Dataset Information

Interleukin-7 restores lymphocytes in septic shock: the IRIS-7 randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A defining pathophysiologic feature of sepsis is profound apoptosis-induced death and depletion of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Interleukin-7 (IL-7) is an antiapoptotic common ?-chain cytokine that is essential for lymphocyte proliferation and survival. Clinical trials of IL-7 in over 390 oncologic and lymphopenic patients showed that IL-7 was safe, invariably increased CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocyte counts, and improved immunity. METHODS:We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of recombinant human IL-7 (CYT107) in patients with septic shock and severe lymphopenia. Twenty-seven patients at academic sites in France and the United States received CYT107 or placebo for 4 weeks. Primary aims were to determine the safety of CYT107 in sepsis and its ability to reverse lymphopenia. RESULTS:CYT107 was well tolerated without evidence of inducing cytokine storm or worsening inflammation or organ dysfunction. CYT107 caused a 3- to 4-fold increase in absolute lymphocyte counts and in circulating CD4+ and CD8+ T cells that persisted for weeks after drug administration. CYT107 also increased T cell proliferation and activation. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first trial of an immunoadjuvant therapy targeting defects in adaptive immunity in patients with sepsis. CYT107 reversed the marked loss of CD4+ and CD8+ immune effector cells, a hallmark of sepsis and a likely key mechanism in its morbidity and mortality. CYT107 represents a potential new way forward in the treatment of patients with sepsis by restoring adaptive immunity. Such immune-based therapy should be broadly protective against diverse pathogens including multidrug resistant bacteria that preferentially target patients with impaired immunity. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02640807 and NCT02797431. FUNDING:Revimmune, NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences GM44118.

SUBMITTER: Francois B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5922293 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interleukin-7 restores lymphocytes in septic shock: the IRIS-7 randomized clinical trial.

Francois Bruno B Jeannet Robin R Daix Thomas T Walton Andrew H AH Shotwell Matthew S MS Unsinger Jacqueline J Monneret Guillaume G Rimmelé Thomas T Blood Teresa T Morre Michel M Gregoire Anne A Mayo Gail A GA Blood Jane J Durum Scott K SK Sherwood Edward R ER Hotchkiss Richard S RS

JCI insight 20180308 5

<h4>Background</h4>A defining pathophysiologic feature of sepsis is profound apoptosis-induced death and depletion of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Interleukin-7 (IL-7) is an antiapoptotic common γ-chain cytokine that is essential for lymphocyte proliferation and survival. Clinical trials of IL-7 in over 390 oncologic and lymphopenic patients showed that IL-7 was safe, invariably increased CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocyte counts, and improved immunity.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a prospective, randomized, dou ...[more]

PMID: 29515037

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeptic shock is a low-frequency but high-stakes condition in children requiring prompt resuscitation, which makes it an important target for simulation-based education.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to design and implement an augmented reality app (PediSepsisAR) for septic shock simulation, test the feasibility of measuring the timing and volume of fluid administration during septic shock simulation with and without PediSepsisAR, and describe PediSepsisAR as an educational tool. We hypothesized that we could feasibly measure our desired data during the simulation in 90% of the participants in each group. With regard to using PediSepsisAR as an educational tool, we hypothesized that the PediSepsisAR group would report that it enhanced their awareness of simulated patient blood flow and would more rapidly verbalize recognition of abnormal patient status and desired management steps.MethodsWe performed a randomized controlled feasibility trial with a convenience sample of pediatric care providers at a large tertiary care pediatric center. Participants completed a prestudy questionnaire and were randomized to either the PediSepsisAR or control (traditional simulation) arms. We measured the participants' time to administer 20, 40, and 60 cc/kg of intravenous fluids during a septic shock simulation using each modality. In addition, facilitators timed how long participants took to verbalize they had recognized tachycardia, hypotension, or septic shock and desired to initiate the sepsis pathway and administer antibiotics. Participants in the PediSepsisAR arm completed a poststudy questionnaire. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare the median time with event variables between groups.ResultsWe enrolled 50 participants (n=25 in each arm). The timing and volume of fluid administration were captured in all the participants in each group. There was no statistically significant difference regarding time to administration of intravenous fluids between the two groups. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding time to verbalized recognition of patient status or desired management steps. Most participants in the PediSepsisAR group reported that PediSepsisAR enhanced their awareness of the patient's perfusion.ConclusionsWe developed an augmented reality app for use in pediatric septic shock simulations and demonstrated the feasibility of measuring the volume and timing of fluid administration during simulation using this modality. In addition, our findings suggest that PediSepsisAR may enhance participants' awareness of abnormal perfusion.

Project description:BackgroundIn a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary.MethodsIn 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support.ResultsWe enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support.ConclusionsIn a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.).

Project description:ImportanceThe combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine has been identified as a potential therapy for septic shock.ObjectiveTo determine whether the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine attenuates organ injury in patients with septic shock.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine vs placebo for adult patients with septic shock. Two hundred five patients were enrolled between February 9, 2018, and October 27, 2019, at 14 centers in the United States. Follow-up continued until November 26, 2019.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid (1500 mg), hydrocortisone (50 mg), and thiamine (100 mg) every 6 hours for 4 days (n = 103) or placebo in matching volumes at the same time points (n = 102).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0-24; 0 = best) between enrollment and 72 hours. Key secondary outcomes included kidney failure and 30-day mortality. Patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug were included in analyses.ResultsAmong 205 randomized patients (mean age, 68 [SD, 15] years; 90 [44%] women), 200 (98%) received at least 1 dose of study drug, completed the trial, and were included in the analyses (101 with intervention and 99 with placebo group). Overall, there was no statistically significant interaction between time and treatment group with regard to SOFA score over the 72 hours after enrollment (mean SOFA score change from 9.1 to 4.4 [-4.7] points with intervention vs 9.2 to 5.1 [-4.1] points with placebo; adjusted mean difference, -0.8; 95% CI, -1.7 to 0.2; P = .12 for interaction). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of kidney failure (31.7% with intervention vs 27.3% with placebo; adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; P = .58) or in 30-day mortality (34.7% vs 29.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2; P = .26). The most common serious adverse events were hyperglycemia (12 patients with intervention and 7 patients with placebo), hypernatremia (11 and 7 patients, respectively), and new hospital-acquired infection (13 and 12 patients, respectively).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients with septic shock, the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine, compared with placebo, did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SOFA score during the first 72 hours after enrollment. These data do not support routine use of this combination therapy for patients with septic shock.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03389555.

Project description:IntroductionSeptic shock is often characterized by tachycardia and a hyperdynamic hemodynamic profile. Use of the beta antagonist esmolol has been proposed as a therapy to lower heart rate, thereby improving diastolic filling time and improving cardiac output, resulting in a reduction in vasopressor support.MethodsWe conducted a two-center, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial comparing esmolol to placebo in septic shock patients with tachycardia. The primary endpoint was improvement in hemodynamics as measured by the difference in norepinephrine equivalent dose (NED) between groups at 6 hours after initiation of study drug. Secondary outcomes included assessing differences in inflammatory biomarkers and oxygen consumption (VO2).ResultsA total of 1,122 patients were assessed for eligibility and met inclusion criteria; 42 underwent randomization, and 40 received study interventions (18 in the esmolol arm and 22 in the usual care arm). The mean NED at 6 h was 0.30 ± 0.17 mcg/kg/min in the esmolol arm compared to 0.21 ± 0.19 in the standard care arm (P = 0.15). There was no difference in number of shock free days between the esmolol (2, IQR 0, 5) and control groups (2.5, IQR 0, 6) (P = 0.32). There were lower levels of C-reactive protein at 12 and 24 h in the esmolol arm, as well as a statistically significant difference in trend over time between groups. There were no differences in terms of IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα. Among a subset who underwent VO2 monitoring, there was decreased oxygen consumption in the esmolol patients; the mean difference between groups at 24 h was -2.07 mL/kg/min (95% CI -3.82, -0.31) (P = 0.02), with a significant difference for the trend over time (P < 0.01).ConclusionAmong patients with septic shock, infusion of esmolol did not improve vasopressor requirements or time to shock reversal. Esmolol was associated with decreased levels of C-reactive protein over 24 h.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov. Registered February 24, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02369900.

Project description:BackgroundThe combination therapy of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine has been proposed as a potential treatment in patients with sepsis and septic shock. However, subsequent trials have reported conflicting results in relation to survival outcomes. Hence, we performed this randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early combination therapy among adult patients with septic shock.MethodsThis single-center, double-blind RCT enrolled adult patients with diagnosis of septic shock within 12 h from Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital between February 2019 and June 2021. Recruited patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intervention (hydrocortisone 200 mg daily, vitamin C 2 g every 6 h, and thiamine 200 mg every 12 h) or placebo (0.9% saline) for 5 days or until ICU discharge. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. The secondary endpoints included mortality at day 28, ICU discharge, and hospital discharge; shock reversal; 72-h Delta SOFA score; ICU-free days, vasopressor-free days, and ventilator support -free days up to day 28; ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS.ResultsAmong 426 patients randomized, a total of 408 patients with septic shock were included in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, of which 203 were assigned to the intervention group and 205 to the placebo group. In the PP population, the primary outcome of 90-day mortality was 39.9% (81/203) and 39.0% (80/205) in the intervention and the placebo groups, respectively, and was not significantly different (P = 0.86). There was no significant difference between two groups in 28-day mortality (36.5% vs. 36.1%, P = 0.94) or the ICU mortality (31.5% vs. 28.8%, P = 0.55) and hospital mortality (34.5% vs. 33.2%, P = 0.78). No other secondary outcomes showed significant differences between two groups, including shock reversal, vasopressor-free days, and ICU LOS. Intention-to-treat analysis included all the 426 patients and confirmed these results (all P > 0.05).ConclusionAmong adult patients with septic shock, early use of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine combination therapy compared with placebo did not confer survival benefits. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03872011 , registration date: March 12, 2019.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of the administration of intravenous steroids, alone or in conjunction with drotrecogin-alfa (activated) (DrotAA), on the outcomes in septic shock patients.MethodsWe performed a sub-study of the PROWESS-Shock trial (septic shock patients who received fluids and vasopressors above a predefined threshold for at least 4 hours were randomized to receive either DrotAA or placebo for 96 hours). A propensity score for the administration of intravenous steroids for septic shock at baseline was constructed using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazards model using inverse probability of treatment weighting of the propensity score was used to estimate the effect of intravenous steroids, alone or in conjunction with DrotAA, on 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality.ResultsA total of 1695 patients were enrolled of which 49.5% received intravenous steroids for treatment of septic shock at baseline (DrotAA + steroids N = 436; DrotAA + no steroids N = 414; placebo + steroids N = 403; placebo + no steroids N = 442). The propensity weighted risk of 28-day as well as 90-day mortality in those treated vs. those not treated with steroids did not differ among those randomized to DrotAA vs. placebo (interaction p-value = 0.38 and p = 0.27, respectively) nor was a difference detected within each randomized treatment. Similarly, the course of vasopressor use and cardiovascular SOFA did not appear to be influenced by steroid therapy. In patients with lung infection (N = 744), abdominal infection (N = 510), Gram-positive sepsis (N = 420) and Gram-negative sepsis (N = 461), the propensity weighted risk of 28-day as well as 90-day mortality in those treated vs. those not treated with steroids did not differ among those randomized to DrotAA vs. placebo nor was a difference detected within each randomized treatment.ConclusionsIn the present study of septic shock patients, after adjustment for treatment selection bias, we were unable to find noticeable positive impact from intravenous steroids for treatment of septic shock at baseline either in patients randomized for DrotAA or placebo.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00604214 . Registered 24 January 2008.

Dataset Information

Interleukin-7 restores lymphocytes in septic shock: the IRIS-7 randomized clinical trial.

Publications

Interleukin-7 restores lymphocytes in septic shock: the IRIS-7 randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets