Epidemiology and Burden of Sepsis at Thailand's Largest University-Based National Tertiary Referral Center during 2019.

Data specific to the epidemiology and burden of sepsis in low- and middle-income countries are limited. This study aimed to determine the epidemiology and burden of adult patients with sepsis at Siriraj Hospital during 2019. Randomly selected adult patients who had blood cultures performed at our center during January−December 2019 were enrolled. A Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score was used to determine the presence of sepsis. Demographic data and clinical outcome data were collected, and the annual incidence of sepsis or septic shock and death was estimated. Of the 987 subjects who had blood cultures performed, 798 had infections, 341 had sepsis, and 104 had septic shock. The prevalence of sepsis or septic shock was 34.9% among blood cultured patients, and 42.7% among those with infections. The prevalence of septic shock was 30.5% among subjects with sepsis. Approximately 63% of sepsis subjects were hospital-acquired infections. The factors independently associated with 28-day mortality in sepsis were receiving an immunosuppressive agent (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27−4.45; p = 0.007), septic shock (aOR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.71−4.87; p < 0.001), and proven infection (aOR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.55−5.36; p = 0.001). Receiving appropriate, definitive antibiotic therapy (ABT) was independently associated with lower mortality in sepsis (aOR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.27−0.93; p = 0.028) and septic shock subjects (aOR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06−0.72; p = 0.013). Achievement of mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mmHg (aOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01−0.77; p = 0.028) and urine output ≥ 0.5 mL/kg/h (aOR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04−0.51; p = 0.006) were independently associated with lower mortality in septic shock patients. The incidence and mortality of sepsis remains high. Appropriate choice of definitive ABT and achievement of MAP and urine output goals may lower mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Utility Compared Among Different Sepsis Scoring Systems in Adult Patients With Sepsis in Thailand: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic and prognostic utility of various sepsis scores varied among different cohorts and settings. METHODS: A prospective cohort study in adult patients with sepsis at Siriraj Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand) was conducted during January to July 2019. The performance of sepsis assessments, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, modified early warning score (MEWS), and national early warning score (NEWS), for sepsis detection and mortality prediction were compared with agreement between 2 infectious disease (ID) specialists to determine their sepsis and septic shock status as the reference standard. RESULTS: Among the 470 subjects included in this study, 206 patients (43.8%) were determined by 2 ID specialists to have sepsis. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome ≥2, qSOFA ≥2, and NEWS ≥5 yielded the highest sensitivity (93.2%), specificity (81.3%), and accuracy (72.6%), respectively, for detecting sepsis. The SIRS ≥2 had the highest sensitivity (97.8%), whereas qSOFA ≥2 had the highest specificity (61%) and accuracy (69.7%) for predicting mortality among sepsis patients. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed MEWS to have the highest discriminatory power for sepsis detection (area under the ROC curve [AUROC], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.83), whereas SOFA had the highest discriminatory power for predicting hospital mortality (AUROC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The NEWS ≥5 and qSOFA ≥2 were the most accurate scoring systems for sepsis detection and mortality prediction, respectively. Each scoring system is useful for different specific purposes relative to early detection and mortality prediction in sepsis patients.

Efficacy and safety of second-line treatment in Thai patients with primary warm-type autoimmune hemolytic anemia.

Objectives:: To investigate the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment in Thai patients with primary warm-type autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) that failed corticosteroid treatment. Methods:: This descriptive retrospective study included patients aged >14 years who were diagnosed with and treated for primary warm-type AIHA at the Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, during January 2007 to December 2016. All 54 included patients failed first-line corticosteroid treatment after which second-line treatment was prescribed. Baseline clinical characteristics, laboratory results at diagnosis and at start of second-line treatment, type of second-line treatment, treatment outcome, and complications of treatment including death were collected. Results:: Included patients had a mean age at onset of 55.8 years (14.5-87.4) and 83.3% of patients were female. Most patients (63%) were refractory to steroids, and the rest of them relapsed while on steroids. The second-line medications were azathioprine (61.1%), cyclophosphamide (31.5%), chlorambucil (1.9%), danazol (3.7%), and rituximab (1.9%), with respective response rates of 78.8%, 58.8%, 1/1 patient, 2/2 patients, and 0/1 patient. Strong positive direct Coombs' test (3+-4+) was the only predictive factor of treatment response (p = 0.008). Males had better relapse-free survival than females (not reached vs. 20.6 months) (p = 0.023). Approximately 40% of the patients who responded to second-line treatment relapsed at a median of 7.4 months. Conclusion:: Immunosuppressive drugs are the most common second-line treatment for primary warm-type AIHA in Thailand; however, relapse was common. Additional therapies are needed to reduce the relapse rate and prolong remission.