BACKGROUND: Septic shock is characterized by dysregulation of the host response to infection, with circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities. We hypothesized that therapy with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone or with drotrecogin alfa (activated), which can modulate the host response, would improve the clinical outcomes of patients with septic shock.
METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we evaluated the effect of hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone therapy, drotrecogin alfa (activated), the combination of the three drugs, or their respective placebos. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included mortality at intensive care unit (ICU) discharge and hospital discharge and at day 28 and day 180 and the number of days alive and free of vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, or organ failure. After drotrecogin alfa (activated) was withdrawn from the market, the trial continued with a two-group parallel design. The analysis compared patients who received hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone with those who did not (placebo group).
RESULTS: Among the 1241 patients included in the trial, the 90-day mortality was 43.0% (264 of 614 patients) in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group and 49.1% (308 of 627 patients) in the placebo group (P=0.03). The relative risk of death in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.99). Mortality was significantly lower in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group than in the placebo group at ICU discharge (35.4% vs. 41.0%, P=0.04), hospital discharge (39.0% vs. 45.3%, P=0.02), and day 180 (46.6% vs. 52.5%, P=0.04) but not at day 28 (33.7% and 38.9%, respectively; P=0.06). The number of vasopressor-free days to day 28 was significantly higher in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group than in the placebo group (17 vs. 15 days, P<0.001), as was the number of organ-failure-free days (14 vs. 12 days, P=0.003). The number of ventilator-free days was similar in the two groups (11 days in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group and 10 in the placebo group, P=0.07). The rate of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups, but hyperglycemia was more common in hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group.
CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with septic shock, 90-day all-cause mortality was lower among those who received hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2007 of the French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; APROCCHSS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00625209 .).
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear.<b>METHODS: </b>We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.<b>RESULTS: </b>From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P<0.001). Patients in the hydrocortisone group had a shorter duration of the initial episode of mechanical ventilation than those in the placebo group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 3 to 18] vs. 7 days [interquartile range, 3 to 24]; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22; P<0.001), but taking into account episodes of recurrence of ventilation, there were no significant differences in the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Fewer patients in the hydrocortisone group than in the placebo group received a blood transfusion (37.0% vs. 41.7%; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.004). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality at 28 days, the rate of recurrence of shock, the number of days alive and out of the ICU, the number of days alive and out of the hospital, the recurrence of mechanical ventilation, the rate of renal-replacement therapy, and the incidence of new-onset bacteremia or fungemia.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in lower 90-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADRENAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01448109 .).
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>Authors of recent meta-analyses have reported that prolonged glucocorticoid treatment is associated with significant improvements in patients with severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of multifactorial etiology. A prospective randomized trial limited to patients with sepsis-associated ARDS is lacking. The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of hydrocortisone treatment in sepsis-associated ARDS.<b>METHODS: </b>In this double-blind, single-center (Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok), randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adult patients with severe sepsis within 12 h of their meeting ARDS criteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either hydrocortisone 50 mg every 6 h or placebo. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included survival without organ support on day 28.<b>RESULTS: </b>Over the course of 4 years, 197 patients were randomized to either hydrocortisone (n = 98) or placebo (n = 99) and were included in this intention-to-treat analysis. The treatment group had significant improvement in the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to fraction of inspired oxygen and lung injury score (p = 0.01), and similar timing to removal of vital organ support (HR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.51-1.07; p = 0.107). After adjustment for significant covariates, day 28 survival was similar for the whole group (HR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.46-1.41; p = 0.44) and for the larger subgroup (n = 126) with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score <25 (HR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.24-1.36; p = 0.20). With the exception of hyperglycemia (80.6 % vs. 67.7 %; p = 0.04), the rate of adverse events was similar. Hyperglycemia had no impact on outcome.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>In sepsis-associated ARDS, hydrocortisone treatment was associated with a significant improvement in pulmonary physiology, but without a significant survival benefit.<b>Trial Registration: </b>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01284452 . Registered on 18 January 2011.
<b>Importance: </b>Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock; however, early vasopressin use has been proposed as an alternative.<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To compare the effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock.<b>Design, Setting, and Participants: </b>A factorial (2×2), double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 general adult intensive care units in the United Kingdom between February 2013 and May 2015, enrolling adult patients who had septic shock requiring vasopressors despite fluid resuscitation within a maximum of 6 hours after the onset of shock.<b>INTERVENTIONS: </b>Patients were randomly allocated to vasopressin (titrated up to 0.06 U/min) and hydrocortisone (n = 101), vasopressin and placebo (n = 104), norepinephrine and hydrocortisone (n = 101), or norepinephrine and placebo (n = 103).<b>Main Outcomes and Measures: </b>The primary outcome was kidney failure-free days during the 28-day period after randomization, measured as (1) the proportion of patients who never developed kidney failure and (2) median number of days alive and free of kidney failure for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both. Rates of renal replacement therapy, mortality, and serious adverse events were secondary outcomes.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 409 patients (median age, 66 years; men, 58.2%) were included in the study, with a median time to study drug administration of 3.5 hours after diagnosis of shock. The number of survivors who never developed kidney failure was 94 of 165 patients (57.0%) in the vasopressin group and 93 of 157 patients (59.2%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -13.0% to 8.5%]). The median number of kidney failure-free days for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both was 9 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1 to -24) in the vasopressin group and 13 days (IQR, 1 to -25) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -4 days [95% CI, -11 to 5]). There was less use of renal replacement therapy in the vasopressin group than in the norepinephrine group (25.4% for vasopressin vs 35.3% for norepinephrine; difference, -9.9% [95% CI, -19.3% to -0.6%]). There was no significant difference in mortality rates between groups. In total, 22 of 205 patients (10.7%) had a serious adverse event in the vasopressin group vs 17 of 204 patients (8.3%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -3.3% to 8.2%]).<b>Conclusions and Relevance: </b>Among adults with septic shock, the early use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine did not improve the number of kidney failure-free days. Although these findings do not support the use of vasopressin to replace norepinephrine as initial treatment in this situation, the confidence interval included a potential clinically important benefit for vasopressin, and larger trials may be warranted to assess this further.<b>Trial Registration: </b>clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ISRCTN 20769191.
<b>Importance: </b>In patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia, treatment failure is associated with excessive inflammatory response and worse outcomes. Corticosteroids may modulate cytokine release in these patients, but the benefit of this adjunctive therapy remains controversial.<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To assess the effect of corticosteroids in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high associated inflammatory response.<b>Design, Setting, and Participants: </b>Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 3 Spanish teaching hospitals involving patients with both severe community-acquired pneumonia and a high inflammatory response, which was defined as a level of C-reactive protein greater than 150 mg/L at admission. Patients were recruited and followed up from June 2004 through February 2012.<b>INTERVENTIONS: </b>Patients were randomized to receive either an intravenous bolus of 0.5 mg/kg per 12 hours of methylprednisolone (n = 61) or placebo (n = 59) for 5 days started within 36 hours of hospital admission.<b>Main Outcomes and Measures: </b>The primary outcome was treatment failure (composite outcome of early treatment failure defined as [1] clinical deterioration indicated by development of shock, [2] need for invasive mechanical ventilation not present at baseline, or [3] death within 72 hours of treatment; or composite outcome of late treatment failure defined as [1] radiographic progression, [2] persistence of severe respiratory failure, [3] development of shock, [4] need for invasive mechanical ventilation not present at baseline, or [5] death between 72 hours and 120 hours after treatment initiation; or both early and late treatment failure). In-hospital mortality was a secondary outcome and adverse events were assessed.<b>RESULTS: </b>There was less treatment failure among patients from the methylprednisolone group (8 patients [13%]) compared with the placebo group (18 patients [31%]) (P = .02), with a difference between groups of 18% (95% CI, 3% to 32%). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the risk of treatment failure (odds ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.87]; P = .02). In-hospital mortality did not differ between the 2 groups (6 patients [10%] in the methylprednisolone group vs 9 patients [15%] in the placebo group; P = .37); the difference between groups was 5% (95% CI, -6% to 17%). Hyperglycemia occurred in 11 patients (18%) in the methylprednisolone group and in 7 patients (12%) in the placebo group (P = .34).<b>Conclusions and Relevance: </b>Among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high initial inflammatory response, the acute use of methylprednisolone compared with placebo decreased treatment failure. If replicated, these findings would support the use of corticosteroids as adjunctive treatment in this clinical population.<b>Trial Registration: </b>clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00908713.
Introduction Although the administration of hydrocortisone in septic shock generates adverse effects, the risk of corticosteroid-induced hypernatremia may be reduced by continuous administration of the drug [1,2]. Methods A total of 171 patients with septic shock were randomized into three study groups: group A (n = 58), 200 mg/day hydrocortisone hemisuccinate in four doses; group B (n = 59), same dose of hydrocortisone hemisuccinate in continuous administration; group C (n = 54), no hydrocortisone hemisuccinate. Mean serum sodium values, the number of hypernatremia episodes and variations in serum sodium (Na var) were investigated for 7 days. The local ethics committee approved the study. Results There were no differences between the three groups at the beginning of the study regarding demographic data and the clinical characteristics. Mean values of natremia were normal in group C (140.35 ± 7.390 mEq/l to 144.79 ± 8.338 mEq/l) during the study period. High mean values appeared on day 4 in group A (147.21 ± 8.470 mEq/l to 149.37 ± 8.973 mEq/l on day 7) and on day 5 in group B (146.36 ± 8.272 mEq/l to 147.70 ± 8.865 mEq/l). Na var was 8.59 ± 5.960 mEq/l (-8 and 21 mEq/l) in group A, 6.63 ± 7.609 mEq/l (-17 and 23 mEq/l) in group B and 4.54 ± 7.455 mEq/l (-12 and 22 mEq/l) in group C. This variation is statistically significant when groups A and B are compared with group C (P = 0.012) and when only group A is compared with group C (P = 0.0019). The risk of hypernatremia after hydrocortisone hemisuccinate was almost three times higher than that of patients who did not receive this drug (RR 2.82, 1.35 <OR <5.90, P = 0.0041) and slightly higher when HHS was delivered as a bolus (RR 3.08, 1.32 <OR <7.25, P = 0.0071). Conclusion Continuous administration of hydrocortisone hemisuccinate in septic shock is associated with a lower risk of hypernatremia than bolus administration.
Septic shock is characterized by dysregulation of the host response to infection, with circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities. We hypothesized that therapy with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone or with drotrecogin alfa (activated), which can modulate the host response, would improve the clinical outcomes of patients with septic shock.
METHODS:
In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we evaluated the effect of hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone therapy, drotrecogin alfa (activated), the combination of the three drugs, or their respective placebos. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included mortality at intensive care unit (ICU) discharge and hospital discharge and at day 28 and day 180 and the number of days alive and free of vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, or organ failure. After drotrecogin alfa (activated) was withdrawn from the market, the trial continued with a two-group parallel design. The analysis compared patients who received hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone with those who did not (placebo group).
RESULTS:
Among the 1241 patients included in the trial, the 90-day mortality was 43.0% (264 of 614 patients) in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group and 49.1% (308 of 627 patients) in the placebo group (P=0.03). The relative risk of death in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.99). Mortality was significantly lower in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group than in the placebo group at ICU discharge (35.4% vs. 41.0%, P=0.04), hospital discharge (39.0% vs. 45.3%, P=0.02), and day 180 (46.6% vs. 52.5%, P=0.04) but not at day 28 (33.7% and 38.9%, respectively; P=0.06). The number of vasopressor-free days to day 28 was significantly higher in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group than in the placebo group (17 vs. 15 days, P<0.001), as was the number of organ-failure-free days (14 vs. 12 days, P=0.003). The number of ventilator-free days was similar in the two groups (11 days in the hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group and 10 in the placebo group, P=0.07). The rate of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups, but hyperglycemia was more common in hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone group.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this trial involving patients with septic shock, 90-day all-cause mortality was lower among those who received hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2007 of the French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; APROCCHSS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00625209 .).
