Dataset Information

Effectiveness of anisodamine for the treatment of critically ill patients with septic shock: a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Septic shock is characterized by an uncontrolled inflammatory response and microcirculatory dysfunction. There is currently no specific agent for treating septic shock. Anisodamine is an agent extracted from traditional Chinese medicine with potent anti-inflammatory effects. However, its clinical effectiveness remains largely unknown.

Methods

In a multicentre, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with septic shock to receive either usual care or anisodamine (0.1-0.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per hour), with the anisodamine doses adjusted by clinicians in accordance with the patients' shock status. The primary end point was death on hospital discharge. The secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, vasopressor-free days at 28 days, serum lactate and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score from days 0 to 6. The differences in the primary and secondary outcomes were compared between the treatment and usual care groups with the χ² test, Student's t test or rank-sum test, as appropriate. The false discovery rate was controlled for multiple testing.

Results

Of the 469 patients screened, 355 were assigned to receive the trial drug and were included in the analyses-181 patients received anisodamine, and 174 were in the usual care group. We found no difference between the usual care and anisodamine groups in hospital mortality (36% vs. 30%; p = 0.348), or ventilator-free days (median [Q1, Q3], 24.4 [5.9, 28] vs. 26.0 [8.5, 28]; p = 0.411). The serum lactate levels were significantly lower in the treated group than in the usual care group after day 3. Patients in the treated group were less likely to receive vasopressors than those in the usual care group (OR [95% CI] 0.84 [0.50, 0.93] for day 5 and 0.66 [0.37, 0.95] for day 6).

Conclusions

There is no evidence that anisodamine can reduce hospital mortality among critically ill adults with septic shock treated in the intensive care unit. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02442440 ; Registered on 13 April 2015).

SUBMITTER: Yu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8474812 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAppropriate antimicrobial dosing is challenging because of changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters and an increase in multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms in critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an empirical therapy of high-dose versus standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients.MethodsWe performed a prospective randomized open-label study to compare the changes of modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA) score and other clinical outcomes of the high-dose meropenem (2-g infusion over 3 h every 8 h) versus the standard-dose meropenem (1-g infusion over 3 h every 8 h) in sepsis and septic shock patients. Patients' characteristics, clinical and microbiological outcomes, 14 and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital-free days, percent of the time of antibiotic concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (%T>MIC), and safety were assessed.ResultsSeventy-eight patients were enrolled. Median delta mSOFA was comparable between two groups (- 1 in the high-dose group vs. - 1 in the standard-dose group; P value = 0.75). There was no difference between the two groups regarding clinical and microbiological cure, 14- and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, and ICU- and hospital-free days. In patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) with a mSOFA score ≥ 7, the high-dose group demonstrated significantly better microbiological cure compared with the standard-dose group (75% (9/12 patients) vs. 20% (2/10 patients); P value = 0.03). Likewise, the high-dose group presented higher microbiological cure rate in patients admitted from ED who had either APACHE II score > 20 (83.3% (10/12) vs. 28.6% (2/7); P value = 0.045) or on mechanical ventilator (87.5% (7/8) vs. 23.1% (3/13); P value = 0.008) than the standard-dose group. Adverse events were comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsEmpirical therapy with the high-dose meropenem presented comparable clinical outcomes to the standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients. Besides, subgroup analysis manifested superior microbiological cure rate in sepsis or septic shock patients admitted from ED.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03344627, registered on November 17, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundAlbumin is a key regulator of fluid distribution within the extracellular space and has several properties beyond its oncotic activity. The accumulating evidence suggests that supplementation of albumin may provide survival advantages only when the insult is severe as in patients with septic shock.Methods/designThe randomized controlled multicentre study of albumin replacement therapy in septic shock (ARISS) investigates whether the replacement with albumin and the maintenance of its serum levels of at least 30 g/l for 28 days improve survival in patients with septic shock compared to resuscitation and volume maintenance without albumin. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with septic shock are randomly assigned within a maximum of 24 h after the onset of septic shock after obtaining informed consents to treatment or control groups. Patients assigned to the treatment group receive a 60-g loading dose of human albumin 20% over 2-3 h. Serum albumin levels are maintained at least at 30 g/l in the ICU for a maximum of 28 days following randomization using 40-80 g human albumin 20% infusion. The control group is treated according to the usual practice with crystalloids as the first choice for the resuscitation and maintenance phase of septic shock. The primary endpoint is 90 days mortality and secondary endpoints include 28-day, 60-day, ICU, and in-hospital mortality, organ dysfunction/failure, total amount of fluid administration and total fluid balance in the ICU, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay. In total, 1412 patients need to be analysed, 706 per group. For the sample size estimation, a 15% reduction in 90-day mortality is assumed, i.e. an absolute reduction of 7.5% points to 42.5% (relative risk 1.18). Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 1662 patients need to be allocated.DiscussionThe results of the clinical trial may influence the treatment of patients with septic shock. The expected improvement in patient survival may result in a reduction in the resources currently used in the treatment of these patients and in the socioeconomic burden of this disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03869385 . Registration on 18 July 2019. Protocol version: Final 3.0.

Project description:BackgroundSeptic shock is a low-frequency but high-stakes condition in children requiring prompt resuscitation, which makes it an important target for simulation-based education.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to design and implement an augmented reality app (PediSepsisAR) for septic shock simulation, test the feasibility of measuring the timing and volume of fluid administration during septic shock simulation with and without PediSepsisAR, and describe PediSepsisAR as an educational tool. We hypothesized that we could feasibly measure our desired data during the simulation in 90% of the participants in each group. With regard to using PediSepsisAR as an educational tool, we hypothesized that the PediSepsisAR group would report that it enhanced their awareness of simulated patient blood flow and would more rapidly verbalize recognition of abnormal patient status and desired management steps.MethodsWe performed a randomized controlled feasibility trial with a convenience sample of pediatric care providers at a large tertiary care pediatric center. Participants completed a prestudy questionnaire and were randomized to either the PediSepsisAR or control (traditional simulation) arms. We measured the participants' time to administer 20, 40, and 60 cc/kg of intravenous fluids during a septic shock simulation using each modality. In addition, facilitators timed how long participants took to verbalize they had recognized tachycardia, hypotension, or septic shock and desired to initiate the sepsis pathway and administer antibiotics. Participants in the PediSepsisAR arm completed a poststudy questionnaire. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare the median time with event variables between groups.ResultsWe enrolled 50 participants (n=25 in each arm). The timing and volume of fluid administration were captured in all the participants in each group. There was no statistically significant difference regarding time to administration of intravenous fluids between the two groups. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding time to verbalized recognition of patient status or desired management steps. Most participants in the PediSepsisAR group reported that PediSepsisAR enhanced their awareness of the patient's perfusion.ConclusionsWe developed an augmented reality app for use in pediatric septic shock simulations and demonstrated the feasibility of measuring the volume and timing of fluid administration during simulation using this modality. In addition, our findings suggest that PediSepsisAR may enhance participants' awareness of abnormal perfusion.