The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Aim Combined hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone therapy for septic shock has not been evaluated with an independent systematic review. We aimed to elucidate the beneficial effects of a dual corticosteroid treatment regime involving both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for adult patients with septic shock on mortality. Methods We searched the Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI databases for reports published before April 2019. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of both hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone with either corticosteroid‐free or hydrocortisone‐only treatments on adult patients with septic shock. Three researchers independently reviewed the studies. The meta‐analyses were undertaken to assess primary outcome (28‐day mortality) and secondary outcomes (in‐hospital mortality, long‐term mortality, shock reversal, and adverse events). Results Among the four studies eligible for data synthesis, we included 2,050 patients from three studies for quantitative synthesis. All studies used similar regimens (hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone for 7 days without tapering). The 28‐day mortality rate was reduced after dual corticosteroid treatment (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.78–0.99). The heterogeneity between the studies was low ( I 2 = 0%). Patients who underwent dual corticosteroid treatment had lower long‐term mortality rates (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–0.98) and higher rate of shock reversal after 28 days (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01–1.12) than control patients. Adverse events (except for hyperglycemia) were similar among the treatment groups. Conclusions The available evidence suggests that a combination of fludrocortisone and hydrocortisone is more effective than adjunctive therapy and could be recommended for septic shock.

Background Burns resulting from assaults account for considerable morbidity and mortality among patients with burn injuries around the world. However, it is still unclear whether unfavorable clinical outcomes are associated primarily with the severity of the injuries. To elucidate the direct relationship between burns resulting from assaults and mortality and/or length of hospital stays, we performed this study with the hypothesis that burns from assault would be independently associated with fewer hospital-free days than would burns from other causes, regardless of the severity of burn injuries. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using a city-wide burn registry (1996–2017) accounting for 14 burn centers in Tokyo, Japan. Patients who arrived within 24 hours after injury were included, and those with self-inflicted burn injuries were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups according to mechanism of burns (assault vs. accident), and the number of hospital-free days until day 30 after injury (a composite of in-hospital death and hospital length of stay) was compared between the groups. To estimate the probability that an injury would be classified as an assault, we calculated propensity scores, using multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusted for known outcome predictors. We also performed an inverse probability weighting (IPW) analysis to compare adjusted numbers of hospital-free days. Results Of 7419 patients in the registry with burn injuries during the study period, 5119 patients were included in this study. Of these, 113 (2.2%) were injured as a result of assault; they had significantly fewer hospital-free days than did those with burns caused by accident (18 [27] vs. 24 [20] days; coefficient = $-$3.4 [$-$5.5 to $-$1.3] days; p = 0.001). IPW analyses similarly revealed the independent association between assault burn injury and fewer hospital-free days (adjusted coefficient = $-$0.6 [$-$1.0 to $-$0.1] days; p = 0.009). Conclusions Burn from assault was independently associated with fewer hospital-free days, regardless of the severity of burn injuries. The pathophysiological mechanism underlying the relationship should be further studied in a prospective observational study.

In deep burns, early wound closure is important for healing, and skin grafting is mainly used for wound closure. However, it is difficult to achieve early wound closure in extensive total body surface area deep burns due to the lack of donor sites. Dermal fibroblasts, responsible for dermis formation, may be lost in deep burns. However, fat layers composed of adipocytes, lying underneath the dermis, are retained even in such cases. Direct reprogramming is a novel method for directly reprograming some cells into other types by introducing specific master regulators; it has exhibited appreciable success in various fields. In this study, we aimed to assess whether the transfection of master regulators (ELF4, FOXC2, FOXO1, IRF1, PRRX1, and ZEB1) could reprogram mouse adipocytes into dermal fibroblast-like cells. Our results indicated the shrinkage of fat droplets in reprogrammed mouse adipocytes and their transformation into spindle-shaped dermal fibroblasts. Reduced expression of PPAR-2, c/EBP, aP2, and leptin, the known markers of adipocytes, in RT-PCR, and enhanced expression of anti-ER-TR7, the known anti-fibroblast marker, in immunocytochemistry, were confirmed in the reprogrammed mouse adipocytes. The dermal fibroblast-like cells, reported here, may open up a new treatment mode for enabling early closure of deep burn wounds.