PurposeThe EUPHRATES trial examined the impact of polymyxin B hemoperfusion (PMX) on mortality in patients with septic shock and endotoxemia, defined as EAA ≥ 0.60. No difference was found in 28-day all-cause mortality. However, the trial showed that in some patients with septic shock the burden of endotoxin activity was extreme (EAA ≥ 0.9). In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of PMX use in patients with septic shock and endotoxin activity measured between 0.6–0.89.MethodsPost-hoc analysis of the EUPHRATES trial for the 194 patients with EAA ≥ 0.6–0.89 who completed two treatments (PMX or sham). The primary end point was mortality at 28 days adjusted for APACHE II score and baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP). Additional end points included changes in MAP, cumulative vasopressor index (CVI), median EAA reduction, ventilator-free days (VFD), dialysis-free days (DFD) and hospital length of stay. Subpopulations analyzed were site and type of infection and those with norepinephrine dose > 0.1 mcg/kg/min at baseline.ResultsAt 28 days, 23 patients of 88 (26.1%) in the PMX group died versus 39 of 106 (36.8%) in the sham group [risk difference 10.7%, OR 0.52, 95% CI (0.27, 0.99), P = 0.047]. When unadjusted for baseline variables, P = 0.11. The 28-day survival time in the PMX group was longer than for the sham group [HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.33, 0.95) P = 0.03]. PMX treatment compared with sham showed greater change in MAP [median (IQR) 8 mmHg (− 0.5, 19.5) vs. 4 mmHg (− 4.0, 11) P = 0.04] and VFD [median (IQR) 20 days (0.5, 23.5) vs. 6 days (0, 20), P = 0.004]. There were no significant differences in other end points. There was a significant difference in mortality in PMX-treated patients with no bacterial growth on culture [PMX, 6/30 (20%) vs. sham, 13/31 (41.9%), P = 0.005]. The median EAA change in the population was − 12.9% (range: increase 49.2%–reduction 86.3%). The mortality in the above median EAA change group was PMX: 6/38 (15.7%) vs. sham 15/49 (30.6%), P = 0.08.ConclusionsThese hypothesis-generating results, based on an exploratory post hoc analysis of the EUPHRATES trial, suggest measurable responses in patients with septic shock and an EAA ≥ 0.6 to 0.89 on changes in mean arterial pressure, ventilator-free days and mortality.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01046669. Funding Spectral Medical Incorporated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5463-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

A number of different perturbation formulations found in the literature are discussed. Although these formulations are derived in quite different ways, simple relations among these derivations are described and, in fact, some are shown to yield identical results. One of these degenerate perturbation theories resulting from different formulations due to Van Vleck, Kemble, and Primas, to des Cloizeaux, and to Buleavski is considered in greater detail. Its linked and cluster expansion properties and some other resummation techniques are briefly discussed.

No abstract

Early waves of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were driven by importation events and subsequent policy responses. However, epidemic dynamics in 2021 are largely driven by the spread of more transmissible and/or immune-evading variants, which in turn are countered by vaccination programs. Here we describe updates to the methodology of Covasim (COVID-19 Agent-based Simulator) to account for immune trajectories over time, correlates of protection, co-circulation of different variants and the roll-out of multiple vaccines. We have extended recent work on neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) as a correlate of protection to account for protection against infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe disease using a joint estimation approach. We find that NAbs are strongly correlated with infection blocking and that natural infection provides stronger protection than vaccination for the same level of NAbs, though vaccines typically produce higher NAbs. We find only relatively weak correlations between NAbs and the probability of developing symptoms given a breakthrough infection, or the probability of severe disease given symptoms. A more refined understanding of breakthrough infections in individuals with natural and vaccine-derived immunity will have implications for timing of booster vaccines, the impact of emerging variants of concern on critical vaccination thresholds, and the need for ongoing non-pharmaceutical interventions.

No abstract

Purpose: Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI. Methods: One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection. Results: One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.

No abstract