O-GlcNAc Transferase Suppresses Inflammation and Necroptosis by Targeting Receptor-Interacting Serine/Threonine-Protein Kinase 3.

Elevated glucose metabolism in immune cells represents a hallmark feature of many inflammatory diseases, such as sepsis. However, the role of individual glucose metabolic pathways during immune cell activation and inflammation remains incompletely understood. Here, we demonstrate a previously unrecognized anti-inflammatory function of the O-linked ß-N-acetylglucosamine (O-GlcNAc) signaling associated with the hexosamine biosynthesis pathway (HBP). Despite elevated activities of glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway, activation of macrophages with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) resulted in attenuated HBP activity and protein O-GlcNAcylation. Deletion of O-GlcNAc transferase (OGT), a key enzyme for protein O-GlcNAcylation, led to enhanced innate immune activation and exacerbated septic inflammation. Mechanistically, OGT-mediated O-GlcNAcylation of the serine-threonine kinase RIPK3 on threonine 467 (T467) prevented RIPK3-RIPK1 hetero- and RIPK3-RIPK3 homo-interaction and inhibited downstream innate immunity and necroptosis signaling. Thus, our study identifies an immuno-metabolic crosstalk essential for fine-tuning innate immune cell activation and highlights the importance of glucose metabolism in septic inflammation.

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Sepsis phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes: are they ready for bedside care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sepsis remains a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite decades of research, no effective therapies have emerged. The lack of progress in sepsis outcomes is related in part to the significant heterogeneity of sepsis populations. This review seeks to highlight recent literature regarding sepsis phenotypes and the potential for further research and therapeutic intervention. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous recent studies have elucidated various phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes in sepsis. Clinical parameters including vital sign trajectories and microbial factors, biomarker investigation, and genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies have illustrated numerous differences in sepsis populations with implications for prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of sepsis. SUMMARY: Sepsis therapies including care bundles, fluid resuscitation, and source control procedures may be better guided by validated phenotypes than universal application. Novel biomarkers may improve upon the sensitivity and specificity of existing markers and identify complications and sequelae of sepsis. Multiomics have demonstrated significant differences in sepsis populations, most notably expanding our understanding of immunosuppressed sepsis phenotypes. Despite progress, these findings may be limited by modest reproducibility and logistical barriers to clinical implementation. Further studies may translate recent findings into bedside care.

Remdesivir Reduced Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Across Variant Waves: Findings From Routine Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, yet treatment strategies for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 reflect variations in clinical practice. In this comparative effectiveness study, we investigated the effect of remdesivir treatment on inpatient mortality among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across all variants of concern (VOC) periods. METHODS: Data for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AITM Healthcare Database. Patients who received remdesivir within 2 days of hospitalization were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching to patients who did not receive remdesivir. Additional matching criteria included admission month, age group, and hospital. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the effect of remdesivir on risk of 14- and 28-day mortality during VOC periods. RESULTS: A total of 19 184 remdesivir patients were matched to 11 213 non-remdesivir patients. Overall, 11.1% and 17.7% of remdesivir patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 22.4% of non-remdesivir patients. Remdesivir was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval, .62-.78) and 28 days (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, .68-.83). The survival benefit remained significant during the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron periods. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt initiation of remdesivir in immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is associated with significant survival benefit across all variant waves. These findings provide much-needed evidence relating to the effectiveness of a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients among a high-risk population.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU.

RATIONALE: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL DESIGN: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements. RESULTS: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

Astegolimab or Efmarodocokin Alfa in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Phase 2 Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Release of interleukin (IL)-33, an epithelial-derived alarmin, and IL-33/ST2 pathway activation are linked with ARDS development in other viral infections. IL-22, a cytokine that modulates innate immunity through multiple regenerative and protective mechanisms in lung epithelial cells, is reduced in patients with ARDS. This study aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of astegolimab, a human immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits the IL-33 receptor, ST2, or efmarodocokin alfa, a human IL-22 fusion protein that activates IL-22 signaling, for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (COVID-astegolimab-IL). SETTING: Hospitals. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive IV astegolimab, efmarodocokin alfa, or placebo, plus standard of care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as time to a score of 1 or 2 on a 7-category ordinal scale by day 28. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study randomized 396 patients. Median time to recovery was 11 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01 d; p = 0.93) and 10 days (HR, 1.15 d; p = 0.38) for astegolimab and efmarodocokin alfa, respectively, versus 10 days for placebo. Key secondary endpoints (improved recovery, mortality, or prevention of worsening) showed no treatment benefits. No new safety signals were observed and adverse events were similar across treatment arms. Biomarkers demonstrated that both drugs were pharmacologically active. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with astegolimab or efmarodocokin alfa did not improve time to recovery in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Position Paper: Recommended Revisions to the National Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) Sepsis Quality Measure.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Janus Kinase inhibitors for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been successfully utilized in the clinical treatment of several rheumatologic (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis) and inflammatory diseases (e.g. hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis). Based on the growing evidence that moderate and severe COVID-19 infections are associated with a dysregulated inflammatory state, this class of medications has been repurposed as a potential therapy for COVID-19, an infection caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. RECENT FINDINGS: Three JAK inhibitors have been evaluated in human studies of COVID-19: Baricitinib, Tofacitinib, and Ruxolitinib. Most published studies are observational, but three randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trials have been completed: two large trials (N = 2,558 patients) with baricitinb demonstrated significant faster improvement in clinical status and reduction in the recovery time, as well as, significant reduction in the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. One smaller randomized trial (N = 289) involving tofacitinib showed significant reduction in the progression to invasive ventilation or death. Notably, these three randomized placebo-controlled trials with close to 3,000 patients did not reveal any safety concerns associated with JAK inhibitors in terms of secondary infections or venous thromboembolism. Based on this high-quality evidence, both the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend using baricitinib as part of the treatment approach for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. SUMMARY: JAK inhibitors are novel treatment agents in the field of infectious diseases. One JAK inhibitor, baricitinib has demonstrated significant clinical and survival benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in phase III randomized placebo-controlled trials. Baricitinib is already recommended for clinical practice by multiple guidelines.

Survival Outcome of Sepsis in Recipients of Solid Organ Transplant.

Sepsis is a complex disease stemming from a dysregulated immune response toward an infectious agent. In transplantation, sepsis remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Solid organ transplant recipients have impaired adaptive immunity due to immunosuppression required to prevent rejection. Immunosuppression has unintended consequences, such as increasing the risk of infections and sepsis. Due to its high morbidity and mortality, early detection of sepsis is paramount to start aggressive treatment. Several biomarkers or combination of biomarkers of sepsis have emerged in the last decade, but they are not dependable for early diagnosis or for outcome prognosis.

Sepsis in Immunocompromised Patients Without Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Sepsis remains among the most common complications from infectious diseases worldwide. The morbidity and mortality rates associated with sepsis range from 20% to 50%. The advances in care for patients with an immunocompromised status have been remarkable over the last 2 decades, but sepsis continues to be a major cause of death in this population Immunocompromised patients who are recipients of a solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant are living longer with a better quality of life. However, some of these patients need lifelong treatment with immunosuppressive medications to maintain their transplant status. A consequence of the need for this permanent immunosuppression is the high risk of opportunistic, community, and hospital-acquired infections, all of which can lead to sepsis. In addition, the detection of serious infections may be more challenging owing to patients' lower ability to mount the clinical symptoms that usually accompany sepsis. This article provides an update on the current knowledge of sepsis in immunocompromised patients without human immunodeficiency virus. It reviews the most pertinent causes of sepsis in this population, and addresses the specific diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in neutropenia and solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Influenza virus-related critical illness: pathophysiology and epidemiology.

Influenza virus affects the respiratory tract by direct viral infection or by damage from the immune system response. In humans, the respiratory epithelium is the only site where the hemagglutinin (HA) molecule is effectively cleaved, generating infectious virus particles. Virus transmission occurs through a susceptible individual's contact with aerosols or respiratory fomites from an infected individual. The inability of the lung to perform its primary function of gas exchange can result from multiple mechanisms, including obstruction of the airways, loss of alveolar structure, loss of lung epithelial integrity from direct epithelial cell killing, and degradation of the critical extracellular matrix.Approximately 30-40% of hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza are diagnosed with acute pneumonia. These patients who develop pneumonia are more likely to be < 5 years old, > 65 years old, Caucasian, and nursing home residents; have chronic lung or heart disease and history of smoking, and are immunocompromised.Influenza can primarily cause severe pneumonia, but it can also present in conjunction with or be followed by a secondary bacterial infection, most commonly by Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Influenza is associated with a high predisposition to bacterial sepsis and ARDS. Viral infections presenting concurrently with bacterial pneumonia are now known to occur with a frequency of 30-50% in both adult and pediatric populations. The H3N2 subtype has been associated with unprecedented high levels of intensive care unit (ICU) admission.Influenza A is the predominant viral etiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adults. Risk factors independently associated with ARDS are age between 36 and 55 years old, pregnancy, and obesity, while protective factors are female sex, influenza vaccination, and infections with Influenza A (H3N2) or Influenza B viruses.In the ICU, particularly during the winter season, influenza should be suspected not only in patients with typical symptoms and epidemiology, but also in patients with severe pneumonia, ARDS, sepsis with or without bacterial co-infection, as well as in patients with encephalitis, myocarditis, and rhabdomyolysis.