Patient stratification using plasma cytokines and their regulators in sepsis: relationship to outcomes, treatment effect and leucocyte transcriptomic subphenotypes.

RATIONALE: Heterogeneity of the host response within sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and more widely critical illness, limits discovery and targeting of immunomodulatory therapies. Clustering approaches using clinical and circulating biomarkers have defined hyper-inflammatory and hypo-inflammatory subphenotypes in ARDS associated with differential treatment response. It is unknown if similar subphenotypes exist in sepsis populations where leucocyte transcriptomic-defined subphenotypes have been reported. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether inflammatory clusters based on cytokine protein abundance were seen in sepsis, and the relationships with previously described transcriptomic subphenotypes. METHODS: Hierarchical cluster and latent class analysis were applied to an observational study (UK Genomic Advances in Sepsis (GAinS)) (n=124 patients) and two clinical trial datasets (VANISH, n=155 and LeoPARDS, n=484) in which the plasma protein abundance of 65, 21, 11 circulating cytokines, cytokine receptors and regulators were quantified. Clinical features, outcomes, response to trial treatments and assignment to transcriptomic subphenotypes were compared between inflammatory clusters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified two (UK GAinS, VANISH) or three (LeoPARDS) inflammatory clusters. A group with high levels of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines was seen that was associated with worse organ dysfunction and survival. No interaction between inflammatory clusters and trial treatment response was found. We found variable overlap of inflammatory clusters and leucocyte transcriptomic subphenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that differences in response at the level of cytokine biology show clustering related to severity, but not treatment response, and may provide complementary information to transcriptomic sepsis subphenotypes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20769191, ISRCTN12776039.

Elevated ferritin, mediated by IL-18 is associated with systemic inflammation and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory subphenotypes have been identified in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Hyperferritinaemia in sepsis is associated with hyperinflammation, worse clinical outcomes, and may predict benefit with immunomodulation. Our aim was to determine if raised ferritin identified a subphenotype in patients with ARDS. METHODS: Baseline plasma ferritin concentrations were measured in patients with ARDS from two randomised controlled trials of simvastatin (Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibition with Simvastatin in Acute Lung Injury to Reduce Pulmonary Dysfunction-2 (HARP-2); discovery cohort, UK) and neuromuscular blockade (ROSE; validation cohort, USA). Results were analysed using a logistic regression model with restricted cubic splines, to determine the ferritin threshold associated with 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Ferritin was measured in 511 patients from HARP-2 (95% of patients enrolled) and 847 patients (84% of patients enrolled) from ROSE. Ferritin was consistently associated with 28-day mortality in both studies and following a meta-analysis, a log-fold increase in ferritin was associated with an OR 1.71 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.90) for 28-day mortality. Patients with ferritin >1380 ng/mL (HARP-2 28%, ROSE 24%) had a significantly higher 28-day mortality and fewer ventilator-free days in both studies. Mediation analysis, including confounders (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-II score and ARDS aetiology) demonstrated a statistically significant contribution of interleukin (IL)-18 as an intermediate pathway between ferritin and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Ferritin is a clinically useful biomarker in ARDS and is associated with worse patient outcomes. These results provide support for prospective interventional trials of immunomodulatory agents targeting IL-18 in this hyperferritinaemic subgroup of patients with ARDS.

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B Trial): protocol for a multicentre phase 3 pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness randomised trial in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of -2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40-50 UK ICUs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

Inhibition of bradykinin in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind trial of icatibant compared with placebo (ICASARS).

SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2 receptors and enters cells. The symptoms are cough, breathlessness, loss of taste/smell and X-ray evidence of infiltrates on chest imaging initially caused by oedema, and subsequently by a lymphocytic pneumonitis. Coagulopathy, thrombosis and hypotension occur. Worse disease occurs with age, obesity, ischaemic heart disease, hypertension and diabetes.These features may be due to abnormal activation of the contact system. This triggers coagulation and the kallikrein-kinin system, leading to accumulation of bradykinin and its derivatives, which act on receptors B1R and B2R. Receptor activation causes cough, hypotension, oedema and release of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) which recruits lymphocytes. These effects are core features seen in early SARS CoV-2 infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study, hypoxic patients with COVID-19 with symptom onset ≤7 days will be randomised to either a bradykinin inhibitor (icatibant) or placebo. Patients and investigators will be blinded. The primary outcome will be blood oxygenation, measured by arterial blood sampling. The secondary outcome will be cardiovascular status. Retinal imaging will be performed to assess vessel size. Blood samples will be taken for measurement of inflammatory analyses including IL-6. As a separate substudy, we will also take comparator blood inflammatory samples from a COVID-19-negative cohort. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received the following approvals: West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has issued a clinical trial authorisation. Belfast Health and Social Care Trust is the study sponsor. Results will be made available to participants upon request and findings will be presented and published. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05407597.

Estimating the attributable fraction of mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome to inform enrichment in future randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Efficiency of randomised clinical trials of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) depends on the fraction of deaths attributable to ARDS (AFARDS) to which interventions are targeted. Estimates of AFARDS in subpopulations of ARDS could improve design of ARDS trials. METHODS: We performed a matched case-control study using the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE cohort. Primary outcome was intensive care unit mortality. We used nearest neighbour propensity score matching without replacement to match ARDS to non-ARDS populations. We derived two separate AFARDS estimates by matching patients with ARDS to patients with non-acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (non-AHRF) and to patients with AHRF with unilateral infiltrates only (AHRF-UL). We also estimated AFARDS in subgroups based on severity of hypoxaemia, number of lung quadrants involved and hyperinflammatory versus hypoinflammatory phenotypes. Additionally, we derived AFAHRF estimates by matching patients with AHRF to non-AHRF controls, and AFAHRF-UL estimates by matching patients with AHRF-UL to non-AHRF controls. RESULTS: Estimated AFARDS was 20.9% (95% CI 10.5% to 31.4%) when compared with AHRF-UL controls and 38.0% (95% CI 34.4% to 41.6%) compared with non-AHRF controls. Within subgroups, estimates for AFARDS compared with AHRF-UL controls were highest in patients with severe hypoxaemia (41.1% (95% CI 25.2% to 57.1%)), in those with four quadrant involvement on chest radiography (28.9% (95% CI 13.4% to 44.3%)) and in the hyperinflammatory subphenotype (26.8% (95% CI 6.9% to 46.7%)). Estimated AFAHRF was 33.8% (95% CI 30.5% to 37.1%) compared with non-AHRF controls. Estimated AFAHRF-UL was 21.3% (95% CI 312.8% to 29.7%) compared with non-AHRF controls. CONCLUSIONS: Overall AFARDS mean values were between 20.9% and 38.0%, with higher AFARDS seen with severe hypoxaemia, four quadrant involvement on chest radiography and hyperinflammatory ARDS.

SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination from hospitalised patients with COVID-19 receiving aerosol-generating procedures.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. RESULTS: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Study into the reversal of septic shock with landiolol (beta blockade): STRESS-L Study protocol for a randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, a single-centre study reported the safe use of esmolol in patients with septic shock and tachycardia who required vasopressor therapy for more than 24 hours. Although not powered to detect a change in mortality, marked improvements were seen in survival (adjusted HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; p<0.001). Beta blockers are one of the most studied groups of drugs but their effect in septic shock is poorly understood; proposed mechanisms include not only the modulation of cardiac function but also immunomodulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: STRESS-L is a randomised, open-label, non-blinded clinical trial which is enrolling a total of 340 patients with septic shock as defined by Sepsis-3 consensus definition and a tachycardia (heart rate ≥95 beats per minute (bpm)) after vasopressor treatment of at least 24 hours. Standard randomisation (1:1 ratio) allocates patients to receive usual care (according to international standards) versus usual care and a continuous landiolol infusion to reduce the heart rate between 80 and 94 bpm. The primary endpoint is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score over 14 days from entry into the trial and while in intensive care unit. Results will inform current clinical practice guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has clinical trial authorisation from the UK competent authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and has been approved by the East of England-Essex Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EE/0368).The results of the trial will be reported first to trial collaborators. The main report will be drafted by the trial coordinating team, and the final version will be agreed by the Trial Steering Committee before submission for publication, on behalf of the collaboration. REGISTRATION: The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) (Project Number: EME-14/150/85) and registered ISRCTN12600919 and EudraCT: 2017-001785-14.

Sedation AND Weaning In Children (SANDWICH): protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge trial.

INTRODUCTION: Weaning from ventilation is a complex process involving several stages that include recognition of patient readiness to begin the weaning process, steps to reduce ventilation while optimising sedation in order not to induce distress and removing the endotracheal tube. Delay at any stage can prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation. We developed a multicomponent intervention targeted at helping clinicians to safely expedite this process and minimise the harms associated with unnecessary mechanical ventilation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a 20-month cluster randomised stepped wedge clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with an internal pilot and a process evaluation. It is being conducted in 18 paediatric intensive care units in the UK to evaluate a protocol-based intervention for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Following an initial 8-week baseline data collection period in all sites, one site will be randomly chosen to transition to the intervention every 4 weeks and will start an 8-week training period after which it will continue the intervention for the remaining duration of the study. We aim to recruit approximately 10 000 patients. The primary analysis will compare data from before the training (control) with that from after the training (intervention) in each site. Full details of the analyses will be in the statistical analysis plan. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was reviewed and approved by NRES Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EM/0301). All sites started patient recruitment on 5 February 2018 before randomisation in April 2018. Results will be disseminated in 2020. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16998143.

Novel anti-tumour necrosis factor receptor-1 (TNFR1) domain antibody prevents pulmonary inflammation in experimental acute lung injury.

BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) is a pleiotropic cytokine with both injurious and protective functions, which are thought to diverge at the level of its two cell surface receptors, TNFR1 and TNFR2. In the setting of acute injury, selective inhibition of TNFR1 is predicted to attenuate the cell death and inflammation associated with TNF-α, while sparing or potentiating the protective effects of TNFR2 signalling. We developed a potent and selective antagonist of TNFR1 (GSK1995057) using a novel domain antibody (dAb) therapeutic and assessed its efficacy in vitro, in vivo and in a clinical trial involving healthy human subjects. METHODS: We investigated the in vitro effects of GSK1995057 on human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HMVEC-L) and then assessed the effects of pretreatment with nebulised GSK1995057 in a non-human primate model of acute lung injury. We then tested translation to humans by investigating the effects of a single nebulised dose of GSK1995057 in healthy humans (n=37) in a randomised controlled clinical trial in which subjects were subsequently exposed to inhaled endotoxin. RESULTS: Selective inhibition of TNFR1 signalling potently inhibited cytokine and neutrophil adhesion molecule expression in activated HMVEC-L monolayers in vitro (P<0.01 and P<0.001, respectively), and also significantly attenuated inflammation and signs of lung injury in non-human primates (P<0.01 in all cases). In a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of nebulised GSK1995057 in 37 healthy humans challenged with a low dose of inhaled endotoxin, treatment with GSK1995057 attenuated pulmonary neutrophilia, inflammatory cytokine release (P<0.01 in all cases) and signs of endothelial injury (P<0.05) in bronchoalveolar lavage and serum samples. CONCLUSION: These data support the potential for pulmonary delivery of a selective TNFR1 dAb as a novel therapeutic approach for the prevention of acute respiratory distress syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01587807.

Impact of non-pharmacological interventions on prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients have an increased risk of developing delirium during their intensive care stay. To date, pharmacological interventions have not been shown to be effective for delirium management but non-pharmacological interventions have shown some promise. The aim of this systematic review is to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions for reducing the incidence or the duration of delirium in critically ill patients. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, AMED, psycINFO and the Cochrane Library. We will include studies of critically ill adults and children. We will include randomised trials and controlled trials which measure the effectiveness of one or more non-pharmacological interventions in reducing incidence or duration of delirium in critically ill patients. We will also include qualitative studies that provide an insight into patients and their families' experiences of delirium and non-pharmacological interventions. Two independent reviewers will assess studies for eligibility, extract data and appraise quality. We will conduct meta-analyses if possible or present results narratively. Qualitative studies will also be reviewed by two independent reviewers, and a specially designed quality assessment tool incorporating the CASP framework and the POPAY framework will be used to assess quality. DISCUSSION: Although non-pharmacological interventions have been studied in populations outside of intensive care units and multicomponent interventions have successfully reduced incidence and duration of delirium, no systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions specifically targeting delirium in critically ill patients have been undertaken to date. This systematic review will provide evidence for the development of a multicomponent intervention for delirium management of critically ill patients that can be tested in a subsequent multicentre randomised trial. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015016625.

Biological therapies in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterised by life-threatening respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, and multiple organ failure. It has a mortality of up to 30 - 45% and causes a long-term reduction in quality of life for survivors, with only approximately 50% of survivors able to return to work 12 months after hospital discharge. AREAS COVERED: In this review we discuss the complex pathophysiology of ARDS, describe the mechanistic pathways implicated in the development of ARDS and how these are currently being targeted with novel biological therapies. These include therapies targeted against inflammatory cytokines, mechanisms mediating increased alveolar permeability and disordered coagulation, as well as the potential of growth factors, gene therapy and mesenchymal stem cells. EXPERT OPINION: Although understanding of the pathophysiology of ARDS has improved, to date there are no effective pharmacological interventions that target a specific mechanism, with the only potentially effective therapies to date aiming to limit ventilator-associated lung injury. However, we believe that through this improved mechanistic insight and better clinical trial design, there is cautious optimism for the future of biological therapies in ARDS, and expect current and future biological compounds to provide treatment options to clinicians managing this devastating condition.

Pharmacological treatments in ARDS; a state-of-the-art update.

Despite its high incidence and devastating outcomes, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has no specific treatment, with effective therapy currently limited to minimizing potentially harmful ventilation and avoiding a positive fluid balance. Many pharmacological therapies have been investigated with limited success to date. In this review article we provide a state-of-the-art update on recent and ongoing trials, as well as reviewing promising future pharmacological therapies in ARDS.