Dataset Information

Are Corticosteroids Beneficial for Sepsis and Septic Shock? Based on Pooling Analysis of 16 Studies.

ABSTRACT: Background: A host of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were carried out to estimate the role of corticosteroids in sepsis and septic shock. Discordant opinions were investigated to determine whether patients who experienced sepsis and septic shock could benefit from corticosteroids treatment. Our purpose is to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses, to explore the role of corticosteroids in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock. Method: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and LILACS were searched for eligible studies. Two authors individually extracted the relevant data and evaluated the quality of the meta-analysis using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and ROBIS. The Jadad decision algorithm was implemented to identify the meta-analyses that offered the optimal level of evidence. Result: Sixteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria. None of the studies that reported mortality illustrated a significant improvement on mortality (14-day and 90-day), but a 28-day mortality on a long course of a low dose corticosteroids was described. Only four studies stated that a long course of low-dose corticosteroids had advantageous effect on 28-day mortality. A meta-analysis by Fang et al. was regarded as the highest level of evidence in the Jadad decision algorithm among the meta-analyses that were investigated in this systematic review. Conclusion: The 28-day mortality was reduced, as well as the mortality in the ICU and hospital and the length of stay in the ICU, using a long course of low-dose corticosteroids. This was demonstrated by a meta-analysis of the current optimal available evidence. Additionally, significant improvements on the adverse events of hyperglycemia and hypernatraemia have been made.

SUBMITTER: Yao YY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6640176 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are Corticosteroids Beneficial for Sepsis and Septic Shock? Based on Pooling Analysis of 16 Studies.

Yao Yang-Yang YY Lin Lu-Lu LL Gu Hui-Yun HY Wu Jun-Yi JY Niu Yu-Ming YM Zhang Chao C

Frontiers in pharmacology 20190712

<b>Background:</b> A host of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were carried out to estimate the role of corticosteroids in sepsis and septic shock. Discordant opinions were investigated to determine whether patients who experienced sepsis and septic shock could benefit from corticosteroids treatment. Our purpose is to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses, to explore the role of corticosteroids in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock. <b>Method:</b> Ovid MEDLINE, EMBase ...[more]

PMID: 31354473

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe benefits and use of low-dose corticosteroids (LDCs) in severe sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines suggest LDC use for septic shock patients poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Their use is suspected to be wide-spread, but paucity of data regarding global practice exists. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients treated or not treated with LDC from the international PROGRESS (PROmoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.MethodsPatients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 microg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.ResultsA total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Overall hospital mortality rates were greater in the LDC than in the non-LDC group (58.0% versus 43.0%; P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47).ConclusionsWidespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of intravenous corticosteroids in patients with sepsis remain controversial due to mixed results from randomized trials. Moreover, updated definitions of sepsis, Sepsis-3, were proposed in 2016, and findings related to the effects of corticosteroids in patients defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria are scarce.ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis or septic shock using real-world data to complement the findings of randomized controlled trials, and to determine whether the treatment effects differ by sepsis definitions.MethodsWe conducted this study by utilizing a large, multi-center healthcare database, eICU, in which we identified patients with sepsis admitted to 208 intensive care units across the US from 2014 to 2015 based on two different definitions: prior explicit definitions (i.e., based on diagnosis codes) and the Sepsis-3 definitions (i.e., based on SOFA score). The association between intravenous corticosteroids and in-hospital survival up to 50 days in patients with sepsis was retrospectively analyzed. A parametric hazard model with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weight adjustment was used to control for baseline confounders.ResultsOf the 7,158 patients identified based on the explicit definition, 562 (7.9%) received corticosteroids; of the 5,009 patients identified based on the Sepsis-3 definition, 465 (9.3%) received corticosteroids. In the explicit cohort, adjusted in-hospital survival at day 50 was 0.62 in the treated vs 0.57 in the non-treated, with a survival difference of 0.05 (95%CI: -0.11, 0.17). Similar results were seen in the Sepsis-3 cohort (0.58 vs 0.56 in treated and non-treated, respectively), with a 50-day survival difference of 0.02 (95%CI: -0.19, 0.17).ConclusionsIn patients with sepsis or septic shock, intravenous corticosteroids were not associated with a higher in-hospital survival up to 50 days regardless of the sepsis definitions. Further research may be necessary to definitively confirm effectiveness in real-world practice.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Current low (stress) dose corticosteroid regimens may have therapeutic advantage in severe sepsis and septic shock despite conflicting results from two landmark randomised controlled trials (RCT). We systematically reviewed the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: RCTs were identified (1950-September 2008) by multiple data-base electronic search (MEDLINE via OVID, OVID PreMedline, OVID Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and hand search of references, reviews and scientific society proceedings. Three investigators independently assessed trial inclusion and data extraction into standardised forms; differences resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Corticosteroid efficacy, compared with control, for hospital-mortality, proportion of patients experiencing shock-resolution, and infective and non-infective complications was assessed using Bayesian random-effects models; expressed as odds ratio (OR, (95% credible-interval)). Bayesian outcome probabilities were calculated as the probability (P) that OR ?1. Fourteen RCTs were identified. High-dose (>1000 mg hydrocortisone (equivalent) per day) corticosteroid trials were associated with a null (n = 5; OR 0.91(0.31-1.25)) or higher (n = 4, OR 1.46(0.73-2.16), outlier excluded) mortality probability (P = 42.0% and 89.3%, respectively). Low-dose trials (<1000 mg hydrocortisone per day) were associated with a lower (n = 9, OR 0.80(0.40-1.39); n = 8 OR 0.71(0.37-1.10), outlier excluded) mortality probability (20.4% and 5.8%, respectively). OR for shock-resolution was increased in the low dose trials (n = 7; OR 1.20(1.07-4.55); P = 98.2%). Patient responsiveness to corticotrophin stimulation was non-determinant. A high probability of risk-related treatment efficacy (decrease in log-odds mortality with increased control arm risk) was identified by metaregression in the low dose trials (n = 9, slope coefficient -0.49(-1.14, 0.27); P = 92.2%). Odds of complications were not increased with corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Although a null effect for mortality treatment efficacy of low dose corticosteroid therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock was not excluded, there remained a high probability of treatment efficacy, more so with outlier exclusion. Similarly, although a null effect was not excluded, advantageous effects of low dose steroids had a high probability of dependence upon patient underlying risk. Low dose steroid efficacy was not demonstrated in corticotrophin non-responders. Further large-scale trials appear mandated.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Project description:What Is Known and Objective. To reevaluate the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Methods. This study was performed based on PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central RCTs, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1980 to April 2018. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis to indicate the possibility of type I or II errors and calculate the information size. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was applying to assess the certainty of evidence at the primary outcome level. Results. Twenty-one RCTs were identified and analyzed. Patients treated with corticosteroid had a 7% reduction in relative risk in 28-day all-cause mortality compared to controls (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99). However, there were no significant differences for the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) or in-hospital mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11). Corticosteroids shortened the length of ICU stay by 1.04 days (RR -1.04, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.36) and the length of hospital stay by 2.49 days (RR -2.49, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.02). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16) but not gastroduodenal bleeding (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37) or superinfection (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15). However, some date on secondary outcomes were unavailable because they were not measured or not reported in the included studies which may cause a lack of power or selective outcome reporting. The information size was calculated at 10044 patients. Trial sequential analysis showed that the meta-analysis was conclusive and the risk of type 2 error was minimal. What Is New and Conclusion. Corticosteroids are likely to be effective in reducing 28-day mortality and attenuating septic shock without increasing the rate of life-threatening complications. TSA showed that the risk of type II error in this meta-analysis was minimal and the result was conclusive.

Dataset Information

Are Corticosteroids Beneficial for Sepsis and Septic Shock? Based on Pooling Analysis of 16 Studies.

Publications

Are Corticosteroids Beneficial for Sepsis and Septic Shock? Based on Pooling Analysis of 16 Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure