败血症抗凝治疗临床试验的演变:连接过去与未来。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Toshiaki Iba, Julie Helms, Cheryl L Maier, Ricard Ferrer, Jerrold H Levy
{"title":"败血症抗凝治疗临床试验的演变:连接过去与未来。","authors":"Toshiaki Iba, Julie Helms, Cheryl L Maier, Ricard Ferrer, Jerrold H Levy","doi":"10.1055/a-2657-6380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Demonstrating the efficacy of new treatments in any condition may be a challenging endeavor, and is particularly the case in sepsis. In the early 21st century, recombinant activated protein C showed a survival benefit in severe sepsis; however, subsequent studies could not replicate these results, leading to the discontinuation of this agent. Several potential reasons have been proposed for the unfavorable results of trials, including choosing an inappropriate outcome target. Concerning anticoagulant therapies, some studies have targeted sepsis with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and demonstrated clinical benefits, while other studies have focused on severe sepsis or septic shock independent of whether patients had DIC. The timing for treatment initiation, dosage, and duration of anticoagulant agents could be significant factors contributing to the limitations faced in these trials. Moreover, relying solely on 28-day mortality as the primary endpoint for sepsis trials may not be appropriate, as it can be influenced by various factors beyond anticoagulant therapies, and discernment in a shorter period might be more pertinent. Success in clinical trials is more likely if these issues are addressed and improvements are made. Recent clinical trials concentrating on anticoagulants are increasingly targeting sepsis or septic shock with coagulopathy, and adopting composite endpoints, including DIC resolution, is anticipated to overcome some of these challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":21673,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evolution of Clinical Trials in Anticoagulation for Sepsis: Bridging Past to Future.\",\"authors\":\"Toshiaki Iba, Julie Helms, Cheryl L Maier, Ricard Ferrer, Jerrold H Levy\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2657-6380\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Demonstrating the efficacy of new treatments in any condition may be a challenging endeavor, and is particularly the case in sepsis. In the early 21st century, recombinant activated protein C showed a survival benefit in severe sepsis; however, subsequent studies could not replicate these results, leading to the discontinuation of this agent. Several potential reasons have been proposed for the unfavorable results of trials, including choosing an inappropriate outcome target. Concerning anticoagulant therapies, some studies have targeted sepsis with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and demonstrated clinical benefits, while other studies have focused on severe sepsis or septic shock independent of whether patients had DIC. The timing for treatment initiation, dosage, and duration of anticoagulant agents could be significant factors contributing to the limitations faced in these trials. Moreover, relying solely on 28-day mortality as the primary endpoint for sepsis trials may not be appropriate, as it can be influenced by various factors beyond anticoagulant therapies, and discernment in a shorter period might be more pertinent. Success in clinical trials is more likely if these issues are addressed and improvements are made. Recent clinical trials concentrating on anticoagulants are increasingly targeting sepsis or septic shock with coagulopathy, and adopting composite endpoints, including DIC resolution, is anticipated to overcome some of these challenges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2657-6380\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2657-6380","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

证明新疗法在任何情况下的疗效都可能是一项具有挑战性的努力,特别是在败血症中。21世纪初,重组活化蛋白C在严重脓毒症中显示出生存益处;然而,随后的研究无法重复这些结果,导致该药物停药。一些潜在的原因已经提出了不利的试验结果,包括选择一个不适当的结果目标。在抗凝治疗方面,一些研究针对脓毒症伴弥散性血管内凝血(DIC)并显示了临床益处,而另一些研究则专注于严重脓毒症或脓毒性休克,而不依赖于患者是否患有DIC。治疗开始的时间、剂量和抗凝剂的持续时间可能是导致这些试验面临局限性的重要因素。此外,单纯依靠28天死亡率作为脓毒症试验的主要终点可能不合适,因为它可能受到抗凝治疗之外的各种因素的影响,而在较短的时间内进行识别可能更相关。如果这些问题得到解决并得到改进,临床试验更有可能取得成功。最近集中于抗凝剂的临床试验越来越多地针对脓毒症或脓毒性休克合并凝血功能障碍,采用复合终点,包括DIC消退,有望克服其中的一些挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evolution of Clinical Trials in Anticoagulation for Sepsis: Bridging Past to Future.

Demonstrating the efficacy of new treatments in any condition may be a challenging endeavor, and is particularly the case in sepsis. In the early 21st century, recombinant activated protein C showed a survival benefit in severe sepsis; however, subsequent studies could not replicate these results, leading to the discontinuation of this agent. Several potential reasons have been proposed for the unfavorable results of trials, including choosing an inappropriate outcome target. Concerning anticoagulant therapies, some studies have targeted sepsis with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and demonstrated clinical benefits, while other studies have focused on severe sepsis or septic shock independent of whether patients had DIC. The timing for treatment initiation, dosage, and duration of anticoagulant agents could be significant factors contributing to the limitations faced in these trials. Moreover, relying solely on 28-day mortality as the primary endpoint for sepsis trials may not be appropriate, as it can be influenced by various factors beyond anticoagulant therapies, and discernment in a shorter period might be more pertinent. Success in clinical trials is more likely if these issues are addressed and improvements are made. Recent clinical trials concentrating on anticoagulants are increasingly targeting sepsis or septic shock with coagulopathy, and adopting composite endpoints, including DIC resolution, is anticipated to overcome some of these challenges.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis
Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
21.10%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis is a topic driven review journal that focuses on all issues relating to hemostatic and thrombotic disorders. As one of the premiere review journals in the field, Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis serves as a comprehensive forum for important advances in clinical and laboratory diagnosis and therapeutic interventions. The journal also publishes peer reviewed original research papers. Seminars offers an informed perspective on today''s pivotal issues, including hemophilia A & B, thrombophilia, gene therapy, venous and arterial thrombosis, von Willebrand disease, vascular disorders and thromboembolic diseases. Attention is also given to the latest developments in pharmaceutical drugs along with treatment and current management techniques. The journal also frequently publishes sponsored supplements to further highlight emerging trends in the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信