient use (difference, 3.0 percentage points [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.2 percentage points]). Opioid use at 90 days was higher in inpatients receiving opioids less than 12 hours before discharge than in those with at least 24 opioid-free hours before discharge (7.5% vs. 3.9%; difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 3.3 to 3.9 percentage points]). Differences based on proportion of the stay with opioid use were modest (opioid use at 90 days was 6.4% and 5.4%, respectively, for patients with opioid use for ≥75% vs. ≤25% of their stay; difference, 1.0 percentage point [CI, 0.4 to 1.5 percentage points]). Associations were similar for opioid use 365 days after discharge. Limitation: Potential unmeasured confounders related to opioid use. Conclusion: This study found high rates of opioid administration to opioid-naive inpatients and associations between specific patterns of inpatient use and risk for long-term use after discharge. Primary Funding Source: UPMC Health System and University of Pittsburgh.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Monocyte Distribution Width: A Novel Indicator of Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 in High-Risk Emergency Department Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Most septic patients are initially encountered in the emergency department where sepsis recognition is often delayed, in part due to the lack of effective biomarkers. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of peripheral blood monocyte distribution width alone and in combination with WBC count for early sepsis detection in the emergency department. DESIGN: An Institutional Review Board approved, blinded, observational, prospective cohort study conducted between April 2017 and January 2018. SETTING: Subjects were enrolled from emergency departments at three U.S. academic centers. PATIENTS: Adult patients, 18-89 years, with complete blood count performed upon presentation to the emergency department, and who remained hospitalized for at least 12 hours. A total of 2,212 patients were screened, of whom 2,158 subjects were enrolled and categorized per Sepsis-2 criteria, such as controls (n = 1,088), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (n = 441), infection (n = 244), and sepsis (n = 385), and Sepsis-3 criteria, such as control (n = 1,529), infection (n = 386), and sepsis (n = 243). INTERVENTIONS: The primary outcome determined whether an monocyte distribution width of greater than 20.0 U, alone or in combination with WBC, improves early sepsis detection by Sepsis-2 criteria. Secondary endpoints determined monocyte distribution width performance for Sepsis-3 detection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U distinguished sepsis from all other conditions based on either Sepsis-2 criteria (area under the curve, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.82) or Sepsis-3 criteria (area under the curve, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76). The negative predictive values for monocyte distribution width less than or equal to 20 U for Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 were 93% and 94%, respectively. Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U combined with an abnormal WBC further improved Sepsis-2 detection (area under the curve, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88) and as reflected by likelihood ratio and added value analyses. Normal WBC and monocyte distribution width inferred a six-fold lower sepsis probability. CONCLUSIONS: An monocyte distribution width value of greater than 20.0 U is effective for sepsis detection, based on either Sepsis-2 criteria or Sepsis-3 criteria, during the initial emergency department encounter. In tandem with WBC, monocyte distribution width is further predicted to enhance medical decision making during early sepsis management in the emergency department.

Sepsis Surveillance Using Adult Sepsis Events Simplified eSOFA Criteria Versus Sepsis-3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized in 2013-2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/µL (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p < 0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p < 0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

Variation in Identifying Sepsis and Organ Dysfunction Using Administrative Versus Electronic Clinical Data and Impact on Hospital Outcome Comparisons.

OBJECTIVES: Administrative claims data are commonly used for sepsis surveillance, research, and quality improvement. However, variations in diagnosis, documentation, and coding practices for sepsis and organ dysfunction may confound efforts to estimate sepsis rates, compare outcomes, and perform risk adjustment. We evaluated hospital variation in the sensitivity of claims data relative to clinical data from electronic health records and its impact on outcome comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of 4.3 million adult encounters at 193 U.S. hospitals in 2013-2014. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis was defined using electronic health record-derived clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood culture draws and antibiotic administrations) and concurrent organ dysfunction (vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to ≥ 2.0 mg/dL, decrease in platelets to < 100 cells/µL, or lactate ≥ 2.0 mmol/L). We compared claims for sepsis prevalence and mortality rates between both methods. All estimates were reliability adjusted to account for random variation using hierarchical logistic regression modeling. The sensitivity of hospitals' claims data was low and variable: median 30% (range, 5-54%) for sepsis, 66% (range, 26-84%) for acute kidney injury, 39% (range, 16-60%) for thrombocytopenia, 36% (range, 29-44%) for hepatic injury, and 66% (range, 29-84%) for shock. Correlation between claims and clinical data was moderate for sepsis prevalence (Pearson coefficient, 0.64) and mortality (0.61). Among hospitals in the lowest sepsis mortality quartile by claims, 46% shifted to higher mortality quartiles using clinical data. Using implicit sepsis criteria based on infection and organ dysfunction codes also yielded major differences versus clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the accuracy of claims data for identifying sepsis and organ dysfunction limits their use for comparing hospitals' sepsis rates and outcomes. Using objective clinical data may facilitate more meaningful hospital comparisons.