Introduction Sepsis is a life-threatening syndrome resulting from a dysregulated immune response to an infection. Patients with sepsis can become critically ill and require advanced organ support in a hospital critical care setting. Antibiotics are lifesaving in sepsis, but overuse is associated with harm and promotes antimicrobial resistance, a rising global challenge making antibiotic treatment less effective. The prevalence of antibiotic use is very high in patients admitted to critical care. Research indicates that shorter courses of antibiotics are as effective as longer durations in the treatment of certain infections, but uncertainty remains for patients with sepsis. The aim of SHORTER is to investigate whether treating critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis with a fixed 5-day, short course of antibiotics is clinically and cost-effective compared with standard of care.Methods and analysis SHORTER is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. 2244 adults treated with antibiotics for suspected or confirmed sepsis in a critical care setting will be recruited from 50 UK National Health Service hospitals. Participants will be randomised to either a fixed 5-day index course of antibiotics (intervention) or standard of care duration antibiotics (control). The coprimary outcomes are 28-day mortality (non-inferiority) and antibiotic treatment days (superiority). Secondary outcomes will assess the effect of short-duration antibiotic therapy on 90-day mortality, hospital readmissions, further infection rates and health economic impacts. A process evaluation will be embedded in the trial.Ethics and dissemination Favourable ethical opinion has been received from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (Ref: 23/WA/0197) and Scotland A REC (Ref: 24/SS/0013). Results will be publicly disseminated via Patient Public Involvement and Engagement representatives, charities and media, and to the clinical community via professional societies, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration number ISRCTN40090372.

INTRODUCTION:Critically ill patients commonly develop acquired neutrophil dysfunction, which increases susceptibility to intensive care unit-acquired infection (ICU-AI). This study aimed to assess whether interferon gamma (IFN-γ) can restore function in dysfunctional neutrophils from critically ill patients and to uncover potential underlying mechanisms. METHODS:This was an observational cohort study. Neutrophils were isolated from whole blood donated by critically ill patients (n=31) in four separate teaching hospital intensive care units (ICUs). Neutrophils were subsequently treated with recombinant human IFN-γ or vehicle for 1 hour following either Fc gamma receptor (FcγR) blockade, selective inhibition of the gamma isoform of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K-γ) or vehicle control for 30 min. Neutrophil phagocytosis, bacterial killing, superoxide generation, phagocytic receptor expression and small Rho GTPase activity were assessed. Neutrophil dysfunction was defined as <50% of cells ingesting 2 or more zymosan particles in a phagocytosis assay. RESULTS:IFN-γ significantly improved phagocytosis (control 36.5%, IFN-γ 56.0%), bacterial killing (control 31.6%, IFN-γ 82.1%) and superoxide generation (2.8-fold increase relative to control) in dysfunctional neutrophils. IFN-γ also increased the activity of the small GTPases, Rac and Cdc42 (2.4-fold and 1.5-fold increase relative to control, respectively) in dysfunctional neutrophils. Selective inhibition of PI3K-γ prevented the IFN-γ-mediated improvement of phagocytosis (IFN-γ 62.5%, with inhibitor 27.9%), bacterial killing (IFN-γ 82.1%, with inhibitor 30.5%) and superoxide generation (IFN-γ 2.8-fold change relative to control, 0.7 with inhibitor). The IFN-γ-mediated improvement of bacterial killing in dysfunctional neutrophils was also prevented by FcγR blockade (IFN-γ 82.1%, FcγR inhibition 28.7%). CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill patients with known acquired neutrophil dysfunction, ex vivo application of IFN-γ consistently improved a range of neutrophil effector functions.

Aim To integrate the quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of the PEACH (Procalcitonin: Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients) study, which evaluated whether procalcitonin (PCT) testing should be used to guide antibiotic prescribing and safely reduce antibiotic use among patients admitted to acute UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.Design Triangulation to integrate quantitative and qualitative data.Setting and participants Four data sources in 148 NHS hospitals in England and Wales including data from 6089 patients.Method A triangulation protocol was used to integrate three quantitative data sources (survey, organisation-level data and patient-level data: data sources 1, 2 and 3) and one qualitative data source (clinician interviews: data source 4) collected as part of the PEACH study. Analysis of data sources initially took place independently, and then, key findings for each data source were added to a matrix. A series of interactive discussion meetings took place with quantitative, qualitative and clinical researchers, together with patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives, to group the key findings and produce seven statements relating to the study objectives. Each statement and the key findings related to that statement were considered alongside an assessment of whether there was agreement, partial agreement, dissonance or silence across all four data sources (convergence coding). The matrix was then interpreted to produce a narrative for each statement.Objective To explore whether PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic use during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.Results Seven statements were produced relating to the PEACH study objective. There was agreement across all four data sources for our first key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. The second statement was related to this key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Partial agreement was found between data sources 3 (quantitative patient-level data) and 4 (qualitative clinician interviews). There were no data regarding safety from data sources 1 or 2 (quantitative survey and organisational-level data) to contribute to this statement. For statements three and four, ‘PCT was not used as a central factor influencing antibiotic prescribing’, and ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department (ED)/acute medical unit (AMU),’ there was agreement between data source 2 (organisational-level data) and data source 4 (interviews with clinicians). The remaining two data sources (survey and patient-level data) contributed no data on this statement. For statement five, ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the intensive care unit (ICU)’, there was disagreement between data sources 2 and 3 (organisational-level data and patient-level data) and data source 4 (clinician interviews). Data source 1 (survey) did not provide data on this statement. We therefore assigned dissonance to this statement. For statement six, ‘There were many barriers to implementing PCT testing during the first wave of COVID-19’, there was partial agreement between data source 1 (survey) and data source 4 (clinician interviews) and no data provided by the two remaining data sources (organisational-level data and patient-level data). For statement seven, ‘Local PCT guidelines/protocols were perceived to be valuable’, only data source 4 (clinician interviews) provided data. The clinicians expressed that guidelines were valuable, but as there was no data from the other three data sources, we assigned silence to this statement.Conclusion There was agreement between all four data sources on our key finding ‘during the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Data, methodological and investigator triangulation, and a transparent triangulation protocol give validity to this finding.Trial registration number ISRCTN66682918.

Importance:For hospitalized critically ill adults with suspected sepsis, procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) monitoring protocols can guide the duration of antibiotic therapy, but the evidence of the effect and safety of these protocols remains uncertain. Objective:To determine whether decisions based on assessment of CRP or PCT safely results in a reduction in the duration of antibiotic therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants:A multicenter, intervention-concealed randomized clinical trial, involving 2760 adults (≥18 years), in 41 UK National Health Service (NHS) intensive care units, requiring critical care within 24 hours of initiating intravenous antibiotics for suspected sepsis and likely to continue antibiotics for at least 72 hours. Intervention:From January 1, 2018, to June 5, 2024, 918 patients were assigned to the daily PCT-guided protocol, 924 to the daily CRP-guided protocol, and 918 assigned to standard care. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcomes were total duration of antibiotics (effectiveness) and all-cause mortality (safety) to 28 days. Secondary outcomes included critical care unit data and hospital stay data. Ninety-day all-cause mortality was also collected. Results:Among the randomized patients (mean age 60.2 [SD, 15.4] years; 60.3% males), there was a significant reduction in antibiotic duration from randomization to 28 days for those in the daily PCT-guided protocol compared with standard care (mean duration, 10.7 [SD, 7.6] days for standard care and 9.8 [SD, 7.2] days for PCT; mean difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.58, P = .01). For all-cause mortality up to 28 days, the daily PCT-guided protocol was noninferior to standard care, where the noninferiority margin was set at 5.4% (19.4% [170 of 878] of patients receiving standard care; 20.9% [184 of 879], PCT; absolute difference, 1.57; 95% CI, -2.18 to 5.32; P = .02). No difference was found in antibiotic duration for standard care vs daily CRP-guided protocol (mean duration, 10.6 [7.7] days for CRP; mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.60 to 0.79; P = .79). For all-cause mortality, the daily CRP-guided protocol was inconclusive compared with standard care (21.1% [184 of 874] for CRP; absolute difference, 1.69; 95% CI, -2.07 to 5.45; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance:Care guided by measurement of PCT reduces antibiotic duration safely compared with standard care, but CRP does not. All-cause mortality for CRP was inconclusive. Trial Registration:isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN47473244.

Dysregulation of the host immune response has a central role in the pathophysiology of sepsis. There has been much interest in immunomodulatory drugs as potential therapeutic adjuncts in sepsis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating the safety and clinical effectiveness of immunomodulatory drugs as adjuncts to standard care in the treatment of adults with sepsis. Our primary outcomes were serious adverse events and all-cause mortality. Fifty-six unique, eligible randomised controlled trials were identified, assessing a range of interventions including cytokine inhibitors; anti-inflammatories; immune cell stimulators; platelet pathway inhibitors; and complement inhibitors. At 1-month follow-up, the use of cytokine inhibitors was associated with a decreased risk of serious adverse events, based on 11 studies involving 7138 patients (RR (95%CI) 0.95 (0.90-1.00), I2 = 0%). The only immunomodulatory drugs associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events were toll-like receptor 4 antagonists (RR (95%CI) 1.18 (1.04-1.34), I2 = 0% (two trials, 567 patients)). Based on 18 randomised controlled trials, involving 11,075 patients, cytokine inhibitors reduced 1-month mortality (RR (95%CI) 0.88 (0.78-0.98), I2 = 57%). Mortality reduction was also shown in the subgroup of 13 randomised controlled trials that evaluated anti-tumour necrosis factor α interventions (RR (95%CI) 0.93 (0.87-0.99), I2 = 0%). Anti-inflammatory drugs had the largest apparent effect on mortality at 2 months at any dose (two trials, 228 patients, RR (95%CI) 0.64 (0.51-0.80), I2 = 0%) and at 3 months at any dose (three trials involving 277 patients, RR (95%CI) 0.67 (0.55-0.81), I2 = 0%). These data indicate that, except for toll-like receptor 4 antagonists, there is no evidence of safety concerns for the use of immunomodulatory drugs in sepsis, and they may show some short-term mortality benefit for selected drugs.

Background Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.Objectives Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme.Methods Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a 20 pound 000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping.Results People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups' 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (9830 pound versus 10 pound 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon.Conclusions Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty.

Aim: To describe the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine whether treatment protocols monitoring daily CRP (C-reactive protein) or PCT (procalcitonin) safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised adult patients with sepsis. Design: Multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial. Setting: UK NHS hospitals. Target population: Hospitalised critically ill adults who have been commenced on intravenous antibiotics for sepsis. Health technology: Three protocols for guiding antibiotic discontinuation will be compared: (a) standard care; (b) standard care + daily CRP monitoring; (c) standard care + daily PCT monitoring. Standard care will be based on routine sepsis management and antibiotic stewardship. Measurement of outcomes and costs. Outcomes will be assessed to 28 days. The primary outcomes are total duration of antibiotics and safety outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include: escalation of care/re-admission; infection re-lapse/recurrence; antibiotic dose; length and level of critical care stay and length of hospital stay. Ninety-day all-cause mortality rates will also be collected. An assessment of cost effectiveness will be performed. Conclusion: In the setting of routine NHS care, if this trial finds that a treatment protocol based on monitoring CRP or PCT safely allows a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy, and is cost effective, then this has the potential to change clinical practice for critically ill patients with sepsis. Moreover, if a biomarker-guided protocol is not found to be effective, then it will be important to avoid its use in sepsis and prevent ineffective technology becoming widely adopted in clinical practice.

Background: Procalcitonin (PCT) is a blood marker used to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. PCT testing was widely used/adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Objectives: Primary: to measure the difference in length of early (during first 7 days) antibiotic prescribing between patients with COVID-19 who did/did not have baseline PCT testing during the first wave of the pandemic. Secondary: to measure differences in length of hospital/ICU stay, mortality, total days of antibiotic prescribing and resistant bacterial infections between these groups. Methods: Multi-centre, retrospective, observational, cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts/Health Boards in England/Wales. Inclusion: patients >= 16 years, admitted to participating Trusts/Health Boards and with a confirmed positive COVID-19 test between 1 February 2020 and 30 June 2020. Results: Data from 5960 patients were analysed: 1548 (26.0%) had a baseline PCT test and 4412 (74.0%) did not. Using propensity-score matching, baseline PCT testing was associated with an average reduction in early antibiotic prescribing of 0.43 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.64 days, P < 0.001) and of 0.72 days (95% CI: 0.06-1.38 days, P = 0.03] in total antibiotic prescribing. Baseline PCT testing was not associated with increased mortality or hospital/ICU length of stay or with the rate of antimicrobial-resistant secondary bacterial infections. Conclusions: Baseline PCT testing appears to have been an effective antimicrobial stewardship tool early in the pandemic: it reduced antibiotic prescribing without evidence of harm. Our study highlights the need for embedded, rapid evaluations of infection diagnostics in the National Health Service so that even in challenging circumstances, introduction into clinical practice is supported by evidence for clinical utility.

BackgroundTracheostomies in children are associated with significant morbidity, poor quality of life, excess healthcare costs and excess mortality. The underlying mechanisms facilitating adverse respiratory outcomes in tracheostomised children are poorly understood. We aimed to characterise airway host defence in tracheostomised children using serial molecular analyses. MethodsTracheal aspirates, tracheal cytology brushings and nasal swabs were prospectively collected from children with a tracheostomy and controls. Transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic methods were applied to characterise the impact of tracheostomy on host immune response and the airway microbiome. ResultsChildren followed up serially from the time of tracheostomy up to 3 months postprocedure (n=9) were studied. A further cohort of children with a long-term tracheostomy were also enrolled (n=24). Controls (n=13) comprised children without a tracheostomy undergoing bronchoscopy. Long-term tracheostomy was associated with airway neutrophilic inflammation, superoxide production and evidence of proteolysis when compared with controls. Reduced airway microbial diversity was established pre-tracheostomy and sustained thereafter. ConclusionsLong-term childhood tracheostomy is associated with a inflammatory tracheal phenotype characterised by neutrophilic inflammation and the ongoing presence of potential respiratory pathogens. These findings suggest neutrophil recruitment and activation as potential exploratory targets in seeking to prevent recurrent airway complications in this vulnerable group of patients.

AnaesthesiaVolume 78, Issue 6 p. 684-687 Editorial Sniffing out pneumonia in the ICU A. Conway Morris, Corresponding Author A. Conway Morris Consultant [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-3211-3216 @@andymoz78 Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK Division of Immunology, Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, UK John V Farman Intensive Care Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK Correspondence to: A. Conway Morris Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorT. P. Hellyer, T. P. Hellyer Consultant orcid.org/0000-0001-5346-7411 @@hellyerthomas Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK Critical Care Department, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UKSearch for more papers by this author A. Conway Morris, Corresponding Author A. Conway Morris Consultant [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-3211-3216 @@andymoz78 Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK Division of Immunology, Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, UK John V Farman Intensive Care Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK Correspondence to: A. Conway Morris Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorT. P. Hellyer, T. P. Hellyer Consultant orcid.org/0000-0001-5346-7411 @@hellyerthomas Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK Critical Care Department, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 March 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16005 This editorial accompanies an article by Felton et al., Anaesthesia 2023; 78: 712–721. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References 1Bijland LR, Bomers MK, Smulders YM. Smelling the diagnosis: a review on the use of scent in diagnosing disease. Netherlands Journal of Medicine 2013; 71: 300– 7. 2Morisco F, Aprea E, Lembo V, et al. Rapid “breath-print” of liver cirrhosis by proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry. A pilot study. PLoS One 2013; 8: e59658. 3Papazian L, Klompas M, Luyt C-E. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a narrative review. Intensive Care Medicine 2020; 46: 888– 906. 4Klompas M. Does this patient have ventilator-associated pneumonia? Journal of the American Medical Association 2007; 297: 1583– 93. 5Zakharkina T, Martin-Loeches I, Matamoros S, et al. The dynamics of the pulmonary microbiome during mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit and the association with occurrence of pneumonia. Thorax 2017; 72: 803– 10. 6Al-Omari B, McMeekin P, Allen AJ, et al. Systematic review of studies investigating ventilator associated pneumonia diagnostics in intensive care. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2021; 21: 196. 7Arulkumaran N, Routledge M, Schlebusch S, Lipman J, Morris AC. Antimicrobial-associated harm in critical care: a narrative review. Intensive Care Medicine 2020; 46: 225– 35. 8Iregui M, Ward S, Sherman G, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Clinical importance of delays in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2002; 122: 262– 8. 9Morris AC, Bos LDJ, Nseir S. Molecular diagnostics in severe pneumonia: a new dawn or false promise? Intensive Care Medicine 2022; 48: 740– 2. 10Hellyer TP, Morris AC, Mcauley DF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of pulmonary host inflammatory mediators in the exclusion of ventilator-acquired pneumonia. Thorax 2015; 70: 41– 7. 11Hellyer TP, Mcauley DF, Walsh TS, et al. Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2): a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation. Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2020; 8: 182– 91. 12Navapurkar V, Scott JB, Maes M, et al. Development and implementation of a customised rapid syndromic diagnostic test for severe pneumonia. Wellcome Open Research 2022; 6: 256. 13Darie AM, Khanna N, Jahn K, et al. Fast multiplex bacterial PCR of bronchoalveolar lavage for antibiotic stewardship in hospitalised patients with pneumonia at risk of Gram-negative bacterial infection (Flagship II): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2022; 10: 877– 87. 14Felton T, Ahmed W, White I, et al. Analysis of exhaled breath to identify critically ill patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Anaesthesia 2023. Epub. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15999. 15Schnabel R, Fijten R, Smolinska A, et al. Analysis of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia. Scientific Reports 2015; 5: 17179. 16van Oort P, de Bruin S, Weda H, et al. Exhaled breath metabolomics for the diagnosis of pneumonia in intubated and mechanically-ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) - patients. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2017; 18: 449. 17Fowler SJ, Basanta-Sanchez M, Xu Y, Goodacre R, Dark PM. Surveillance for lower airway pathogens in mechanically ventilated patients by metabolomic analysis of exhaled breath: a case-control study. Thorax 2015; 70: 320– 5. 18Hellyer TP, Anderson NH, Parker J, et al. Effectiveness of biomarker-based exclusion of ventilator-acquired pneumonia to reduce antibiotic use (VAPrapid-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17: 318. 19Torres A, el-Ebiary M, Padró L, et al. Validation of different techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Comparison with immediate postmortem pulmonary biopsy. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1994; 149: 324– 31. 20Morris AC, Kefala K, Simpson AJ, et al. Evaluation of the effect of diagnostic methodology on the reported incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Thorax 2009; 64: 516– 22. Volume78, Issue6June 2023Pages 684-687 ReferencesRelatedInformation

BACKGROUND:Lymphopenia is defined as a decrease below normal value (often 1.0 x 109 cells/L) of blood circulating lymphocyte count. In the general population, lymphopenia is associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation secondary to infection, independent of traditional clinical risk factors. In hospital, lymphopenia is associated with increased risk of healthcare-associated infection and mortality. By summarising lymphopenia's prevalence and impact on clinical outcomes, we can identify an at-risk population and inform future studies of immune dysfunction following severe illness.METHODS:Peer-reviewed search strategy was performed on three databases. Primary objective was to summarise the pooled prevalence of lymphopenia. Primary outcome was infection including pre-existing lymphopenia as a risk factor for admission with infection and as an in-hospital risk factor for healthcare-associated infection. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and mortality. Mortality data extracted included in-hospital, 28/30-day ('early'), and 90-day/1-year ('late') mortality. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models for each outcome measure. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic. Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for cohort studies was used to assess risk of bias. The protocol was published on PROSPERO.RESULTS:Fifteen observational studies were included. The pooled prevalence of lymphopenia in all-cause hospitalisations was 38% (CI 0.34-0.42, I2= 97%, p< 0.01). Lymphopenia was not associated with an infection diagnosis at hospital admission and healthcare associated infection (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.26-3.99, p=0.97, I2 = 55% and RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.78-2.20, p=0.31, I2=97%, respectively), but was associated with septic shock (RR 2.72; 95% CI 1.02-7.21, p=0.04, I2 =98%). Lymphopenia was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and higher 'early' mortality rates (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.71-3.47, p < 0.00001, I2 = 89% and RR 2.05; 95% CI 1.64-2.56, p < 0.00001, I2 = 29%, respectively). Lymphopenia was associated with higher 'late' mortality (RR 1.59; 1.33-1.90, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%).CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis demonstrates the high prevalence of lymphopenia across all-cause hospitalisations and associated increased risk of septic shock, early and late mortality. Lymphopenia is a readily available marker that may identify immune dysfunctional patients. Greater understanding of immune trajectories following survival may provide insights into longer-term poor clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic.DESIGN:Semistructured qualitative interview study.SETTING:National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales.PARTICIPANTS:Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales.METHOD:Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions.RESULTS:During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed.CONCLUSION:This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN66682918.

Abstract Summary Lung inflammation is a major cause of respiratory failure. Although infection is a common precipitant of inflammation, it is far from the only cause. Distinguishing sterile from infective inflammation is a challenge. This chapter discusses the approaches to sampling the lungs directly for microbiological and host response assessment. It also examines the role of clinical examination and testing of the systemic and pulmonary compartments in monitoring lung inflammation.

Chemokine CXCL8 is a key facilitator of the human host immune response, mediating neutrophil migration, and activation at the site of infection and injury. The oxidative burst is an important effector mechanism which leads to the generation of reactive nitrogen species (RNS), including peroxynitrite. The current study was performed to determine the potential for nitration to alter the biological properties of CXCL8 and its detection in human disease. Here, we show peroxynitrite nitrates CXCL8 and thereby regulates neutrophil migration and activation. The nitrated chemokine was unable to induce transendothelial neutrophil migration in vitro and failed to promote leukocyte recruitment in vivo. This reduced activity is due to impairment in both G protein-coupled receptor signaling and glycosaminoglycan binding. Using a novel antibody, nitrated CXCL8 was detected in bronchoalveolar lavage samples from patients with pneumonia. These findings were validated by mass spectrometry. Our results provide the first direct evidence of chemokine nitration in human pathophysiology and suggest a natural mechanism that limits acute inflammation.

Abstract Background A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial coinfection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. The PEACH study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. There is a lack of clear evidence to support its use in lung infections, which means in some hospitals, clinicians have used the procalcitonin test to guide antibiotic decisions in COVID-19, whilst in other hospitals, they have not. Our study is analysing data from hospitals that did and did not use procalcitonin testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will determine whether and how procalcitonin testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. Methods To assess whether the use of PCT testing, to guide antibiotic prescribing, safely reduced antibiotic use among patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic, we are answering this question through three different, and complimentary, work streams (WS), each with discrete work packages (WP): (i) Work Stream 1: utilization of PCT testing to guide antibiotic prescribing during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic; (ii) Work Stream 2: patient-level impact of PCT testing on antibiotic exposure and clinical outcome (main work stream currently in analysis); and (iii) Work Stream 3: health economics analysis of PCT testing to guide antibiotics in COVID-19. Results Our first publication from Work Stream 1 (Antibiotics 2021, 10: 516) used a web-based survey to gather data from antimicrobial leads about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in ICU increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empirical antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Conclusions Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety. Work Stream 2 is ongoing, and results will be published once available.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is a viral illness, many patients admitted to hospital are prescribed antibiotics, based on concerns that COVID-19 patients may experience secondary bacterial infections, and the assumption that they may respond well to antibiotic therapy. This has led to an increase in antibiotic use for some hospitalised patients at a time when accumulating antibiotic resistance is a major global threat to health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker measured in blood samples and widely recommended to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. The PEACH study will compare patient outcomes from English and Welsh hospitals that used PCT testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with those from hospitals not using PCT. It will help to determine whether, and how, PCT testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. PEACH is a retrospective observational cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards in England and Wales. The primary objective is to measure the difference in antibiotic use between COVID-19 patients who did or did not have PCT testing at the time of diagnosis. Secondary objectives include measuring differences in length of stay, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and resistant bacterial infections between these groups.

Background: The diagnosis of pneumonia has been hampered by a reliance on bacterial cultures which take several days to return a result, and are frequently negative. In critically ill patients this leads to the use of empiric, broad-spectrum antimicrobials and compromises good antimicrobial stewardship. The objective of this study was to establish the performance of a syndromic molecular diagnostic approach, using a custom TaqMan array card (TAC) covering 52 respiratory pathogens, and assess its impact on antimicrobial prescribing. Methods: The TAC was validated against a retrospective multi-centre cohort of broncho-alveolar lavage samples. The TAC was assessed prospectively in patients undergoing investigation for suspected pneumonia, with a comparator cohort formed of patients investigated when the TAC laboratory team were unavailable. Co-primary outcomes were sensitivity compared to conventional microbiology and, for the prospective study, time to result. Metagenomic sequencing was performed to validate findings in prospective samples. Antibiotic free days (AFD) were compared between the study cohort and comparator group. Results: 128 stored samples were tested, with sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 88-100%). Prospectively, 95 patients were tested by TAC, with 71 forming the comparator group. TAC returned results 51 hours (interquartile range 41-69 hours) faster than culture and with sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-98%) compared to conventional microbiology. 94% of organisms identified by sequencing were detected by TAC. There was a significant difference in the distribution of AFDs with more AFDs in the TAC group (p=0.02). TAC group were more likely to experience antimicrobial de-escalation (odds ratio 2.9 (95%1.5-5.5)). Conclusions: Implementation of a syndromic molecular diagnostic approach to pneumonia led to faster results, with high sensitivity and impact on antibiotic prescribing.

Introduction Sepsis is characterised by a dysregulated immune response to infection, with exaggerated pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses. A predominant immunosuppressive profile affecting both innate and adaptive immune responses is associated with increased hospital-acquired infection and reduced infection-free survival. While hospital-acquired infection leads to additional antibiotic use, the role of the immunosuppressive phenotype in guiding complex decisions, such as those affecting antibiotic stewardship, is uncertain. This study is a mechanistic substudy embedded within a multicentre clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship. This mechanistic study aims to determine the effect of sepsis-associated immunosuppression on the trial outcome measures.Methods and analysis RISC-sepsis is a prospective, multicentre, exploratory, observational study embedded within the ADAPT-sepsis trial. A subgroup of 180 participants with antibiotics commenced for suspected sepsis, enrolled in the ADAPT-sepsis trial, will be recruited. Blood samples will be collected on alternate days until day 7. At each time point, blood will be collected for flow cytometric analysis into cell preservation tubes. Immunophenotyping will be performed at a central testing hub by flow cytometry. The primary outcome measures are monocyte human leucocyte antigen-DR; neutrophil CD88; programmed cell death-1 on monocytes, neutrophils and T lymphocytes and the percentage of regulatory T cells. Secondary outcome measures will link to trial outcomes from the ADAPT-sepsis trial including antibiotic days; occurrence of hospital-acquired infection and length of ICU-stay and hospital-stay.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted (IRAS 209815) and RISC-sepsis is registered with the ISRCTN (86837685). Study results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications, presentations at scientific meetings and via patient and public participation groups and social media.

Background: Critically ill (CI) patients often develop neutrophil dysfunction that contributes to increased susceptibility to infections such as hospital-acquired pneumonia. The upregulation of calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR) can drive chronic inflammatory lung disease, but whether CaSR contributes to the neutrophil dysfunction in CI patients is yet unknown. Objective: To investigate signalling of CaSR in neutrophils from healthy and CI donors. Methods and Results: Human circulating blood neutrophils were obtained from healthy volunteers and CI patients. Immunofluorescence confirmed CaSR expression by neutrophils. Treatment of neutrophils with spermine, a polyamine and CaSR agonist involved in infection and inflammation, resulted in improved bacterial clearance. However, spermine led to concentration-dependent neutrophils aggregation and death with EC50=314 μM (healthy) and EC50=156 μM (CI patients). Moreover, spermine induced increases in intracellular calcium concentrations (Oregon Green BAPTA-1 AM fluorescence), activation of transmembrane currents (patch-clamp) and reactive oxygen species (ROS; DCFDA kit) production by neutrophils in a concentration-dependent manner. A CaSR inhibitor (NPS2143, 1 µM) improved neutrophil viability, reversed polyamine-induced enhancement of bacterial killing and ROS production. Conclusions: Spermine activated CaSR in circulating neutrophils to enhance bacterial clearance by inducing increased intracellular calcium, ROS production, and cell death, suggesting therapeutic avenues for allosteric CaSR modulators to regulate neutrophil functions.

The development of a new diagnostic test ideally follows a sequence of stages which, amongst other aims, evaluate technical performance. This includes an analytical validity study, a diagnostic accuracy study and an interventional clinical utility study. Current approaches to the design and analysis of the diagnostic accuracy study can suffer from prohibitively large sample sizes and interval estimates with undesirable properties. In this paper, we propose a novel Bayesian approach which takes advantage of information available from the analytical validity stage. We utilise assurance to calculate the required sample size based on the target width of a posterior probability interval and can choose to use or disregard the data from the analytical validity study when subsequently inferring measures of test accuracy. Sensitivity analyses are performed to assess the robustness of the proposed sample size to the choice of prior, and prior-data conflict is evaluated by comparing the data to the prior predictive distributions. We illustrate the proposed approach using a motivating real-life application involving a diagnostic test for ventilator associated pneumonia. Finally, we compare the properties of the proposed approach against commonly used alternatives. The results show that by making better use of existing data from earlier studies, the assurance-based approach can not only reduce the required sample size when compared to alternatives, but can also produce more reliable sample sizes for diagnostic accuracy studies.