Becky Bates

Severe community-acquired pneumonia as a cause of severe sepsis: data from the PROWESS study.

Objective:To investigate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) as a cause of severe sepsis in the PROWESS (Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) trial and to evaluate the effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) in this subgroup. Design:Retrospective analysis of the severe CAP subgroup in the PROWESS trial. Setting:Tertiary care institutions in 11 countries. Interventions:DrotAA (n = 850), 24 &mgr;g·kg−1·hr−1 for 96 hrs, or placebo (n = 840). Participants:The 1,690 patients with severe sepsis enrolled in the PROWESS trial. Measurements and Main Results:Patients were classified as having CAP if lung was the primary site of infection and if they were enrolled directly from home (private residence) with ≤4 days in the hospital before receipt of study drug in the PROWESS trial. Survival at 28 days, hospital discharge, and 90 days was compared in DrotAA and placebo groups in the CAP subgroup of PROWESS and CAP subgroups based on disease severity. Of the 1,690 PROWESS patients, 35.6% (DrotAA, n = 324; placebo, n = 278) were classified as severe CAP. Of these severe CAP patients, 26.1% had Streptococcus pneumoniae infections. Within CAP, 79.1% were enrolled by the end of the second calendar day in the hospital, and approximately 90% of CAP patients were at high risk of death according to the Pneumonia Severity Index category. Based on their dependence on vasopressors, 59% of CAP patients were judged at high risk of death. Biomarkers of coagulation and inflammation were markedly abnormal in severe CAP patients. In severe CAP patients treated with DrotAA, a relative risk reduction in mortality of 28% was observed at 28 days, with a relative risk reduction in mortality of 14% observed at 90 days from the start of study drug infusion. The survival benefit was most pronounced in severe CAP patients with S. pneumoniae and in severe CAP patients at high risk of death as indicated by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of ≥25, Pneumonia Severity Index score of ≥4, or CURB-65 (confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, age) score of ≥3. Conclusions:CAP associated with a high Pneumonia Severity Index score, bacteremia, or an intense coagulation and inflammatory response requiring intensive care unit care were indicators of a high risk of death from severe sepsis. In patients with severe sepsis resulting from CAP, a readily identifiable disease, DrotAA, improved survival compared with placebo.

The clinical evaluation committee in a large multicenter phase 3 trial of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in patients with severe sepsis (PROWESS): role, methodology, and results.

ObjectiveIn the multinational PROWESS trial, drotrecogin alfa (activated) significantly reduced mortality rate in patients with severe sepsis compared with placebo. The use of large multiple-center trials can potentially complicate interpretation of results in severe sepsis populations because of variability in medical attitudes and practices and the frequency of confounding events such as protocol violations. The objective of this study was to perform a blinded, critical, integrated review of data from the 1,690 severe sepsis patients from 164 medical centers enrolled in the PROWESS trial using a Clinical Evaluation Committee. DesignBlinded, critical, integrated review of data. SettingParticipating sites. PatientsThe 1,690 severe sepsis patients from 164 medical centers enrolled in the PROWESS trial. InterventionsWe performed analyses of the optimal cohort, defined as patients who had full compliance with the protocol, had evidence of an infection, and received adequate anti-infective therapy. We also performed other analyses, including significant underlying disorders, life support measures, and causes of death. Measurements and Main ResultsThe optimal cohort of 81.4% of the intention-to-treat population [drotrecogin alfa (activated), n = 695; placebo, n = 680] had similar baseline severity of illness between the two groups, a similar pharmacodynamic effect, and a relative risk of death estimate consistent with that observed in the overall PROWESS trial (0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.99 vs. 0.806, 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.94). A beneficial effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) similarly was observed in patients with significant underlying disorders (0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57–0.93) who were more severely ill and had a higher percentage of patients forgoing life-sustaining therapy. In contrast with the original investigator determinations, a benefit associated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment in urinary tract infection adjudicated by the Clinical Evaluation Committee was observed. ConclusionsThe survival benefit associated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) use was consistent with the results of the overall trial regardless of whether patients met criteria of the optimal cohort or had a significant underlying disorder.

Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) Treatment of Older Patients with Severe Sepsis

The incidence of severe sepsis increases dramatically with advanced age, with a mortality rate that approaches 50%. The main purpose of this investigation was to determine both short- and long-term survival outcomes among 386 patients aged >or=75 years who were enrolled in the Protein C Worldwide Evaluation of Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) trial. Subjects who were treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated; DAA) had absolute risk reductions in 28-day and in-hospital mortality of 15.5% and 15.6%, respectively (P=.002 for both), compared with placebo recipients. The relative risk (RR) for 28-day mortality was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.87), and the in-hospital RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56-0.88). Resource use and patient disposition for DAA-treated patients compared favorably with those for placebo recipients. In addition, long-term follow-up data were available for 375 subjects (97.2%), and survival rates for DAA recipients were significantly higher over a 2-year period (P=.02). The incidences of serious adverse bleeding during the 28-day study period in the DAA and placebo groups were 3.9% and 2.2%, respectively (P=.34). There was no interaction between age and bleeding rates (P=.97). In conclusion, older patients with severe sepsis have higher short- and long-term survival rates when treated with DAA than when treated with placebo but an increased risk of serious bleeding that is not aged related.

A retrospective observational study of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with severe sepsis: comparison with a controlled clinical trial.

Objective:To compare characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) in clinical practice to those treated in a phase III randomized controlled trial (PROWESS). Design:Observational data were collected retrospectively from patients who received DrotAA as part of physician-directed treatment. Setting:Intensive care units of five teaching institutions. Patients:Patients were ≥18 yrs old, had severe sepsis (confirmed/suspected infection with one or more sepsis-induced organ dysfunctions), and received DrotAA. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:Baseline demographics, severity of illness, time from organ dysfunction onset to DrotAA treatment, daily assessment of organ dysfunction, serious bleeding events, and in-hospital mortality were reported. Timing from severe sepsis documentation to start of DrotAA infusion was categorized: day 0 (same calendar day); day 1 (next calendar day); and day ≥2 (second calendar day or later). Clinical practice patients (n = 274) were younger, had more comorbidities, had higher severity of illness (as measured by organ dysfunction or greater vasopressor/ventilator use), and received DrotAA later than PROWESS patients (all p < .05). Overall hospital mortality for clinical practice patients was 42%, compared with 37% for DrotAA-treated PROWESS patients with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥25. Mortality for day 0, day 1, and day ≥2 groups was 33%, 40%, and 52%, respectively. In PROWESS, the vast majority were treated on day 0 or day 1. Serious bleeding events during infusion were noted in 4.0% of clinical practice patients compared with 2.2% of PROWESS DrotAA-treated patients with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥25. Conclusions:Patients treated in clinical practice differed from those in PROWESS. Patients were younger, had more comorbidities, had greater severity of illness, and had longer mean time from severe sepsis onset to the start of DrotAA. Hospital mortality for patients treated within 1 day of severe sepsis onset was similar to DrotAA-treated PROWESS patients. While the low number of serious bleeding events precludes a definitive assessment, the observed incidence of serious bleeding events in clinical practice patients was numerically higher than in DrotAA-treated PROWESS patients.

CURB-65, PSI, and APACHE II to assess mortality risk in patients with severe sepsis and community acquired pneumonia in PROWESS.

Background: Patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) comprised 35.6% of the overall phase 3 Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study and 33.1% of the placebo arm. We investigated the use of CURB-65, the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) prediction scores to identify the CAP population from the PROWESS placebo arm at the greatest mortality risk. Methods: Patients were classified as having CAP if the lung was the primary infection site and the patient originated from home. The abilities of CURB-65, PSI, and APACHE II scores to determine the 28-day and in-hospital mortality were compared using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and the associated areas under the curve. Results: PROWESS enrolled 278 patients with CAP in the placebo arm. The areas under the ROC curves for PSI = 5, CURB-65 ≥3, and APACHE II ≥25 for predicting 28-day (c = 0.65, 0.66, and 0.64, respectively) and in-hospital mortality (c = 0.65, 0.65, and 0.64, respectively) were not statistically different from each other. The 28-day mortality of patients with a PSI score of 5, CURB-65 ≥3, and APACHE II ≥25 was 41.6%, 37.9%, and 43.5%, respectively. Conclusions: Despite early diagnosis and appropriate antibiotic therapy, conventionally treated CAP with PSI = 5, CURB-65 ≥3, or APACHE II ≥25 has an unacceptably high mortality. In this study, PSI, CURB-65, and APACHE II scoring systems perform similarly in predicting the 28-day and in-hospital mortality; however, differences in the categorization of severe CAP were observed and there was a significant mortality in patients with a CURB-65 <3 and PSI <5.

Application of a population-based severity scoring system to individual patients results in frequent misclassification

IntroductionAPACHE II (AP2) was developed to allow a systematic examination of intensive care unit outcomes in a risk adjusted manner. AP2 has been widely adopted in clinical trials to assure broad consistency amongst different groups. Although errors in calculating the true AP2 score may not be reducible below 15%, the self-canceling effect of random errors reduces the importance of such errors when applied to large populations. It has been suggested that a threshold AP2 score be used in clinical decision making for individual patients. This study reports the AP2 scoring errors of researchers involved in a large sepsis trial and models the consequences of such an error rate for individual severe sepsis patients.MethodsFifty-six researchers with explicit training in data abstraction and completion of the AP2 score received scenarios consisting of composites of real patient histories. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each scenario. The standard deviations were calculated compared with an adjudicated score. Intraclass correlations for inter-observer reliability were performed using Shrout-Fleiss methodology. Theoretical distribution curves were calculated for a broad range of AP2 scores using standard deviations of 6, 9 and 12. For each curve, the misclassification rate was determined using an AP2 score cut-off of ≥25. The percentage of misclassifications for each true AP2 score was then applied to the corresponding AP2 score obtained from the PROGRESS severe sepsis registry.ResultsThe error rate for the total AP2 score was 86% (individual variables were in the range 10% to 87%). Intraclass correlation for the inter-observer reliability was 0.51. Of the patients from the PROGRESS registry. 50% had AP2 scores in the range 17 to 28. Within this interquartile range, 70% to 85% of all misclassified patients would reside.ConclusionIt is more likely that an individual patient will be scored incorrectly than correctly. The data obtained from the scenarios indicated that as the true AP2 score approached an arbitrary cut-off point of 25, the observed misclassification rate increased. Integrating our study of AP2 score errors with the published literature leads us to conclude that the AP2 is an inappropriate sole tool for resource allocation decisions for individual patients.

Steroid use in PROWESS severe sepsis patients treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated)

IntroductionIn a study conducted by Annane, patients with septic shock and unresponsive to adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation receiving low-dose steroid therapy had prolonged survival but not significantly improved 28-day mortality. The present study examines intravenous steroid use in PROWESS (Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) patients meeting the Annane enrollment criteria (AEC).MethodsAdrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation tests were not done in PROWESS. Steroids were allowed but their use was not directed. Patients were identified using AEC (all of: randomization to study drug treatment within 8 hours of shock onset; infection, fever, or hypothermia; tachycardia; systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg on vasopressors; mechanical ventilation; and one of urine <0.5 ml/kg per hour, lactic acidosis, or arterial oxygen tension/inspired fractional oxygen <280). We examined steroid use and mortality data; additional analyses were done outside the 8-hour window.ResultsSteroid-treated patients were older, had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores and more organ dysfunctions, and were more commonly receiving mechanical ventilation. Among patients meeting AEC, regardless of steroid treatment (n = 97), mortality in the placebo and drotrecogin alfa (activated) groups was 38% (19/50) and 28% (13/47), respectively (relative risk [RR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–1.30). When using AEC but excluding the requirement for randomization within 8 hours of shock onset (n = 612), placebo mortality was 38% (118/313) and drotrecogin alfa (activated) mortality was 29% (88/299; RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62–0.98). Using AEC but excluding the 8-hour window and with steroids initiated at baseline and/or infusion (n = 228) resulted in mortality for placebo and drotrecogin alfa (activated) groups of 43% (51/118) and 33% (36/110), respectively (RR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.54–1.06).ConclusionPatients with severe sepsis from the PROWESS trial who were likely to respond to low-dose steroids according to the AEC were those patients at a high risk for death. However, when using the AEC, regardless of steroid use, patients exhibited a survival benefit from treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated).