PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gordon Bernard

Publications and source records attributed to Gordon Bernard.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

Controversies in sepsis clinical trials: proceedings of a meeting of the International Sepsis Forum, Lausanne, Switzerland, September 29, 2001.

Despite some recent success with clinical trials studying innovative therapies in sepsis, the field remains predominantly one of failure despite compounds with significant preclinical activity. Preclinical animal experimentation remains an important component of drug development, and a portfolio approach is recommended. Failure in animals is more likely to predict failure in humans; however, success in animals often does not predict success in humans. Because the signal with innovative therapy of sepsis is likely to be low, an oncology model clinical trial approach, in which studies start with a high-risk homogeneous population and look for a large treatment effect with smaller numbers of patients, is likely to be more relevant than the commonly used cardiology model, in which studies search for a small treatment effect using large, heterogeneous, low-risk populations. With certain rules in place, improvement in organ function may be a worthwhile alternative to mortality as a clinical end point. Once a therapy is approved, adopting less stringent but still appropriate criteria for the use of that therapy in clinical practice may be appropriate.

Animals↗

Outcome measures for clinical research in sepsis: a report of the 2nd Cambridge Colloquium of the International Sepsis Forum.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for patients admitted to an intensive care unit. The evaluation of new therapies has been hampered by the underdevelopment of outcome measures used to detect biological activity and patient-centered benefit in a complex and highly heterogeneous patient population. We sought to evaluate existing approaches and to draw on insights from other disciplines to propose a comprehensive approach to outcome evaluation in sepsis clinical trials. METHODS: An expert colloquium organized by the International Sepsis Forum brought together sepsis researchers, clinical epidemiologists, and experts in the development and implementation of outcome measures in rheumatology, neurology, and oncology. RESULTS: The translation of an evolving understanding of the biology of sepsis into effective new therapies for critically ill patients requires a reevaluation of the end points used to determine response to intervention. These represent a continuum that measures biological activity against the target at one end and sustained improvement in survival or quality of life at the other. Early phase research should determine whether an intervention works in vivo, using measures that are responsive and informative to provide proof of principle, to aid in selecting optimal patient populations for study, and to gain insights into optimal dose and duration of therapy. After in vivo biology has been demonstrated and the possibility of efficacy inferred by plausible improvements in surrogate physiologic measures, definitive studies should seek robust evidence of benefit using end points that measure important, patient-centered benefit, including intermediate and longer term survival and health-related quality of life. Nonmortal measures of benefit assume particular importance for populations, such as children, whose mortality risk is low, or who have significant rates of comorbidities that independently limit survival. Composite measures that integrate morbidity and mortality effects may provide the most meaningful information about therapeutic efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The development of explicit, hypothesis-driven, and iterative approaches to outcome measure development, patterned on approaches used in the fields of rheumatology and oncology, may improve the conduct of clinical studies in the critically ill.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Neutrophil elastase inhibition in acute lung injury: results of the STRIVE study.

OBJECTIVE: Neutrophil elastase is believed to be an important mediator of acute lung injury. Sivelestat (ONO-5046, Elaspol) is a small molecular weight inhibitor of neutrophil elastase. The primary objectives of this study were to determine whether sivelestat would reduce 28-day all-cause mortality or increase the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free from mechanical ventilation from day 1 to day 28) compared with placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury. DESIGN: Multiple-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial administering a continuous infusion of sivelestat at a dose of 0.16 mg.kg(-1)hr(-1). SETTING: One hundred and five institutions in the United States, Canada, Belgium, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand. PATIENTS: A total of 492 mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to sivelestat or placebo. Study drug was administered as a continuous infusion for the duration of mechanical ventilation plus 24 hrs for a maximum of 14 days. All patients were managed using low tidal volume mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of an external Data and Safety Monitoring Board, which noted a negative trend in long-term mortality rate. Final analysis revealed no effect of sivelestat on the primary end points of ventilator-free days (day 1-day 28) or 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 64 deaths in each treatment group within the 28-day study period, and the mean number of ventilator-free days was 11.4 and 11.9 in the sivelestat and placebo treatment groups, respectively (p =.536). There was no evidence of effect on measures of pulmonary function, including Pao2/Fio2, static lung compliance, and time to meeting weaning criteria. There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events between treatment groups. A comparison of the Kaplan-Meier 180-day survival curves showed no difference between treatment groups (p =.102), but there was an increase in 180-day all-cause mortality in the sivelestat treatment group compared with the placebo group (p =.006). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous sivelestat had no effect on 28-day all-cause mortality or ventilator-free days in a heterogeneous acute lung injury patient population managed with low tidal volume mechanical ventilation.

Australia↗

Cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in the treatment of severe sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) therapy, which was recently shown to reduce mortality in severe sepsis. DESIGN: Estimates of effectiveness and resource use were based on data collected prospectively as part of a multicenter international trial. Estimates of hospital costs were based on a subset of the patients treated in the United States (33% of all enrolled patients). Lifetime projections were modeled from published sources and tested in sensitivity analyses. Analyses were conducted from the United States societal perspective, limited to healthcare costs, and using a 3% annual discount rate. SETTING: A total of 164 medical institutions in 11 countries. PATIENTS: Adults > or = 18 yrs of age with severe sepsis INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive a 96-hr intravenous infusion of drotrecogin alfa (activated) at 24 microg/kg/hr (n = 850) or placebo (n = 840). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Base Case: incremental short-term (days 1-28) healthcare costs per day-28 survivor; Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Reference Case: incremental lifetime healthcare costs per quality-adjusted life-year. Over the first 28 days (short-term Base Case), drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased the costs of care by $9,800 and survival by 0.061 lives saved per treated patient. Thus, drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost $160,000 per life saved (with 84.7% probability that ratio is <$250,000 per life saved). Projected to lifetime (lifetime Reference Case), drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased the costs of care by $16,000 and quality-adjusted survival by 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years per treated patient. Thus, drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost $48,800 per quality-adjusted life-year (with 82% probability that ratio is <$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). Estimates were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, although cost-effectiveness deteriorated to >$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year if survivors lived <4.6 yrs on average. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost $27,400 per quality-adjusted life-year when limited to patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > or = 25 and was cost-ineffective when limited to patients with a score <25. CONCLUSIONS: Drotrecogin alfa has a cost-effectiveness profile similar to that of many well-accepted healthcare strategies and below commonly quoted thresholds.

Adult↗

Reducing mortality in sepsis: new directions.

Considerable progress has been made in the past few years in the development of therapeutic interventions that can reduce mortality in sepsis. However, encouraging physicians to put the results of new studies into practice is not always simple. A roundtable was thus convened to provide guidance for clinicians on the integration and implementation of new interventions into the intensive care unit (ICU). Five topics were selected that have been shown in randomized, controlled trials to reduce mortality: limiting the tidal volume in acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome, early goal-directed therapy, use of drotrecogin alfa (activated), use of moderate doses of steroids, and tight control of blood sugar. One of the principal investigators for each study was invited to participate in the roundtable. The discussions and questions that followed the presentation of data by each panel member enabled a consensus recommendation to be derived regarding when each intervention should be used. Each new intervention has a place in the management of patients with sepsis. Furthermore, and importantly, the therapies are not mutually exclusive; many patients will need a combination of several approaches--an "ICU package". The present article provides guidelines from experts in the field on optimal patient selection and timing for each intervention, and provides advice on how to integrate new therapies into ICU practice, including protocol development, so that mortality rates from this disease process can be reduced.

Animals↗

The International Sepsis Forum's controversies in sepsis: corticosteroids should not be routinely used to treat septic shock.

Corticosteroid treatment of severe sepsis has been one of the most controversial clinical issues in critical care. In fact, few agents can claim to have been evaluated in scores of studies spanning 3-4 decades. Yet, convincing proof that corticosteroids are useful pharmacologic agents in the treatment of this major clinical problem remains elusive. Recently, interest has resurfaced but this time the focus is on a steroid replacement approach for what has now been termed "relative adrenal insufficiency" rather than relying on the pharmacologic effects of steroids. This route holds promise, but proof remains lacking.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗

Severe sepsis.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anti-Infective Agents↗