International integrated database for the evaluation of severe sepsis and drotrecogin alfa (activated) therapy: 28-day survival and safety

From evidence to clinical practice in blood and marrow transplantation

Clinical practice in the field of blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) has evolved over time, as a result of thousands of basic and clinical research studies. While it appears that scientific discovery and adaptive clinical research may be well integrated in case of BMT, there is lack of sufficient literature to definitively understand the process of translation of evidence to practice and if it may be selective . In this review, examples from BMT and other areas of medicine are used to highlight the state of and potential barriers to evidence uptake. Strategies to help improve knowledge transfer are discussed and the role of existing framework provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry (CIBMTR) to monitor uptake and BMT Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) to enhance translation of evidence into practice is highlighted.

Do the observational studies using propensity score analysis agree with randomized controlled trials in the area of sepsis?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the intensive care unit, and many studies have been conducted aiming to improve its outcome. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using propensity score (PS) method are commonly used for this purpose. However, the agreement between these two major methodological designs has never been investigated in this specific area. The present study aimed to compare the effect sizes between RCTs and PS-based studies.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Pubmed, Scopus, and EBSCO were searched to obtain PS-based studies in the area of sepsis. The studies were matched to RCTs or systematic reviews and meta-analysis in terms of population, intervention, control, and outcome. When there were multiple PS-based studies or RCTs in one area, the effect sizes were pooled by using random-effects model and inverse variance method. The comparisons were performed by using differences in the effect size.

RESULTS

A total of 8 topics were identified fulfilling the criterion that at least 1 pair of RCT and PS-based study could be matched. The interventions included activated protein C, low-dose steroid, antithrombin III, combination antibiotic therapy, fish oil supplementation, statin, etomidate for intubation, and recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin. The effect sizes were statistically different between RCTs and PS-based studies in most circumstances (6/8). The pooled mean difference in effect sizes was -0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.33 to 0.01), indicating a trend towards larger treatment effect in PS studies than in RCTs. The result remains unaltered by restricting to RCTs and PS studies with the largest sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that PS studies tend to report larger treatment effect than RCTs in the field of sepsis, indicating the difference between efficacy trials and effectiveness studies.

Human recombinant protein C for severe sepsis and septic shock in adult and paediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a common and frequently fatal condition. Human recombinant activated protein C (APC) has been introduced to reduce the high risk of death associated with severe sepsis or septic shock. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of APC for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE (2010 to June 2012); EMBASE (2010 to June 2012); BIOSIS (1965 to June 2012); CINAHL (1982 to June 2012) and LILACS (1982 to June 2012). There was no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of APC for severe sepsis or septic shock in adults and children. We excluded studies on neonates. We considered all-cause mortality at day 28 and at the end of study follow up, and hospital mortality as the primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently performed trial selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We used a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new randomized clinical trial in this update which includes six randomized clinical trials involving 6781 participants in total, five randomized clinical trials in adult (N = 6307) and one randomized clinical trial in paediatric (N = 474) participants. All trials had high risk of bias and were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. APC compared with placebo did not significantly affect all-cause mortality at day 28 compared with placebo (780/3435 (22.7%) versus 767/3346 (22.9%); RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.16; I(2) = 56%). APC did not significantly affect in-hospital mortality (393/1767 (22.2%) versus 379/1710 (22.1%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.16; I(2) = 20%). APC was associated with an increased risk of serious bleeding (113/3424 (3.3%) versus 74/3343 (2.2%); RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.94; I(2) = 0%). APC did not significantly affect serious adverse events (463/3334 (13.9%) versus 439/3302 (13.2%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; I(2) = 0%). Trial sequential analyses showed that more trials do not seem to be needed for reliable conclusions regarding these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review found no evidence suggesting that APC should be used for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC seems to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding. The drug company behind APC, Eli Lilly, has announced the discontinuation of all ongoing clinical trials using this drug for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC should not be used for sepsis or septic shock outside randomized clinical trials.

Human recombinant activated protein C for severe sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a common and frequently fatal condition. Human recombinant activated protein C (APC) has been used to reduce the high rate of death by severe sepsis or septic shock. This is an update of a Cochrane review (originally published in 2007 and updated in 2008).

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of APC for the treatment of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review we searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 6); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2010); EMBASE (1980 to July 1, 2010); BIOSIS (1965 to July 1, 2010); CINAHL (1982 to 16 June 2010) and LILACS (1982 to 16 June 2010). There was no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of APC for severe sepsis in adults and children. We excluded studies on neonates. We considered all-cause mortality at day 28, at the end of study follow up, and hospital mortality as the primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We used a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT in this update. We included a total of five RCTs involving 5101 participants. For 28-day mortality, APC did not reduce the risk of death in adult participants with severe sepsis (pooled RR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.22; P = 0.82, I(2) = 68%). APC use was associated with an increased risk of bleeding (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.00; P = 0.01, I(2) = 0%). In paediatric patients, APC did not reduce the risk of death (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; P = 0.93). Although the included trials had no major limitations most of them modified their original completion or recruitment protocols.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review found no evidence suggesting that APC should be used for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Additionally, APC is associated with a higher risk of bleeding. Unless additional RCTs provide evidence of a treatment effect, policy-makers, clinicians and academics should not promote the use of APC.Warning: On October 25th 2011, the European Medicines Agency issued a press release on the worldwide withdrawal of Xigris (activated protein C / drotrecogin alfa) from the market by Eli Lilly due to lack of beneficial effect on 28-day mortality in the PROWESS-SHOCK study. Furthermore, Eli Lily has announced the discontinuation of all other ongoing clinical trials. The final results of the PROWESS-SHOCK study are expected to be published in 2012. This systematic review will be updated when results of the PROWESS-SHOCK or other trials are published.

Is Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis, cost-effective in routine clinical practice?

Introduction

Previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) reported that Drotrecogin alfa (DrotAA) is cost-effective based on a Phase III clinical trial (PROWESS). There is little evidence on whether DrotAA is cost-effective in routine clinical practice. We assessed whether DrotAA is cost-effective in routine practice for adult patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ systems failing.

Methods

This CEA used data from a prospective cohort study that compared DrotAA versus no DrotAA (control) for severe sepsis patients with multiple organ systems failing admitted to critical care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The cohort study used case-mix and mortality data from a national audit, linked with a separate audit of DrotAA infusions. Re-admissions to critical care and corresponding mortality were recorded for four years. Patients receiving DrotAA (n = 1,076) were matched to controls (n = 1,650) with a propensity score (Pscore), and Genetic Matching (GenMatch). The CEA projected long-term survival to report lifetime incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) overall, and for subgroups with two or three to five organ systems failing at baseline.

Results

The incremental costs per QALY for DrotAA were £30,000 overall, and £16,000 for the subgroups with three to five organ systems failing. For patients with two organ systems failing, DrotAA resulted in an average loss of one QALY at an incremental cost of £15,000. When the subgroup with two organ systems was restricted to patients receiving DrotAA within 24 hours, DrotAA led to a gain of 1.2 QALYs at a cost per QALY of £11,000. The results were robust to other assumptions including the approach taken to projecting long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

DrotAA is cost-effective in routine practice for severe sepsis patients with three to five organ systems failing. For patients with two organ systems failing, this study could not provide unequivocal evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DrotAA.

Human recombinant activated protein C for severe sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a common and frequently fatal condition. Human recombinant activated protein C (APC) has been used to reduce the high rate of death by severe sepsis or septic shock. This is an update of a Cochrane review (originally published in 2007 and updated in 2008).

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of APC for the treatment of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this updated review we searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 6); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2010); EMBASE (1980 to July 1, 2010); BIOSIS (1965 to July 1, 2010); CINAHL (1982 to 16 June 2010) and LILACS (1982 to 16 June 2010). There was no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of APC for severe sepsis in adults and children. We excluded studies on neonates. We considered all-cause mortality at day 28, at the end of study follow up, and hospital mortality as the primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We used a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT in this update. We included a total of five RCTs involving 5101 participants. For 28-day mortality, APC did not reduce the risk of death in adult participants with severe sepsis (pooled RR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.22; P = 0.82, I(2) = 68%). APC use was associated with an increased risk of bleeding (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.00; P = 0.01, I(2) = 0%). In paediatric patients, APC did not reduce the risk of death (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; P = 0.93). Although the included trials had no major limitations most of them modified their original completion or recruitment protocols.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review found no evidence suggesting that APC should be used for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Additionally, APC is associated with a higher risk of bleeding. Unless additional RCTs provide evidence of a treatment effect, policy-makers, clinicians and academics should not promote the use of APC.

No association between protein C levels and bacteremia in children with febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Little is known about protein C levels and outcomes of pediatric febrile neutropenia. The primary aim was to evaluate the relationship between markers of activated coagulation including protein C levels and bacteremia in pediatric oncology patients with febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, we collected a blood specimen from pediatric oncology patients who were admitted to a tertiary care hospital between October 2, 2002 and February 3, 2006 with febrile neutropenia. Levels of protein C, soluble thrombomodulin, soluble endothelial protein C receptor, thrombin-antithrombin complex, fibrinogen degradation products and activated protein C were measured. Associations between markers of activated coagulation and bacteremia were examined using univariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 73 evaluable patients, 10 had bacteremia. None of the above measured markers of activated coagulation were associated with bacteremia. More specifically, the median level of protein C in those with bacteremia was 0.64 U/mL (interquartile range: 0.58 to 0.72) in comparison with the median level in those without bacteremia of 0.73 U/mL (interquartile range: 0.61 to 0.92), odds ratio 0.18 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 8.33); P=0.38.

CONCLUSIONS

Protein C levels do not differ between pediatric febrile neutropenic patients with and without bacteremia.

Disseminating clinical trial results in critical care

Efficient translation of clinical evidence into clinical practice is among the greatest challenges to evidence-based medicine. The field of knowledge transfer seeks to understand the barriers to evidence uptake and develop new methods to effectively disseminate clinical trial results. Traditionally, barriers to evidence-based practice are categorized into those of knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Efforts to improve translation of evidence into practice should uncover and address each of these barriers and be customized to the specific intervention. To help aid knowledge transfer, interventions in clinical trials should be as simple as possible and answer questions important to actual caregivers. Potentially innovative methods for improving knowledge transfer include expanding community research networks, clinical registries to monitor evidence uptake, and community-based participatory research. It is essential that investigators conducting clinical trials prioritize knowledge transfer to ensure that new therapies in critical care are actually reaching the critically ill.

An overview of sepsis

The purpose of this paper was to briefly define sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock and discuss evidence-based guidelines for implementing a sepsis protocol in the critical care setting. In addition, this article will further educate critical care nurses about sepsis and strategies to improve outcomes in this group of patients.

Recent Publications on Medications and Pharmacy

Hospital Pharmacy presents this feature to keep pharmacists abreast of new publications in the medical/pharmacy literature. Articles of interest will be abstracted monthly regarding a broad scope of topics.