Erasmus Hospital

IMPORTANCE: Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. PROCESS: A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). KEY FINDINGS FROM EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Drotrecogin alfa (activated), or recombinant human activated protein C, has antithrombotic, antiinflammatory, and profibrinolytic properties. In a previous study, drotrecogin alfa activated produced dose-dependent reductions in the levels of markers of coagulation and inflammation in patients with severe sepsis. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed whether treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated reduced the rate of death from any cause among patients with severe sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Patients with systemic inflammation and organ failure due to acute infection were enrolled and assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of either placebo or drotrecogin alfa activated (24 microg per kilogram of body weight per hour) for a total duration of 96 hours. The prospectively defined primary end point was death from any cause and was assessed 28 days after the start of the infusion. Patients were monitored for adverse events; changes in vital signs, laboratory variables, and the results of microbiologic cultures; and the development of neutralizing antibodies against activated protein C. RESULTS: A total of 1690 randomized patients were treated (840 in the placebo group and 850 in the drotrecogin alfa activated group). The mortality rate was 30.8 percent in the placebo group and 24.7 percent in the drotrecogin alfa activated group. On the basis of the prospectively defined primary analysis, treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated was associated with a reduction in the relative risk of death of 19.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 6.6 to 30.5) and an absolute reduction in the risk of death of 6.1 percent (P=0.005). The incidence of serious bleeding was higher in the drotrecogin alfa activated group than in the placebo group (3.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated significantly reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis and may be associated with an increased risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in assessing the incidence and severity of organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter study. SETTING: Forty intensive care units (ICUs) in 16 countries. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to the ICU in May 1995 (n = 1,449), excluding patients who underwent uncomplicated elective surgery with an ICU length of stay <48 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measures included incidence of dysfunction/failure of different organs and the relationship of this dysfunction with outcome. In this cohort of patients, the median length of ICU stay was 5 days, and the ICU mortality rate was 22%. Multiple organ dysfunction and high SOFA scores for any individual organ were associated with increased mortality. The presence of infection on admission (28.7% of patients) was associated with higher SOFA scores for each organ. The evaluation of a subgroup of 544 patients who stayed in the ICU for at least 1 wk showed that survivors and nonsurvivors followed a different course. This subgroup had greater respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurologic scores than the other patients. In this subgroup, the total SOFA score increased in 44% of the nonsurvivors but in only 20% of the survivors (p < .001). Conversely, the total SOFA score decreased in 33% of the survivors compared with 21% of the nonsurvivors (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The SOFA score is a simple, but effective method to describe organ dysfunction/failure in critically ill patients. Regular, repeated scoring enables patient condition and disease development to be monitored and better understood. The SOFA score may enable comparison between patients that would benefit clinical trials.

DOCUMENT REVIEWERS: Luis Alcocer (Mexico), Christina Antza (Greece), Mustafa Arici (Turkey), Eduardo Barbosa (Brazil), Adel Berbari (Lebanon), Luís Bronze (Portugal), John Chalmers (Australia), Tine De Backer (Belgium), Alejandro de la Sierra (Spain), Kyriakos Dimitriadis (Greece), Dorota Drozdz (Poland), Béatrice Duly-Bouhanick (France), Brent M. Egan (USA), Serap Erdine (Turkey), Claudio Ferri (Italy), Slavomira Filipova (Slovak Republic), Anthony Heagerty (UK), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Dagmara Hering (Poland), Sang Hyun Ihm (South Korea), Uday Jadhav (India), Manolis Kallistratos (Greece), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Vasilios Kotsis (Greece), Adi Leiba (Israel), Patricio López-Jaramillo (Colombia), Hans-Peter Marti (Norway), Terry McCormack (UK), Paolo Mulatero (Italy), Dike B. Ojji (Nigeria), Sungha Park (South Korea), Priit Pauklin (Estonia), Sabine Perl (Austria), Arman Postadzhian (Bulgaria), Aleksander Prejbisz (Poland), Venkata Ram (India), Ramiro Sanchez (Argentina), Markus Schlaich (Australia), Alta Schutte (Australia), Cristina Sierra (Spain), Sekib Sokolovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Jonas Spaak (Sweden), Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios (Greece), Bruno Trimarco (Italy), Thomas Unger (The Netherlands), Bert-Jan van den Born (The Netherlands), Anna Vachulova (Slovak Republic), Agostino Virdis (Italy), Jiguang Wang (China), Ulrich Wenzel (Germany), Paul Whelton (USA), Jiri Widimsky (Czech Republic), Jacek Wolf (Poland), Grégoire Wuerzner (Switzerland), Eugene Yang (USA), Yuqing Zhang (China).

CONTEXT: Evaluation of trends in organ dysfunction in critically ill patients may help predict outcome. OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of repeated measurement the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for prediction of mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study conducted from April 1 to July 31, 1999. SETTING: A 31-bed medicosurgical ICU at a university hospital in Belgium. PATIENTS: Three hundred fifty-two consecutive patients (mean age, 59 years) admitted to the ICU for more than 24 hours for whom the SOFA score was calculated on admission and every 48 hours until discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Initial SOFA score (0-24), Delta-SOFA scores (differences between subsequent scores), and the highest and mean SOFA scores obtained during the ICU stay and their correlations with mortality. RESULTS: The initial, highest, and mean SOFA scores correlated well with mortality. Initial and highest scores of more than 11 or mean scores of more than 5 corresponded to mortality of more than 80%. The predictive value of the mean score was independent of the length of ICU stay. In univariate analysis, mean and highest SOFA scores had the strongest correlation with mortality, followed by Delta-SOFA and initial SOFA scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was largest for highest scores (0.90; SE, 0.02; P<.001 vs initial score). When analyzing trends in the SOFA score during the first 96 hours, regardless of the initial score, the mortality rate was at least 50% when the score increased, 27% to 35% when it remained unchanged, and less than 27% when it decreased. Differences in mortality were better predicted in the first 48 hours than in the subsequent 48 hours. There was no significant difference in the length of stay among these groups. Except for initial scores of more than 11 (mortality rate >90%), a decreasing score during the first 48 hours was associated with a mortality rate of less than 6%, while an unchanged or increasing score was associated with a mortality rate of 37% when the initial score was 2 to 7 and 60% when the initial score was 8 to 11. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential assessment of organ dysfunction during the first few days of ICU admission is a good indicator of prognosis. Both the mean and highest SOFA scores are particularly useful predictors of outcome. Independent of the initial score, an increase in SOFA score during the first 48 hours in the ICU predicts a mortality rate of at least 50%.

The evolution in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has led to the development of many different assembly algorithms, but few of them focus on assembling the organelle genomes. These genomes are used in phylogenetic studies, food identification and are the most deposited eukaryotic genomes in GenBank. Producing organelle genome assembly from whole genome sequencing (WGS) data would be the most accurate and least laborious approach, but a tool specifically designed for this task is lacking. We developed a seed-and-extend algorithm that assembles organelle genomes from whole genome sequencing (WGS) data, starting from a related or distant single seed sequence. The algorithm has been tested on several new (Gonioctena intermedia and Avicennia marina) and public (Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa) whole genome Illumina data sets where it outperforms known assemblers in assembly accuracy and coverage. In our benchmark, NOVOPlasty assembled all tested circular genomes in less than 30 min with a maximum memory requirement of 16 GB and an accuracy over 99.99%. In conclusion, NOVOPlasty is the sole de novo assembler that provides a fast and straightforward extraction of the extranuclear genomes from WGS data in one circular high quality contig. The software is open source and can be downloaded at https://github.com/ndierckx/NOVOPlasty.

OBJECTIVE: To better define the incidence of sepsis and the characteristics of critically ill patients in European intensive care units. DESIGN: Cohort, multiple-center, observational study. SETTING: One hundred and ninety-eight intensive care units in 24 European countries. PATIENTS: All new adult admissions to a participating intensive care unit between May 1 and 15, 2002. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic data, comorbid diseases, and clinical and laboratory data were collected prospectively. Patients were followed up until death, until hospital discharge, or for 60 days. Of 3,147 adult patients, with a median age of 64 yrs, 1,177 (37.4%) had sepsis; 777 (24.7%) of these patients had sepsis on admission. In patients with sepsis, the lung was the most common site of infection (68%), followed by the abdomen (22%). Cultures were positive in 60% of the patients with sepsis. The most common organisms were Staphylococcus aureus (30%, including 14% methicillin-resistant), Pseudomonas species (14%), and Escherichia coli (13%). Pseudomonas species was the only microorganism independently associated with increased mortality rates. Patients with sepsis had more severe organ dysfunction, longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and higher mortality rate than patients without sepsis. In patients with sepsis, age, positive fluid balance, septic shock, cancer, and medical admission were the important prognostic variables for intensive care unit mortality. There was considerable variation between countries, with a strong correlation between the frequency of sepsis and the intensive care unit mortality rates in each of these countries. CONCLUSIONS: This large pan-European study documents the high frequency of sepsis in critically ill patients and shows a close relationship between the proportion of patients with sepsis and the intensive care unit mortality in the various countries. In addition to age, a positive fluid balance was among the strongest prognostic factors for death. Patients with intensive care unit acquired sepsis have a worse outcome despite similar severity scores on intensive care unit admission.

The genetics underlying severe COVID-19 The immune system is complex and involves many genes, including those that encode cytokines known as interferons (IFNs). Individuals that lack specific IFNs can be more susceptible to infectious diseases. Furthermore, the autoantibody system dampens IFN response to prevent damage from pathogen-induced inflammation. Two studies now examine the likelihood that genetics affects the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through components of this system (see the Perspective by Beck and Aksentijevich). Q. Zhang et al. used a candidate gene approach and identified patients with severe COVID-19 who have mutations in genes involved in the regulation of type I and III IFN immunity. They found enrichment of these genes in patients and conclude that genetics may determine the clinical course of the infection. Bastard et al. identified individuals with high titers of neutralizing autoantibodies against type I IFN-α2 and IFN-ω in about 10% of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. These autoantibodies were not found either in infected people who were asymptomatic or had milder phenotype or in healthy individuals. Together, these studies identify a means by which individuals at highest risk of life-threatening COVID-19 can be identified. Science , this issue p. eabd4570 , p. eabd4585 ; see also p. 404

Weaning covers the entire process of liberating the patient from mechanical support and from the endotracheal tube. Many controversial questions remain concerning the best methods for conducting this process. An International Consensus Conference was held in April 2005 to provide recommendations regarding the management of this process. An 11-member international jury answered five pre-defined questions. 1) What is known about the epidemiology of weaning problems? 2) What is the pathophysiology of weaning failure? 3) What is the usual process of initial weaning from the ventilator? 4) Is there a role for different ventilator modes in more difficult weaning? 5) How should patients with prolonged weaning failure be managed? The main recommendations were as follows. 1) Patients should be categorised into three groups based on the difficulty and duration of the weaning process. 2) Weaning should be considered as early as possible. 3) A spontaneous breathing trial is the major diagnostic test to determine whether patients can be successfully extubated. 4) The initial trial should last 30 min and consist of either T-tube breathing or low levels of pressure support. 5) Pressure support or assist-control ventilation modes should be favoured in patients failing an initial trial/trials. 6) Noninvasive ventilation techniques should be considered in selected patients to shorten the duration of intubation but should not be routinely used as a tool for extubation failure.

Disorders of the brain can exhibit considerable epidemiological comorbidity and often share symptoms, provoking debate about their etiologic overlap. We quantified the genetic sharing of 25 brain disorders from genome-wide association studies of 265,218 patients and 784,643 control participants and assessed their relationship to 17 phenotypes from 1,191,588 individuals. Psychiatric disorders share common variant risk, whereas neurological disorders appear more distinct from one another and from the psychiatric disorders. We also identified significant sharing between disorders and a number of brain phenotypes, including cognitive measures. Further, we conducted simulations to explore how statistical power, diagnostic misclassification, and phenotypic heterogeneity affect genetic correlations. These results highlight the importance of common genetic variation as a risk factor for brain disorders and the value of heritability-based methods in understanding their etiology.

Guidelines summarize and evaluate available evidence, with the aim of assisting health professionals in proposing the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition. Guidelines and their recommendations should facilitate decision-making of health professionals in their daily practice. However, guidelines are not a substitute for the patient's relationship with their practitioner. The final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible health professional(s), based on what they consider to be the most appropriate in the circumstances. These decisions are made in consultation with the patient and caregiver as appropriate. 2022 ESC/ERS pulmonary hypertension guidelines incorporate changes and adaptations focusing on clinical management <https://bit.ly/3QtUvb4>

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.)

CONTEXT: Anemia is a common problem in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), but the consequences of anemia on morbidity and mortality in the critically ill is poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively define the incidence of anemia and use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in critically ill patients and to explore the potential benefits and risks associated with transfusion in the ICU. DESIGN: Prospective observational study conducted November 1999, with 2 components: a blood sampling study and an anemia and blood transfusion study. SETTING AND PATIENTS: The blood sampling study included 1136 patients from 145 western European ICUs, and the anemia and blood transfusion study included 3534 patients from 146 western European ICUs. Patients were followed up for 28 days or until hospital discharge, interinstitutional transfer, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of blood drawing and associated volume of blood drawn, collected over a 24-hour period; hemoglobin levels, transfusion rate, organ dysfunction (assessed using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score), and mortality, collected throughout a 2-week period. RESULTS: The mean (SD) volume per blood draw was 10.3 (6.6) mL, with an average total volume of 41.1 (39.7) mL during the 24-hour period. There was a positive correlation between organ dysfunction and the number of blood draws (r = 0.34; P<.001) and total volume drawn (r = 0.28; P<.001). The mean hemoglobin concentration at ICU admission was 11.3 (2.3) g/dL, with 29% (963/3295) having a concentration of less than 10 g/dL. The transfusion rate during the ICU period was 37.0% (1307/3534). Older patients and those with a longer ICU length of stay were more commonly transfused. Both ICU and overall mortality rates were significantly higher in patients who had vs had not received a transfusion (ICU rates: 18.5% vs 10.1%, respectively; chi(2) = 50.1; P<.001; overall rates: 29.0% vs 14.9%, respectively; chi(2) = 88.1; P<.001). For similar degrees of organ dysfunction, patients who had a transfusion had a higher mortality rate. For matched patients in the propensity analysis, the 28-day mortality was 22.7% among patients with transfusions and 17.1% among those without (P =.02); the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test confirmed this difference. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter observational study reveals the common occurrence of anemia and the large use of blood transfusion in critically ill patients. Additionally, this epidemiologic study provides evidence of an association between transfusions and diminished organ function as well as between transfusions and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled studies suggested that aerosolized iloprost, a stable analogue of prostacyclin, causes selective pulmonary vasodilatation and improves hemodynamics and exercise capacity in patients with pulmonary hypertension. METHODS: We compared repeated daily inhalations of 2.5 or 5.0 microg of iloprost (six or nine times per day; median inhaled dose, 30 microg per day) with inhalation of placebo. A total of 203 patients with selected forms of severe pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III or IV) were included. The primary end point was met if, after week 12, the NYHA class and distance walked in six minutes were improved by at least one class and at least 10 percent, respectively, in the absence of clinical deterioration according to predefined criteria and death. RESULTS: The combined clinical end point was met by 16.8 percent of the patients receiving iloprost, as compared with 4.9 percent of the patients receiving placebo (P=0.007). There were increases in the distance walked in six minutes of 36.4 m in the iloprost group as a whole (P=0.004) and of 58.8 m in the subgroup of patients with primary pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 4.0 percent of patients in the iloprost group (including one who died) and 13.7 percent of those in the placebo group (including four who died) did not complete the study (P=0.024); the most common reason for withdrawal was clinical deterioration. As compared with base-line values, hemodynamic values were significantly improved at 12 weeks when measured after iloprost inhalation (P<0.001), were largely unchanged when measured before iloprost inhalation, and were significantly worse in the placebo group. Further significant beneficial effects of iloprost treatment included an improvement in the NYHA class (P=0.03), dyspnea (P=0.015), and quality of life (P=0.026). Syncope occurred with similar frequency in the two groups but was more frequently rated as serious in the iloprost group, although this adverse effect was not associated with clinical deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled iloprost is an effective therapy for patients with severe pulmonary hypertension.

RATIONALE: This initiative is focused on building a global consensus around core diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in adults in clinical settings. METHODS: In January 2016, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) was convened by several of the major global clinical nutrition societies. GLIM appointed a core leadership committee and a supporting working group with representatives bringing additional global diversity and expertise. Empirical consensus was reached through a series of face-to-face meetings, telephone conferences, and e-mail communications. RESULTS: A two-step approach for the malnutrition diagnosis was selected, i.e., first screening to identify "at risk" status by the use of any validated screening tool, and second, assessment for diagnosis and grading the severity of malnutrition. The malnutrition criteria for consideration were retrieved from existing approaches for screening and assessment. Potential criteria were subjected to a ballot among the GLIM core and supporting working group members. The top five ranked criteria included three phenotypic criteria (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced muscle mass) and two etiologic criteria (reduced food intake or assimilation, and inflammation or disease burden). To diagnose malnutrition at least one phenotypic criterion and one etiologic criterion should be present. Phenotypic metrics for grading severity as Stage 1 (moderate) and Stage 2 (severe) malnutrition are proposed. It is recommended that the etiologic criteria be used to guide intervention and anticipated outcomes. The recommended approach supports classification of malnutrition into four etiology-related diagnosis categories. CONCLUSION: A consensus scheme for diagnosing malnutrition in adults in clinical settings on a global scale is proposed. Next steps are to secure further collaboration and endorsements from leading nutrition professional societies, to identify overlaps with syndromes like cachexia and sarcopenia, and to promote dissemination, validation studies, and feedback. The diagnostic construct should be re-considered every 3-5 years.

Type 1 and type 2 diabetes are characterized by progressive beta-cell failure. Apoptosis is probably the main form of beta-cell death in both forms of the disease. It has been suggested that the mechanisms leading to nutrient- and cytokine-induced beta-cell death in type 2 and type 1 diabetes, respectively, share the activation of a final common pathway involving interleukin (IL)-1beta, nuclear factor (NF)-kappaB, and Fas. We review herein the similarities and differences between the mechanisms of beta-cell death in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In the insulitis lesion in type 1 diabetes, invading immune cells produce cytokines, such as IL-1beta, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, and interferon (IFN)-gamma. IL-1beta and/or TNF-alpha plus IFN-gamma induce beta-cell apoptosis via the activation of beta-cell gene networks under the control of the transcription factors NF-kappaB and STAT-1. NF-kappaB activation leads to production of nitric oxide (NO) and chemokines and depletion of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) calcium. The execution of beta-cell death occurs through activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases, via triggering of ER stress and by the release of mitochondrial death signals. Chronic exposure to elevated levels of glucose and free fatty acids (FFAs) causes beta-cell dysfunction and may induce beta-cell apoptosis in type 2 diabetes. Exposure to high glucose has dual effects, triggering initially "glucose hypersensitization" and later apoptosis, via different mechanisms. High glucose, however, does not induce or activate IL-1beta, NF-kappaB, or inducible nitric oxide synthase in rat or human beta-cells in vitro or in vivo in Psammomys obesus. FFAs may cause beta-cell apoptosis via ER stress, which is NF-kappaB and NO independent. Thus, cytokines and nutrients trigger beta-cell death by fundamentally different mechanisms, namely an NF-kappaB-dependent mechanism that culminates in caspase-3 activation for cytokines and an NF-kappaB-independent mechanism for nutrients. This argues against a unifying hypothesis for the mechanisms of beta-cell death in type 1 and type 2 diabetes and suggests that different approaches will be required to prevent beta-cell death in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Drug-induced severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome [SJS], toxic epidermal necrolysis). The identification of the causal drug is crucial in order to avoid further exposure, but making the right differential diagnosis of the type of SCAR is equally important since treatment, follow-up, and prognosis of different SCARs are not the same. These syndromes are distinct entities with different clinical, biological, and histological patterns, but sometimes the early distinction between 2 SCARs can be extremely challenging, and overlapping conditions could therefore be taken into consideration, although true overlapping SCARs are very rare when using strict diagnostic criteria (described by the RegiSCAR group). Only a better understanding of the physiopathology of the SCARs could possibly explain these ambiguities and overlaps. We report a case of SCAR in an 86-year-old patient probably induced by allopurinol and simultaneously fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for DRESS and SJS, thus considered as an overlapping case of SCARs.