Practical aspects of treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Camporota L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2230611 | biostudies-literature | 2007
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Practical aspects of treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated).
Camporota Luigi L Wyncoll Duncan D
Critical care (London, England) 20070101
In November 2001, drotrecogin alfa (activated) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; in August 2002 it was approved by the European Medicines Agency. Since the approval of drotrecogin alfa (activated), however, critical care physicians have been faced with several challenges, namely its costs, selection of patients who are more likely to benefit from it, and the decision regarding when to start drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment. There are also operational issues such as how t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIn March 2001, the results of the Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study were published, which indicated a 6.1% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality. Drotrecogin alfa (activated; DrotAA) was subsequently approved for use in patients with severe sepsis.MethodsIn December 2002, critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were invited to participate in an audit of DrotAA. Data for each infusion of DrotAA were linked to case mix and outcome data from a national audit. Use of DrotAA was described and a nonrandomized comparison of effectiveness was conducted.Results1,292 infusions of DrotAA were recorded in 112 units; 61% commenced during the first 24 hours in the unit. The majority (77%) of patients had three or more organs failing; lung (42%) and abdomen (40%) were the most common primary sites of infection. Crude hospital mortality was high (45%); at 28 days, only 18% had left acute hospital and 19% were still in the unit. For 30%, the full 96-hour infusion was not completed; 24% of infusions were interrupted; 8.1% experienced one or more serious adverse events, of which 77% were serious bleeding events. Of eight relative risks estimated from individually-matched (0.75 to 0.85) and propensity-matched (0.82 to 0.90) controls, seven were consistent with the results of PROWESS. Restricting the analysis to patients receiving DrotAA during the first 24 hours resulted in larger treatment effects (relative risks 0.62 to 0.81). For all matches, similar patterns were seen across subgroups. No effect of DrotAA was seen for two organs failing or lower severity scores, compared with a significant mortality reduction for three or more organs failing or higher severity scores.ConclusionUse of DrotAA was approximately one in 16 for admissions meeting the definition for severe sepsis and with two or more organs failing. Patients receiving DrotAA were younger and more severely ill but were less likely to have serious conditions in their past medical history. Nonrandomized estimates for the effectiveness of DrotAA were consistent with the findings of PROWESS. DrotAA appeared not to be effective in patients with less severe disease.
| S-EPMC2447613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsDrotAA 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.
| S-EPMC3334774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince the launch of drotrecogin alfa activated (DrotAA), institutions and individual countries have published data on its use in clinical practice, based on audit or registry data. These studies were limited in size and geographic locale and included patients with greater disease severity and higher mortality than those in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes (using appropriate statistical adjustments) of patients treated or not treated with DrotAA from the international PROGRESS (Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.MethodsPROGRESS was a global, non-interventional, multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients having a diagnosis of severe sepsis treated in intensive care units at a participating institution. All treatment modalities were as per standard of care at the participating institutions. Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed and regression techniques used to develop propensity and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.ResultsOverall, 14,543 patients from 37 countries were enrolled and 12,492 had complete data for analysis. Germany was the highest enrolling country (1,810; 14.5%) and the US had the most DrotAA patients (206, 23.3%); 882 (7%) overall received DrotAA therapy. DrotAA-treated patients were younger (median age 58 vs. 61 years), had greater organ dysfunction (cardiovascular: 90% vs. 74%; respiratory: 90% vs. 81%; renal: 60% vs. 45%; metabolic: 63% versus 42%; 3 or more organ dysfunctions: 84% vs. 67%) and had a higher median APACHE II score (26 vs. 23, all with P < 0.001). Although in-hospital mortality was similar for DrotAA and non-DrotAA-treated patients (49.6% vs. 49.7%, respectively), after adjusting for imbalances, patients receiving DrotAA had a 28% (0.60 to 0.86, 95% Confidence Intervals) reduction in the odds of death and a relative risk reduction of 17% (P = 0.0003).ConclusionsIn the PROGRESS registry, DrotAA-treated patients were younger, more severely ill, and had fewer co-morbidities than patients not treated with DrotAA. After adjustment for group differences, a significant reduction in the odds of death was observed for patients that received DrotAA compared with those that did not.
| S-EPMC2717475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Significant debate continues over the efficacy of drotrecogin alpha activated (DAA) in sepsis. This updated meta-analysis provides an updated summary effect estimate and explores the reasons for outcome heterogeneity in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of DAA on 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.Computer searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, published abstracts from major intensive care meetings and examination of reference lists were used to identify five placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with 7260 patients. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 28-day incidence of severe bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage.DAA was not associated with improved 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (pooled relative risk (RR) of 0.97 [95% CI 0.83-1.14]), and is associated with an increase in serious bleeding. The significant heterogeneity in the pooled RR for 28-day mortality (I2 value of 59.4%, ?2 P-value 0.043) is no longer present with exclusion of the post-study amendment portion of PROWESS (I2 value of 0%, ?2 P-value 0.44 without PROWESS post-amendment). Using meta-regression, the best ranked predictor of outcome heterogeneity was baseline mortality in the placebo arm, which was among the highest in PROWESS.DAA is not associated with improved survival in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Further studies should be done to determine whether changes in supportive therapy for sepsis explain the variable efficacy of DAA in randomized controlled clinical trials observed over time.
| S-EPMC3725305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSerial alterations in protein C levels appear to correlate with disease severity in patients with severe sepsis, and it may be possible to tailor severe sepsis therapy with the use of this biomarker. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose and duration of drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment using serial measurements of protein C compared to standard therapy in patients with severe sepsis.MethodsThis was a phase 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Adult patients with two or more sepsis-induced organ dysfunctions were enrolled. Protein C deficient patients were randomized to standard therapy (24 μg/kg/hr infusion for 96 hours) or alternative therapy (higher dose and/or variable duration; 24/30/36 μg/kg/hr for 48 to 168 hours). The primary outcome was a change in protein C level in the alternative therapy group, between study Day 1 and Day 7, compared to standard therapy.ResultsOf 557 patients enrolled, 433 patients received randomized therapy; 206 alternative, and 227 standard. Baseline characteristics of the groups were largely similar. The difference in absolute change in protein C from Day 1 to Day 7 between the two therapy groups was 7% (P = 0.011). Higher doses and longer infusions were associated with a more pronounced increase in protein C level, with no serious bleeding events. The same doses and longer infusions were associated with a larger increase in protein C level; higher rates of serious bleeding when groups received the same treatment; but no clear increased risk of bleeding during the longer infusion. This group also experienced a higher mortality rate; however, there was no clear link to infusion duration.ConclusionsThe study met its primary objective of increased protein C levels in patients receiving alternative therapy demonstrating that variable doses and/or duration of drotrecogin alfa (activated) can improve protein C levels, and also provides valuable information for incorporation into potential future studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00386425.
| S-EPMC3219981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are no published data on the status of endogenous activated protein C (APC) in pulmonary embolism (PE), and no data on the effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) given in addition to therapeutic dose enoxaparin.In this double-blind clinical trial, 47 patients with computed tomography (CT)-confirmed acute submassive PE treated with 1 mg/kg body weight of enoxaparin twice daily were randomized to groups receiving a 12-hour intravenous infusion of 6, 12, 18, or 24 ?g/kg/hour of DAA or a placebo. Blood samples were drawn before starting DAA infusion, after 4, 8 and 12 hours (at the end of the infusion period), and on treatment days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.Initial endogenous plasma activated protein C (APC) levels were 0.36 ± 0.48 ng/ml (<0.10 to 1.72 ng/ml) and remained in the same range in the placebo group. APC levels in patients treated with DAA were 13.67 ± 3.57 ng/ml, 32.71 ± 8.76 ng/ml, 36.13 ± 7.60 ng/ml, and 51.79 ± 15.84 ng/ml in patients treated with 6, 12, 18, and 24 ?g/kg/hour DAA, respectively. In patients with a D-dimer level >4 mg/L indicating a high level of acute fibrin formation and dissolution, DAA infusion resulted in a more rapid drop in soluble fibrin, D-dimer, and fibrinogen/fibrin degradation products (FDP) levels, compared to enoxaparin alone. There was a parallel decline of soluble fibrin, D-dimer, FDP, and plasmin-plasmin inhibitor complex (PPIC) in response to treatment with enoxaparin ± DAA, with no evidence of a systemic profibrinolytic effect of the treatment.In patients with acute submassive PE endogenous APC levels are low. DAA infusion enhances the inhibition of fibrin formation.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00191724.
| S-EPMC3222057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDrotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) is licensed in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of severe sepsis with multiple organ failure. Patients with severe sepsis on renal replacement therapy (RRT), who typically receive additional anticoagulation to prevent circuit clotting, may be at higher risk of bleeding when DrotAA is administered in addition to standard anticoagulation. However, the effects of DrotAA on filter duration in the absence of additional anticoagulation have not been established. The aim of this study was to analyse the filter survival time (FST), and to quantify the requirement of packed red cells (PRC) and blood products during DrotAA infusion.MethodsThis was a single-centre, retrospective observational study conducted in an adult intensive care unit (ICU). Thirty-five patients with severe sepsis who had received both RRT and DrotAA were identified, and all relevant clinical and laboratory data were retrieved from the departmental electronic patient record. We compared haemofilter parameters, requirement of blood products and haemodynamic data recorded during RRT and the infusion of DrotAA with those recorded on RRT with standard anticoagulation after the DrotAA infusion had been completed (post-DrotAA).ResultsThe proportion of filter changes due to filter clotting was similar during DrotAA infusion and with conventional anticoagulation post-DrotAA infusion. There was no difference in the FST and filter parameters during DrotAA in the presence or absence of additional anticoagulation with heparin or epoprostenol. A similar proportion of patients required red cell transfusion, although a greater proportion of patients received platelet and fresh frozen plasma during DrotAA infusion compared with the post-DrotAA period with no difference between medical and surgical patients.ConclusionsAdditional anticoagulation during DrotAA infusion does not appear to improve FST. The use of DrotAA in patients with severe sepsis requiring RRT is safe and is not associated with an increased need for PRC transfusion or major bleeding events.
| S-EPMC2646328 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe performed a study to determine whether an enrollment sequence effect noted in the PROWESS (recombinant human activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) trial exists in the ADDRESS (Administration of Drotrecogin Alfa [Activated] [DrotAA] in Early Stage Severe Sepsis) trial.MethodsWe evaluated prospectively defined subgroups from two large phase 3 clinical trials: ADDRESS, which included 516 sites in 34 countries, and PROWESS, which included 164 sites in 11 countries. ADDRESS consisted of patients with severe sepsis at low risk of death not indicated for treatment with DrotAA. PROWESS consisted of patients with severe sepsis with one or more organ dysfunctions. DrotAA (24 microg/kg per hour) or placebo was infused for 96 hours.ResultsIn ADDRESS and PROWESS, there was a statistically significant interaction between the DrotAA treatment effect and the sequence in which patients were enrolled. In both trials, higher mortality was associated with DrotAA use in the subgroup of patients enrolled first at study sites. Compared with placebo, PROWESS mortality was lower with DrotAA treatment for the second and subsequent patients enrolled, whereas in ADDRESS, mortality remained higher for the second patient enrolled but thereafter was lower for DrotAA-treated patients. Comparison of patients enrolled first with subsequent patients enrolled indicated that the characteristics of patients changed. Subsequently enrolled patients were treated earlier, were less likely to suffer nonserious bleeds (ADDRESS), and experienced fewer protocol violations (PROWESS).ConclusionsAnalyses suggest that an enrollment sequence effect was present in the ADDRESS and PROWESS trials. Analysis of this effect on outcomes suggests that it is most apparent in patients at lower risk of death. In PROWESS, this effect appeared to be associated with a reduction of the DrotAA treatment effect for the first patients enrolled at each site. In ADDRESS, this effect may have contributed to early termination of the study. The finding of an enrollment sequence effect in two separate trials suggests that trial designs, site selection and training, data collection and monitoring, and statistical analysis plans may need to be adjusted for these potentially confounding events.Trial registrationADDRESS trial registration number: NCT00568737. PROWESS was completed before trial registration was required.
| S-EPMC2592745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA genomic biomarker identifying patients likely to benefit from drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) may be clinically useful as a companion diagnostic. This trial was designed to validate biomarkers (improved response polymorphisms (IRPs)). Each IRP (A and B) contains two single nucleotide polymorphisms that were associated with a differential DAA treatment effect.MethodsDAA is typically given to younger patients with greater disease severity; therefore, a well-matched control group is critical to this multicenter, retrospective, controlled, outcome-blinded, genotype-blinded trial. Within each center, DAA-treated patients will be matched to controls treated within 24 months of each other taking into account age, APACHE II, cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and hematologic dysfunction, mechanical ventilation status, medical/surgical status, and infection site. A propensity score will estimate the probability that a patient would have received DAA given their baseline characteristics. Two-phase data transfer will ensure unbiased selection of matched controls. The first transfer will be for eligibility and matching data and the second transfer for outcomes and genotypic data. The primary analysis will compare the effect of DAA in IRP + and IRP - groups on in-hospital mortality through day 28.DiscussionA design-based approach matching DAA-free to DAA-treated patients in a multicenter study of patients who have severe sepsis and high risk of death will directly compare control to DAA-treated groups for mortality by genotype. Results, which should be available in 2012, may help to identify the group of patients who would benefit from DAA and may provide a model for future investigation of sepsis therapies.
| S-EPMC3403963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo explore potential design for pharmacogenomics trials in sepsis, we investigate the interaction between pharmacogenomic biomarkers and response to drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA). This trial was designed to validate whether previously identified improved response polymorphisms (IRPs A and B) were associated with an improved response to DrotAA in severe sepsis.MethodsPatients with severe sepsis at high risk of death, who received DrotAA or not, with DNA available were included and matched to controls adjusting for age, APACHE II or SAPS II, organ dysfunction, ventilation, medical/surgical status, infection site, and propensity score (probability that a patient would have received DrotAA given their baseline characteristics). Independent genotyping and two-phase data transfer mitigated bias. The primary analysis compared the effect of DrotAA in IRP+ and IRP- groups on in-hospital 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included time to death in hospital; intensive care unit (ICU)-, hospital-, and ventilator-free days; and overall DrotAA treatment effect on mortality.ResultsSix hundred and ninety-two patients treated with DrotAA were successfully matched to 1935 patients not treated with DrotAA. Genotyping was successful for 639 (DrotAA) and 1684 (nonDrotAA) matched patients. The primary hypothesis of a genotype-by-treatment interaction (assessed by conditional logistic regression analysis) was not significant (P = 0.30 IRP A; P = 0.78 IRP B), and there was no significant genotype by treatment interaction for any secondary endpoint.ConclusionsNeither IRP A nor IRP B predicted differential response to DrotAA on in-hospital 28-day mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01486524.
| S-EPMC5792380 | biostudies-literature