PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Rekha Garg

Publications and source records attributed to Rekha Garg.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Use of an integrated clinical trial database to evaluate the effect of timing of drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment in severe sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have indicated that early identification and treatment of patients with severe sepsis using standard supportive care improves outcomes. Earlier treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) may also improve outcomes in severe sepsis. Using a recently constructed integrated severe sepsis database, our objectives in this study were to describe the influence of baseline clinical characteristics on timing of DrotAA treatment in patients with severe sepsis, to evaluate the efficacy of DrotAA with respect to timing of administration, and to examine the association between early intervention with DrotAA and patient outcomes, using adjustments for imbalances. METHODS: The database comprises data from 4,459 patients with severe sepsis (DrotAA, n = 3,228; placebo, n = 1,231) included in five clinical trials conducted in tertiary care institutions in 28 countries. Placebo data came only from randomized trials, whereas data for the DrotAA group came from randomized (PROWESS) and open-label/observational (ENHANCE) trials. RESULTS: Increased time-to-treatment with DrotAA was significantly associated with more organ dysfunction, greater need of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, or recent surgery. Earlier treatment was associated with higher baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores. Adjusted and unadjusted survival analyses suggested that compared with placebo, DrotAA treatment provided a potential survival benefit, regardless of time to treatment. Survival curves of DrotAA patients treated early compared with those treated late began to separate at 14 days. By 28 days, patients treated earlier had higher survival than those treated later (76.4% versus 73.5%, p = 0.03). Sepsis-induced multiorgan dysfunction was the most common cause of death followed by refractory shock and respiratory failure. Modeling of the treatment effect, as a function of time to treatment, suggested increased benefit with earlier treatment. CONCLUSION: Using an integrated database of five severe sepsis trials and appropriate statistical adjustments to reduce sources of potential bias, earlier treatment with DrotAA seemed to be associated with a lower risk-adjusted mortality than later treatment. These data suggest that earlier treatment with DrotAA may provide most benefit for appropriate patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis and a low risk of death.

BACKGROUND: In November 2001, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) for adults who had severe sepsis and a high risk of death. The FDA required a study to evaluate the efficacy of DrotAA for adults who had severe sepsis and a low risk of death. METHODS: We randomly assigned adult patients with severe sepsis and a low risk of death (defined by an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE II] score <25 or single-organ failure) to receive an intravenous infusion of placebo or DrotAA (24 microg per kilogram of body weight per hour) for 96 hours in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. The prospectively defined primary end point was death from any cause and was assessed 28 days after the start of the infusion. In-hospital mortality within 90 days after the start of the infusion was measured, and safety information was collected. RESULTS: Enrollment in the trial was terminated early because of a low likelihood of meeting the prospectively defined objective of demonstrating a significant reduction in the 28-day mortality rate with the use of DrotAA. The study enrolled 2640 patients and collected data on 2613 (1297 in the placebo group and 1316 in the DrotAA group) at the 28-day follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences between the placebo group and the DrotAA group in 28-day mortality (17.0 percent in the placebo group vs. 18.5 percent in the DrotAA group; P=0.34; relative risk, 1.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.28) or in in-hospital mortality (20.5 percent vs. 20.6 percent; P=0.98; relative risk, 1.00; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.16). The rate of serious bleeding was greater in the DrotAA group than in the placebo group during both the infusion (2.4 percent vs. 1.2 percent, P=0.02) and the 28-day study period (3.9 percent vs. 2.2 percent, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a beneficial treatment effect, coupled with an increased incidence of serious bleeding complications, indicates that DrotAA should not be used in patients with severe sepsis who are at low risk for death, such as those with single-organ failure or an APACHE II score less than 25.

APACHE↗
PubMed2005

Lack of evidence for qualitative treatment by disease severity interactions in clinical studies of severe sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: The design of clinical trials of interventions aimed at reducing mortality in patients with severe sepsis assumes that the relative treatment effect of the intervention is independent of the patients' risk for death. We reviewed published data from phase III clinical studies of severe sepsis to determine whether a relationship exists between risk for death and the relative benefit of the investigational agent. Such an interaction might warrant a change in the assumptions that underlie current trial designs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock up to November 2004. All studies enrolled patients with known or suspected infection, evidence of a systemic response to the infection, and one or more organ dysfunctions resulting from the systemic response. RESULTS: Twenty-two publications, investigating 17 molecular entities, fulfilled criteria for phase III or equivalent studies aimed at reducing mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Three studies achieved the prospectively defined primary end-point of a statistically significant reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality. The control group mortality rates for these studies were 31%, 43% and 61%, indicating that the beneficial effects of adjunct therapies could be demonstrated over a wide range of illness severity. Analysis of subgroup data from failed studies provided no evidence that the efficacy of the therapeutics being investigated varied by baseline placebo mortality rates. Among all studies, interventions with anticoagulant activity or anti-inflammatory activity did not appear to be harmful in patients with evidence of less coagulopathy or less inflammation. CONCLUSION: Our review of published clinical data does not support the hypothesis that mortality risk of the population studied alters the relative treatment effect associated with anti-inflammatory or other agents used to treat severe sepsis. Clinical studies in severe sepsis should continue to enroll patients over a wide range of disease severity, as long as patients enrolled have evidence of sepsis-induced organ dysfunction(s), patients are at an appreciable risk for death (e.g. as evidenced by admission to an intensive care unit), and the potential for benefit outweighs the potential for harm.

APACHE↗
PubMed2005

Racial differences in outcome and treatment effect in congestive heart failure.

BACKGROUND: In congestive heart failure (CHF), it is unknown whether race affects mortality and whether the effect of treatments differs by race. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of data from the DIG study that evaluated the effect of digoxin on morbidity and mortality in CHF. RESULTS: Investigators followed 897 black and 6660 white participants for a mean of 37 months. Compared with whites, blacks were younger (60 +/- 13 vs 65 +/- 11 years). Total mortality was 34.2% in blacks and 33.6% in whites; hospitalization for worsening CHF occurred in 39% of blacks and 28% of whites. Cox regressions with race as the only covariate showed no effect of race on risk for death (relative risk = 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.18, P = .49) but an increase in CHF hospitalization in blacks (relative risk = 1.52, 95% CI 1.35-1.70, P = .0001). Multivariate Cox regression showed no difference by race in risk for death or death/hospitalization for CHF and no difference in the effect of digoxin on either end point. CONCLUSION: Race is not an independent predictor of mortality in CHF. The effect of digoxin on morbidity and mortality in CHF does not differ in blacks and whites.

Black People↗
PubMed2004

The effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) on long-term survival after severe sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term survival for subjects with severe sepsis enrolled in the previous multiple-center trial (PROWESS) of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) vs. placebo. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional, blinded follow-up of subjects enrolled in a previous randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: One hundred sixty-four tertiary care institutions in 11 countries. PARTICIPANTS: The 1,690 subjects with severe sepsis enrolled and treated with study drug in PROWESS, of whom 1,220 were alive at 28 days (the end of the original PROWESS follow-up). INTERVENTIONS: DrotAA (n = 850), 24 mug/kg/hr for 96 hrs, or placebo (n = 840). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Long-term survival data were collected. We had follow-up information on 100% of subjects at 28 days, 98% at hospital discharge, 94% at 3 months, and 93% at 1 yr. The longest follow-up was 3.6 yrs. Hospital survival was higher with DrotAA vs. placebo (70.3% vs. 65.1%, p = .03). There was no statistically significant difference in duration of survival time or in landmark survival rates in subjects who received DrotAA compared with those who received placebo (median duration of survival = 1113 days vs. 846 days for DrotAA vs. placebo, p = .10; landmark survival rates for DrotAA vs. placebo, 66.1% vs. 62.4% at 3 months [p = .11], 62.2% vs. 60.3% at 6 months [p = .44], 58.9% vs. 57.2% at 1 yr [p = .49], and 52.6% vs. 49.3% at 2(1/2) yrs [p = .21]). There was a significant interaction (p = .0008) between treatment assignment and baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, suggesting qualitative differences in treatment effect with severity of illness. Subjects with APACHE II >/=25 had better survival time with DrotAA (median duration of survival: 450 vs. 71 days, p =.0005). Survival rates were also higher at landmark time points (DrotAA vs. placebo, 58.9% vs. 48.4% at 3 months [p = .003], 55.2% vs. 45.3% at 6 months [p = .005], 52.1% vs. 41.3% at 1 yr [p = .002], and 45.6% vs. 33.8% at 2(1/2) yrs [p = .001]). In the APACHE II <25 group there was no significant difference in survival time or survival rates at landmark time points except at 1 yr (DrotAA vs. placebo, 65.5% vs. 72.0% at 1 yr, p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The acute survival benefit observed in subjects with severe sepsis who received DrotAA persists to hospital discharge. The survival benefit loses statistical significance thereafter. Post hoc analysis suggests the effect of DrotAA varies by APACHE II score with improved long-term survival in subjects with APACHE II scores >/=25 but no benefit in those with lower scores.

APACHE↗
PubMed2004

Hospital mortality and resource use in subgroups of the Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in hospital mortality and resource use in adult severe sepsis subjects randomized to receive drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) or placebo in the PROWESS trial. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional, blinded follow-up of subjects enrolled in a previous randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: One hundred sixty-four tertiary care institutions in 11 countries. PARTICIPANTS: The 1,690 subjects with severe sepsis enrolled and treated with study drug in PROWESS, of whom 1,220 were alive at 28 days (the end of the original PROWESS follow-up). INTERVENTIONS: DrotAA (n = 850), 24 microg/kg/hr for 96 hrs, or placebo (n = 840). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: New follow-up data through hospital discharge were merged with existing 28-day follow-up data. Hospital mortality was calculated for designated subgroups. Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and Simplified Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 (TISS-28) scores were calculated overall and in designated subgroups. Hospital discharge location was recorded. The 95% confidence interval of most subgroups contained the relative risk estimate for overall 28-day and hospital mortality. Median hospital length of stay and intensive care unit length of stay were similar in both treatment groups: 16 vs. 17 days (p = .22) and 9 vs. 9 days (p = .7) for placebo vs. DrotAA. No significant difference in TISS-28 scores was observed between treatment groups overall or in subgroups of disease severity. In subjects for whom discharge destination was reported, 42.8% of placebo subjects and 46.8% of DrotAA subjects (two thirds of survivors in each group) were discharged directly to home. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in hospital mortality with DrotAA in most of the subgroups of PROWESS is consistent with the reduction in 28-day and hospital mortality observed in the overall PROWESS population. Additional survivors created with DrotAA treatment did not increase per-patient resource use or intensive care unit or hospital length of stay.

APACHE↗
PubMed2004

Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia after renal transplantation.

Being immuno-suppressed, renal allograft recipients are at increased risk of contracting various infectious complications. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) is one of the important opportunistic infection causing high morbidity and mortality in these patients. Majority of studies has reported the occurrence of PCP during 6 months to one year after renal transplantation. This communication describes occurrence of PCP in five renal allograft recipients 10 weeks to 72 months after transplantation. In view of elusive presentation, strong clinical and radiological suspicion followed by direct demonstration of the organisms is essential for early diagnosis and prompt treatment. These observations also indicate that PCP is an emerging opportunistic infection in immuno-compromised patients in tropical countries.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Lessons learned from the DIG trial.

The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was the first large simple trial conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs. A large simple trial is a major undertaking. Simplification at the sites requires careful planning and discipline. Lessons learned from the DIG trial were: (1) keep a large simple trial very simple and keep all study procedures very simple; (2) ancillary studies are important and can complement a large simple trial but require careful advanced planning; (3) anticipate special needs when shipping study drugs internationally; (4) regional coordinating centers can be very useful; (5) recruit as many capable sites as possible; (6) provide research-inexperienced sites/investigators with extra help to obtain federalwide assurance statements from the Office for Human Research Protections and institutional review board approvals; (7) adequately reimburse sites for the work completed; (8) maintain investigator enthusiasm; (9) monitor the slow performers and sites with numerous personnel changes; (10) choose an endpoint that is easy to ascertain; (11) keep the trial simple for participants; and (12) plan early for closeout and for activities between the end of the trial and publication of results.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

The role of the data coordinating center in the IRB review and approval process: the DIG trial experience.

Before any clinical trial can begin to recruit patients, participating clinical centers must obtain approval from their institutional review board (IRB). When studies are federally funded, such as by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), centers must also have or obtain a federal compliance agreement from the Office of Human Research Protections (formerly the Office for Protection from Research Risks [OPRR]). The Digitalis Investigation Group trial was a large, international, double-blind, DHHS-funded randomized trial on the effect of digoxin on mortality in heart failure. Due to the anticipated number of centers (>200), the study's data coordinating center (DCC) was requested to assume additional responsibilities that included: (1) acting as a liaison between the OPRR and all study centers; (2) reviewing and correcting all assurance statements before submission to the OPRR; (3) reviewing and approving all centers' informed consent forms; and (4) helping the many research-inexperienced centers to establish IRBs or to locate an IRB in their region that would accept IRB responsibility for them. Although a heavy burden was placed on the DCC, the IRB and OPRR approval process was probably shortened by many weeks at those centers not already possessing a federal compliance agreement. This enabled the study to be completed on schedule and within budget.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

The use of regional coordinating centers in large clinical trials: the DIG trial.

The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a large simple clinical trial that involved 302 participating centers in the United States and Canada. In order to encourage participation by Canadian investigators, to provide additional help to what were expected to be largely research-inexperienced investigators in Canada, and to provide the study's data coordinating center with resources in Canada to deal with potentially different rules, regulations, and cultural differences, regional coordinating centers were established in four regions of Canada: the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and western Canada. Canadian centers recruited significantly better than their U.S. counterparts and had slightly better retention and follow-up. While it is not possible to declare that the regional coordinating centers were responsible for this improvement, it is believed that these regional centers did play a role. This role included being able to identify investigators who could be expected to do well, providing one-on-one training and instruction to investigators, and being able to solve problems and implement change in the relatively fewer centers in their regions. The regional coordinating center also reduced the intensity of the workload on the data coordinating center by serving as the primary point of contact for Canadian investigators. The use of regional coordinating centers in studies with a large number of participating centers is highly recommended.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

The role of the pharmacy coordinating center in the DIG trial.

Large simple trials (LSTs) emerged in response to the need for large sample sizes to answer important clinical questions in which treatments have a moderate effect on clinical endpoints. Between 1991 and 1996 the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program conducted an LST entitled "Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG): Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Digitalis on Mortality in Heart Failure." The VA Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center served as the DIG pharmacy coordinating center (PCC). As a direct result of involvement in the DIG trial, the PCC identified the need for an increased emphasis on computerization and automated support of clinical trials, especially LSTs.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

The role of the data coordinating center in the DIG trial.

The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a large simple trial (LST) begun in 1990 as a collaboration between the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP). Its primary objective was to determine whether digitalis had beneficial, harmful, or no effect on total mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and an ejection fraction < or =0.45. The Perry Point VA CSP Coordinating Center served as the trial's data coordinating center (DCC). The DCC was involved in all phases of the study from planning and design, organization and start-up, and patient recruitment and follow-up through closeout, final analyses, and manuscript preparation. While DCC responsibilities for an LST are basically the same as for other multicenter randomized clinical trials, their size and the inclusion of many inexperienced research sites can add a complexity that the DCC must be prepared to handle from the beginning. This paper describes the role of the DCC in the DIG trial.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

Overview of the DIG trial.

Congestive heart failure is a major public health problem in the United States, Canada, and other Western countries. The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality and on hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.45 with normal sinus rhythm. It was designed as a large simple trial. There were 6800 patients entered into the main study over a 31.5-month recruitment period at 302 participating centers in the United States and Canada. All patients were followed for a minimum of 28 months. In order for this study to succeed, many groups had to work together successfully. In this supplement, we present practical aspects of organizing and conducting a large simple trial such as DIG.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

The effect of digoxin on the quality of life in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study that examined the effect of digoxin on mortality in 7,788 patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm. A prespecified substudy evaluated the effect of digoxin therapy on health-related quality of life (HQOL) in a subset of these patients. METHODS: Patients in the DIG trial had clinical heart failure and were randomized to either digoxin or placebo in addition to their baseline diuretic and angiotensin-converting enzyme therapy (n = 7,788). The patients in this substudy had HQOL measured using a self-administered questionnaire employing scales that measured general health, physical functioning, depression, anger, anxiety, life satisfaction, and disease specific measures. A subjective assessment by the investigator and a 6-minute walk test evaluated functional status. HQOL was measured at baseline and at the 4- and 12-month follow-up visits. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the patients in the quality of life substudy (n = 589) were comparable to the remaining patients in the study (n = 7,199) by age and other clinical measures, including history of prior myocardial infarction or etiology of heart failure; heart failure was of shorter duration and the ejection fraction was slightly better than in the main trial. Within the substudy, patients receiving digoxin (n = 298) or placebo (n = 291) were also similar in baseline characteristics. There was no statistically significant difference in any HQOL measure between the digoxin and the placebo groups at baseline. At the 4-month visit, only perceived health was improved in the digoxin group. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived health, physical functioning, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure, depression, anxiety, anger, Ladder of Life, or the 6-minute walk between the digoxin and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: In this subset of the DIG population, digoxin therapy had no effect on the HQOL in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm.

Aged↗