Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes of empirical high-dose meropenem in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Appropriate antimicrobial dosing is challenging because of changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters and an increase in multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms in critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an empirical therapy of high-dose versus standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients. Methods:We performed a prospective randomized open-label study to compare the changes of modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA) score and other clinical outcomes of the high-dose meropenem (2-g infusion over 3?h every 8?h) versus the standard-dose meropenem (1-g infusion over 3?h every 8?h) in sepsis and septic shock patients. Patients' characteristics, clinical and microbiological outcomes, 14 and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital-free days, percent of the time of antibiotic concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (%T>MIC), and safety were assessed. Results:Seventy-eight patients were enrolled. Median delta mSOFA was comparable between two groups (-?1 in the high-dose group vs. -?1 in the standard-dose group; P value = 0.75). There was no difference between the two groups regarding clinical and microbiological cure, 14- and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, and ICU- and hospital-free days. In patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) with a mSOFA score ??7, the high-dose group demonstrated significantly better microbiological cure compared with the standard-dose group (75% (9/12 patients) vs. 20% (2/10 patients); P value = 0.03). Likewise, the high-dose group presented higher microbiological cure rate in patients admitted from ED who had either APACHE II score >?20 (83.3% (10/12) vs. 28.6% (2/7); P value = 0.045) or on mechanical ventilator (87.5% (7/8) vs. 23.1% (3/13); P value = 0.008) than the standard-dose group. Adverse events were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions:Empirical therapy with the high-dose meropenem presented comparable clinical outcomes to the standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients. Besides, subgroup analysis manifested superior microbiological cure rate in sepsis or septic shock patients admitted from ED. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03344627, registered on November 17, 2017.

SUBMITTER: Lertwattanachai T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7158081 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical outcomes of empirical high-dose meropenem in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock: a randomized controlled trial.

Lertwattanachai Tospon T Montakantikul Preecha P Tangsujaritvijit Viratch V Sanguanwit Pitsucha P Sueajai Jetjamnong J Auparakkitanon Saranya S Dilokpattanamongkol Pitchaya P

Journal of intensive care 20200415

<h4>Background</h4>Appropriate antimicrobial dosing is challenging because of changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters and an increase in multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms in critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an empirical therapy of high-dose versus standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a prospective randomized open-label study to compare the changes of modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA) ...[more]

PMID: 32318268

Similar Datasets

Project description:Sepsis is commonly associated with acute kidney injury (AKI), particularly in those requiring dialysis (AKI-D). To date, Sepsis-3 criteria have not been applied to AKI-D patients. We investigated sepsis prevalence defined by Sepsis-3 criteria and evaluated the outcomes of septic-associated AKI-D among critically ill patients. Using the data collected from a prospective multi-center observational study, we applied the Sepsis-3 criteria to critically ill AKI-D patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs) in 30 hospitals between September 2014 and December 2015. We described the prevalence, outcomes, and characteristics of sepsis as defined by the screening Sepsis-3 criteria among AKI-D patients, and compared the outcomes of AKI-D patients with or without sepsis using the Sepsis-3 criteria. A total of 1078 patients (median 70 years; 673 (62.4%) men) with AKI-D were analyzed. The main etiology of AKI was sepsis (71.43%) and the most frequent indication for acute dialysis was oliguria (64.4%). A total of 577 (53.3% of 1078 patients) met the Sepsis-3 criteria, and 206 among the 577 patients (19.1%) had septic shock. Having sepsis and septic shock were independently associated with 90-day mortality among these ICU AKI-D patients (hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 (p = 0.027) and 1.39 (p = 0.004), respectively). Taking mortality as a competing risk factor, AKI-D patients with septic shock had a significantly reduced chance of weaning from dialysis at 90 days than those without sepsis (HR 0.65, p = 0.026). The combination of the Sepsis-3 criteria with the AKI risk score led to better performance in forecasting 90-day mortality. Sepsis affects more than 50% of ICU AKI patients requiring dialysis, and one-fifth of these patients had septic shock. In AKI-D patients, coexistent with or induced by sepsis (as screened by the Sepsis-3 criteria), there is a significantly higher mortality and reduced chance of recovering sufficient renal function, when compared to those without sepsis.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator

Project description:BackgroundSeptic shock is characterized by an uncontrolled inflammatory response and microcirculatory dysfunction. There is currently no specific agent for treating septic shock. Anisodamine is an agent extracted from traditional Chinese medicine with potent anti-inflammatory effects. However, its clinical effectiveness remains largely unknown.MethodsIn a multicentre, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with septic shock to receive either usual care or anisodamine (0.1-0.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per hour), with the anisodamine doses adjusted by clinicians in accordance with the patients' shock status. The primary end point was death on hospital discharge. The secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, vasopressor-free days at 28 days, serum lactate and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score from days 0 to 6. The differences in the primary and secondary outcomes were compared between the treatment and usual care groups with the χ2 test, Student's t test or rank-sum test, as appropriate. The false discovery rate was controlled for multiple testing.ResultsOf the 469 patients screened, 355 were assigned to receive the trial drug and were included in the analyses-181 patients received anisodamine, and 174 were in the usual care group. We found no difference between the usual care and anisodamine groups in hospital mortality (36% vs. 30%; p = 0.348), or ventilator-free days (median [Q1, Q3], 24.4 [5.9, 28] vs. 26.0 [8.5, 28]; p = 0.411). The serum lactate levels were significantly lower in the treated group than in the usual care group after day 3. Patients in the treated group were less likely to receive vasopressors than those in the usual care group (OR [95% CI] 0.84 [0.50, 0.93] for day 5 and 0.66 [0.37, 0.95] for day 6).ConclusionsThere is no evidence that anisodamine can reduce hospital mortality among critically ill adults with septic shock treated in the intensive care unit. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02442440 ; Registered on 13 April 2015).

Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.

Project description:PurposeCritically ill patients with preserved or increased renal function have been shown to be at risk of underexposure to meropenem. Although many meropenem population pharmacokinetic (PK) models have been published, there is no large prospective population PK study with rich sampling focusing on patients most at risk of suboptimal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate PK/PD target attainment and to perform a thorough covariate screening using population PK modelling of meropenem in septic patients with preserved or increased renal function.Patients and methodsA single-centre prospective observational PK study was performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the University Hospitals Leuven. Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and treated with meropenem in the ICU were screened for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they received renal replacement therapy or had an estimated glomerular filtration rate according to the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology collaboration equation <70 mL/min/1.73m2 on the day of PK sampling. Successful PK/PD target attainment was defined as an unbound meropenem trough concentration above 2 mg/L or 8 mg/L. Population PK modelling was performed with NONMEM7.4.ResultsIn total, 58 patients were included, contributing 345 plasma samples over 70 dosing intervals. The 2 mg/L and 8 mg/L targets were successfully attained in 46% and 11% of all dosing intervals, respectively. A two-compartment population PK model with linear elimination and interindividual variability on clearance best described meropenem PK. The estimated creatinine clearance according to the Cockcroft-Gault equation was the only covariate retained during population PK analysis.ConclusionThis study provided detailed insight into meropenem PK in critically ill patients with preserved or increased renal function. We observed poor PK/PD target attainment, for which renal function was the only significant covariate.Trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03560557).

Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes of empirical high-dose meropenem in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Clinical outcomes of empirical high-dose meropenem in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure