Objective: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods:The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Multiple organ failure is common in obstetric patients; mortality rate increases with increasing organ failure. APACHE II scores overpredict mortality rate. Standardized mortality ratio is lower in obstetric disorders than in medical disorders. Lack of prenatal care and delay in intensive care unit referral adversely affect outcome and are easily preventable.

Following reports of death from cardiac arrhythmias with drugs like terfenadine and cisapride, the International Conference for Harmonization formulated a guidance (E14) document. This specifies that all new drugs must undergo a 'thorough QT/QTc' (TQT) study to detect drug-induced QT prolongation, a surrogate marker of ventricular tachycardia, especially torsades de pointes (TdPs). With better understanding of data from several completed TQT studies, regulatory requirements have undergone some changes since the E14 guidance was implemented in October 2005. This article reviews the implications of the E14 guidance and the changes in its interpretation including choice of baseline QT, demonstration of assay sensitivity, statistical analysis of the effect of new drug and positive control, and PK-PD modelling. Some issues like use of automated QT measurements remain unresolved. Pharmaceutical companies too are modifying Phase 1 studies to detect QTc liability early in order to save time and resources. After the E14 guidance, development of several drugs that prolong QTc by >5 ms is being abandoned by sponsors. However, all drugs that prolong the QT interval do not increase risk of TdP. Researchers in regulatory agencies, academia and industry are working to find better biomarkers of drug-induced TdP which could prevent many useful drugs from being prematurely abandoned. Drug-induced TdP is a rare occurrence. With fewer drugs that prolong QT interval reaching the licensing stage, knowing which of these drugs are torsadogenic is proving to be elusive. Thus, paradoxically, the effectiveness of the E14 guidance itself has made prospective validation of new biomarkers difficult.

Malaria is an important cause of multiple organ failure in India. Mortality rate is 6.4% when one or fewer organs fail but increases to 48.8% with failure of two or more organs. However, outcomes are better than for similar degrees of organ failure in sepsis.

No abstract

PurposeUlinastatin, a serine protease inhibitor, inhibits several pro-inflammatory proteases and decreases inflammatory cytokine levels and mortality in experimental sepsis. We studied the effect of ulinastatin on 28-day all-cause mortality in a double-blind trial in patients with severe sepsis in seven Indian hospitals.MethodsPatients with sepsis were randomized within 48 h of onset of one or more organ failures to receive intravenous administration of ulinastatin (200,000 IU) or placebo 12 hourly for 5 days.ResultsOf 122 randomized subjects, 114 completed the study (55 receiving ulinastatin, 59 receiving placebo). At baseline, the mean APACHE II score was 13.4 (SD = 4.4), 48 (42 %) patients were receiving mechanical ventilation, 58 (51 %) were on vasopressors, and 35 % had multiple organ failure. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (patients receiving six or more doses of study drugs), 28-day all-cause mortality was 7.3 % with ulinastatin (4 deaths) versus 20.3 % (12 deaths) with placebo (p = 0.045). On multivariate analysis too, treatment with ulinastatin (odds ratio 0.26, 95 % CI 0.07–0.95; p = 0.042) independently decreased 28-day all-cause mortality. However, the mortality difference did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis [10.2 % (6/59 deaths) with ulinastatin versus 20.6 % (13/63 deaths) in the placebo group; p = 0.11]. The ulinastatin group had lower incidence of new-onset organ failure (10 vs. 26 patients, p = 0.003), more ventilator-free days (mean ± SD 19.4 ± 10.6 days vs. 10.2 ± 12.5 days, p = 0.019), and shorter hospital stay (11.8 ± 7.1 days vs. 24.2 ± 7.2 days, p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn this pilot study, intravenous administration of ulinastatin reduced mortality in patients with severe sepsis in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, but not in the intention-to-treat analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3278-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract