Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

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.).

Value of hemophagocytosis in the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Ferritin is an established biomarker in the diagnosis of secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), which is diagnosed by the HLH-2004 criteria. Among these criteria, detection of hemophagocytosis through invasive procedures may delay early life saving treatment. Our aim was to investigate the value of hemophagocytosis in diagnosing HLH in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a retrospective observational study, we included all patients aged ≥18 years and admitted to any adult ICU at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin between January 2006 and August 2018, who had hyperferritinemia (≥500 µg/L) and underwent bone marrow biopsy during their ICU course. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two patients were included, of whom 31 (12.3%) showed hemophagocytosis. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, maximum ferritin was independently associated with hemophagocytosis. By removing hemophagocytosis from HLH-2004 criteria and HScore, prediction accuracy for HLH diagnosis was only marginally decreased compared to the original scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results strengthen the diagnostic value of ferritin and underline the importance of considering HLH diagnosis in patients with high ferritin but only four fulfilled HLH-2004 criteria, when hemophagocytosis was not assessed or not detectable. Proof of hemophagocytosis is not required for a reliable HLH diagnosis.

Cytokine Hemoadsorption During Cardiac Surgery Versus Standard Surgical Care for Infective Endocarditis (REMOVE): Results From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery often represents the only treatment option in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However, IE surgery may lead to a sudden release of inflammatory mediators, which is associated with postoperative organ dysfunction. We investigated the effect of hemoadsorption during IE surgery on postoperative organ dysfunction. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial assigned patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE to hemoadsorption (integration of CytoSorb to cardiopulmonary bypass) or control. The primary outcome (change in sequential organ failure assessment score [ΔSOFA]) was defined as the difference between the mean total postoperative SOFA score, calculated maximally to the 9th postoperative day, and the basal SOFA score. The analysis was by modified intention to treat. A predefined intergroup comparison was performed using a linear mixed model for ΔSOFA including surgeon and baseline SOFA score as fixed effect covariates and with the surgical center as random effect. The SOFA score assesses dysfunction in 6 organ systems, each scored from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicate worsening dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor and renal replacement therapy. Cytokines were measured in the first 50 patients. RESULTS: Between January 17, 2018, and January 31, 2020, a total of 288 patients were randomly assigned to hemoadsorption (n=142) or control (n=146). Four patients in the hemoadsorption and 2 in the control group were excluded because they did not undergo surgery. The primary outcome, ΔSOFA, did not differ between the hemoadsorption and the control group (1.79±3.75 and 1.93±3.53, respectively; 95% CI, -1.30 to 0.83; P=0.6766). Mortality at 30 days (21% hemoadsorption versus 22% control; P=0.782), duration of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor and renal replacement therapy did not differ between groups. Levels of interleukin-1ß and interleukin-18 at the end of integration of hemoadsorption to cardiopulmonary bypass were significantly lower in the hemoadsorption than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial failed to demonstrate a reduction in postoperative organ dysfunction through intraoperative hemoadsorption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE. Although hemoadsorption reduced plasma cytokines at the end of cardiopulmonary bypass, there was no difference in any of the clinically relevant outcome measures. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03266302.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Treatment and Mortality of Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis in Adult Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review With Pooled Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is a cytokine release syndrome caused by uncontrolled immune activation resulting in multiple organ failure and death. In this systematic review, we aimed to analyze triggers, various treatment modalities, and mortality in critically ill adult hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database (PubMed) at October 20, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and case series of patients greater than or equal to 18 years old, of whom at least one had to be diagnosed with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and admitted to an ICU. DATA EXTRACTION: Source data of studies and case series were summarized and analyzed on an individual basis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for age, sex, and trigger groups. Each single treatment agent was entered as a dichotomous variable to determine treatments associated with survival, regardless if given alone or in combination. DATA SYNTHESIS: In total, 661 patients from 65 studies and case series were included. Overall mortality was 57.8%. Infections were the most frequent trigger (49.9%), followed by malignancies (28.0%), autoimmune diseases (12.1%), unknown triggers (9.4%), and drugs (0.6%). Treatment with IV immunoglobulins was associated with improved survival (odds ratio, 0.548; 95% CI, 0.337-0.891; p = 0.015), while treatment with cyclosporine was associated with increased risk of death (odds ratio, 7.571; 95% CI, 3.702-15.483; p < 0.001). Considering different trigger groups separately, same results occurred only for infection-triggered hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. No information was available on disease severity and other confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the ICU is high. Most common triggers were infections. Results of survival analyses may be biased by treatment indication and disease severity. Future studies prospectively investigating treatment tailored to critically ill hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis patients are highly warranted.

Hyperferritinemia in Critically Ill Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperferritinemia is frequently seen in critically ill patients. A rather rare though life-threatening condition related to severely elevated ferritin is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. We analyze ferritin levels to differentiate hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis from other causes of hyperferritinemia in a mixed cohort of critically ill patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Adult surgical, anesthesiologic, and medical ICUs of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Critical care patients (≥ 18 yr old) admitted to any of the adult ICUs at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin between January 2006 and August 2018 with at least one ferritin value and hyperferritinemia (≥ 500 µg/L). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were categorized into hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, sepsis, septic shock, and other diagnoses. These were further categorized into 17 subgroups. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis diagnosis was based on Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis-2004 criteria and the HScore. Of 2,623 patients with hyperferritinemia, 40 were considered to have hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (1.52%). Maximum ferritin levels were highest in hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis patients compared with all other disease groups (each p < 0.001). Sepsis and septic shock patients had higher maximum ferritin levels than patients with other diagnoses (each p < 0.001). A maximum ferritin value of 9,083 µg/L was at 92.5% sensitivity and 91.9% specificity for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (area under the curve, 0.963; 95% CI, 0.949-0.978). Of all subgroups with other diagnoses, maximum ferritin levels were highest in patients with varicella-zoster virus, hepatitis, or malaria (median, 1,935, 1,928, and 1,587 µg/L, respectively). Maximum ferritin levels were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.518 per log µg/L [95% CI, 1.384-1.665 per log µg/L]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study of patients with ferritin available in a mixed ICU cohort. Ferritin levels in patients with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, sepsis, septic shock, and other conditions were distinctly different, with the highest ferritin levels observed in hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis patients. Maximum ferritin of 9,083 µg/L showed high sensitivity and specificity and, therefore, may contribute to improved diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in ICU. The inclusion of ferritin into the sepsis laboratory panel is warranted.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in critically ill patients: diagnostic reliability of HLH-2004 criteria and HScore.

BACKGROUND: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a rare though often fatal hyperinflammatory syndrome mimicking sepsis in the critically ill. Diagnosis relies on the HLH-2004 criteria and HScore, both of which have been developed in pediatric or adult non-critically ill patients, respectively. Therefore, we aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of HLH-2004 criteria and HScore in a cohort of adult critically ill patients. METHODS: In this further analysis of a retrospective observational study, patients ≥ 18 years admitted to at least one adult ICU at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin between January 2006 and August 2018 with hyperferritinemia of ≥ 500 µg/L were included. Patients' charts were reviewed for clinically diagnosed or suspected HLH. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed to determine prediction accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 2623 patients with hyperferritinemia were included, of whom 40 patients had HLH. We found the best prediction accuracy of HLH diagnosis for a cutoff of 4 fulfilled HLH-2004 criteria (95.0% sensitivity and 93.6% specificity) and HScore cutoff of 168 (100% sensitivity and 94.1% specificity). By adjusting HLH-2004 criteria cutoffs of both hyperferritinemia to 3000 µg/L and fever to 38.2 °C, sensitivity and specificity increased to 97.5% and 96.1%, respectively. Both a higher number of fulfilled HLH-2004 criteria [OR 1.513 (95% CI 1.372-1.667); p <  0.001] and a higher HScore [OR 1.011 (95% CI 1.009-1.013); p <  0.001] were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: An HScore cutoff of 168 revealed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 94.1%, thereby providing slightly superior diagnostic accuracy compared to HLH-2004 criteria. Both HLH-2004 criteria and HScore proved to be of good diagnostic accuracy and consequently might be used for HLH diagnosis in critically ill patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02854943) on August 1, 2016.

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.

Chronic Critical Illness from Sepsis Is Associated with an Enhanced TCR Response.

Sepsis is characterized by a disproportionate host response to infection that often culminates in multiple organ failure. Current concepts invoke a deregulated immune reaction involving features of hyperinflammation, as well as protracted immune suppression. However, owing to the scarcity of human data, the precise origin of a long-term suppression of adaptive immunity remains doubtful. We report on an explorative clinical study of chronic critical illness (CCI) patients aimed at assessing the long-term consequences of sepsis on T cell function. Blood was drawn from 12 male CCI patients (median age 67 y, range 48-79 y) receiving continuous mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy in a long-term care hospital who had been treated in an external acute care hospital for severe sepsis. T cells were purified and subjected to flow cytometric immune-phenotyping and functional assays. We found that T cells from CCI patients featured higher basal levels of activation and stronger expression of the inhibitory surface receptor programmed cell death 1 compared with controls. However, T cells from CCI patients exhibited no suppressed TCR response at the level of proximal TCR signaling (activation/phosphorylation of PLCγ, Erk, Akt, LAT), activation marker upregulation (CD69, CD25, CD154, NUR77), IL-2 production, or clonal expansion. Rather, our data illustrate an augmented response in T cells from CCI patients in response to TCR/coreceptor (CD3/CD28) challenge. Thus, the present findings reveal that CCI sepsis patients feature signs of immune suppression but that their T cells exhibit a primed, rather than a suppressed, phenotype in their TCR response, arguing against a generalized T cell paralysis as a major cause of protracted immune suppression from sepsis.

Sequential organ failure assessment score is an excellent operationalization of disease severity of adult patients with hospitalized community acquired pneumonia - results from the prospective observational PROGRESS study.

BACKGROUND: CAP (Community acquired pneumonia) is frequent, with a high mortality rate and a high burden on health care systems. Development of predictive biomarkers, new therapeutic concepts, and epidemiologic research require a valid, reproducible, and quantitative measure describing CAP severity. METHODS: Using time series data of 1532 patients enrolled in the PROGRESS study, we compared putative measures of CAP severity for their utility as an operationalization. Comparison was based on ability to correctly identify patients with an objectively severe state of disease (death or need for intensive care with at least one of the following: substantial respiratory support, treatment with catecholamines, or dialysis). We considered IDSA/ATS minor criteria, CRB-65, CURB-65, Halm criteria, qSOFA, PSI, SCAP, SIRS-Score, SMART-COP, and SOFA. RESULTS: SOFA significantly outperformed other scores in correctly identifying a severe state of disease at the day of enrollment (AUC = 0.948), mainly caused by higher discriminative power at higher score values. Runners-up were the sum of IDSA/ATS minor criteria (AUC = 0.916) and SCAP (AUC = 0.868). SOFA performed similarly well on subsequent study days (all AUC > 0.9) and across age groups. In univariate and multivariate analysis, age, sex, and pack-years significantly contributed to higher SOFA values whereas antibiosis before hospitalization predicted lower SOFA. CONCLUSIONS: SOFA score can serve as an excellent operationalization of CAP severity and is proposed as endpoint for biomarker and therapeutic studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02782013 , May 25, 2016, retrospectively registered.

The use of mid-regional proadrenomedullin to identify disease severity and treatment response to sepsis - a secondary analysis of a large randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the ability of mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in comparison to conventional biomarkers (procalcitonin (PCT), lactate, C-reactive protein) and clinical scores to identify disease severity in patients with sepsis. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock across 33 German intensive care units. The association between biomarkers and clinical scores with mortality was assessed by Cox regression analysis, area under the receiver operating characteristic and Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were stratified into three severity groups (low, intermediate, high) for all biomarkers and scores based on cutoffs with either a 90% sensitivity or specificity. RESULTS: 1089 patients with a 28-day mortality rate of 26.9% were analysed. According to the Sepsis-3 definition, 41.2% and 58.8% fulfilled the criteria for sepsis and septic shock, with respective mortality rates of 20.0% and 32.1%. MR-proADM had the strongest association with mortality across all Sepsis-1 and Sepsis-3 subgroups and could facilitate a more accurate classification of low (e.g. MR-proADM vs. SOFA: N = 265 vs. 232; 9.8% vs. 13.8% mortality) and high (e.g. MR-proADM vs. SOFA: N = 161 vs. 155; 55.9% vs. 41.3% mortality) disease severity. Patients with decreasing PCT concentrations of either ≥ 20% (baseline to day 1) or ≥ 50% (baseline to day 4) but continuously high MR-proADM concentrations had a significantly increased mortality risk (HR (95% CI): 19.1 (8.0-45.9) and 43.1 (10.1-184.0)). CONCLUSIONS: MR-proADM identifies disease severity and treatment response more accurately than established biomarkers and scores, adding additional information to facilitate rapid clinical decision-making and improve personalised sepsis treatment.

[Current aspects of the definition and diagnosis of sepsis and antibiotic resistance]. / Aktuelle Aspekte zur Definition und Diagnostik der Sepsis und Antibiotikaresistenz.

Hospital mortality of patients with secondary sepsis remains high at around 40%. Because of the methodological deficiencies of the definitions used so far, valid epidemiological data on secondary sepsis that allow for national and international comparisons are lacking. Since 2016, new clinical diagnostic tools that are also suitable for sepsis screening outside of intensive care units have been available. To counteract the high mortality of nosocomial sepsis, new approaches to the early identification of at-risk patients are needed. An adequate blood culture sampling rate and a high preanalytical quality should be established as a basis for quality assurance, especially in the field of nosocomial bloodstream infections; otherwise, there is a risk of surveillance bias. Data from laboratory-based antibiotic resistance surveillance on MRSA in blood culture isolates have shown a downward trend over the last 4 years. In Gram-negative pathogens, a relatively stable resistance situation has been observed over this period for many of the pathogen-antibiotic combinations.

Overwhelming Postsplenectomy Infection: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent population-based cohort studies have questioned the role of pneumococci as the most frequent pathogen causing severe infection in patients after splenectomy. The aim of the study was to define the causative pathogens and clinical presentation of patients with overwhelming postsplenectomy infection (OPSI). METHODS: In a prospective cohort study in 173 German intensive care units, we searched for patients with and without asplenia and community-acquired severe sepsis/septic shock. Clinical and laboratory variables and survival of patients were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with severe sepsis or septic shock with asplenia and 52 without asplenia were included. OPSI patients more often had a history of malignancy (38% vs 17%; P = .016) and had a lower body mass index (24 kg/m(2) vs 28 kg/m(2); P = .004). Streptococcus pneumoniae was detected more frequently in OPSI patients (42% vs 12% without asplenia; P < .001) and more frequently manifested as bloodstream infection (31% vs 6%; P = .002). Gram-negative infection was similar in both groups (12% vs 19%; P = .157). Pneumococcal vaccine coverage of OPSI patients was low overall (42% vs 8% among patients without asplenia; P < .001). Purpura fulminans was a frequent complication, developing in 19% of OPSI patients vs 5% of patients without asplenia (P = .038). The interval between splenectomy and OPSI was 6 years (range, 1 month-50 years). On multivariable Poisson regression, asplenia was the only predictive variable independently associated with pneumococcal sepsis (adjusted relative risk, 2.53 [95% confidence interval, 1.06-6.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Pneumococcal infections remain the most important cause of severe sepsis and septic shock following splenectomy.