Dataset Information

Effectiveness of anisodamine for the treatment of critically ill patients with septic shock (ACIdoSIS study): study protocol for randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Septic shock is an important contributor of mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although strenuous effort has been made to improve its outcome, the mortality rate is only marginally decreased. The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of anisodamine in the treatment of septic shock, in the hope that the drug will provide alternatives to the treatment of septic shock.

Methods

The study is a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Study population will include critically ill patients with septic shock requiring vasopressor use. Blocked randomization was performed where anisodamine and control treatments were allocated at random in a ratio of 1:1 in blocks of sizes 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 to 354 subjects. Interim analysis will be performed. The primary study end point is the hospital mortality, and other secondary study endpoints include ICU mortality, length of stay in ICU and hospital, organ failure free days. Adverse events including new onset psychosis, urinary retention, significant hypotension and tachycardia will be reported.

Discussion

The study will provide new insight into the treatment of septic shock and can help to reduce mortality rate of septic shock.

Trial registration

NCT02442440 (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/).

SUBMITTER: Zhang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4620101 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of anisodamine for the treatment of critically ill patients with septic shock (ACIdoSIS study): study protocol for randomized controlled trial.

Zhang Zhongheng Z Zhou Jiancang J Shang You Y Wang Xin'an X Yin Rui R Zhu Zhenhua Z Chen Wensen W Tian Xin X Yu Yuetian Y Zuo Xiangrong X Chen Kun K Ji Xuqing X Ni Hongying H

Annals of translational medicine 20151001 17

<h4>Background</h4>Septic shock is an important contributor of mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although strenuous effort has been made to improve its outcome, the mortality rate is only marginally decreased. The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of anisodamine in the treatment of septic shock, in the hope that the drug will provide alternatives to the treatment of septic shock.<h4>Methods</h4>The study is a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Study p ...[more]

PMID: 26605292

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeptic shock is characterized by an uncontrolled inflammatory response and microcirculatory dysfunction. There is currently no specific agent for treating septic shock. Anisodamine is an agent extracted from traditional Chinese medicine with potent anti-inflammatory effects. However, its clinical effectiveness remains largely unknown.MethodsIn a multicentre, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with septic shock to receive either usual care or anisodamine (0.1-0.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per hour), with the anisodamine doses adjusted by clinicians in accordance with the patients' shock status. The primary end point was death on hospital discharge. The secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, vasopressor-free days at 28 days, serum lactate and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score from days 0 to 6. The differences in the primary and secondary outcomes were compared between the treatment and usual care groups with the χ2 test, Student's t test or rank-sum test, as appropriate. The false discovery rate was controlled for multiple testing.ResultsOf the 469 patients screened, 355 were assigned to receive the trial drug and were included in the analyses-181 patients received anisodamine, and 174 were in the usual care group. We found no difference between the usual care and anisodamine groups in hospital mortality (36% vs. 30%; p = 0.348), or ventilator-free days (median [Q1, Q3], 24.4 [5.9, 28] vs. 26.0 [8.5, 28]; p = 0.411). The serum lactate levels were significantly lower in the treated group than in the usual care group after day 3. Patients in the treated group were less likely to receive vasopressors than those in the usual care group (OR [95% CI] 0.84 [0.50, 0.93] for day 5 and 0.66 [0.37, 0.95] for day 6).ConclusionsThere is no evidence that anisodamine can reduce hospital mortality among critically ill adults with septic shock treated in the intensive care unit. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02442440 ; Registered on 13 April 2015).

Project description:BackgroundThe proposed definition of septic shock in the Sepsis-3 consensus statement has been previously validated in critically ill patients. However, the subset of critically ill patients with sepsis and positive blood cultures needs further evaluation. To compare the combined (old and new septic shock) versus old definition of septic shock in sepsis patients that have positive blood cultures and are critically ill.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of adult patients (age ≥18 years), who had evidence of positive blood cultures, requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission at a large tertiary care academic center from January 2009 through October 2015. Eligible subjects who opted out of research participation, those requiring intensive care admission after elective surgery, and those who were deemed to have a low probability of infection were excluded. Basic demographics data, clinical and laboratory parameters, and outcomes of interest were pulled from the validated institutional database/repository and contrasted between the patients who qualified the new and old definitions criteria (combined) of septic shock versus the group meeting the old septic shock criteria only.ResultsWe included a total of 477 patients in the final analysis who qualified for old and new septic shock definitions. For the entire cohort, median age was 65.6 (IQR, 55-75) years, with male predominance (N=258, 54%). When compared to patients in the group who only met the old definition (N=206), the patients who met the combined (new or both new and old, N=271) definition had a higher APACHE III scores, 92 (IQR, 76-112) vs. 76 (IQR, 61-95), P<0.001; a higher SOFA day-1 score of 10 (IQR, 8-13) vs. 7 (IQR, 4-10), P<0.001, but did not differ significantly in age 65.5 years (IQR, 55-74) vs. 66 years (IQR, 55-76) years, P=0.47. The patients who met the combined (new or both new and old) definition had higher chances of having conservative resuscitation preferences (DNI/DNR); 77 (28.4) vs. 22 (10.7), P<0.001. The same group also had worse outcomes in terms of hospital mortality (34.3% vs. 18%, P<0.001) and standardized mortality ratio (0.76 vs. 0.52, P<0.04).ConclusionsIn patients with sepsis with positive blood cultures, the group of patients meeting the combined definition (new or both new and old) have higher severity of illness, higher mortality, and a worse standardized mortality ratio as compared to patients meeting the old definition of septic shock.

Project description:BackgroundAppropriate antimicrobial dosing is challenging because of changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters and an increase in multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms in critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an empirical therapy of high-dose versus standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients.MethodsWe performed a prospective randomized open-label study to compare the changes of modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA) score and other clinical outcomes of the high-dose meropenem (2-g infusion over 3 h every 8 h) versus the standard-dose meropenem (1-g infusion over 3 h every 8 h) in sepsis and septic shock patients. Patients' characteristics, clinical and microbiological outcomes, 14 and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital-free days, percent of the time of antibiotic concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (%T>MIC), and safety were assessed.ResultsSeventy-eight patients were enrolled. Median delta mSOFA was comparable between two groups (- 1 in the high-dose group vs. - 1 in the standard-dose group; P value = 0.75). There was no difference between the two groups regarding clinical and microbiological cure, 14- and 28-day mortality, vasopressor- and ventilator-free days, and ICU- and hospital-free days. In patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) with a mSOFA score ≥ 7, the high-dose group demonstrated significantly better microbiological cure compared with the standard-dose group (75% (9/12 patients) vs. 20% (2/10 patients); P value = 0.03). Likewise, the high-dose group presented higher microbiological cure rate in patients admitted from ED who had either APACHE II score > 20 (83.3% (10/12) vs. 28.6% (2/7); P value = 0.045) or on mechanical ventilator (87.5% (7/8) vs. 23.1% (3/13); P value = 0.008) than the standard-dose group. Adverse events were comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsEmpirical therapy with the high-dose meropenem presented comparable clinical outcomes to the standard-dose meropenem in sepsis and septic shock patients. Besides, subgroup analysis manifested superior microbiological cure rate in sepsis or septic shock patients admitted from ED.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03344627, registered on November 17, 2017.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of anisodamine for the treatment of critically ill patients with septic shock (ACIdoSIS study): study protocol for randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Effectiveness of anisodamine for the treatment of critically ill patients with septic shock (ACIdoSIS study): study protocol for randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets