A Lethal Error Unveiled Around PR-171 And Approaches To Protect against It

PROWESS was a randomized, double blind placebo-controlled multicenter trial which AZD9291 in vivo was stopped early because of the improved survival observed in the treated group. The overall mortality rate was 30.8% in the placebo group and 24.7% in the APC group, a reduction of 6.1% (relative risk reduction of 19.4%). The survival benefit was greatest in the sickest patients, those with the most organ failures and highest APACHE II scores. Patients with overt DIC had an absolute reduction in mortality from 40.3% to 30.5%, which is a relative risk reduction of 29.1%[34]. The bleeding event rate was only 3.4%. Subgroup analysis indicated that the mortality benefit was limited to patient with increased illness severity. Based on this study, rhAPC was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2001 for the treatment of severe sepsis in patients with an APACHE II of 24 or greater, the median APACHE II score in the PROWESS study. A subsequent open label trial (ENHANCE) confirmed the mortality rate of approximately 25% in patients with severe sepsis but left open the question of whether rhAPC would be beneficial in less sick patients[35]. The ADDRESS trial randomized 2640 patients with severe sepsis and a single organ failure or APACHE II PR-171 manufacturer A subsequent trial focusing on the severely ill patient with septic shock (PROWESS - SHOCK) failed to confirm the improved outcomes noted in the original PROWESS trial, and in 2011 rhAPC was withdrawn from the world market[37]. The mortality rates in the PROWESS-SHOCK trial were substantially lower the expected given the inclusion criteria of septic shock, 26.6% vs 24.2% in the APC and control groups respectively. APC did not reduce mortality at 28 or 90 d, as compared with placebo, but was associated with increased bleeding risks in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock[37]. A subsequent retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients with septic shock, early use of APC was associated with YES1 6.1% absolute reduction in 30 d mortality[38]. Another meta-analysis by Kalil et al[39], noted a significant reduction in hospital mortality (18%), and increased bleeding rate (5.4%) with the real life use of APC compared with controls. Although rhAPC is no longer accessible, plasma derived APC is available in Japan. A randomized double blind trial compared the efficacy and safety of plasma derived APC with unfractionated heparin in the treatment of DIC by a Japanese group[40]. No significant difference in the rate of complete recovery from DIC was seen between the 2 groups. The rate of death from any cause within 28 d after treatment was 20.4% in the APC group, significantly lower than the 40% death rate observed in the heparin group (P