Background: There is a conflicting body of evidence regarding the benefit of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone in combination as an adjunctive therapy for sepsis with or without septic shock. We aimed to assess the efficacy of this treatment among predefined populations. Methods: A literature review of major electronic databases was performed to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone in the treatment of patients with sepsis with or without septic shock in comparison to the control group. Results: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, and 6 studies were included in the final analysis totaling 839 patients (mean age 64.2 ± 18; SOFA score 8.7 ± 3.3; 46.6% female). There was no significant difference between both groups in long term mortality (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% CI 0.85-1.30; P = 0.64), ICU mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.73-1.44; P = 0.87), or incidence of acute kidney injury (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.80-1.37; P = 0.75). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and ICU free days on day 28 between the intervention and control groups. There was, however, a significant difference in the reduction of SOFA score on day 3 from baseline (MD −0.92; 95% CI −1.43 to −.41; P < 0.05). In a trial sequential analysis for mortality outcomes, our results are inconclusive for excluding lack of benefit of this therapy. Conclusion: Among patients with sepsis with or without septic shock, treatment with vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone was not associated with a significant reduction in mortality, incidence of AKI, hospital and ICU length of stay, or ICU free days on day 28. There was a significant reduction of SOFA score on day 3 post-randomization. Further studies with a larger number of patients are needed to provide further evidence on the efficacy or lack of efficacy of this treatment.

A 61-year-old woman presented with longstanding cough and progressive dyspnoea. She underwent an extensive evaluation and was diagnosed with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) with granulomatous lymphocytic interstitial lung disease (GLILD). She was initially treated with subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy, having declined intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy. She also declined treatment with oral glucocorticoids. Over several months, she became increasingly symptomatic and developed increased pulmonary infiltrates, pleural effusions, mediastinal adenopathy, splenomegaly, pancytopenia and ascites. An interdisciplinary team composed of an immunologist, pulmonologist and haematologist deliberated over a therapeutic management approach. The patient received a recently reported immunotherapy regimen with azathioprine and rituximab. The therapy led to rapid improvement of her constitutional and respiratory symptoms, with clinical and radiographic improvement in her interstitial lung disease, lymphadenopathy, pleural effusions and ascites. This case report reviews the literature surrounding the diagnosis and management of GLILD.

No abstract

The differential diagnosis of the patient with encephalopathy is broad and remains a common yet challenging problem for critical care physicians. A case is presented of contrast-induced encephalopathy in an 81-year-old man undergoing a left heart catheterisation after receiving iopamidol, a low-osmolar contrast agent. Immediately after receiving contrast, our patient experienced severe headache, agitation, altered mentation and significant skin hypersensitivity. This rare, acute and reversible neurological disturbance can be associated with administration of intra-arterial, osmotic, iodinated contrast. Although uncommon, it is important to recognise the various presentations, risk factors and treatment of this condition.

Background: Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are highly susceptible to developing delirium for a multitude of reasons. Previous studies have linked pre-existing depression with an increased risk of postoperative delirium in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. However, the evidence regarding the association between pre-existing psychiatric illnesses and delirium in ARDS patients is unknown. In this study, we aim to determine the relationship between pre-existing psychiatric illness and the risk of development of delirium amongst ARDS patients. Study Design and Methods: We performed a retrospective study of a mixed group of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between January 2016 and December 2019 with a diagnosis of ARDS per the Berlin definition. The study group was divided into 2 cohorts: subjects with delirium and subjects without delirium. Comparison between the 2 groups was conducted to examine the impact of pre-existing psychiatric illnesses including major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for benzodiazepine use, sedatives, analgesics, sequential organ failure assessment score, and corticosteroid use to determine the association between pre-existing psychiatric disorders and delirium. Results: 286 patients with ARDS were identified; 124 (43%) of whom were diagnosed with ICU delirium. In patients diagnosed with ICU delirium, 49.2% were found to have preexisting psychiatric illnesses, compared to 34.0% without any preexisting psychiatric illness (OR = 1.94, P = 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of individual psychiatric illnesses, GAD and MDD were associated with the development of delirium (OR = 1.88, P = 0.04 and OR = 1.76, P = 0.05 respectively). Interpretation: ARDS patients with preexisting psychiatric illnesses, particularly GAD and MDD are associated with an increased risk of developing ICU delirium. Clinicians should be aware of the effect of psychiatric co-morbidities on developing delirium in critically ill patients.