[Treatment of sepsis-induced coagulopathy : Results of a Germany-wide survey in intensive care units]. / Therapie der sepsisinduzierten Koagulopathie : Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Umfrage auf Intensivstationen.

BACKGROUND: In the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed. METHODS: In order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. RESULTS: A total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.

Emergency Use of Convalescent Plasma: Perception of the Regulatory Framework from a Clinical Perspective.

The pandemic spread of an infectious disease poses a plethora of challenges to society, clinicians, health care providers and regulating authorities. In order to mount a rapid response and to provide hope in a potentially catastrophic situation as the current COVID-19 pandemic, emergency plans, regulations and funding strategies have to be developed on regional, national and international levels. The speed needed to establish rapid response programs is challenged by the dynamics of the spread of the disease, the concurrent and competing development of different and potentially more effective treatment options, and not the least by regulatory uncertainty. Convalescent plasma, that is plasma collected from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 infections, has emerged as one of the first potential treatment options in the absence of drugs or vaccines with proven efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. The societal aspects of convalescent plasma and the public awareness gave an additional boost to the rapid employment of convalescent plasma donation platforms immediately after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. At the same time, uncertainty remains as to the efficacy of convalescent plasma. With evidence mostly limited to empirical reports, convalescent plasma has been used for decades for the prophylaxis and treatment of various infectious diseases. Clinical trials have addressed different infectious agents, stages of disease, target groups of patients and yielded sometimes inconclusive results. The aim of this short review is to delineate the regulatory background for the emergency use of convalescent plasma in the USA, in the European Union and in Germany, and the transition to the setting of clinical trials. In addition, we describe observations made in the process of collecting COVID-19 convalescent plasma (herein referred to as CCP), and formulate proposals to further improve the framework for rapid responses in future emergency situations.