OBJECTIVES: We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on the association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search criteria was performed using a predefined protocol.
STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria: adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, reported time to antibiotic administration in relation to emergency department triage and/or shock recognition, and mortality.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: immunosuppressed populations, review article, editorial, or nonhuman studies.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers screened abstracts with a third reviewer arbitrating. The effect of time to antibiotic administration on mortality was based on current guideline recommendations: 1) administration within 3 hours of emergency department triage and 2) administration within 1 hour of severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Odds ratios were calculated using a random effect model. The primary outcome was mortality.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 1,123 publications were identified and 11 were included in the analysis. Among the 11 included studies, 16,178 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from emergency department triage. Patients who received antibiotics more than 3 hours after emergency department triage (< 3 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.16 (0.92-1.46; p = 0.21). A total of 11,017 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Patients who received antibiotics more than 1 hour after severe sepsis/shock recognition (< 1 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.46 (0.89-2.40; p = 0.13). There was no increased mortality in the pooled odds ratios for each hourly delay from less than 1 to more than 5 hours in antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/shock recognition.
CONCLUSION: Using the available pooled data, we found no significant mortality benefit of administering antibiotics within 3 hours of emergency department triage or within 1 hour of shock recognition in severe sepsis and septic shock. These results suggest that currently recommended timing metrics as measures of quality of care are not supported by the available evidence.
INTRODUCTION: There are approximately 19 million new cases of sepsis worldwide each year. Among them, more than one quarter of patients die. We aimed to assess the effects of heparin on short-term mortality in adult patients with sepsis and severe sepsis.
METHODS: We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) and conference proceedings (Web of Knowledge (Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Sciences & Humanities)) from inception to July 2014, expert contacts and relevant websites. Controlled trials of heparin versus placebo in sepsis or severe sepsis were identified. In total two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, and four authors independently extracted data; consensus was reached by conference. We used the chi-square test and I2 to assess statistical heterogeneity (P <0.05). The primary analysis was based on the fixed-effect model to produce pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: A total of nine publications were included in the meta-analysis. Heparin decreased 28-day mortality (n = 3,482, OR = 0.656, 95% CI = 0.562 to 0.765, P <0.0001). According to the meta-analysis of 28-day mortality, heterogeneity was not found among the eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (I2 = 0.0%). Heparin had no effect on bleeding events in sepsis (seven RCTs, n = 2,726; OR = 1.063; 95% CI = 0.834 to 1.355; P = 0.623; and I2 = 20.9%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the sample size may be a source of heterogeneity, but experimental design was not.
CONCLUSIONS: Heparin may reduce 28-day mortality in patients with severe sepsis, at the same time, there was no increase in the risk of bleeding in the heparin group. We recommend the use of heparin for sepsis and severe sepsis.
BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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%, χ2 P-value 0.043) is no longer present with exclusion of the post-study amendment portion of PROWESS (I2 value of 0%, χ2 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a common and frequently fatal condition. Human recombinant activated protein C (APC) has been introduced to reduce the high risk of death associated with severe sepsis or septic shock. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the benefits and harms of APC for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE (2010 to June 2012); EMBASE (2010 to June 2012); BIOSIS (1965 to June 2012); CINAHL (1982 to June 2012) and LILACS (1982 to June 2012). There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of APC for severe sepsis or septic shock in adults and children. We excluded studies on neonates. We considered all-cause mortality at day 28 and at the end of study follow up, and hospital mortality as the primary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently performed trial selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We used a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new randomized clinical trial in this update which includes six randomized clinical trials involving 6781 participants in total, five randomized clinical trials in adult (N = 6307) and one randomized clinical trial in paediatric (N = 474) participants. All trials had high risk of bias and were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. APC compared with placebo did not significantly affect all-cause mortality at day 28 compared with placebo (780/3435 (22.7%) versus 767/3346 (22.9%); RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.16; I2 = 56%). APC did not significantly affect in-hospital mortality (393/1767 (22.2%) versus 379/1710 (22.1%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.16; I2 = 20%). APC was associated with an increased risk of serious bleeding (113/3424 (3.3%) versus 74/3343 (2.2%); RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.94; I2 = 0%). APC did not significantly affect serious adverse events (463/3334 (13.9%) versus 439/3302 (13.2%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; I2 = 0%). Trial sequential analyses showed that more trials do not seem to be needed for reliable conclusions regarding these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review found no evidence suggesting that APC should be used for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC seems to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding. The drug company behind APC, Eli Lilly, has announced the discontinuation of all ongoing clinical trials using this drug for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC should not be used for sepsis or septic shock outside randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) was approved for use in severe sepsis in 2001 on the basis of the Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) trial, but controversies about its effectiveness remain. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of use of this drug in the past 10 years and compare them with the original PROWESS results.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Evidence-Based Medicine, and the American College of Physicians Journal Club databases for experimental and analytical studies of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with severe sepsis until Jan 31, 2012. We calculated adjusted risk ratios for effectiveness and safety outcomes with random-effects models. We did a metaregression to assess the effect of severity of illness on the risk of death and the risk of bleeding associated with drotrecogin alfa (activated).
FINDINGS: We included nine controlled trials (41,401 patients) and 16 single-group studies (5822 patients) in effectiveness analyses and 20 studies (8245 patients) in safety analyses. Hospital mortality was reduced by 18% with drotrecogin alfa (activated) compared with controls (relative risk 0·822, 95% CI 0·779-0·867; p<0·0001; I(2)=40%). This mortality reduction was much the same as was noted in PROWESS (0·851, 0·740-0·979), but smaller than that of patients in PROWESS with high disease severity (0·708, 0·590-0·849). Propensity-adjusted studies also showed a significant mortality reduction with lower heterogeneity (0·844, 0·800-0·891; p<0·0001, I(2)=18%). These findings were not changed by the addition of PROWESS-SHOCK results. Metaregression showed greater benefits of drotrecogin alfa (activated) with increasing control mortality (p=0·01) and more severe disease (p=0·04). Hospital mortality for single-group studies of drotrecogin alfa (activated) was 41% (95% CI 35-48), and was higher than that noted in PROWESS at 31% (27-36; p<0·0001). The serious bleeding rate with drotrecogin alfa (activated) was 5·6% (4·5-6·9), which was higher than the 3·5% (2·5-5·0) noted in PROWESS (p=0·003), but similar to that reported in PROWESS high disease severity (p=0·073).
INTERPRETATION: Real-life use of drotrecrogin alfa (activated) was associated with significant reduction in hospital mortality and increased rates of bleeding in patients with severe sepsis. Our effectiveness findings were in line with the PROWESS trial but not with the PROWESS-SHOCK trial.
FUNDING: None.
OBJECTIVES: To better understand the effects of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) in severe sepsis patients, and the natural progression of severe sepsis, by creating a database of severe sepsis patients using the appropriate statistical analysis methods to integrate data from various trials.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient-level data from five severe sepsis trials, conducted by the same sponsor (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA), were combined in an integrated database. Patients from various studies were included and received either DrotAA at 24 microg/kg/h for 96 hours (n = 3228) or placebo (n = 1231), in addition to standard supportive care. The following adjustments to the analyses were made to allow for the combined, and thus non-randomized, nature of the data: (1) differences in observed outcomes between studies were investigated to assess the extent of study-to-study variation before combining study-level data across trials for statistical analysis; (2) random study effects were included in models for patient-level data to capture potential extraneous study-to-study variation; and (3) propensity scores were computed and included as covariates in models for patient-level data to adjust for the nonrandomized nature of the data.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar across the studies, supporting the combination of study-level data across trials. Comparing aggregate event rates between the two treatment arms yielded a relative risk for mortality (DrotAA versus placebo) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.88), p < 0.0001. For patient-level analyses, after adjustment for 13 independent variables and random study effects, the odds ratio for mortality in the DrotAA versus placebo patients was 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.86), p = 0.0003. With adjustment for 13 independent variables and propensity score, the odds ratio was 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.93), p = 0.006. Limitations of this integrated database include the modest total number of the trials in the database and the fact that only one component trial in the database contributed data from both placebo and DrotAA-treated patients.
SUMMARY: A robust severe sepsis database was developed which will be suitable for future studies on the progression of severe sepsis and the mechanism of action of DrotAA. Initial analysis of data from INDEPTH provides additional evidence that treatment of severe sepsis patients with DrotAA is associated with a sustained survival advantage throughout 28-day follow-up.
