Dataset Information

The efficacy of activated protein C for the treatment of sepsis: incorporating observational evidence with a Bayesian approach.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The present study aimed to combine observational evidence with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by using the Bayesian approach.

Data sources

Electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, EMBASE and EBSCO were searched from inception to January 2014.

Study eligibility

RCTs and observational studies (OS) investigating the effectiveness of activated protein C (aPC) on mortality reduction were included for analysis.

Participants

Patients with sepsis.

Intervention

aPC.

Synthesis methods

Observational evidence was incorporated into the analysis by using power transformed priors in a Bayesian. Trial sequential analysis was performed to examine changes over time and whether further studies need to be conducted.

Main results

a total of 7 RCTs and 12 OS were included for the analysis. There was moderate heterogeneity among included RCTs (I(2)=48.6%, p=0.07). The pooled OR for mortality from RCTs was 1.00 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.19). In OS, there was potential publication bias as indicated by the funnel plot and the pooled OR for mortality with the use of aPC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.72). The pooled effect sizes of RCTs were changed by using different power transform priors derived from observational evidence. When observational evidence was used at its 'face value', the treatment effect of aPC was statistically significant in reducing mortality.

Conclusions

while RCT evidence showed no beneficial effect of aPC on sepsis, observational evidence showed a significant treatment effect of aPC. By using power transform priors in Bayesian model, we explicitly demonstrated how RCT evidence could be changed by observational evidence.

Trial registration number

The protocol for the current study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42014009562).

SUBMITTER: Zhang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4298096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Conventional systematic reviews have indicated that corticosteroids might result in a slight reduction in mortality in sepsis. However, the efficacy, safety, and optimal regimen of different corticosteroids partly remain unknown. In this study, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of currently used corticosteroids in sepsis. Design:A Bayesian network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of currently used corticosteroids in sepsis. Setting:A total of 35 eligible randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid use in sepsis. Patients:The present Bayesian network meta-analysis included 8,859 patients with sepsis. Interventions:Randomized controlled trials were screened from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to December 28, 2019. A head-to-head comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety between the different categories of corticosteroids from the trials was conducted by Bayesian network meta-analysis. An empirical Bayesian meta-regression and a post hoc Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to explore the appropriate dose and therapeutic duration of steroids for sepsis. Measurements and Main Results:A total of 35 randomized controlled trials including 8,859 patients with sepsis were enrolled in the final analysis. Bayesian network meta-analysis revealed that methylprednisolone and dexamethasone might be more effective in reducing short-term mortality in sepsis than placebo: methylprednisolone versus placebo (relative risk, 0.65, 95% credible interval 0.40-0.93), dexamethasone versus placebo (relative risk, 0.42, 95% credible interval, 0.24-0.84). Hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone were superior to placebo in days to shock resolution (e-Table 5, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCX/A150): hydrocortisone versus placebo (mean difference, -1.70, 95% credible interval, -2.83 to -0.92), hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone versus placebo (mean difference, -2.54, 95% credible interval, -4.19 to -0.84). Hydrocortisone was superior to placebo in reducing the length of stay in the ICU (mean difference, -1.43, 95% credible interval, -3.36 to -0.15). Methylprednisolone was superior to placebo in improving ventilation-free days (mean difference, 7.71, 95% credible interval, 1.15-14.42). In addition, further analysis indicated that the optimal therapeutic dosage was 200-400?mg per day of hydrocortisones or equivalents (relative risk, 0.83, 95% credible interval, 0.64-0.98), and the appropriate therapeutic duration was 4-7 days (relative risk, 0.78; 95% credible interval, 0.57-0.96). Conclusions:This study provided moderate evidence that the dosage of 200-400?mg per day of hydrocortisone or equivalent for 4-7 days was most likely to benefit septic patients.