Non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters are currently used for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury requiring extracorporeal renal replacement therapy. Strategies to prevent catheter dysfunction and infection with catheter locks remain controversial. In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, we compared two strategies for catheter locking of non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters, namely trisodium citrate at 4% (intervention group) versus unfractionated heparin (control group), in patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the intensive care unit and in whom a first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was to be inserted by the jugular or femoral vein. The primary endpoint was length of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter. Secondary endpoints were: rate of fibrinolysis, incidence of catheter dysfunction and incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), all per 1000 catheter-days; number of hemorrhagic events requiring transfusion, length of stay in intensive care and in hospital; 28-day mortality. Overall, 396 randomized patients completed the trial: 199 in the citrate group and 197 in the heparin group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between groups. The duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was not significantly different between groups: 7 days (IQR 3–10) in the citrate group and 5 days (IQR 3–11) in the heparin group (p = 0.51). Rates of catheter thrombosis, CRBSI, and adverse events were not statistically different between groups. In critically ill patients, there was no significant difference in the duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter between trisodium citrate 4% and heparin as a locking solution. Catheter thrombosis, catheter-related infection, and adverse events were not statistically different between the two groups. Trial registration Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under the number NCT01962116. Registered 14 October 2013.

Immunomodulatory drugs (thalidomide, lenalidomide and pomalidomide; IMID) are widely used in the treatment of multiple myeloma patients. To date, few data are available on IMID adherence in multiple myeloma patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate IMID adherence and to compare two indirect methods to measure IMID adherence in multiple myeloma patients: a specific questionnaire and the medication possession ratio (MPR). Another aim was to explore this specific questionnaire for the assessment of IMID adherence in multiple myeloma patients. All consecutive multiple myeloma patients, with at least two consecutive dispensations of thalidomide, lenalidomide or pomalidomide in our hospital were included in this prospective study. IMID adherence was measured using a specific questionnaire and the medication possession ratio. Relationship between the questionnaire scores and variables of interest was evaluated by multiple linear regression with a robust variance estimator. Sixty-three patients were included in our study. The mean questionnaire score was 8.2±1.2 and the mean medication possession ratio value was 0.97±0.06. A total of 76% of patients were considered adherent according to the questionnaire (i.e. score ≥ 8), 94% according to the medication possession ratio (i.e. MPR ≥ 0.90), and 70% according to the questionnaire and the medication possession ratio. No statistically significant linear association was observed between the questionnaire score and any variables of interest including medication possession ratio. All Cronbach’s alpha were relatively low (range 0.0342–0.2443), showing a low correlation of the different questions with the questionnaire score. Our study is the first prospective study evaluating IMID adherence in multiple myeloma patients in real life. The high adherence to IMIDs reported here, regardless of the drug, is encouraging considering the efficacy, toxicity and elevated cost of IMIDs. The specific questionnaire should be used with caution to evaluate IMID adherence.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing evidence has suggested the benefits of dexmedetomidine in patients with sepsis. Dexmedetomidine may increase vasopressor sensitivity, which may be of interest in the setting of refractory septic shock. The α2 Agonist Dexmedetomidine for REfractory Septic Shock (ADRESS) pilot study aimed to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on the vasopressor response in patients with refractory septic shock. DESIGN: This study was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial. SETTING: The study was conducted in 5 ICUs in France. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria were septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition) and norepinephrine requirement greater than or equal to 0.25 µg/kg/min (0.5 µg/kg/min of norepinephrine tartrate) with persistent circulatory failure (defined by lactate > 2 mmol/L, oliguria, or skin mottling) and invasive mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: The arterial pressure response to phenylephrine was measured before starting the treatment (0 hr), at 6 hours (primary outcome), and 12 hours. In the treatment arm, dexmedetomidine was given at a fixed dose of 1 µg/kg/hr. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Inclusions were stopped early because of higher mortality in the dexmedetomidine arm. Thirty-two patients of the 36 planned were included. Response to phenylephrine at 6 hours was lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the placebo group (1.26 ± 0.23 vs. 1.45 ± 0.26; p = 0.048), although this difference was also observed at baseline (p = 0.029). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of cumulative norepinephrine dose, lactatemia, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, fluid balance, ventilation-free days, or occurrence of bradycardia. Mortality on day 3 was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the placebo group, with a difference that diminished and was no longer significant on 30 and 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the dexmedetomidine arm had a significantly lower response to phenylephrine at all study times including baseline, which might have contributed to higher early mortality in the dexmedetomidine arm and preclude to conclude on dexmedetomidine efficacy in refractory septic shock. However, heart rate was not decreased in the dexmedetomidine arm.

Purpose: Daratumumab is the first anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody of the class approved for recurrent and refractory multiple myeloma. Grade 3 and 4 Infusion-Related Reactions (IRRs) are frequent during the first and second infusions. Due to the risks associated with severe IRRs, daratumumab is systematically administered over a period of 3.5 hours. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of a 90-minute daratumumab infusion from the third infusion. Patients and methods: All patients who had received two or more doses of daratumumab in monotherapy or in combination with standard infusion rates were included. We excluded patients enrolled in clinical trials. For the rapid infusion protocol, 20% of the dose was administered over 30 minutes and the remaining 80% over 60 minutes. Results: From April 1 to May 31, 2019, 25 patients received 53 90-minute infusions of daratumumab. Premedication included corticosteroids, antipyretics, antihistamines, and if necessary a leukotriene receptor antagonist. No grade 3 or grade 4 IRRs were observed. Conclusion: From the third infusion, we found that a rapid administration of daratumumab (90 vs 210 minutes) was well tolerated and safe. It would be interesting to test this regimen from the second infusion.

Background: We aimed to investigate the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on medication adherence, physician access, lifestyle behaviours, and mental health in patients with chronic conditions. Methods: A cross-sectional phone survey was conducted in 1274 housebound adults recruited from 8 regional chronic disease cohorts (CLEO CD study: NCT04390126). Results: Medication adherence was 97%; 305 (41%) patients declared that at least one scheduled visit with a physician was missed during the first lockdown. The main changes in lifestyle behaviours were deterioration in sleep time (duration and/or quality; 71%), increase in screen time (46%), and decrease in physical activity (46%). Nineteen percent experienced psychological distress (Kessler-6 score ≥ 5). An urban living place (OR, 1.76 vs. rural; 95% CI, 1.32–2.33; p = 10⁻⁴), worse self-reported mental health (OR, 1.62 vs. about the same or better; 95% CI, 1.17–2.25; p = 0.003), and a K6 score ≥ 5 (OR, 1.52 vs. <5; 95% CI, 1.05–2.21; p = 0.03) were independent factors associated with at least one unhealthy behaviour. Conclusions: Encouraging results were observed in terms of medication adherence. Caution is needed in chronic disease patients living in urban places as well as those presenting psychological distress and worse self-reported mental health to reduce unhealthy behaviours.