MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4391025322 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006171

Executive Summary: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia Focused Update 2024

2024· article· en· W4391025322 sur OpenAlexaff
Dipayan Chaudhuri, Andrea M. Nei, Bram Rochwerg, R.A. Balk, Karim Asehnoune, Rhonda Cadena, Joseph A. Carcillo, Ricardo Correa, Katherine Drover, Annette Esper, Hayley B. Gershengorn, Naomi Hammond, Namita Jayaprakash, Kusum Menon, Lama Nazer, Tyler Pitre, Zaffer Qasim, James A. Russell, Ariel Santos, Aarti Sarwal, Joanna L. Spencer-Segal, Nejla Tilouche, Djillali Annane, Stephen M. Pastores

Notice bibliographique

RevueCritical Care Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAdrenal Hormones and Disorders
Établissements canadiensSt. Paul's HospitalMcMaster UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioImpact
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineIntensive care medicineARDSPneumoniaSepsisSeptic shockPopulationCritical appraisalRandomized controlled trialIntensive careAlternative medicineInternal medicineLungPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) is a state of systemic inflammation with associated dysregulation of the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis, altered cortisol metabolism, and tissue glucocorticoid resistance (1) that is common in acutely ill patients requiring hospitalization. A multispecialty task force of international experts in critical care medicine and endocrinology from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine previously issued guidelines on the diagnosis of and management of CIRCI across a number of clinical conditions, first in 2008 (2) and then in 2017 (3,4). Since then, multiple new trials examining the use of corticosteroids in the acutely ill have been published, creating a need to update recommendations inclusive of new evidence. This executive summary provides an update on the previous guidelines on CIRCI, with a focus on sepsis and septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), which were prioritized as the most common diagnoses in which corticosteroids are considered and those with sufficient new data that reevaluation was warranted. After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes questions for this focused update, the panel 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 recommendation using the evidence-to-decision framework. The strength of each recommendation was designated as strong (signified by “we recommend”) or conditional (signified by “we suggest”). The panel sought to provide recommendations in both adult and pediatric patient populations, as appropriate, based on available evidence. A summary of recommendations is provided in Table 1. A full description of the recommendations is provided in the complete guidelines document. TABLE 1. - Summary of Recommendations Recommendations Recommendation Strength, Quality of Evidence Septic shock 1A. We “suggest” administering corticosteroids to adult patients with septic shock Conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence 1B. We “recommend against” administration of high dose/short duration corticosteroids (> 400 mg/d hydrocortisone equivalent for less than 3 d) for adult patients with septic shock (strong recommendation, low certainty) Strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence Acute respiratory distress syndrome 2A. We “suggest” administering corticosteroids to adult hospitalized patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome Conditional recommendation, moderate certainty evidence Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia 3A. We “recommend” administering corticosteroids to adult patients hospitalized with severe bacterial community acquired pneumonia Strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence Corticosteroids in Sepsis and Septic Shock Recommendation 1A) We suggest administering corticosteroids to adult patients with septic shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty). 1B) We recommend against administration of high dose/short duration corticosteroids (defined as > 400 mg/d of hydrocortisone equivalent for < 3 d) for adult patients with septic shock (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Remark: We make no recommendation for corticosteroid use in pediatric patients with sepsis. Rationale Most studies included patients with septic shock and showed small to moderate desirable effects. Although there was only a small reduction in mortality with low to moderate certainty evidence, there was a larger reduction in shock reversal and organ dysfunction with high certainty evidence (3,5–10). The panel felt that given the high prevalence of septic shock worldwide, even a small reduction in mortality can have a large effect and that the reduction in shock reversal and organ dysfunction can have important implications in resource utilization. Undesirable effects were felt to be uncertain but anticipated to be small. Further, the intervention was deemed feasible, equitable and acceptable to healthcare providers. The panel did not make a specific recommendation regarding corticosteroid regimen, but recommended against use of high dose, short duration corticosteroids given the risk of adverse effects. Although the panel did not make a specific recommendation on sepsis without shock, if patients present with sepsis and severe CAP or sepsis with ARDS, we suggest administering corticosteroids. Finally, the recommendation for corticosteroid use in sepsis has uncertain generalizability to the pediatric population due to limited available studies. Corticosteroids in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Recommendations 2A) We “suggest” administering corticosteroids to adult critically ill patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty). Remark: We make no recommendation for corticosteroid use in pediatric patients with ARDS. Rationale Corticosteroids provide moderate desirable effects, driven primarily by moderate certainty evidence that it reduces hospital mortality (3,11–15). This effect is more pronounced when corticosteroids are given for more than 7 days. However, the ideal corticosteroid dose, timing, and type remains unknown and left up to clinician comfort and other considerations. This is in contrast to the previous recommendation in 2017 that suggested giving methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg within 14 days of diagnosis of ARDS (3). Undesirable effects of corticosteroids and their cost-effectiveness remain unknown. However, corticosteroid use was deemed feasible and acceptable to healthcare providers. Overall, the panel felt that the benefits of corticosteroid use outweighed its risks. The recommendation has uncertain generalizability to pediatric patients as there were no randomized controlled trials in this population. Corticosteroids in Community-Acquired Pneumonia Recommendations 3A) We “recommend” administering corticosteroids for adult patients hospitalized with severe bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Remark: We make no recommendation for corticosteroid use in pediatric patients with CAP. Rationale Corticosteroids provide large desirable effects in severe CAP with moderate certainty evidence indicating a decrease in hospital mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (4,16,17). The same mortality benefit is not seen in patients with less severe CAP (4,18,19). Undesirable effects, while unknown as with ARDS and sepsis, are anticipated to be small. Use of corticosteroids in CAP was felt to be feasible, acceptable and may be associated with cost savings (20). As with sepsis and ARDS, the panel was unable to make recommendations on use of corticosteroids for CAP in pediatric patients due to lack of available literature.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,169
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,939

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,334
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations24
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCritical Care MedicineMême sujetAdrenal Hormones and DisordersTravaux en français237 207