IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital

Diversity and plasticity are hallmarks of cells of the monocyte-macrophage lineage. In response to IFNs, Toll-like receptor engagement, or IL-4/IL-13 signaling, macrophages undergo M1 (classical) or M2 (alternative) activation, which represent extremes of a continuum in a universe of activation states. Progress has now been made in defining the signaling pathways, transcriptional networks, and epigenetic mechanisms underlying M1-M2 or M2-like polarized activation. Functional skewing of mononuclear phagocytes occurs in vivo under physiological conditions (e.g., ontogenesis and pregnancy) and in pathology (allergic and chronic inflammation, tissue repair, infection, and cancer). However, in selected preclinical and clinical conditions, coexistence of cells in different activation states and unique or mixed phenotypes have been observed, a reflection of dynamic changes and complex tissue-derived signals. The identification of mechanisms and molecules associated with macrophage plasticity and polarized activation provides a basis for macrophage-centered diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Inflammatory conditions in selected organs increase the risk of cancer. An inflammatory component is present also in the microenvironment of tumors that are not epidemiologically related to inflammation. Recent studies have begun to unravel molecular pathways linking inflammation and cancer. In the tumor microenvironment, smoldering inflammation contributes to proliferation and survival of malignant cells, angiogenesis, metastasis, subversion of adaptive immunity, reduced response to hormones and chemotherapeutic agents. Recent data suggest that an additional mechanism involved in cancer-related inflammation (CRI) is induction of genetic instability by inflammatory mediators, leading to accumulation of random genetic alterations in cancer cells. In a seminal contribution, Hanahan and Weinberg [(2000) Cell, 100, 57-70] identified the six hallmarks of cancer. We surmise that CRI represents the seventh hallmark.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician's decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient's clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement "We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients." Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence "We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr" 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require ICU admission, we suggest admitting the patients to the ICU within 6 hr. Weak , low quality of evidence INFECTION 11. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock but unconfirmed infection, we recommend continuously re-evaluating and searching for alternative diagnoses and discontinuing empiric antimicrobials if an alternative cause of illness is demonstrated or strongly suspected. Best practice statement 12. For adults with possible septic shock or a high likelihood for sepsis, we recommend administering antimicrobials immediately, ideally within 1 hr of recognition. Strong , low quality of evidence (Septic shock) CHANGED from previous: "We recommend that administration of intravenous antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within one hour for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" Strong , very low quality of evidence (Sepsis without shock) strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 13. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we recommend rapid assessment of the likelihood of infectious versus noninfectious causes of acute illness. Best practice statement 14. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we suggest a time-limited course of rapid investigation and if concern for infection persists, the administration of antimicrobials within 3 hr from the time when sepsis was first recognized. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 15. For adults with a low likelihood of infection and without shock, we suggest deferring antimicrobials while continuing to closely monitor the patient. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 16. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using procalcitonin plus clinical evaluation to decide when to start antimicrobials, as compared to clinical evaluation alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 17. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of MRSA, we recommend using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage over using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Best practice statement NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 18. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of MRSA, we suggest against using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage, as compared with using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 19. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and high risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest using two antimicrobials with gram-negative coverage for empiric treatment over one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 20. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest against using two gram-negative agents for empiric treatment, as compared to one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 21. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using double gram-negative coverage once the causative pathogen and the susceptibilities are known. Weak , very low quality of evidence 22. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of fungal infection, we suggest using empiric antifungal therapy over no antifungal therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 23. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of fungal infection, we suggest against empiric use of antifungal therapy Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage. " Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 24. We make no recommendation on the use of antiviral agents. No recommendation 25. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using prolonged infusion of beta-lactams for maintenance (after an initial bolus) over conventional bolus infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 26. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend optimising dosing strategies of antimicrobials based on accepted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) principles and specific drug properties. Best practice statement 27. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend rapidly identifying or excluding a specific anatomical diagnosis of infection that requires emergent source control and implementing any required source control intervention as soon as medically and logistically practical. Best practice statement 28. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend prompt removal of intravascular access devices that are a possible source of sepsis or septic shock after other vascular access has been established. Best practice statement 29. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest daily assessment for de-escalation of antimicrobials over using fixed durations of therapy without daily reassessment for de-escalation. Weak , very low quality of evidence 30. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control, we suggest using shorter over longer duration of antimicrobial therapy. Weak , very low quality of evidence 31. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control where optimal duration of therapy is unclear, we suggest using procalcitonin AND clinical evaluation to decide when to discontinue antimicrobials over clinical evaluation alone. Weak , low quality of evidence HEMODYNAMIC MANAGEMENT 32. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using crystalloids as first-line fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 33. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using balanced crystalloids instead of normal saline for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence CHANGED from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence. "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" 34. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using albumin in patients who received large volumes of crystalloids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 35. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using starches for resuscitation. Strong , high-quality evidence 36. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using gelatin for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." 37. For adults with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine as the first-line agent over other vasopressors. Strong Dopamine. High-quality evidence Vasopressin. Moderate-quality evidence Epinephrine. Low quality of evidence Selepressin. Low quality of evidence Angiotensin II. Very low-quality evidence 38. For adults with septic shock on norepinephrine with inadequate mean arterial pressure levels, we suggest adding vasopressin instead of escalating the dose of norepinephrine. Weak , moderate quality evidence 39. For adults with septic shock and inadequate mean arterial pressure levels despite norepinephrine and vasopressin, we suggest adding epinephrine. Weak , low quality of evidence 40. For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using terlipressin. Weak , low quality of evidence 41. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest either adding dobutamine to norepinephrine or using epinephrine alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 42. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest against using levosimendan. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 43. For adults with septic shock, we suggest invasive monitoring of arterial blood pressure over noninvasive monitoring, as soon as practical and if resources are available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 44. For adults with septic shock, we suggest starting vasopressors peripherally to restore mean arterial pressure rather than delaying initiation until a central venous access is secured. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW 45. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies in the first 24 hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who still have signs of hypoperfusion and volume depletion after the initial resuscitation. No recommendation NEW "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence VENTILATION 46.There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of conservative oxygen targets in adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 47. For adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest the use of high flow nasal oxygen over noninvasive ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 48. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of noninvasive ventilation in comparison to invasive ventilation for adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 49. For adults with sepsis-induced ARDS, we recommend using a low tidal volume ventilation strategy (6 mL/kg), over a high tidal volume strategy (> 10 mL/kg). Strong , high-quality evidence 50. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we recommend using an upper limit goal for plateau pressures of 30 cm H2O, over higher plateau pressures. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 51. For adults with moderate to severe sepsis-induced ARDS, we suggest using higher PEEP over lower PEEP. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 52. For adults with sepsis-induced respiratory failure (without ARDS), we suggest using low tidal volume as compared with high tidal volume ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence 53. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using traditional recruitment maneuvers. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 54. When using recruitment maneuvers, we recommend against using incremental PEEP titration/strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 55. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we recommend using prone ventilation for greater than 12 hr daily. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 56. For adults with sepsis induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using intermittent NMBA boluses, over NMBA continuous infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 57. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we suggest using Veno-venous (VV) ECMO when conventional mechanical ventilation fails in experienced centers with the infrastructure in place to support its use. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW ADDITIONAL THERAPIES 58. For adults with septic shock and an ongoing requirement for vasopressor therapy we suggest using IV corticosteroids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (see goals for Initial Resuscitation). If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/day." 59. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We make no recommendation regarding the use of blood purification techniques" 60. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of other blood purification techniques. No recommendation 61. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a restrictive (over liberal) transfusion strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 62. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV immunoglobulins. Weak , low quality of evidence 63. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, we suggest using stress ulcer prophylaxis. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 64. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis unless a contraindication to such therapy exists. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 65. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low molecular weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis Strong , moderate-quality evidence 66. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using mechanical VTE prophylaxis, in addition to pharmacological prophylaxis, over pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 67. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, we suggest using either continuous or intermittent renal replacement therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence 68. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, with no definitive indications for renal replacement therapy, we suggest against using renal replacement therapy. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 69. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend initiating insulin therapy at a glucose level of ≥ 180mg/dL (10 mmol/L). Strong , moderate-quality evidence 70. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV vitamin C. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 71. For adults with septic shock and hypoperfusion-induced lactic acidemia, we suggest against using sodium bicarbonate therapy to improve hemodynamics or to reduce vasopressor requirements. Weak , low quality of evidence 72. For adults with septic shock and severe metabolic acidemia (pH ≤ 7.2) and acute kidney injury (AKIN score 2 or 3), we suggest using sodium bicarbonate therapy Weak , low quality of evidence 73. For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who can be fed enterally, we suggest early (within 72 hr) initiation of enteral nutrition. Weak , very low quality of evidence LONG-TERM OUTCOMES AND GOALS OF CARE 74. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend discussing goals of care and prognosis with patients and families over no such discussion. Best practice statement 75. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest addressing goals of care early (within 72 hr) over late (72 hr or later). Weak , low quality of evidence 76. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on any specific standardized criterion to trigger goals of care discussion. No recommendation 77. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the principles of palliative care (which may include palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement) be integrated into the treatment plan, when appropriate, to address patient and family symptoms and suffering. Best practice statement 78. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against routine formal palliative care consultation for all patients over palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement. Weak , low quality of evidence 79. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest referral to peer support groups over no such referral. Weak , very low quality of evidence 80. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a handoff process of critically important information at transitions of care over no such handoff process. Weak , very low quality of evidence 81. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of any specific structured handoff tool over usual handoff processes. No recommendation 82. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend screening for economic and social support (including housing, nutritional, financial, and spiritual support), and make referrals where available to meet these needs. Best practice statement 83. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest offering written and verbal sepsis education (diagnosis, treatment, and post-ICU/post-sepsis syndrome) prior to hospital discharge and in the follow-up setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence 84. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend the clinical team provide the opportunity to participate in shared decision making in post-ICU and hospital discharge planning to ensure discharge plans are acceptable and feasible. Best practice statement 85. For adults with sepsis and septic shock and their families, we suggest using a critical care transition program, compared with usual care, upon transfer to the floor. Weak , very low quality of evidence 86. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend reconciling medications at both ICU and hospital discharge. Best practice statement 87. For adult survivors of sepsis and septic shock and their families, we recommend including information about the ICU stay, sepsis and related diagnoses, treatments, and common impairments after sepsis in the written and verbal hospital discharge summary. Best practice statement 88. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who developed new impairments, we recommend hospital discharge plans include follow-up with clinicians able to support and manage new and long-term sequelae. Best practice statement 89. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on early post-hospital discharge follow-up compared with routine post-hospital discharge follow-up. No recommendation 90. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against early cognitive therapy. No recommendation 91. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. Best practice statement 92. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest referral to a post-critical illness follow-up program if available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 93. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock receiving mechanical ventilation for > 48hr or an ICU stay of > 72 hr, we suggest referral to a post-hospital rehabilitation program. Weak , very low quality of evidence (References 5–24 are referred to in the Methodology section which can be accessed at Supplemental Digital Content: Methodology.) SCREENING AND EARLY TREATMENT Screening for Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence for screening. Strong recommendation, very low-quality evidence for standard operating procedures. Rationale Sepsis performance improvement programs generally consist of sepsis screening, education, measurement of sepsis bundle performance, patient outcomes, and actions for identified opportunities (25,26). Despite some inconsistency, a meta-analysis of 50 observational studies on the effect of performance improvement programs showed that these programs were associated with better adherence to sepsis bundles along with a reduction in mortality (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61–0.72) in patients with sepsis and septic shock (27). The specific components of performance improvement did not appear to be as important as the presence of a program that included sepsis screening and metrics. Sepsis screening tools are designed to promote early identification of sepsis and consist of manual methods or automated use of the electronic health record (EHR). There is wide variation in diagnostic accuracy of these tools with most having poor predictive values, although the use of some was associated with improvements in care processes (28–31). A variety of clinical variables and tools are used for sepsis screening, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, vital signs, signs of infection, quick Sequential Organ Failure Score (qSOFA) or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) (26,32). Machine learning may improve performance of screening tools, and in a meta-analysis of 42,623 patients from seven studies for predicting hospital acquired sepsis the pooled area under the receiving operating curve (SAUROC) (0.89; 95% CI, 0.86−0.92); sensitivity (81%; 95% CI, 80−81), and specificity (72%; 95% CI, 72−72) was higher for machine learning than the SAUROC for traditional screening tools such as SIRS (0.70), MEWS (0.50), and SOFA (0.78) (32). Screening tools may target patients in various locations, such as in-patient wards, emergency departments, or ICUs (28–30,32). A pooled analysis of three RCTs did not demonstrate a mortality benefit of active screening (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51−1.58) (33–35). However, while there is wide variation in sensitivity and specificity of sepsis screening tools, they are an important component of identifying sepsis early for timely intervention. Standard operating procedures are a set of practices that specify a preferred response to specific clinical circumstances Sepsis standard operating as Early have to which a standard with components of the sepsis early and A large the between of sepsis and A of sepsis to hospitals in the in a mortality and after of sepsis with a control from other In this time mortality was lower in hospitals with higher with the sepsis bundles may a A meta-analysis of two RCTs in higher mortality (RR, 95% CI, with standard operating procedures compared with usual care, while it was in one observational 95% CI, - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. Rationale The qSOFA three variables to and prolonged ICU stay in patients with or suspected a Score a respiratory ≥ and a blood pressure ≤ mm When any two of these variables are the patient is qSOFA analysis used to support the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis identified qSOFA as a of poor in patients with or suspected infection, but no analysis was to support its use as a screening tool that time studies have the use of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have been as to its have that qSOFA is more specific but than having two of SIRS for early identification of infection induced organ dysfunction SIRS qSOFA are screening tools for sepsis and the clinician to the of In the that of patients a qSOFA score 2 or but these patients for of poor have been when against the National Early Score and the Modified Early Score (MEWS) the presence of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in all given the poor sensitivity of the the a strong recommendation against its use as a screening -

This paper is the first in a series of two publications relating to the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease and concerns the methodology of the consensus process, and the classification, diagnosis and medical management of active and quiescent Crohn's disease. Surgical management as well as special situations including management of perianal Crohn's disease of this ECCO Consensus are covered in a subsequent second paper [Gionchetti et al JCC 2016].

OBJECTIVES: The Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) program was initiated by the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD). It examined potential treatment targets for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to be used for a "treat-to-target" clinical management strategy using an evidence-based expert consensus process. METHODS: A Steering Committee of 28 IBD specialists developed recommendations based on a systematic literature review and expert opinion. Consensus was gained if ≥75% of participants scored the recommendation as 7-10 on a 10-point rating scale (where 10=agree completely). RESULTS: The group agreed upon 12 recommendations for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). The agreed target for UC was clinical/patient-reported outcome (PRO) remission (defined as resolution of rectal bleeding and diarrhea/altered bowel habit) and endoscopic remission (defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0-1). Histological remission was considered as an adjunctive goal. Clinical/PRO remission was also agreed upon as a target for CD and defined as resolution of abdominal pain and diarrhea/altered bowel habit; and endoscopic remission, defined as resolution of ulceration at ileocolonoscopy, or resolution of findings of inflammation on cross-sectional imaging in patients who cannot be adequately assessed with ileocolonoscopy. Biomarker remission (normal C-reactive protein (CRP) and calprotectin) was considered as an adjunctive target. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for selecting the goals for treat-to-target strategies in patients with IBD are made available. Prospective studies are needed to determine how these targets will change disease course and patients' quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib, an oral, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor, was shown to have potential efficacy as induction therapy for ulcerative colitis in a phase 2 trial. We further evaluated the efficacy of tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy. METHODS: We conducted three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of tofacitinib therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, 598 and 541 patients, respectively, who had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis despite previous conventional therapy or therapy with a tumor necrosis factor antagonist were randomly assigned to receive induction therapy with tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 8 weeks. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, 593 patients who had a clinical response to induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with tofacitinib (either 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 52 weeks. RESULTS: In the OCTAVE Induction 1 trial, remission at 8 weeks occurred in 18.5% of the patients in the tofacitinib group versus 8.2% in the placebo group (P=0.007); in the OCTAVE Induction 2 trial, remission occurred in 16.6% versus 3.6% (P<0.001). In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, remission at 52 weeks occurred in 34.3% of the patients in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 40.6% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group versus 11.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, the rates of overall infection and serious infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, the rate of serious infection was similar across the three treatment groups, and the rates of overall infection and herpes zoster infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. Across all three trials, adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer occurred in five patients who received tofacitinib and in one who received placebo, and adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred in five who received tofacitinib and in none who received placebo; as compared with placebo, tofacitinib was associated with increased lipid levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib was more effective as induction and maintenance therapy than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; OCTAVE Induction 1, OCTAVE Induction 2, and OCTAVE Sustain ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01465763 , NCT01458951 , and NCT01458574 , respectively.).

Abstract TAM and other myeloid-derived tumor infiltrating cells are reviewed as pivotal players in the tumor microenvironment; implications to anti-cancer therapy are described. The microenvironment of solid tumors is characterized by a reactive stroma with an abundance of inflammatory mediators and leukocytes, dysregulated vessels and proteolytic enzymes. TAM, major players in the connection between inflammation and cancer, summarize a number of functions (e.g., promotion of tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis, incessant matrix turnover, repression of adaptive immunity), which ultimately have an important impact on disease progression. Thus, together with other myeloid-related cells present at the tumor site (Tie2 macrophages and MDSCs), TAM represent an attractive target of novel biological therapies of tumors.

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti–programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)

Abstract The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19 1,2 , host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases 3–7 . They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.

Ulcerative colitis [UC] is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] characterised by colonic inflammation extending to a variable extent from the rectum. Care of the patient with UC requires appropriate input from across the multiprofessional team. These guidelines summarise the recommended medical treatment for adults with UC. Other ECCO guidelines consider the approach to UC diagnosis and monitoring, nursing care, management of disease complications, risk of infection, and technical aspects of surgery. This document was prepared as part of a process that also led to the publication of a related guideline with recommendations on the surgical care of the patients with UC and on the medical aspects of the management of the patient hospitalised with severe UC. ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Ulcerative Colitis: Surgical Treatment. Patients living with UC can have a variable disease course. In this document, we discuss therapeutic approaches stratified by disease severity [mildly-to-moderately active and moderately-to-severely active disease]. Attempts to define disease severity are widely used in setting clinical trial inclusion criteria and can be measured according to several different definitions. Trial populations will inevitably vary, and we reflect the continuum of disease severity by having the moderate disease category span both broad categories. It is also important to remember that these definitions capture severity at a given point in time and may not reflect the cumulative long-term burden of disease experienced by a patient. It is also important to consider disease extent when planning treatment in UC, as this may affect the optimal route of drug administration. This is typically defined according to disease involving the rectum only [proctitis], disease distal to the splenic flexure [left-sided UC], or disease extending proximal to the splenic flexure [extensive UC]. These definitions of disease extent are recognised as somewhat arbitrary; in clinical practice, topically administered therapies are often used for UC whose extent is limited to the rectum and a portion of the sigmoid colon [proctosigmoiditis], with the term ‘distal colitis’ used to describe this disease distribution. It should be remembered that disease distribution can change and that proximal disease extension can be a negative prognostic marker.

These guidelines are a consensus work of a considerable number of members of the immunology and flow cytometry community. They provide the theory and key practical aspects of flow cytometry enabling immunologists to avoid the common errors that often undermine immunological data. Notably, there are comprehensive sections of all major immune cell types with helpful Tables detailing phenotypes in murine and human cells. The latest flow cytometry techniques and applications are also described, featuring examples of the data that can be generated and, importantly, how the data can be analysed. Furthermore, there are sections detailing tips, tricks and pitfalls to avoid, all written and peer-reviewed by leading experts in the field, making this an essential research companion.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Endoscopy plays an essential role in the diagnosis, management, prognosis, and surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but surprisingly there are few available guidelines.1,2 This prompted the ECCO Guidelines Committee (GuiCom) members to promote a Consensus on the appropriate indication and application of different endoscopic modalities in IBD. Since the development of guidelines is an expensive and time-consuming process, this Consensus may help to avoid duplication of effort in the future. It may also identify issues where the evidence is lacking and controlled studies are awaited. The strategy to reach the Consensus involved five steps: 1. Two members of the GuiCom (VA and RE) identified four main topics: a) Diagnosis and follow-up; b) Score of endoscopic activity; c) Small bowel endoscopy; and d) Surveillance. During 2012 a call for participants to the Guideline was made to ECCO members. In addition, expert endoscopists recognised for their active research in the field were invited. Participants were selected by the Guicom and four working groups were created. Each working group had a chair (VA, MD, MT, and RE), two ECCO members including young members (Y-ECCO) and one experienced endoscopist. For the development of the guideline, relevant questions on separate topics were devised by the chairmen and their working parties. The questions were focused on current practice and areas of controversy. Participants of the Consensus process were asked to answer the questions based on evidence from the literature as well as their experience (Delphi procedure)3; 2. The working parties working in parallel performed a systematic literature search of their topic with the appropriate key words using Medline/Pubmed and the Cochrane database, as well as other relevant sources; 3. Provisional guideline statements on their topic were then written by the chairmen. These were circulated and commented on first by working party members and …

This paper is the second in a series of two publications relating to the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease [CD] and concerns the surgical management of CD as well as special situations including management of perianal CD and extraintestinal manifestations. Diagnostic approaches and medical management of CD of this ECCO Consensus are covered in the first paper [Gomollon et al JCC 2016].

ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:- severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock- moderate, within 48 - 72 hours- mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is poor. Glofitamab is a bispecific antibody that recruits T cells to tumor cells. METHODS: In the phase 2 part of a phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least two lines of therapy previously. Patients received pretreatment with obinutuzumab to mitigate cytokine release syndrome, followed by fixed-duration glofitamab monotherapy (12 cycles total). The primary end point was complete response according to assessment by an independent review committee. Key secondary end points included duration of response, survival, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 155 patients who were enrolled, 154 received at least one dose of any study treatment (obinutuzumab or glofitamab). At a median follow-up of 12.6 months, 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32 to 48) of the patients had a complete response according to independent review. Results were consistent among the 52 patients who had previously received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (35% of whom had a complete response). The median time to a complete response was 42 days (95% CI, 42 to 44). The majority (78%) of complete responses were ongoing at 12 months. The 12-month progression-free survival was 37% (95% CI, 28 to 46). Discontinuation of glofitamab due to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (in 63% of the patients). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 62% of the patients, with grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome in 4% and grade 3 or higher neurologic events in 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Glofitamab therapy was effective for DLBCL. More than half the patients had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03075696.).

The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence. METHODS: A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature. RESULTS: Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed. CONCLUSION: While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1-5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits.

An intrinsic (oncogene-driven) pathway and an extrinsic (microenvironment-driven) pathway connect inflammatory reactions and cancer. M2-polarized tumor-associated macrophages and the related myeloid-derived suppressor cells are key prototypic components of smoldering inflammation driving neoplastic progression. However, mononuclear phagocytes can exert anti-tumor activity by killing tumor cells and eliciting tissue disruptive reactions (M1), a likely scenario in the early phases of carcinogenesis of immunogenic tumors and following therapeutic intervention. Shifting the macrophage balance represents a viable therapeutic target. Herein, the 'macrophage balance' is discussed in the context of the apparent paradox of tumor promotion by innate immunity-driven inflammation and the seemingly opposed tumor surveillance by adaptive immune responses.