脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者的辅助免疫治疗药物:多学科 23.

Massimo Girardis, Irene Coloretti, Massimo Antonelli, Giorgio Berlot, Stefano Busani, Andrea Cortegiani, Gennaro De Pascale, Francesco Giuseppe De Rosa, Silvia De Rosa, Katia Donadello, Abele Donati, Francesco Forfori, Maddalena Giannella, Giacomo Grasselli, Giorgia Montrucchio, Alessandra Oliva, Daniela Pasero, Ornella Piazza, Stefano Romagnoli, Carlo Tascini, Bruno Viaggi, Mario Tumbarello, Pierluigi Viale
{"title":"脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者的辅助免疫治疗药物:多学科 23.","authors":"Massimo Girardis, Irene Coloretti, Massimo Antonelli, Giorgio Berlot, Stefano Busani, Andrea Cortegiani, Gennaro De Pascale, Francesco Giuseppe De Rosa, Silvia De Rosa, Katia Donadello, Abele Donati, Francesco Forfori, Maddalena Giannella, Giacomo Grasselli, Giorgia Montrucchio, Alessandra Oliva, Daniela Pasero, Ornella Piazza, Stefano Romagnoli, Carlo Tascini, Bruno Viaggi, Mario Tumbarello, Pierluigi Viale","doi":"10.1186/s44158-024-00165-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the last decades, several adjunctive treatments have been proposed to reduce mortality in septic shock patients. Unfortunately, mortality due to sepsis and septic shock remains elevated and NO trials evaluating adjunctive therapies were able to demonstrate any clear benefit. In light of the lack of evidence and conflicting results from previous studies, in this multidisciplinary consensus, the authors considered the rational, recent investigations and potential clinical benefits of targeted adjunctive therapies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of multidisciplinary experts defined clinical phenotypes, treatments and outcomes of greater interest in the field of adjunctive therapies for sepsis and septic shock. After an extensive systematic literature review, the appropriateness of each treatment for each clinical phenotype was determined using the modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The consensus identified two distinct clinical phenotypes: patients with overwhelming shock and patients with immune paralysis. Six different adjunctive treatments were considered the most frequently used and promising: (i) corticosteroids, (ii) blood purification, (iii) immunoglobulins, (iv) granulocyte/monocyte colony-stimulating factor and (v) specific immune therapy (i.e. interferon-gamma, IL7 and AntiPD1). Agreement was achieved in 70% of the 25 clinical questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although clinical evidence is lacking, adjunctive therapies are often employed in the treatment of sepsis. To address this gap in knowledge, a panel of national experts has provided a structured consensus on the appropriate use of these treatments in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"4 1","pages":"28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11059820/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adjunctive immunotherapeutic agents in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a multidisciplinary consensus of 23.\",\"authors\":\"Massimo Girardis, Irene Coloretti, Massimo Antonelli, Giorgio Berlot, Stefano Busani, Andrea Cortegiani, Gennaro De Pascale, Francesco Giuseppe De Rosa, Silvia De Rosa, Katia Donadello, Abele Donati, Francesco Forfori, Maddalena Giannella, Giacomo Grasselli, Giorgia Montrucchio, Alessandra Oliva, Daniela Pasero, Ornella Piazza, Stefano Romagnoli, Carlo Tascini, Bruno Viaggi, Mario Tumbarello, Pierluigi Viale\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s44158-024-00165-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the last decades, several adjunctive treatments have been proposed to reduce mortality in septic shock patients. Unfortunately, mortality due to sepsis and septic shock remains elevated and NO trials evaluating adjunctive therapies were able to demonstrate any clear benefit. In light of the lack of evidence and conflicting results from previous studies, in this multidisciplinary consensus, the authors considered the rational, recent investigations and potential clinical benefits of targeted adjunctive therapies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of multidisciplinary experts defined clinical phenotypes, treatments and outcomes of greater interest in the field of adjunctive therapies for sepsis and septic shock. After an extensive systematic literature review, the appropriateness of each treatment for each clinical phenotype was determined using the modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The consensus identified two distinct clinical phenotypes: patients with overwhelming shock and patients with immune paralysis. Six different adjunctive treatments were considered the most frequently used and promising: (i) corticosteroids, (ii) blood purification, (iii) immunoglobulins, (iv) granulocyte/monocyte colony-stimulating factor and (v) specific immune therapy (i.e. interferon-gamma, IL7 and AntiPD1). Agreement was achieved in 70% of the 25 clinical questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although clinical evidence is lacking, adjunctive therapies are often employed in the treatment of sepsis. To address this gap in knowledge, a panel of national experts has provided a structured consensus on the appropriate use of these treatments in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11059820/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-024-00165-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-024-00165-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去的几十年中,人们提出了多种辅助治疗方法来降低脓毒性休克患者的死亡率。不幸的是,脓毒症和脓毒性休克导致的死亡率仍然居高不下,而评估辅助疗法的无试验能够证明其明显的益处。鉴于以往研究缺乏证据且结果相互矛盾,在这份多学科共识中,作者考虑了靶向辅助疗法的合理性、最新研究和潜在临床益处:一个由多学科专家组成的小组确定了脓毒症和脓毒性休克辅助疗法领域更值得关注的临床表型、治疗方法和结果。在进行了广泛的系统性文献回顾后,采用修改后的兰德/加州大学洛杉矶分校适当性方法确定了每种治疗方法对每种临床表型的适当性:结果:共识确定了两种不同的临床表型:严重休克患者和免疫麻痹患者。六种不同的辅助疗法被认为是最常用和最有前景的疗法:(i) 皮质类固醇;(ii) 血液净化;(iii) 免疫球蛋白;(iv) 粒细胞/单核细胞集落刺激因子;(v) 特异性免疫疗法(即干扰素-γ、IL7 和 AntiPD1)。25个临床问题中有70%达成了一致:结论:尽管缺乏临床证据,但脓毒症治疗中经常使用辅助疗法。为了弥补这一知识空白,国内专家小组就在临床实践中适当使用这些疗法达成了结构性共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Adjunctive immunotherapeutic agents in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a multidisciplinary consensus of 23.

Background: In the last decades, several adjunctive treatments have been proposed to reduce mortality in septic shock patients. Unfortunately, mortality due to sepsis and septic shock remains elevated and NO trials evaluating adjunctive therapies were able to demonstrate any clear benefit. In light of the lack of evidence and conflicting results from previous studies, in this multidisciplinary consensus, the authors considered the rational, recent investigations and potential clinical benefits of targeted adjunctive therapies.

Methods: A panel of multidisciplinary experts defined clinical phenotypes, treatments and outcomes of greater interest in the field of adjunctive therapies for sepsis and septic shock. After an extensive systematic literature review, the appropriateness of each treatment for each clinical phenotype was determined using the modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Results: The consensus identified two distinct clinical phenotypes: patients with overwhelming shock and patients with immune paralysis. Six different adjunctive treatments were considered the most frequently used and promising: (i) corticosteroids, (ii) blood purification, (iii) immunoglobulins, (iv) granulocyte/monocyte colony-stimulating factor and (v) specific immune therapy (i.e. interferon-gamma, IL7 and AntiPD1). Agreement was achieved in 70% of the 25 clinical questions.

Conclusions: Although clinical evidence is lacking, adjunctive therapies are often employed in the treatment of sepsis. To address this gap in knowledge, a panel of national experts has provided a structured consensus on the appropriate use of these treatments in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severe bronchiolitis before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective database analysis by the Italian Network of PICU study group (TIPNet). Understanding neuropathic pain: the role of neurophysiological tests in unveiling underlying mechanisms. Erector spinae plane block for cancer pain relief: a systematic review. Echocardiographic evaluation in patient candidate for liver transplant: from pathophysiology to hemodynamic optimization. Management of critically ill patients in austere environments: good clinical practice by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1