Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sepsis has been around since the dawn of time, having been described for more than 2000 years, although clinical definitions are recent. The consensus sepsis definitions have permitted worldwide epidemiological studies of sepsis to be conducted. We now recognize the common nature of sepsis and the consistency of its disease - particularly severe sepsis and septic shock. The incidence of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock continues to increase, and although Gram-positive bacterial pathogens remain the most common cause of sepsis, fungal organisms are increasing rapidly. We have made progress over the past half-century in identifying and treating patients with sepsis, and decreasing fatality rates reflect this progress. However, owing to the increasing incidence of sepsis, the number of people who die each year continues to increase. The mortality with sepsis, particularly related to treating organ dysfunction, remains a priority to clinicians worldwide and is deserving of greater public health attention.

The gut microbiome regulates a number of homeostatic mechanisms in the healthy host including immune function and gut barrier protection. Loss of normal gut microbial structure and function has been associated with diseases as diverse as Clostridioides difficile infection, asthma, and epilepsy. Recent evidence has also demonstrated a link between the gut microbiome and sepsis. In this review, we focus on three key areas of the interaction between the gut microbiome and sepsis. First, prior to sepsis onset, gut microbiome alteration increases sepsis susceptibility through several mechanisms, including (a) allowing for expansion of pathogenic intestinal bacteria, (b) priming the immune system for a robust pro-inflammatory response, and (c) decreasing production of beneficial microbial products such as short-chain fatty acids. Second, once sepsis is established, gut microbiome disruption worsens and increases susceptibility to end-organ dysfunction. Third, there is limited evidence that microbiome-based therapeutics, including probiotics and selective digestive decontamination, may decrease sepsis risk and improve sepsis outcomes in select patient populations, but concerns about safety have limited uptake. Case reports of a different microbiome-based therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation, have shown correlation with gut microbial structure restoration and decreased inflammatory response, but these results require further validation. While much of the evidence linking the gut microbiome and sepsis has been established in pre-clinical studies, clinical evidence is lacking in many areas. To address this, we outline a potential research agenda for further investigating the interaction between the gut microbiome and sepsis.

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.

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients.

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was developed more than 25 years ago to provide a simple method of assessing and monitoring organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. Changes in clinical practice over the last few decades, with new interventions and a greater focus on non-invasive monitoring systems, mean it is time to update the SOFA score. As a first step in this process, we propose some possible new variables that could be included in a SOFA 2.0. By so doing, we hope to stimulate debate and discussion to move toward a new, properly validated score that will be fit for modern practice.

PurposeSepsis-associated immunosuppression increases hospital-acquired infection and viral reactivation risk. A key underlying mechanism is programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)-mediated T-cell function impairment. This is one of the first clinical safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) assessments of the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab and its effect on immune biomarkers in sepsis.MethodsRandomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase 1b study in 31 adults at 10 US hospital ICUs with sepsis diagnosed ≥ 24 h before study treatment, ≥ 1 organ dysfunction, and absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.1 × 103 cells/μL. Participants received one nivolumab dose [480 mg (n = 15) or 960 mg (n = 16)]; follow-up was 90 days. Primary endpoints were safety and PK parameters.ResultsTwelve deaths occurred [n = 6 per study arm; 40% (480 mg) and 37.5% (960 mg)]. Serious AEs occurred in eight participants [n = 1, 6.7% (480 mg); n = 7, 43.8% (960 mg)]. AEs considered by the investigator to be possibly drug-related and immune-mediated occurred in five participants [n = 2, 13.3% (480 mg); n = 3, 18.8% (960 mg)]. Mean ± SD terminal half-life was 14.7 ± 5.3 (480 mg) and 15.8 ± 7.9 (960 mg) days. All participants maintained > 90% receptor occupancy (RO) 28 days post-infusion. Median (Q1, Q3) mHLA-DR levels increased to 11,531 (6528, 19,495) and 11,449 (6225, 16,698) mAbs/cell in the 480- and 960-mg arms by day 14, respectively. Pro-inflammatory cytokine levels did not increase.ConclusionsIn this sepsis population, nivolumab administration did not result in unexpected safety findings or indicate any ‘cytokine storm’. The PK profile maintained RO > 90% for ≥ 28 days. Further efficacy and safety studies are warranted.Trial registration number (clinicaltrials.gov)NCT02960854.

We present an interpretable machine learning algorithm called ‘eARDS’ for predicting ARDS in an ICU population comprising COVID-19 patients, up to 12-hours before satisfying the Berlin clinical criteria. The analysis was conducted on data collected from the Intensive care units (ICU) at Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, GA and University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN and the Cerner ® Health Facts Deidentified Database, a multi-site COVID-19 EMR database. The participants in the analysis consisted of adults over 18 years of age. Clinical data from 35,804 patients who developed ARDS and controls were used to generate predictive models that identify risk for ARDS onset up to 12-hours before satisfying the Berlin criteria. We identified salient features from the electronic medical record that predicted respiratory failure among this population. The machine learning algorithm which provided the best performance exhibited AUROC of 0.89 (95% CI = 0.88–0.90), sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI = 0.75–0.78), specificity 0.85 (95% CI = 085–0.86). Validation performance across two separate health systems (comprising 899 COVID-19 patients) exhibited AUROC of 0.82 (0.81–0.83) and 0.89 (0.87, 0.90). Important features for prediction of ARDS included minimum oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ), standard deviation of the systolic blood pressure (SBP), O 2 flow, and maximum respiratory rate over an observational window of 16-hours. Analyzing the performance of the model across various cohorts indicates that the model performed best among a younger age group (18–40) (AUROC = 0.93 [0.92–0.94]), compared to an older age group (80+) (AUROC = 0.81 [0.81–0.82]). The model performance was comparable on both male and female groups, but performed significantly better on the severe ARDS group compared to the mild and moderate groups. The eARDS system demonstrated robust performance for predicting COVID19 patients who developed ARDS at least 12-hours before the Berlin clinical criteria, across two independent health systems.

Complementing the genome with an understanding of the human exposome is an important challenge for contemporary science and technology. Tens of thousands of chemicals are used in commerce, yet cost for targeted environmental chemical analysis limits surveillance to a few hundred known hazards. To overcome limitations which prevent scaling to thousands of chemicals, we develop a single-step express liquid extraction and gas chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry analysis to operationalize the human exposome. We show that the workflow supports quantification of environmental chemicals in human plasma (200 µL) and tissue (≤100 mg) samples. The method also provides high resolution, sensitivity and selectivity for exposome epidemiology of mass spectral features without a priori knowledge of chemical identity. The simplicity of the method can facilitate harmonization of environmental biomonitoring between laboratories and enable population level human exposome research with limited sample volume. Humans are exposed to millions of chemicals but mass spectrometry (MS)-based targeted biomonitoring assays are usually limited to a few hundred known hazards. Here, the authors develop a workflow for MS-based untargeted exposome profiling of known and unidentified environmental chemicals.

There is a paradigm shift happening for sepsis. Sepsis is no longer solely conceptualized as problem of individual patients treated in emergency departments and intensive care units but also as one that is addressed as public health issue with population- and systems-based solutions. We offer a conceptual framework for sepsis as a public health problem by adapting the traditional model of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.

A molecular test to distinguish between sepsis and systemic inflammation of noninfectious etiology could potentially have clinical utility. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a molecular host response assay (SeptiCyte LAB) designed to distinguish between sepsis and noninfectious systemic inflammation in critically ill adults. The study employed a prospective, observational, noninterventional design and recruited a heterogeneous cohort of adult critical care patients from seven sites in the United States (n = 249). An additional group of 198 patients, recruited in the large MARS (Molecular Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Sepsis) consortium trial in the Netherlands ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01905033), was also tested and analyzed, making a grand total of 447 patients in our study. The performance of SeptiCyte LAB was compared with retrospective physician diagnosis by a panel of three experts. In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, SeptiCyte LAB had an estimated area under the curve of 0.82-0.89 for discriminating sepsis from noninfectious systemic inflammation. The relative likelihood of sepsis versus noninfectious systemic inflammation was found to increase with increasing test score (range, 0-10). In a forward logistic regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of the assay was improved only marginally when used in combination with other clinical and laboratory variables, including procalcitonin. The performance of the assay was not significantly affected by demographic variables, including age, sex, or race/ethnicity. SeptiCyte LAB appears to be a promising diagnostic tool to complement physician assessment of infection likelihood in critically ill adult patients with systemic inflammation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01905033 and NCT02127502).