Jacques Devriendt

BACKGROUND: Both dopamine and norepinephrine are recommended as first-line vasopressor agents in the treatment of shock. There is a continuing controversy about whether one agent is superior to the other. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned patients with shock to receive either dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy to restore and maintain blood pressure. When blood pressure could not be maintained with a dose of 20 microg per kilogram of body weight per minute for dopamine or a dose of 0.19 microg per kilogram per minute for norepinephrine, open-label norepinephrine, epinephrine, or vasopressin could be added. The primary outcome was the rate of death at 28 days after randomization; secondary end points included the number of days without need for organ support and the occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: The trial included 1679 patients, of whom 858 were assigned to dopamine and 821 to norepinephrine. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death at 28 days (52.5% in the dopamine group and 48.5% in the norepinephrine group; odds ratio with dopamine, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.42; P=0.10). However, there were more arrhythmic events among the patients treated with dopamine than among those treated with norepinephrine (207 events [24.1%] vs. 102 events [12.4%], P<0.001). A subgroup analysis showed that dopamine, as compared with norepinephrine, was associated with an increased rate of death at 28 days among the 280 patients with cardiogenic shock but not among the 1044 patients with septic shock or the 263 with hypovolemic shock (P=0.03 for cardiogenic shock, P=0.19 for septic shock, and P=0.84 for hypovolemic shock, in Kaplan-Meier analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant difference in the rate of death between patients with shock who were treated with dopamine as the first-line vasopressor agent and those who were treated with norepinephrine, the use of dopamine was associated with a greater number of adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00314704.)

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of recombinant thrombomodulin (ART-123) in patients with suspected sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation. DESIGN: Phase 2b, international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, screening trial. SETTING: Two hundred and thirty-three ICUs in 17 countries. PATIENTS: All adult patients admitted with sepsis and suspected disseminated intravascular coagulation as assessed using a modified International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis score. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive IV ART-123 (0.06 mg/kg/d) for 6 days or placebo, in addition to standard of care. The primary endpoint was reduction in mortality. Secondary endpoints included reversal of overt disseminated intravascular coagulation and reduction in disease severity. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were randomized, nine of whom did not receive the allocated treatment so that 371 patients received ART-123 and 370 received placebo. There were no meaningful differences between the two groups in any of the baseline variables. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 17.8% in the ART-123 group and 21.6% in the placebo group (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel two-sided p value of 0.273 in favor of ART-123, which met the predefined statistical test for evidence suggestive of efficacy). There were no statistically significant differences in event-free and alive days between the two groups. d-dimer, prothrombin fragment F1.2 and TATc concentrations were lower in the ART-123 group than in the placebo group. There were no differences between the two groups in organ function, inflammatory markers, bleeding or thrombotic events or in the development of new infections. In post hoc analyses, greatest benefit from ART-123 was seen in patients with at least one organ system dysfunction and an international normalized ratio greater than 1.4 at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: ART-123 is a safe intervention in critically ill patients with sepsis and suspected disseminated intravascular coagulation. The study provided evidence suggestive of efficacy supporting further development of this drug in sepsis-associated coagulopathy including disseminated intravascular coagulation. Future study should focus on using ART-123 in the subgroup of patients most likely to respond to this agent.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty on the effect of different dialysis modalities for the treatment of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This controlled clinical trial performed in the framework of the multicentre SHARF 4 study (Stuivenberg Hospital Acute Renal Failure) aimed to investigate the outcome in patients with AKI, stratified according to severity of disease and randomized to different treatment options. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial with stratification according to severity of disease expressed by the SHARF score. ICU patients were eligible for inclusion when serum creatinine was >2 mg/dL, and RRT was initiated. The selected patients were randomized to intermittent (IRRT) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). RESULTS: A total of 316 AKI patients were randomly assigned to IRRT (n = 144) or CRRT (n = 172). The mean age was 66 (range 18-96); 59% were male. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed a mortality of 62.5% in IRRT compared to 58.1% in CRRT (P = 0.430). No difference between IRRT and CRRT could be observed in the duration of ICU stay or hospital stay. In survivors, renal recovery at hospital discharge was comparable between both groups. Multivariate analysis, including the SHARF score, APACHE II and SOFA scores for correction of disease severity, showed no difference in mortality between both treatment modalities. This result was confirmed in pre-specified subgroup analysis (elderly, patients with sepsis, heart failure, ventilation) and after exclusion of possible confounders (early mortality, delayed ICU admission). CONCLUSIONS: Modality of RRT, either CRRT or IRRT, had no impact on the outcome in ICU patients with AKI. Both modalities need to be considered as complementary in the treatment of AKI (Clinical Trial: SHARF 4, NCT00322933, http://ClinicalTrials.gov).

INTRODUCTION: Outcome studies in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) have focused on differences between modalities of renal replacement therapy (RRT). The outcome of conservative treatment, however, has never been compared with RRT. METHODS: Nine Belgian intensive care units (ICUs) included all adult patients consecutively admitted with serum creatinine >2 mg/dl. Included treatment options were conservative treatment and intermittent or continuous RRT. Disease severity was determined using the Stuivenberg Hospital Acute Renal Failure (SHARF) score. Outcome parameters studied were mortality, hospital length of stay and renal recovery at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Out of 1,303 included patients, 650 required RRT (58% intermittent, 42% continuous RRT). Overall results showed a higher mortality (43% versus 58%) as well as a longer ICU and hospital stay in RRT patients compared to conservative treatment. Using the SHARF score for adjustment of disease severity, an increased risk of death for RRT compared to conservative treatment of RR = 1.75 (95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) was found. Additional correction for other severity parameters (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)), age, type of AKI and clinical conditions confirmed the higher mortality in the RRT group. CONCLUSIONS: The SHARF study showed that the higher mortality expected in AKI patients receiving RRT versus conservative treatment can not only be explained by a higher disease severity in the RRT group, even after multiple corrections. A more critical approach to the need for RRT in AKI patients seems to be warranted.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) in hospitalised patients is associated with high mortality. The effectiveness of the bivalent, bispecific mAb MEDI3902 (gremubamab) in preventing PA nosocomial pneumonia was assessed in PA-colonised mechanically ventilated subjects. METHODS: EVADE (NCT02696902) was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Europe, Turkey, Israel, and the USA. Subjects ≥ 18 years old, mechanically ventilated, tracheally colonised with PA, and without new-onset pneumonia, were randomised (1:1:1) to MEDI3902 500, 1500 mg (single intravenous dose), or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of nosocomial PA pneumonia through 21 days post-dose in MEDI3902 1500 mg versus placebo, determined by an independent adjudication committee. RESULTS: Even if the initial sample size was not reached because of low recruitment, 188 subjects were randomised (MEDI3902 500/1500 mg: n = 16/87; placebo: n = 85) between 13 April 2016 and 17 October 2019. Out of these, 184 were dosed (MEDI3902 500/1500 mg: n = 16/85; placebo: n = 83), comprising the modified intent-to-treat set. Enrolment in the 500 mg arm was discontinued due to pharmacokinetic data demonstrating low MEDI3902 serum concentrations. Subsequently, enrolled subjects were randomised (1:1) to MEDI3902 1500 mg or placebo. PA pneumonia was confirmed in 22.4% (n = 19/85) of MEDI3902 1500 mg recipients and in 18.1% (n = 15/83) of placebo recipients (relative risk reduction [RRR]: - 23.7%; 80% confidence interval [CI] - 83.8%, 16.8%; p = 0.49). At 21 days post-1500 mg dose, the mean (standard deviation) serum MEDI3902 concentration was 9.46 (7.91) μg/mL, with 80.6% (n = 58/72) subjects achieving concentrations > 1.7 μg/mL, a level associated with improved outcome in animal models. Treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The bivalent, bispecific monoclonal antibody MEDI3902 (gremubamab) did not reduce PA nosocomial pneumonia incidence in PA-colonised mechanically ventilated subjects. Trial registration Registered on Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02696902 ) on 11th February 2016 and on EudraCT ( 2015-001706-34 ) on 7th March 2016.