Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock.

BACKGROUND: Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 µg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS: A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P=0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843 .).

Effect of Selepressin vs Placebo on Ventilator- and Vasopressor-Free Days in Patients With Septic Shock: The SEPSIS-ACT Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Norepinephrine, the first-line vasopressor for septic shock, is not always effective and has important catecholaminergic adverse effects. Selepressin, a selective vasopressin V1a receptor agonist, is a noncatecholaminergic vasopressor that may mitigate sepsis-induced vasodilatation, vascular leakage, and edema, with fewer adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To test whether selepressin improves outcome in septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An adaptive phase 2b/3 randomized clinical trial comprising 2 parts that included adult patients (n = 868) with septic shock requiring more than 5 µg/min of norepinephrine. Part 1 used a Bayesian algorithm to adjust randomization probabilities to alternative selepressin dosing regimens and to trigger transition to part 2, which would compare the best-performing regimen with placebo. The trial was conducted between July 2015 and August 2017 in 63 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the United States, and follow-up was completed by May 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to 1 of 3 dosing regimens of selepressin (starting infusion rates of 1.7, 2.5, and 3.5 ng/kg/min; n = 585) or to placebo (n = 283), all administered as continuous infusions titrated according to hemodynamic parameters. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was ventilator- and vasopressor-free days within 30 days (deaths assigned zero days) of commencing study drug. Key secondary end points were 90-day mortality, kidney replacement therapy-free days, and ICU-free days. RESULTS: Among 868 randomized patients, 828 received study drug (mean age, 66.3 years; 341 [41.2%] women) and comprised the primary analysis cohort, of whom 562 received 1 of 3 selepressin regimens, 266 received placebo, and 817 (98.7%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped for futility at the end of part 1. Median study drug duration was 37.8 hours (IQR, 17.8-72.4). There were no significant differences in the primary end point (ventilator- and vasopressor-free days: 15.0 vs 14.5 in the selepressin and placebo groups; difference, 0.6 [95% CI, -1.3 to 2.4]; P = .30) or key secondary end points (90-day mortality, 40.6% vs 39.4%; difference, 1.1% [95% CI, -6.5% to 8.8%]; P = .77; kidney replacement therapy-free days: 18.5 vs 18.2; difference, 0.3 [95% CI, -2.1 to 2.6]; P = .85; ICU-free days: 12.6 vs 12.2; difference, 0.5 [95% CI, -1.2 to 2.2]; P = .41). Adverse event rates included cardiac arrhythmias (27.9% vs 25.2% of patients), cardiac ischemia (6.6% vs 5.6%), mesenteric ischemia (3.2% vs 2.6%), and peripheral ischemia (2.3% vs 2.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine, administration of selepressin, compared with placebo, did not result in improvement in vasopressor- and ventilator-free days within 30 days. Further research would be needed to evaluate the potential role of selepressin for other patient-centered outcomes in septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02508649.

Effect of Human Recombinant Alkaline Phosphatase on 7-Day Creatinine Clearance in Patients With Sepsis-Associated Acute Kidney Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) adversely affects long-term kidney outcomes and survival. Administration of the detoxifying enzyme alkaline phosphatase may improve kidney function and survival. Objective: To determine the optimal therapeutic dose, effect on kidney function, and adverse effects of a human recombinant alkaline phosphatase in patients who are critically ill with sepsis-associated AKI. Design, Setting, and Participants: The STOP-AKI trial was an international (53 recruiting sites), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, adaptive phase 2a/2b study in 301 adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis and AKI. Patients were enrolled between December 2014 and May 2017, and follow-up was conducted for 90 days. The final date of follow-up was August 14, 2017. Interventions: In the intention-to-treat analysis, in part 1 of the trial, patients were randomized to receive recombinant alkaline phosphatase in a dosage of 0.4 mg/kg (n = 31), 0.8 mg/kg (n = 32), or 1.6 mg/kg (n = 29) or placebo (n = 30), once daily for 3 days, to establish the optimal dose. The optimal dose was identified as 1.6 mg/kg based on modeling approaches and adverse events. In part 2, 1.6 mg/kg (n = 82) was compared with placebo (n = 86). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the time-corrected area under the curve of the endogenous creatinine clearance for days 1 through 7, divided by 7 to provide a mean daily creatinine clearance (AUC1-7 ECC). Incidence of fatal and nonfatal (serious) adverse events ([S]AEs) was also determined. Results: Overall, 301 patients were enrolled (men, 70.7%; median age, 67 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-73]). From day 1 to day 7, median ECC increased from 26.0 mL/min (IQR, 8.8 to 59.5) to 65.4 mL/min (IQR, 26.7 to 115.4) in the recombinant alkaline phosphatase 1.6-mg/kg group vs from 35.9 mL/min (IQR, 12.2 to 82.9) to 61.9 mL/min (IQR, 22.7 to 115.2) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 9.5 mL/min [95% CI, -23.9 to 25.5]; P = .47). Fatal adverse events occurred in 26.3% of patients in the 0.4-mg/kg recombinant alkaline phosphatase group; 17.1% in the 0.8-mg/kg group, 17.4% in the 1.6-mg/kg group, and 29.5% in the placebo group. Rates of nonfatal SAEs were 21.0% for the 0.4-mg/kg recombinant alkaline phosphatase group, 14.3% for the 0.8-mg/kg group, 25.7% for the 1.6-mg/kg group, and 20.5% for the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who were critically ill with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury, human recombinant alkaline phosphatase compared with placebo did not significantly improve short-term kidney function. Further research is necessary to assess other clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02182440.

Validation of cell-cycle arrest biomarkers for acute kidney injury using clinical adjudication.

RATIONALE: We recently reported two novel biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-2 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), both related to G1 cell cycle arrest. OBJECTIVES: We now validate a clinical test for urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] at a high-sensitivity cutoff greater than 0.3 for AKI risk stratification in a diverse population of critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 420 critically ill patients. The primary analysis was the ability of urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] to predict moderate to severe AKI within 12 hours. AKI was adjudicated by a committee of three independent expert nephrologists who were masked to the results of the test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Urinary TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 were measured using a clinical immunoassay platform. The primary endpoint was reached in 17% of patients. For a single urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] test, sensitivity at the prespecified high-sensitivity cutoff of 0.3 (ng/ml)(2)/1,000 was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85-98%) with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.33). Critically ill patients with urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] greater than 0.3 had seven times the risk for AKI (95% CI, 4-22) compared with critically ill patients with a test result below 0.3. In a multivariate model including clinical information, urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] remained statistically significant and a strong predictor of AKI (area under the curve, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.63-0.76 for clinical variables alone, vs. area under the curve, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80-0.90 for clinical variables plus [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] greater than 0.3 (ng/ml)(2)/1,000 identifies patients at risk for imminent AKI. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01573962).

Effect of eritoran, an antagonist of MD2-TLR4, on mortality in patients with severe sepsis: the ACCESS randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Eritoran is a synthetic lipid A antagonist that blocks lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from binding at the cell surface MD2-TLR4 receptor. LPS is a major component of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria and is a potent activator of the acute inflammatory response. OBJECTIVE: To determine if eritoran, a TLR4 antagonist, would significantly reduce sepsis-induced mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial in 197 intensive care units. Patients were enrolled from June 2006 to September 2010 and final follow-up was completed in September 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with severe sepsis (n = 1961) were randomized and treated within 12 hours of onset of first organ dysfunction in a 2:1 ratio with a 6-day course of either eritoran tetrasodium (105 mg total) or placebo, with n = 1304 and n = 657 patients, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary end points were all-cause mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months after beginning treatment. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 2 study groups were similar. In the modified intent-to-treat analysis (randomized patients who received at least 1 dose) there was no significant difference in the primary end point of 28-day all-cause mortality with 28.1% (366/1304) in the eritoran group vs 26.9% (177/657) in the placebo group (P = .59; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88-1.26; difference in mortality rate, -1.1; 95% CI, -5.3 to 3.1) or in the key secondary end point of 1-year all-cause mortality with 44.1% (290/657) in the eritoran group vs 43.3% (565/1304) in the placebo group, Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to death by 1 year, P = .79 (hazard ratio, 0.98; 0.85-1.13). No significant differences were observed in any of the prespecified subgroups. Adverse events, including secondary infection rates, did not differ between study groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe sepsis, the use of eritoran, compared with placebo, did not result in reduced 28-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00334828.

Recombinant surfactant protein C-based surfactant for patients with severe direct lung injury.

RATIONALE: Patients with acute lung injury have impaired function of the lung surfactant system. Prior clinical trials have shown that treatment with exogenous recombinant surfactant protein C (rSP-C)-based surfactant results in improvement in blood oxygenation and have suggested that treatment of patients with severe direct lung injury may decrease mortality. OBJECTIVES: Determine the clinical benefit of administering an rSP-C-based synthetic surfactant to patients with severe direct lung injury due to pneumonia or aspiration. METHODS: A prospective randomized blinded study was performed at 161 centers in 22 countries. Patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus up to eight doses of rSP-C surfactant administered over 96 hours (n = 419) or only usual care (n = 424). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mortality to 28 days after treatment, the requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the number of nonpulmonary organ failure-free days were not different between study groups. In contrast to prior studies, there was no improvement in oxygenation in patients receiving surfactant compared with the usual care group. Investigation of the possible reasons underlying the lack of efficacy suggested a partial inactivation of rSP-C surfactant caused by a step of the resuspension process that was introduced with this study. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, rSP-C-based surfactant was of no clinical benefit to patients with severe direct lung injury. The unexpected lack of improvement in oxygenation, coupled with the results of in vitro tests, suggest that the administered suspension may have had insufficient surface activity to achieve clinical benefit.

Calcium Alkali Thiazide Syndrome: What We Need to Know.

Depending on each institution's laboratory test, mean serum calcium levels range between 8.8 and 10.8 mg/dL and hypercalcemia is defined as two standard deviations above the mean. According to recent epidemiological studies, 90% of cases of hypercalcemia are due to hyperparathyroidism or malignancy. Milk Alkali syndrome (MAS) also known as Calcium Alkali syndrome (CAS) is the third biggest cause of hypercalcemia, but its incidence seems to be higher than previously thought. Here we present a case of Calcium Alkali Thiazide syndrome (CATS) in a 57-year-old female who was on calcium and vitamin D supplements (after parathyroidectomy) while also taking thiazide diuretic for hypertension. She was brought to the ED with nausea, vomiting, confusion, difficulty walking along with numbness in extremities. She had parathyroidectomy three weeks ago. During history taking, patient reported intake of calcium carbonate 1 g three times daily, calcitriol 0.5 mcg twice daily, cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) 10,000 units once daily, chlorthalidone 25 mg once daily and irbesartan 300 mg once daily. At admission, her calcium level was 23 mg/dL, ionized calcium 12.03 mg/dL, pH was 7.59 and HCO3 was 33. She was in renal failure with creatinine of 1.9 mg/dL (baseline 0.8 mg/dL). Her parathyroid hormone (PTH) level was 0. A diagnosis of CATS was made. She was treated with intravenous fluids and furosemide and discharged home on hospital day 5 after her calcium and creatinine levels normalized. A triad of hypercalcemia, acute kidney injury and metabolic alkalosis comprises MAS. Traditional MAS was caused by "Sippy diet" (containing milk and alkali) used for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease. Over the decades, the same triad of symptoms occurred in patients using excess calcium and vitamin D, hence changing the name to CAS. A subset of patients at risk for CAS also use thiazide diuretics for hypertension, making them more vulnerable to hypercalcemia and acute kidney injury. In such subset of patients, it is preferable to use the term CATS rather than MAS or CAS.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of ulimorelin and metoclopramide in the treatment of critically ill patients with enteral feeding intolerance: PROMOTE trial.

PURPOSE: Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI. METHODS: One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.

Critical care workforce.

OBJECTIVE: The recent Health Resources and Services Administration report on critical care manpower details the impending crisis in the critical care workforce in the United States. DESIGN: A review of the Health Resources and Services Administration statistics indicate the present structure for training critical care physicians through combined pulmonary/critical care fellowships is, and will remain, woefully inadequate to meet demand. INTERVENTION: Training for intensive care unit physicians will require new paradigms for training, including consideration of free-standing critical care residencies and multidisciplinary critical care fellowships. CONCLUSION: Unless the training structure changes, the worsening shortage of intensivists will precipitate a crisis, resulting in the disintegration of critical care delivery in the United States.