Intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a Canadian national survey of critical care medicine and infectious disease specialist physicians

Les immunoglobulines intraveineuses pour le choc septique : une enquête nationale canadienne auprès des médecins intensivistes et spécialistes des maladies infectieuses

Abstract

Purpose

This national survey evaluated the perceived efficacy and safety of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) in septic shock, self-reported utilization patterns, barriers to use, the population of interest for further trials and willingness to participate in future research of IVIG in septic shock.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care and infectious diseases physicians across Canada. We summarized categorical item responses as counts and proportions. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify physician-level predictors of IVIG use in septic shock.

Results

Our survey was disseminated to 674 eligible respondents with a final response rate of 60%. Most (91%) respondents reported having prescribed IVIG to patients with septic shock at least once, 86% for septic shock due to necrotizing fasciitis, 52% for other bacterial toxin-mediated causes of septic shock, and 5% for undifferentiated septic shock. The majority of respondents expressed uncertainty regarding the impact of IVIG on mortality (97%) and safety (95%) in septic shock. Respondents were willing to participate in further IVIG research with 98% stating they would consider enrolling their patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock. Familiarity with published evidence was the single greatest predictor of IVIG use in septic shock (odds ratio, 10.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.4 to 30.5; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Most Canadian critical care and infectious diseases specialist physicians reported previous experience using IVIG in septic shock. Respondents identified inadequacy of existing research as the greatest barrier to routine use of IVIG in septic shock. Most respondents support the need for further studies on IVIG in septic shock, and would consider enrolling their own patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock.

Résumé

Objectif 

Cette enquête nationale a évalué l’efficacité et l’innocuité perçues des immunoglobulines intraveineuses (IgIV) dans le contexte du choc septique, les habitudes d’utilisation autodéclarées, les obstacles à l’utilisation de cette modalité, les populations à explorer pour des études futures et la volonté de participer aux recherches futures sur les IgIV et le choc septique.

Méthode 

Nous avons mené une enquête transversale auprès de médecins intensivistes et spécialistes des maladies infectieuses au Canada. Nous avons résumé les réponses de chaque point catégorique en tant que dénombrement et proportions. Nous avons mis au point un modèle de régression logistique multivariée afin d’identifier les prédicteurs, au niveau des médecins, d’une utilisation des IgIV en cas de choc septique.

Résultats 

Notre sondage a été acheminé à 674 médecins admissibles et nous avons obtenu un taux de réponse final de 60 %. La plupart (91%) des répondants ont indiqué avoir prescrit des IgIV aux patients en choc septique au moins une fois, 86 % pour un choc septique dû à une fasciite nécrosante, 52 % pour des chocs septiques d’autres étiologies médiées par des toxines bactériennes, et 5 % dans des cas de choc septique non différencié. La majorité des répondants ont exprimé de l’incertitude quant à l’incidence des IgIV sur la mortalité (97 %) et l’innocuité (95 %) lors de choc septique. Les répondants étaient disposés à participer à d’autres recherches sur les IgIV, 98 % déclarant qu’ils envisageraient d’inscrire leurs patients à une étude sur les IgIV et le choc septique. La familiarité avec les données probantes publiées était le plus grand prédicteur d’utilisation d’IgIV dans un contexte de choc septique (rapport de cotes, 10,2; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, 3,4 à 30,5; P < 0,001).

Conclusion 

La plupart des médecins intensivistes et spécialistes des maladies infectieuses canadiens ont rapporté avoir une expérience antérieure d’utilisation d’IgIV en cas de choc septique. Les répondants ont identifié l’insuffisance de la recherche existante comme le plus grand obstacle à l’utilisation systématique d’IgIV dans les cas de choc septique. La plupart des répondants appuient la nécessité d’études plus approfondies sur les IgIV et le choc septique et envisageraient d’inscrire leurs propres patients à une étude sur les IgIV dans un contexte de choc septique.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

FIGURE

References

  1. 1.

    Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the united states: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 1303-10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults. A multicenter prospective study in intensive care units. French ICU Group for Severe Sepsis. JAMA 1995; 274: 968-74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, Moss M. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1546-54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315: 775-87.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315: 801-10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Seeley EJ, Bernard GR. Therapeutic targets in sepsis: past, present, and future. Clin Chest Med 2016; 37: 181-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    World Health Organization. Antimicrobial Resistance Global Report on Surveillance 2014. World Heal Organization Annual Report 2014. Available from URL: https://www.who.int/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/ (accessed November 2020).

  8. 8.

    Gelfand EW. Intravenous immune globulin in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2015-25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Gupta M, Noel GJ, Schaefer M, Friedman D, Bussel J, Johann-Liang R. Cytokine modulation with immune gamma-globulin in peripheral blood of normal children and its implications in Kawasaki disease treatment. J Clin Immunol 2001; 21: 193-9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Takei S, Arora YK, Walker SM. Intravenous immunoglobulin contains specific antibodies inhibitory to activation of T cells by staphylococcal toxin superantigens. J Clin Invest 1993; 91: 602-7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    McCormick JK, Yarwood JM, Schlievert PM. Toxic shock syndrome and bacterial superantigens: an update. Annu Rev Microbiol 2001; 55: 77-104.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dominioni L, Bianchi V, Imperatori A, Minoia G, Dionigi R. High-dose intravenous IgG for treatment of severe surgical infections. Dig Surg 1996; 13: 430-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Grundmann R, Hornung M. Immunoglobulin therapy in patients with endotoxemia and postoperative sepsis–a prospective randomized study. Prog Clin Biol Res 1988; 272: 339-49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Werdan K, Pilz G, Bujdoso O, et al. Score-based immunoglobulin G therapy of patients with sepsis: the SBITS study. Crit Care Med 2007; 35: 2693-701.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kreymann KG, de Heer G, Nierhaus A, Kluge S. Use of polyclonal immunoglobulins as adjunctive therapy for sepsis or septic shock. Crit Care Med 2007; 35: 2677-85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rodríguez A, Rello J, Neira J, et al. Effects of high-dose of intravenous immunoglobulin and antibiotics on survival for severe sepsis undergoing surgery. Shock 2005; 23: 298-304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wesoly C, Kipping N, Grundmann R. Immunoglobulin therapy of postoperative sepsis (German). Z Exp Chir Transplant Kunstliche Organe 1990; 23: 213-6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Yakut M, Cetiner S, Akin A, et al. Effects of immunuglobulin G on surgical sepsis and septic shock. Gulhane Military Med Acad 1998; 40: 76-81.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Darenberg J, Ihendyane N, Sjölin J, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin G therapy in streptococcal toxic shock syndrome: a European randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37: 333-40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hentrich M, Fehnle K, Ostermann H, et al. IgMA-enriched immunoglobulin in neutropenic patients with sepsis syndrome and septic shock: a randomized, controlled, multiple-center trial. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 1319-25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Behre G, Ostermann H, Schedel I, et al. Endotoxin concentrations and therapy with polyclonal IgM-enriched immunoglobulins in neutropenic cancer patients with sepsis syndrome: pilot study and interim analysis of a randomized trial. Antiinfective Drugs Chemother 1995; 13: 129-34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Madsen MB, Hjortrup PB, Hansen MB, et al. Immunoglobulin G for patients with necrotising soft tissue infection (INSTINCT): a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2017; 43: 1585-93.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Masaoka T, Hasegawa H, Takaku F, et al. The efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in combination therapy with antibiotics for severe infections. Jpn J Chemother 2000; 48: 199-217.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Alejandria MM, Lansang MA, Dans LF, Mantaring JB 3rd. Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001090.pub2/full.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Laupland KB, Kirkpatrick AW, Delaney A. Polyclonal intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock in critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2007; 35: 2686-92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Turgeon AF, Hutton B, Fergusson DA, et al. Meta-analysis: intravenous immunoglobulin in critically ill adult patients with sepsis. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 193-203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Soares MO, Welton NJ, Harrison DA, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin for severe sepsis and septic shock : clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and value of a further randomised controlled trial. Crit Care 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0649-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Pildal J, Gøtzsche PC. Polyclonal Immunoglobulin for treatment of bacterial sepsis: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 38-46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock 2012. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39: 165-228.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jørstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE. Maximising response to postal questionnaires – a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Stone DH. Design a questionnaire. BMJ 1993; 307: 1264-6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. London: Wiley; 2014 .

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1129-36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Zarychanski R, Turgeon AF, Hebert PC, et al. The use of anticoagulants in severe sepsis and septic shock: a national survey of critical care physicians. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: A427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Norrby-Teglund A, Haque KN, Hammarstrom L. Intravenous polyclonal IgM-enriched immunoglobulin therapy in sepsis: a review of clinical efficacy in relation to microbiological aetiology and severity of sepsis. J Intern Med 2006; 260: 509-16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Koo KK, Choong K, Cook DJ, et al. Early mobilization of critically ill adults: a survey of knowledge, perceptions and practices of Canadian physicians and physiotherapists. CMAJ Open 2016; 4: E448-54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

Murdoch Leeies and Ryan Zarychanski contributed to all aspects of this manuscript, including study conception and design; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; and drafting the article. Hayley Gershengorn, Emmanuel Charbonney, Anand Kumar, Dean Fergusson, Alexis Turgeon, Juthaporn Cowan, Bojan Paunovic, John Embil, Allan Garland, Donald S. Houston, Brett Houston, Emily Rimmer, Faisal Siddiqui, Bill Cameron, Srinivas Murthy, John C. Marshall, and Rob Fowler contributed to study conception and design and data interpretation.

Disclosure

None.

Funding statement

None.

Editorial responsibility

This submission was handled by Dr. Sangeeta Mehta, Associate Editor, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murdoch Leeies MD, MSc.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article was updated to correct Alexis F. Turgeon’s name and affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 506 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 170 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leeies, M., Gershengorn, H.B., Charbonney, E. et al. Intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a Canadian national survey of critical care medicine and infectious disease specialist physicians. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-021-01941-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • IVIG
  • septic shock
  • sepsis
  • intravenous immune globulin
  • immunomodulation