Citations

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

Background: Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC) is an extremely rare, high-grade, and aggressive tumor of the sinonasal tract. Due to the rarity of this malignancy, current treatment guidelines are based on small and often/mainly single-center retrospective datasets. In the absence of a universally accepted standard of care for SNUC, treatment approaches vary across countries and institutions, reflecting real-world clinical practice. The primary aim of this study was to describe real-world treatment and outcomes for patients with confirmed SNUC. Methods: This was an international, multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study that pooled patients into the largest SNUC dataset to date. Fifteen centers were enrolled to contribute data, including seven from Europe, four from the United States, three from the United Kingdom, and one from Canada. In the absence of a universally accepted standard of care for SNUC, treatment approaches varied across countries and institutions, reflecting real-world clinical practice. Patients included were those with histologically confirmed SNUC who were treated between 1997 and 2021. Results: This study yielded 485 patients treated for SNUC. The median age at diagnosis was 55.6 years (IQR: 44.5–67.6), and 63.7% were male. Most cases presented at advanced stages, with 70.8% as T4a or T4b. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were available for 412 patients, with a median follow-up of 26.0 months. The 5- and 10-year OS were 47.2% (95% CI: 40.8–53.3%) and 39.6% (95% CI: 32.5–46.6%), respectively. Advanced age, dichotomized T-stage (T4a/b vs. T1–3), M-stage, and orbital involvement were significant poor prognostic factors on univariable analysis (p’s < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, orbital involvement (HR: 2.73, 95% CI: 1.42–5.27, p = 0.003) and distance metastasis stage (HR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.25–7.21, p = 0.014) were both independently associated with worse OS. Conclusions: This observational study presents the largest multi-center cohort analysis of SNUC to date, providing new insights into prognostic factors for a rare cancer treated at global centers of excellence. Orbital involvement and the presence of metastases are candidate independent risk factors associated with poorer OS.

Abstract Background People of color (POC) and patients (pts) from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds often face financial, geographic, and systemic barriers, limiting access to advanced treatments (Tx). A survey was conducted to better understand how race and socioeconomic factors affect pt awareness of and access to bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies in the US. Methods This study used 30-minute online surveys (March-June 2024) of 1301 pts with RRMM across 7 countries. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and χ2 tests, with P&lt;.01 for all comparisons unless specified; these are presented for the 305 US pts. Results The 305 US pts identified as White (n=227) or POC (n=78), which included Black/African American (n=42); Hispanic/Latino (n=24); and Asian, Pacific Islander, or Arab (n=12). Pts self-reported as having easy/very easy (n=92), neutral (n=117), or difficult/very difficult (n=96) financial burden, being employed (n=142) or not employed (n=163), and having ≤secondary (n=72) or &gt;secondary education (n=232). In the US, more POC reported difficult/very difficult financial circumstances than White pts (47% v 26%). Fewer POC stated they were in remission (28% v 49%) or had consulted an MM specialist (41% v 59%, P=.028), even after adjusting for self-reported good financial circumstances. Among pts with neutral-very easy financial situations, stated remission rates were still lower for POC (n=41) v White pts (n=168) (34% v 59%, P=.026), as were MM specialist visits (41% v 66%, P=.022). Pts with &gt;secondary education (n=232) and those who were employed (n=142) had higher stated remission rates than those with ≤secondary education (n=72) and those who were not employed (n=163) (47% v 32%, P=.025 and 66% v 24%, respectively). Physical burden was experienced by more POC v White pts (91% v 66%), even after adjusting for financial circumstances (90% v 65%, P=.011, for POC v White pts in neutral/very easy financial circumstances). POC and pts with difficult financial circumstances (including POC and White pts) perceived their Tx as less effective than expected across several measures, including emotional and mental health, overall impact on daily life, side effects, Tx costs, and the effect of Tx schedule on everyday life. Awareness of BsAbs and CAR-T was lower among POC v White pts (BsAb: 49% v 77%; CAR-T: 67% v 81%, P=.032), pts who were not employed v employed (BsAb: 63% v 77%, P=.015; CAR-T: 74% v 81%, P=.046), pts with ≤secondary v &gt;secondary education (CAR-T only: 75% v 78%, P=.021), and those in difficult/very difficult v easy/very easy financial circumstances (BsAb: 54% v 90%; CAR-T: 64% v 90%). Among pts aware of BsAbs, 18% (n=39) reported that the Tx was offered by their physician. More employed v not employed pts were offered BsAbs (26% v 10%). There were non-statistically significant differences in the proportion offered BsAbs based on race (POC 8% v White pts 21%, P=.065), financial status (difficult/very difficult 15% v easy/very easy 23%, P=.288), or level of education (≤secondary education 15% v &gt;secondary education 20%, P=.428). Among pts aware of CAR-T, 24% (n=56) reported that the Tx was offered by their physician. Fewer POC than White pts were offered CAR-T (6% v 29%), even after adjusting for financial status (10% v 32%, P=.04 for pts with good finances). Among those aware of CAR-T, fewer pts not employed v employed (12% v 37%), pts with ≤secondary v &gt;secondary education (11% v 27%, P=.015), and pts with financial burden (difficult/very difficult 10% v easy/very easy 31%) were offered CAR-T. Overall, fewer POC received CAR-T than White pts (1.3% v 10.7%, P=.03). Additionally, more employed v not employed pts received CAR-T (15.2% v 2.5%) or BsAbs (23.5% v 4.4%). Conclusions Consistent with existing health equity inequalities (Chen et al, Int J Equity Health, 2025), POC and pts in poorer socioeconomic circumstances had less awareness of and access to BsAbs and CAR-T. To address these disparities, partnering with trusted messengers and pt advocacy groups supporting Black, Hispanic, and Asian pts and those with socioeconomic hardships can enhance healthcare infrastructure, support initiatives to help pts navigate advanced Tx options, and develop pt- and physician-targeted education. These strategies can improve awareness and promote Tx equity, ultimately ensuring that all pts with MM receive optimal care regardless of their socioeconomic status and race.

OBJECTIVES: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients remains the leading cause of admission to the ICU, with high case fatality. The response to the initial oxygenation strategy may be predictive of outcome. This study aims to assess the response to the evolutionary profiles of oxygenation strategy and the association with survival. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of EFRAIM study with a nonparametric longitudinal clustering technique (longitudinal K-mean). SETTING AND PATIENTS: Multinational, observational prospective cohort study performed in critically ill immunocompromised patients admitted for an acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1547 patients who did not require invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) at ICU admission were included. Change in ventilatory support was assessed and three clusters of change in oxygenation modality over time were identified. Cluster A: 12.3% iMV requirement and high survival rate, n = 717 patients (46.3%); cluster B: 32.9% need for iMV, 97% ICU mortality, n = 499 patients (32.3%); and cluster C: 37.5% need for iMV, 0.3% ICU mortality, n = 331 patients (21.4%). These clusters demonstrated a high discrimination. After adjustment for confounders, clusters B and C were independently associated with need for iMV (odds ratio [OR], 9.87; 95% CI, 7.26–13.50 and OR, 19.8; 95% CI, 13.7–29.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified three distinct highly performing clusters of response to initial oxygenation strategy, which reliably predicted the need for iMV requirement and hospital mortality.

Introduction: Given the major treatment advancements in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) such as bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), understanding patient and healthcare provider (HCP) decision-making perspectives is crucial. This study investigated barriers to adopting resource-intensive novel therapies, unmet needs in access to care, and treatment decision priorities in one of the largest surveys of RRMM patients and HCPs. Methods: This prospective study was conducted from March to June 2024 using 30-minute web-based quantitative surveys fielded in 2269 participants (1301 RRMM patients and 968 HCPs) across 7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan). The survey collected data on pre-defined patient subgroups (line of treatment, ages &lt;45, 46-65, 65+]) and in HCP subgroups (care settings: academic, community [non-Center of Excellence [COE]). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Results: Two themes that emerged from the findings were: 1) discrepancies in treatment considerations between patients and HCPs, and 2) Familiarity with and considerations around BsAbs among patients Discrepancies in HCP and Patient considerations HCPs and patients prioritized different considerations during treatment decision-making, particularly related to the importance of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs). 3L+ patients equally prioritized disease control and minimizing TRAEs (49% and 49%); HCPs prioritized disease control more often than minimizing TRAEs (59% and 40% for 3L+ patients). Patients considered many TRAEs extremely challenging to manage, whereas HCPs were less likely to do so (patients vs HCPs: bone-related AEs: 64% vs 39%, p&lt;0.001; hypertension: 54% vs 28%, p&lt;0.001; cholesterol: 53% vs 21%, p&lt;0.001; skin-related AEs: 49% vs 30%, p&lt;0.001). Limiting TRAEs was a concern particularly among patients over 65 (52%, p&lt;0.001) and those with comorbidities (52%, p&lt;0.001). Limiting costs and financial challenges (3L+ patients: 33% vs HCPs: 13%, p&lt;0.001) and avoiding compromising the potential to receive treatment options in later lines (3L+ patients: 25% vs HCPs:14%, p&lt;0.001) were other considerations patients prioritized more than HCPs. HCPs prioritized limiting side effects 9% more in 3L settings compared to 2L. Discrepancies in decision-making in 2L setting included a desire to limit treatment-related logistical burden (patients: 35% vs HCP: 17%, p&lt;0.001), limit challenges for care partners (25% vs 13%, p&lt;0.001), and ensure treatment without referral (24% vs 16%, p=0.001). Compared to their older counterparts, younger patients (&lt;45 y v ≥45y) prioritized convenient treatment administration (39% vs 29%, p=0.024) and avoiding referrals to other institutions (32% vs 22%, p&lt;0.001). Perspectives on treatment considerations specific to BsAbs Among 3L+ patients, most have not heard of BsAbs, or have heard but were unfamiliar with the option. A small proportion of 3L+ patients recalled their HCPs suggesting BsAbs as a treatment option (14%) although most patients decided to receive BsAbs treatment when it was offered (71%). Among patients on BsAb treatment, patients most often cited clinical reasons for going on BsAbs (i.e., remission, symptom relief, and likelihood of greater longevity). Among non-clinical reasons, lower time commitment and lower likelihood of negative financial impact compared with other treatments were also common. Notably, 36% of HCPs reported low confidence in identifying RRMM patients eligible for BsAbs. Compared with academic HCPs (32%), more community/non-COE HCPs (42% p=0.018) reported low confidence. Conclusions: HCPs and patients have different priorities during treatment decision-making, particularly regarding the importance of minimizing TRAE and in prioritizing efficacy and managing logistical burdens in later treatment lines. Among novel treatments, BsAbs are not frequently recalled by patients as a treatment option provided by HCPs. HCPs, especially in community settings, are often uncertain about identifying eligible patients for BsAbs, indicating a need for greater educational resources for HCPs. Increasing patient awareness of available treatments, HCP understanding of novel treatments, and fostering dialogue on patient priorities can increase the likelihood of informed, personalized shared decision-making, and optimize evidence-based patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains the most frequent reason for ICU admission in patients who are immunocompromised. This study reports etiologies and outcomes of ARF in subjects with solid tumors. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of the EFRAIM study, a prospective multinational cohort study that included 1611 subjects who were immunocompromised and with ARF admitted to the ICU. Subjects with solid tumors admitted to the ICU with ARF were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Among the subjects from the EFRAIM cohort, 529 subjects with solid tumors (32.8%) were included in the analysis. At ICU admission, the median (interquartile range) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 5 (3–9). The types of solid tumor were mostly lung cancer ( n = 111, 21%), breast cancer ( n = 52, 9.8%), and digestive cancer ( n = 47, 8.9%). A majority, 379 subjects (71.6%) were full code at ICU admission. The ARF was caused by bacterial or viral infection ( n = 220, 41.6%), extrapulmonary sepsis ( n = 62, 11.7%), or related to cancer or treatment toxicity ( n = 83, 15.7%), or fungal infection ( n = 23, 4.3%). For 63 subjects (11.9%), the ARF etiology remained unknown after an extensive diagnostic workup. The hospital mortality rate was 45.7% ( n = 232/508). Hospital mortality was independently associated with chronic cardiac failure (odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.09–2.92; P = .02), lung cancer (odds ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.51–4.19; P < .001), day 1 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (odds ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.32-2.96; P < .001). ARF etiologies other than infectious, related to cancer, or treatment toxicity were associated with better outcomes (odds ratio 0.32, 95% CI 0.16–0.61; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Infectious diseases remained the most frequent cause of ARF in subjects with solid tumors admitted to the ICU. Hospital mortality was related to severity at ICU admission, previous comorbidities, and ARF etiologies related to non-malignant causes or pulmonary embolism. Lung tumor was also independently associated with higher mortality.

Abstract Objectives To explore current management practices for PMR by general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists including implications for clinical trial recruitment. Methods An English language questionnaire was constructed by a working group of rheumatologists and GPs from six countries. The questionnaire focused on: 1: Respondent characteristics; 2: Referral practices; 3: Treatment with glucocorticoids; 4: Diagnostics; 5: Comorbidities; and 6: Barriers to research. The questionnaire was distributed to rheumatologists and GPs worldwide via members of the International PMR/Giant Cell Arteritis Study Group. Results In total, 394 GPs and 937 rheumatologists responded to the survey. GPs referred a median of 25% of their suspected PMR patients for diagnosis and 50% of these were returned to their GP for management. In general, 39% of rheumatologists evaluated patients with suspected PMR &gt;2 weeks after referral, and a median of 50% of patients had started prednisolone before rheumatologist evaluation. Direct comparison of initial treatment showed that the percentage prescribing &gt;25 mg prednisolone daily for patients was 30% for GPs and 12% for rheumatologists. Diagnostic imaging was rarely used. More than half (56%) of rheumatologists experienced difficulties recruiting people with PMR to clinical trials. Conclusion This large international survey indicates that a large proportion of people with PMR are not referred for diagnosis, and that the proportion of treatment-naive patients declined with increasing time from referral to assessment. Strategies are needed to change referral and management of people with PMR, to improve clinical practice and facilitate recruitment to clinical trials.

Abstract Objectives To establish a framework by which experts define disease subsets in systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Methods A conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive ILD was provided to 83 experts, asking them to use the framework and classify actual SSc-ILD patients. Each patient profile was designed to be classified by at least four experts in terms of severity and risk of progression at baseline; progression was based on 1-year follow-up data. A consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts agreed. Experts provided information on which items were important in determining classification. Results Forty-four experts (53%) completed the survey. Consensus was achieved on the dimensions of severity (75%, 60 of 80 profiles), risk of progression (71%, 57 of 80 profiles) and progressive ILD (60%, 24 of 40 profiles). For profiles achieving consensus, most were classified as clinical ILD (92%), low risk (54%) and stable (71%). Severity and disease progression overlapped in terms of framework items that were most influential in classifying patients (forced vital capacity, extent of lung involvement on high resolution chest CT [HRCT]); risk of progression was influenced primarily by disease duration. Conclusions Using our proposed conceptual framework, international experts were able to achieve a consensus on classifying SSc-ILD patients along the dimensions of disease severity, risk of progression and progression over time. Experts rely on similar items when classifying disease severity and progression: a combination of spirometry and gas exchange and quantitative HRCT.

ObjectiveTo describe people with gout who were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and hospitalized and to characterize their outcomes.MethodsData on patients with gout hospitalized for COVID‐19 between March 12, 2020, and October 25, 2021, were extracted from the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographics, comorbidities, medication exposures, and COVID‐19 outcomes including oxygenation or ventilation support and death.ResultsOne hundred sixty‐three patients with gout who developed COVID‐19 and were hospitalized were included. The mean age was 63 years, and 85% were male. The majority of the group lived in the Western Pacific Region (35%) and North America (18%). Nearly half (46%) had two or more comorbidities, with hypertension (56%), cardiovascular disease (28%), diabetes mellitus (26%), chronic kidney disease (25%), and obesity (23%) being the most common. Glucocorticoids and colchicine were used pre‐COVID‐19 in 11% and 12% of the cohort, respectively. Over two thirds (68%) of the cohort required supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support during hospitalization. COVID‐19‐related death was reported in 16% of the overall cohort, with 73% of deaths documented in people with two or more comorbidities.ConclusionThis cohort of people with gout and COVID‐19 who were hospitalized had high frequencies of ventilatory support and death. This suggests that patients with gout who were hospitalized for COVID‐19 may be at risk of poor outcomes, perhaps related to known risk factors for poor outcomes, such as age and presence of comorbidity.

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.