Showing papers by "Gordon R. Bernard published in 2016"

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Abstract: Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

Impact of Initial Central Venous Pressure on Outcomes of Conservative Versus Liberal Fluid Management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Abstract: Objectives In acute respiratory distress syndrome, conservative fluid management increases ventilator-free days without affecting mortality. Response to fluid management may differ based on patients' initial central venous pressure. We hypothesized that initial central venous pressure would modify the effect of fluid management on outcomes. Design Retrospective analysis of the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial, a multicenter randomized trial comparing conservative with liberal fluid management in acute respiratory distress syndrome. We examined the relationship between initial central venous pressure, fluid strategy, and 60-day mortality in univariate and multivariable analysis. Setting Twenty acute care hospitals. Patients Nine hundred thirty-four ventilated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with a central venous pressure available at enrollment, 609 without baseline shock (for whom fluid balance was managed by the study protocol). Interventions None. Measurements and main results Among patients without baseline shock, those with initial central venous pressure greater than 8 mm Hg experienced similar mortality with conservative and liberal fluid management (18% vs 18%; p = 0.928), whereas those with central venous pressure of 8 mm Hg or less experienced lower mortality with a conservative strategy (17% vs 36%; p = 0.005). Multivariable analysis demonstrated an interaction between initial central venous pressure and the effect of fluid strategy on mortality (p = 0.031). At higher initial central venous pressures, the difference in treatment between arms was predominantly furosemide administration, which was not associated with mortality (p = 0.122). At lower initial central venous pressures, the difference between arms was predominantly fluid administration, with additional fluid associated with increased mortality (p = 0.013). Conclusions Conservative fluid management decreases mortality for acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with a low initial central venous pressure. In this population, the administration of IV fluids seems to increase mortality.

ePrescribing: Reducing Costs through In-Class Therapeutic Interchange

Abstract: Introduction: Spending on pharmaceuticals in the US reached $373.9 billion in 2014. Therapeutic interchange offers potential medication cost savings by replacing a prescribed drug for an equally efficacious therapeutic alternative. Methods: Hard-stop therapeutic interchange recommendation alerts were developed for four medication classes (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, serotonin receptor agonists, intranasal steroid sprays, and proton-pump inhibitors) in an electronic prescription-writing tool for outpatient prescriptions. Using prescription data from January 2012 to June 2015, the Compliance Ratio (CR) was calculated by dividing the number of prescriptions with recommended therapeutic interchange medications by the number of prescriptions with non-recommended medications to measure effectiveness. To explore potential cost savings, prescription data and medication costs were analyzed for the 45,000 Vanderbilt Employee Health Plan members. Results: For all medication classes, significant improvements were demonstrated – the CR improved (proton-pump inhibitors 2.8 to 5.32, nasal steroids 2.44 to 8.16, statins 2.06 to 5.51, and serotonin receptor agonists 0.8 to 1.52). Quarterly savings through the four therapeutic interchange interventions combined exceeded $200,000 with an estimated annual savings for the health plan of $800,000, or more than $17 per member. Conclusion: A therapeutic interchange clinical decision support tool at the point of prescribing resulted in increased compliance with recommendations for outpatient prescriptions while producing substantial cost savings to the Vanderbilt Employee Health Plan – $17.77 per member per year. Therapeutic interchange rules require rational targeting, appropriate governance, and vigilant content updates.

Recommendations to Facilitate Expanded Access to Investigational Therapies for Seriously Ill Patients.

Abstract: When clinical trial enrollment is not an option for seriously ill patients whose illnesses have not responded to approved treatment options, those patients and their physicians may consider gaining access to investigational therapies through a pathway established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called expanded access. However, recent events have highlighted the challenging dynamics involved in accessing investigational therapies through expanded access that include a complex interplay of factors involving the patient, physician, drug company, FDA, and, increasingly, social media. The authors offer several potential strategies to streamline what is otherwise an arduous process for all involved. (1) The drug company should prospectively determine whether it will establish an expanded access program for specific drugs. (2) A central clearinghouse for companies should support registration of expanded access drugs for suitable patients. (3) The determination of whether a patient fits criteria would be made by an independent review board of clinicians. (4) An independent coordinating center is needed; academic health centers are ideally suited for that role. (5) Adequate financing of the costs of therapy need to be in place to make expanded access a reality, given frequent lack of payer coverage for therapies. (6) Further enhancement of regulatory pathways, approaches, or rules would promote expanded access. (7) Patients should explicitly acknowledge the limited data available. (8) There should be a shared, secure, technical platform to facilitate expanded access. All the authors' strategies present important prospects for improving treatment options for the most seriously ill patients.