Pastores, Stephen M.

Objectives: To evaluate evolving management, ICU admission, and outcomes for critically ill chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell patients over a 6-year period. Design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study from January 2018 to September 2023. Setting: Eight U.S. centers. Patients: Adult CAR T-cell patients requiring ICU admission. Interventions: None. Methods: Summary statistics included mean, sd , median, and interquartile range (IQR). Fisher exact test or chi-square test were used to evaluate association between year treated and other categorical variables. Cochran-Armitage test was performed to assess significance of trends across years. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess covariates associated with mortality. Measurements and Main Results: Demographics, toxicity management, ICU admission, support modalities, toxicity severity, and survival (ICU, hospital, and 3-mo) were compared year-to-year. From 2018 to 2023, 2238 patients received CAR T cells, with increasing number of patients treated yearly; 398 (17.8%) required ICU care. Of those admitted to the ICU, 66.1% were male, 89.2% had lymphoma, and median age was 64 years (53–71 yr). ICU admission rates declined from 38.5% (95% CI, 31.6–45.8%) in 2018 to 16.4% in 2023 (95% CI, 13.5–19.7%; p < 0.0001). Cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome was the reason for ICU admission in 87.9%. In 2023 vs. 2018, ICU patients were older (median, 65 yr [IQR, 55–73 yr] vs. 58 yr [48–67 yr]; p = 0.003) with higher comorbidity indices (4 [4–6] vs. 3 [2–4]; p = 0.005) and more severe toxicities (≥ grade 3: 90.1% vs. 69.9%; p = 0.004). Corticosteroid use for less severe toxicities (≤ grade 2 toxicity: 73.8% vs. 40.6%; p = 0.0001) and anakinra use (56% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001) increased throughout the years. Mortality from cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome remained low (5.5%). Age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 10 at ICU admission, and ICU admission for noncytokine release/neurotoxicity syndrome reasons were associated with hospital mortality (odds ratios, 1.02 [95% CI, 1–1.04; p = 0.046], 4.69 [2.44–9.01; p < 0.0001], and 3.74 [1.91–7.3; p = 0.0001], respectively). Conclusions: ICU admission rates after CAR T-cell treatment are declining. Although ICU patients are older with higher severity of illness and toxicity grades, ICU mortality after CAR T-cell therapy remains low.

OBJECTIVES: We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 47 RCTs ( n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87–1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89–1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03–1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82–1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11–1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29–1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: The critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. DATA ANALYSIS: We performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88–0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11–1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, –0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08–1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01–1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–0.98) or equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: We found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

RATIONALE: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL DESIGN: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements. RESULTS: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue—including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the factors affecting critical care capacity and how critical care organizations (CCOs) within academic centers in the U.S. flow-size critical care resources under normal operations, strain, and surge conditions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, federal agency and American Hospital Association reports, and previous CCO survey results were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and reports of critical care bed capacity and utilization within CCOs and in the United States were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: The Academic Leaders in the Critical Care Medicine Task Force established regular conference calls to reach a consensus on the approach of CCOs to “flow-sizing” critical care services. DATA SYNTHESIS: The approach of CCOs to “flow-sizing” critical care is outlined. The vertical (relation to institutional resources, e.g., space allocation, equipment, personnel redistribution) and horizontal (interdepartmental, e.g., emergency department, operating room, inpatient floors) integration of critical care delivery (ICUs, rapid response) for healthcare organizations and the methods by which CCOs flow-size critical care during normal operations, strain, and surge conditions are described. The advantages, barriers, and recommendations for the rapid and efficient scaling of critical care operations via a CCO structure are explained. Comprehensive guidance and resources for the development of “flow-sizing” capability by a CCO within a healthcare organization are provided. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and summarized the fundamental principles affecting critical care capacity. The taskforce highlighted the advantages of the CCO governance model to achieve rapid and cost-effective “flow-sizing” of critical care services and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this capability. The relevance of a comprehensive approach to “flow-sizing” has become particularly relevant in the wake of the latest COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the growing risks of another extreme epidemic, planning for adequate capacity to confront the next critical care crisis is urgent.