Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Dove Medical Press full text link Dove Medical Press Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

doi: 10.2147/btt.2009.3547. Epub 2009 Sep 15.

Growing insights into the potential benefits and risks of activated protein C administration in sepsis: a review of preclinical and clinical studies

Affiliations

Growing insights into the potential benefits and risks of activated protein C administration in sepsis: a review of preclinical and clinical studies

Laith Altaweel et al. Biologics.2009.

Abstract

Recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) was developed to reduce excessive coagulant and inflammatory activity during sepsis. Basic and clinical research has suggested these pathways contribute to the pathogenesis of this lethal syndrome and are inhibited by rhAPC. Based in large part on the results of a single multicenter randomized controlled trial, rhAPC was first approved in 2001 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as adjunctive therapy in septic patients with a high risk of death. This was followed closely by approval in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. At the original FDA review of rhAPC, concerns were raised as to whether a confirmatory trial should be done before final regulatory approval because of concerns that rhAPCs bleeding risk might outweigh its potential benefit during clinical use. Since 2001, continuing basic and clinical research has further elucidated the complex role activated protein C may have in both adaptive and maladaptive responses during sepsis. Moreover, subsequent controlled trials in other types of septic patients and observational studies appear to support earlier concerns that the benefit-to-risk ratio of rhAPC may not support its clinical use. This experience has prompted additional trials presently underway, to define whether treatment with rhAPC as it was originally indicated in septic patients with persistent shock, is safe and effective. Until such trials are complete, physicians employing this agent must carefully consider which patients may be appropriate candidates for rhAPC administration.

Keywords: rhAPC; sepsis; treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The effect of recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) on the odds ratio of survival in controlled trials comparing this agent to placebo. Patients are stratified into subgroups with acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II scores (APACHE II) ≥ or<25 where data were available since this score was employed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its approval of rhAPC. Notably, over the more than 5000 patients studied, the only subgroup showing benefit was the 421 patients with APACHE II ≥ 25 receiving rhAPC in the original PROWESS trial.Notes:aPhase II study results from the subgroup of patients testing a 96-hr infusion of rhAPC (24 mg/kg/hr), the regimen employed in later control trials and approved by the FDA.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of mortality rates and the average APACHE II score in the subgroup of patients receiving rhAPC with APACHE II scores ≥ 25 from the PROWESS trial to mortality rates and average APACHE II scores in patients receiving rhAPC in subsequent uncontrolled trials. Mortality rates at 28 days are shown in the upper panelA) and at hospital or intensive care unit discharge or 90 days in the lower panelB). results from the subgroup of patients shown from the PROWESS trial provided the basis for approval of rhAPC. in almost all uncontrolled studies, mortality rates have been higher and average APACHE II scores lower than in the subgroup in PROWESS with APACHE II ≥ 25.Notes:aNA, Not available;bICU mortality;cInterquartile range;d90-day mortality.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of mortality rates (28 day or hospital) in subgroups of patients receiving rhAPC stratified by number of injured organs in the original PROWESS trial and subsequent uncontrolled studies. in almost all cases, mortality rates have been higher in subgroups of patients with similar numbers of injured organ in later uncontrolled studies compared to PROWESS.Notes:a28-day mortality.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The effect of rhAPC on the odds ratio of a serious bleeding event or an intracerebral hemorrhage during drug infusion or over 28 days in controlled trials comparing this agent to placebo. Similar to PROWESS, in almost all cases, rhAPC was associated with a significant increase in the risk of hemorrhage or had an effect on the side of harm.Notes:aSBE, serious bleeding event;bDuring infusion of rhAPC or placebo;cDuring the 28-day study period;d ICH, intracerebral hemorrhage.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of the incidence of serious bleeding events (upper panel) and intracerebral hemorrhage (lower panel) during drug infusion or up until intensive care unit or hospital discharge in patients receiving rhAPC in PROWESS to those in subsequent uncontrolled trials. in almost all uncontrolled studies, these incidences were greater than in the PROWESS trial.Notes:aICU stay;bHospital stay.Abbreviation: ICU, intensive care unit; rhAPC, recombinant human activated protein C.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1303–1310. - PubMed
    1. Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults. A multicenter prospective study in intensive care units. French ICU Group for Severe Sepsis. JAMA. 1995;274(12):968–974. - PubMed
    1. Martin CM, Priestap F, Fisher H, et al. A prospective, observational registry of patients with severe sepsis: the Canadian Sepsis Treatment and Response Registry. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(1):81–88. - PubMed
    1. Salvo I, de Cian W, Musicco M, et al. The Italian SEPSIS study: preliminary results on the incidence and evolution of SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 1995;21(Suppl 2):S244–S249. - PubMed
    1. Hotchkiss RS, Karl IE. The pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(2):138–150. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Dove Medical Press full text link Dove Medical Press Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp