Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Cardiovasc Ther ; 30(4): e174-82, 2012 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21883999

ABSTRACT

Prasugrel, a third-generation thienopyridine antiplatelet agent, demonstrated superior efficacy to clopidogrel but with an increased risk of bleeding in the phase III pivotal registration Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38). This article reviews and discusses select components of a large literature of prasugrel data that has emerged since the TRITON-TIMI 38 (TRITON) study primary disclosure.


Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/therapy , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/adverse effects , Piperazines/therapeutic use , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Thiophenes/therapeutic use , Acute Coronary Syndrome/blood , Acute Coronary Syndrome/mortality , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/mortality , Drug Interactions , Drug Resistance , Evidence-Based Medicine , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Myocardial Infarction/etiology , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Myocardial Infarction/prevention & control , Piperazines/adverse effects , Piperazines/pharmacokinetics , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/pharmacokinetics , Prasugrel Hydrochloride , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/pharmacokinetics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Thiophenes/adverse effects , Thiophenes/pharmacokinetics , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/mortality , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
2.
Crit Care ; 14(6): R229, 2010.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21176144

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Serial alterations in protein C levels appear to correlate with disease severity in patients with severe sepsis, and it may be possible to tailor severe sepsis therapy with the use of this biomarker. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose and duration of drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment using serial measurements of protein C compared to standard therapy in patients with severe sepsis. METHODS: This was a phase 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Adult patients with two or more sepsis-induced organ dysfunctions were enrolled. Protein C deficient patients were randomized to standard therapy (24 µg/kg/hr infusion for 96 hours) or alternative therapy (higher dose and/or variable duration; 24/30/36 µg/kg/hr for 48 to 168 hours). The primary outcome was a change in protein C level in the alternative therapy group, between study Day 1 and Day 7, compared to standard therapy. RESULTS: Of 557 patients enrolled, 433 patients received randomized therapy; 206 alternative, and 227 standard. Baseline characteristics of the groups were largely similar. The difference in absolute change in protein C from Day 1 to Day 7 between the two therapy groups was 7% (P = 0.011). Higher doses and longer infusions were associated with a more pronounced increase in protein C level, with no serious bleeding events. The same doses and longer infusions were associated with a larger increase in protein C level; higher rates of serious bleeding when groups received the same treatment; but no clear increased risk of bleeding during the longer infusion. This group also experienced a higher mortality rate; however, there was no clear link to infusion duration. CONCLUSIONS: The study met its primary objective of increased protein C levels in patients receiving alternative therapy demonstrating that variable doses and/or duration of drotrecogin alfa (activated) can improve protein C levels, and also provides valuable information for incorporation into potential future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00386425.


Subject(s)
Protein C/metabolism , Sepsis/drug therapy , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Protein C/administration & dosage , Recombinant Proteins/administration & dosage , Sepsis/blood , Treatment Outcome
3.
Crit Care ; 14(3): R102, 2010.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20525247

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The benefits and use of low-dose corticosteroids (LDCs) in severe sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines suggest LDC use for septic shock patients poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Their use is suspected to be wide-spread, but paucity of data regarding global practice exists. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients treated or not treated with LDC from the international PROGRESS (PROmoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 microg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups. RESULTS: A total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Overall hospital mortality rates were greater in the LDC than in the non-LDC group (58.0% versus 43.0%; P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Widespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Registries , Shock, Septic/drug therapy , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/pharmacology , Adult , Aged , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Propensity Score , Prospective Studies , Shock, Septic/mortality , Treatment Outcome , Vasoconstrictor Agents/administration & dosage , Vasoconstrictor Agents/pharmacology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...