Why anticoagulant studies on sepsis fail frequently --- start with SCARLET

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Jian-Ying Guo, Hong-Yuan Lin
{"title":"Why anticoagulant studies on sepsis fail frequently --- start with SCARLET","authors":"Jian-Ying Guo,&nbsp;Hong-Yuan Lin","doi":"10.1016/j.cjtee.2023.04.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Sepsis Coagulopathy Asahi Recombinant LE Thrombomodulin (SCARLET) trial has many defects, and thus cannot be the terminator of recombinant thrombomodulin (rTM). On the contrary, it provides sufficient evidence for further research. Based on analysis focusing on the failure of SCARLET and several previous anticoagulant studies, it is most important for new studies to grasp the following two points: (1) The enrolled cases should have sufficient disease severity and a clear standard for disseminated intravascular coagulation; (2) Heparin should not be used in combination with the investigated drugs. Multiple post-hoc analyses show that no combination of heparin will not increase the risk of thromboembolism. In fact, the combination of heparin can mask the true efficacy of the investigated drug. Due to the complexity of sepsis treatment and the limitations of clinical studies, the results of all treatment studies should be repeatedly verified, rather than be determined at one stroke. Some research conclusions contrary to disease physiology, pharmacology and clinical practice may be deceptive, and should be cautious rather than be simply accepted. On the other hand, the dissenting voices in the “consensus” scene are often well discussed by the authors and should be highly valued.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51555,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Traumatology","volume":"26 5","pages":"Pages 297-302"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3e/40/main.PMC10533541.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1008127523000421","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Sepsis Coagulopathy Asahi Recombinant LE Thrombomodulin (SCARLET) trial has many defects, and thus cannot be the terminator of recombinant thrombomodulin (rTM). On the contrary, it provides sufficient evidence for further research. Based on analysis focusing on the failure of SCARLET and several previous anticoagulant studies, it is most important for new studies to grasp the following two points: (1) The enrolled cases should have sufficient disease severity and a clear standard for disseminated intravascular coagulation; (2) Heparin should not be used in combination with the investigated drugs. Multiple post-hoc analyses show that no combination of heparin will not increase the risk of thromboembolism. In fact, the combination of heparin can mask the true efficacy of the investigated drug. Due to the complexity of sepsis treatment and the limitations of clinical studies, the results of all treatment studies should be repeatedly verified, rather than be determined at one stroke. Some research conclusions contrary to disease physiology, pharmacology and clinical practice may be deceptive, and should be cautious rather than be simply accepted. On the other hand, the dissenting voices in the “consensus” scene are often well discussed by the authors and should be highly valued.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

为什么败血症的抗凝研究经常失败——从SCARLET开始。
Sepsis Coagulopathy Asahi重组LE血栓调节蛋白(SCARLET)试验存在许多缺陷,因此不能作为重组血栓调节蛋白的终止剂。相反,它为进一步研究提供了充分的证据。基于对SCARLET失败的分析和以往几项抗凝研究,新的研究最重要的是把握以下两点:(1)入选病例应具有足够的疾病严重程度和明确的弥散性血管内凝血标准;(2) 肝素不应与研究药物联合使用。多项事后分析表明,肝素联合用药不会增加血栓栓塞的风险。事实上,肝素的组合可以掩盖所研究药物的真实疗效。由于败血症治疗的复杂性和临床研究的局限性,所有治疗研究的结果都应该反复验证,而不是一次性确定。一些与疾病生理学、药理学和临床实践相悖的研究结论可能具有欺骗性,应谨慎而非简单接受。另一方面,“共识”场景中的反对声音往往被作者很好地讨论,应该受到高度重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
1707
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Traumatology (CJT, ISSN 1008-1275) was launched in 1998 and is a peer-reviewed English journal authorized by Chinese Association of Trauma, Chinese Medical Association. It is multidisciplinary and designed to provide the most current and relevant information for both the clinical and basic research in the field of traumatic medicine. CJT primarily publishes expert forums, original papers, case reports and so on. Topics cover trauma system and management, surgical procedures, acute care, rehabilitation, post-traumatic complications, translational medicine, traffic medicine and other related areas. The journal especially emphasizes clinical application, technique, surgical video, guideline, recommendations for more effective surgical approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信