Introduction: It is widely assumed that s epsis is a life-threatening systemic inflammation caused by a dysregulated host response to infection mediated by an increase in multiple proinflammatory cytokines. The levels of key proinflammatory cytokines tumour necrosis factor, interleukin-1β and interferon γ are poorly characterised during sepsis. We believe this project will produce a ‘gold-standard’ document to which other reports on cytokine levels will be compared. The objective of this systematic review will be to identify key cytokine circulating levels in patients with sepsis and assess the association between these levels and morbidity and mortality outcomes related to sepsis. Methods and analysis: We would include reports of any design except for case reports. Sepsis patients will comprise those with a diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary exposure is levels of three proinflammatory cytokines. The primary outcome is mortality at 28 or 30 days. Study subjects can be of any age, sex or ethnicity. Studies will be restricted to the English language. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection will be searched for eligible studies. A database search will include studies from 1985 to May 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, assess methodological quality and extract data. A meta-analysis will be performed, if possible, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation Summary of Findings presented. Ethics and dissemination: Formal ethical approval is not required as data will be extracted from existing literature. This systematic review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and at conference meetings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020179800.

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) remains a cause of mortality in HIV-negative patients. The clinical benefit of adjuvant corticosteroids in these patients is uncertain. This study aimed to determine if corticosteroids reduced mortality in a cohort of HIV-negative PJP patients. We examined a retrospective case series of patients diagnosed with PJP at the University of Colorado Hospital between 1995-2019. Data were collected in 71 PJP-infected patients. Twenty-eight patients were HIV-negative, and 43 were infected with HIV. We performed bivariate and forward, stepwise multivariable logistic regressions to identify mortality predictors. Common underlying conditions in HIV-negative patients were hematologic malignancies (28.6%), autoimmune disorders (25.9%), or solid organ transplantation (10.7%). HIV-negative patients had higher rates and duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay. Survival was significantly increased in HIV-negative patients receiving adjuvant corticosteroids, with 100% mortality in patients not receiving corticosteroids vs 60% mortality in patients receiving corticosteroids (p=0.034). In an adjusted multivariable model, no adjuvant corticosteroids use was associated with higher mortality (OR 13.5, 95% CI: 1.1-158.5, p= 0.039) regardless of HIV status. We found substantial mortality among HIV-negative patients with PJP and adjuvant corticosteroid use was associated with decreased mortality. Response to corticosteroids is best established in HIV infected patients, but emerging reports suggest a similar beneficial response in PJP patients without HIV infection. Further prospective studies may establish a more definitive role of corticosteroid addition among HIV-negative patients with PJP.

Sepsis is infection sufficient to cause illness in the infected host, and more severe forms of sepsis can result in organ malfunction or death. Severe forms of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), or disease following infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are examples of sepsis. Following infection, sepsis is thought to result from excessive inflammation generated in the infected host, also referred to as a cytokine storm. Sepsis can result in organ malfunction or death. Since COVID-19 is an example of sepsis, the hyperinflammation concept has influenced scientific investigation and treatment approaches to COVID-19. However, decades of laboratory study and more than 100 clinical trials designed to quell inflammation have failed to reduce sepsis mortality. We examine theoretical support underlying widespread belief that hyperinflammation or cytokine storm causes sepsis. Our analysis shows substantial weakness of the hyperinflammation approach to sepsis that includes conceptual confusion and failure to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between hyperinflammation and sepsis. We conclude that anti-inflammation approaches to sepsis therapy have little chance of future success. Therefore, anti-inflammation approaches to treat COVID-19 are likewise at high risk for failure. We find persistence of the cytokine storm concept in sepsis perplexing. Although treatment approaches based on the hyperinflammation concept of pathogenesis have failed, the concept has shown remarkable resilience and appears to be unfalsifiable. An approach to understanding this resilience is to consider the hyperinflammation or cytokine storm concept an example of a scientific paradigm. Thomas Kuhn developed the idea that paradigms generate rules of investigation that both shape and restrict scientific progress. Intrinsic features of scientific paradigms include resistance to falsification in the face of contradictory data and inability of experimentation to generate alternatives to a failing paradigm. We call for rejection of the concept that hyperinflammation or cytokine storm causes sepsis. Using the hyperinflammation or cytokine storm paradigm to guide COVID-19 treatments is likewise unlikely to provide progress. Resources should be redirected to more promising avenues of investigation and treatment.

There is an urgent need for accurate, rapid, inexpensive biomarkers that can differentiate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from bacterial pneumonia. We assess the role of the ferritin-to-procalcitonin (F/P) ratio to classify pneumonia cases into those due to COVID-19 vs those due to bacterial pathogens. This multicenter case–control study compared patients with COVID-19 with those with bacterial pneumonia, admitted between March 1 and May 31, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 and bacterial pneumonia co-infection were excluded. The F/P in patients with COVID-19 vs with bacterial pneumonia were compared. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis determined the sensitivity and specificity of various cutoff F/P values for COVID-19 vs bacterial pneumonia. A total of 242 COVID-19 pneumonia cases and 34 bacterial pneumonia controls were included. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had a lower mean age (57.1 vs 64.4 years; P = .02) and a higher body mass index (30.74 vs 27.15 kg/m²; P = .02) compared with patients with bacterial pneumonia. Cases and controls had a similar proportion of women (47% vs 53%; P = .5), and COVID-19 patients had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (32.6% vs 12%; P = .01). The median F/P was significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 (4037.5) compared with the F/P in bacterial pneumonia (802; P < .001). An F/P ≥877, used to diagnose COVID-19, resulted in a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, with a positive predictive value of 93.2% and a likelihood ratio of 1.92. In multivariable analyses, an F/P ≥877 was associated with greater odds of identifying a COVID-19 case (odds ratio, 11.27; 95% CI, 4–31.2; P < .001). An F/P ≥877 increases the likelihood of COVID-19 pneumonia compared with bacterial pneumonia.

Introduction: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced conditions for using recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (rhIL-1ra) to treat hospitalized patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and risk for progression. These decisions followed publication of the suPAR-guided Anakinra treatment for Validation of the risk and early Management OF seveRE respiratory failure by COVID-19 (SAVE- MORE) phase 3 clinical trial that yielded positive results.Methods: We conducted a literature review and theoretical analysis of IL-1 blockade as a therapy to treat COVID-19. Using a stepwise analysis, we assessed clinical applicability of the SAVE-MORE results and evaluated conceptual support for interleukin-1 suppression as a suitable approach to COVID-19 treatment. This therapeutic approach was then examined as an example of inflammation-suppressing measures used to treat sepsis.Results: Anakinra use as a COVID-19 therapy seems to rely on a view of pathogenesis that incorrectly reflects human disease. Since COVID-19 is an example of sepsis, COVID-19 benefit due to anti-inflammatory therapy contradicts an extensive history of unsuccessful clinical study. Repurposing rhIL-1ra to treat COVID-19 appears to exemplify a cycle followed by inflammation-suppressing sepsis treatments. A landscape of treatment failures is interrupted by a successful clinical trial. However, subsequent confirmatory study fails to replicate the positive data.Discussion: We suggest further experimentation is not a promising pathway to discover game-changing sepsis therapies. A different kind of approach may be necessary.