Implementation of the Sepsis-3 definition in German university intensive care units : A survey.

BACKGROUND: The old definition of sepsis was replaced by Sepsis-3 in February 2016. The new screening diagnostic tools sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and quick SOFA (qSOFA) score were incorporated into the definition. The resulting scientific controversy led to several retrospective and prospective evaluations. In contrast no evaluation of the state of play of national implementation of Sepsis-3 has been conducted so far. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to capture the current situation in German academic intensive care units 1 year after the implementation of Sepsis-3. METHODS: An internet-based questionnaire consisting of 22 items was developed. The identification of eligible departments was performed by an online search of the homepages of all university hospitals located in Germany. Departments regardless of the discipline with an explicit indication of involvement in intensive care were extracted. The link to the internet-based questionnaire was sent to all identified departments on 22 February 2017 and was accessible for 19 days. RESULTS: Out of 259 departments 76 answered the online survey. The response rate was 29.3% from 13 specializations. Anesthesiology, internal medicine and general surgery were the three main participants in this study. The majority of intensive care units (54.75%) treated more than 100 patients with sepsis or septic shock annually and more than 30% treated more than 250 patients. While 76.7% of respondents had a standard operating procedure, 55% of those were based on the Sepsis-3 definition. When asked to rate the usefulness of the Sepsis-3 definition, answers were heterogeneous with a slight tendency towards a higher usefulness and the majority (72.9%) were in favor of Sepsis-3 being included in the national S2K guidelines. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the heterogeneity of Sepsis-3 implementation in German intensive care units. Sepsis-3 is finding its way but there is a need for standardized implementation.

Randomized phase II study comparing topotecan/cisplatin administration for 5 days versus 3 days in the treatment of extensive stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

BACKGROUND: Topotecan (T) is an active drug in SCLC. A combination of topotecan with cisplatin (DDP) was suggested to be highly synergistic. This phase II trial was initiated to assess the activity of T/DDP in chemotherapy-naive patients suffering from extensive disease small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and to compare the conventional 5-day regime with an experimental 3-day schedule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 86 patients were included. Patients were randomized to receive either T 1.0 mg/m2 d 1-5 and DDP 75 mg/m2 d 5 (arm A) or T 1.5 mg/m2 d 1-3 and DDP 75 mg/m2 d 3 (arm B). Six cycles were given at a 3-week interval. RESULTS: Data of 84 evaluable patients (67 males and 17 females) were analysed. All patients had metastatic disease. The best response rate was 61.9% in arm A and 59.5% in arm B. Median overall survival was 8.7 months in arm A and 7.6 months in arm B (p=0.6809). CONCLUSIONS: Combination of T and DDP is active in ED SCLC. Toxicity and median survival were comparable in both arms. Three days treatment seems to be similar to the 5 days regime.

Phase III randomised trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin with paclitaxel/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a cooperative multinational trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of paclitaxel with cisplatin or carboplatin has significant activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase III study of chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC patients was designed to assess whether response rate in patients receiving a paclitaxel/carboplatin combination was similar to that in patients receiving a paclitaxel/cisplatin combination. Paclitaxel was given at a dose of 200 mg/m(2) (3-h intravenous infusion) followed by either carboplatin at an AUC of 6 or cisplatin at a dose of 80 mg/m(2), all repeated every 3 weeks. Survival, toxicity and quality of life were also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive one of the two combinations, stratified according to centre, performance status, disease stage and histology. The primary analyses of response rate and survival were carried out on response-evaluable patients. Survival was also analysed for all randomised patients. Toxicity analyses were carried out on all treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 618 patients were randomised. The two treatment arms were well balanced with regard to gender (83% male), age (median 58 years), performance status (83% ECOG 0-1), stage (68% IV, 32% IIIB) and histology (38% squamous cell carcinoma). In the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm, 306 patients received a total of 1311 courses (median four courses, range 1-10 courses) while in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, 302 patients received a total of 1321 courses (median four courses, range 1-10 courses). In only 76% of courses, carboplatin was administered as planned at an AUC of 6, while in 96% of courses, cisplatin was given at the planned dose of 80 mg/m(2). The response rate was 25% (70 of 279) in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 28% (80 of 284) in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (P = 0.45). Responses were reviewed by an independent radiological committee. For all randomised patients, median survival was 8.5 months in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 9.8 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm [hazard ratio 1.20, 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.40]; the 1-year survival rates were 33% and 38%, respectively. On the same dataset, a survival update after 22 months of additional follow-up yielded a median survival of 8.2 months in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 9.8 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (hazard ratio 1.22, 90% CI 1.06-1.40; P = 0.019); the 2-year survival rates were 9% and 15%, respectively. Excluding neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, which were more frequent in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm, and nausea/vomiting and nephrotoxicity, which were more frequent in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, the rate of severe toxicities was generally low and comparable between the two arms. Overall quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13) was also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first trial comparing carboplatin and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Although paclitaxel/carboplatin yielded a similar response rate, the significantly longer median survival obtained with paclitaxel/cisplatin indicates that cisplatin-based chemotherapy should be the first treatment option.