Skip to main content

A dream deferred: the rise and fall of recombinant activated protein C

Expanded abstract

Citation

Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, Dhainaut JF, Douglas IS, Finfer S, Gårdlund B, Marshall JC, Rhodes A, Artigas A, Payen D, Tenhunen J, Al-Khalidi HR, Thompson V, Janes J, Macias WL, Vangerow B, Williams MD: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adult patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2012, 366: 2055-2064.

Background

There have been conflicting reports on the efficacy of recombinant human activated protein C, or drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA), for the treatment of patients with septic shock.

Methods

Objective: To test the hypothesis that DrotAA, as compared with placebo, would reduce mortality in patients with septic shock.

Design

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, conducted from March 2008 through August 2011. Patients were followed until either 90 days or death.

Setting

Patients were enrolled from 208 sights in Europe, North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and India.

Subjects

Subjects included 1,697 patients with infection, systemic inflammation, and shock who were receiving fluids and vasopressors above a threshold dose for 4 hours.

Intervention

DrotAA (at a dose of 24 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or placebo for 96 hours.

Outcomes

Death from any cause 28 days after randomization.

Results

At 28 days, 223 of 846 patients (26.4%) in the DrotAA group and 202 of 834 (24.2%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk in the DrotAA group, 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92 to 1.28; P = 0.31). At 90 days, 287 of 842 patients (34.1%) in the DrotAA group and 269 of 822 (32.7%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19; P = 0.56). Among patients with severe protein C deficiency at baseline, 98 of 342 (28.7%) in the DrotAA group had died at 28 days, as compared with 102 of 331 (30.8%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.17; P = 0.54). Similarly, rates of death at 28 and 90 days were not significantly different in other predefined subgroups, including patients at increased risk for death. Serious bleeding during the treatment period occurred in 10 patients in the DrotAA group and 8 in the placebo group (P = 0.81).

Conclusions

DrotAA did not significantly reduce mortality at 28 or 90 days, as compared with placebo, in patients with septic shock.

Commentary

Sepsis has been described as a multisystem process involving a dysregulated host response that can lead to organ dysfunction, cardiovascular collapse and death [1]. Endogenous activated protein C is believed to play a role in many of the pathways thought to be integral to the septic response, including proinflammatory, procoagulant, and apoptotic signals [2]. When the Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study showed a 28-day mortality decrease of 6.1% with drotrecogin alpha activated (DrotAA) administration in patients with severe sepsis [2], the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) approved the drug for treatment of high-risk septic patients. Approval criteria were based on post hoc reanalysis of PROWESS by the FDA; DrotAA was efficacious only in the sickest patients with severe sepsis - those with multiorgan failure and Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score ≥25 [3].

PROWESS-SHOCK was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to show whether DrotAA administration improves 28-day mortality in patients with septic shock. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, they reported no decrease in 28-day or 90-day mortality in patients with septic shock who received DrotAA compared to those who received placebo. There was also no difference in 28-day mortality in subgroups based on baseline organ dysfunction, protein C deficiency severity, and time from vasopressor-to-infusion onset. There was a 2.8% increase in at least one serious event by day 28 in the DrotAA group compared to placebo, with a trend toward statistical significance (P = 0.11). All of these events were intraluminal or compartmental hemorrhage in at least one organ (Table S6 in the supplemental appendix of the study by Ranieri and colleagues).

There are many strengths built into the design of this trial. In keeping with a priori objectives, the PROWESS-SHOCK investigators were successful in recruiting very sick patients. End-organ hypoperfusion or dysfunction was required according to the inclusion criteria, and subjects needed to be on vasopressors that could not be weaned. The mean lactate level was 3.3 mmol/L in both placebo and treatment groups. Eighty-four percent of the patients in PROWESS-SHOCK had dysfunction of at least 2 organs, compared to 45% in the PROWESS trial [2]. The investigators were also very thorough and transparent in their study design and analysis. The overall mortality in the trial was 27%, lower than the anticipated mortality of 35% based on septic shock patients from PROWESS [4]. They were able to retain statistical power by recruiting 196 additional patients using an a priori mechanism to increase enrollment if overall mortality was less than 30%. The PROWESS-SHOCK investigators were very conservative with any decision to stop the study for efficacy. The decision to stop PROWESS for efficacy became controversial because it may have overestimated the treatment effect [5]. The PROWESS-SHOCK investigators required what they called 'overwhelming efficacy' - P < 0.001 and at least 250 deaths - for early trial termination [4].

This study has few recognizable flaws, but one could question whether study design choices or findings had an impact on the outcome of PROWESS-SHOCK. Some have argued that the study may have been underpowered to detect its primary outcome [6]. However, there was never a detectable difference in mortality during any data safety monitoring checks. In fact, the study concluded with a 2.2% higher mortality in the treatment group, though statistically insignificant. It is difficult to believe that the study would show a mortality benefit with DrotAA if more patients were enrolled. Some have suggested that the PROWESS-SHOCK investigators should have administered DrotAA earlier for better efficacy [7]. They argue that by waiting for the development of refractory shock, the investigators may have missed the ideal window for DrotAA administration. However, the development of septic shock and organ dysfunction takes time, and to date the one study of DrotAA administration to septic patients with less severe disease showed no benefit [8]. The sickest patients with refractory septic shock were the last group of septic patients, for which little data existed about potential efficacy. Given the division in the critical care community, the investigators needed to select this group for study [4].

Do we believe PROWESS or PROWESS-SHOCK? They both may have been correct. Sepsis management has improved between the times these studies were published. The implementation of sepsis bundles in many hospital settings has been associated with decreased mortality [9]. The attributable benefit DrotAA may have once had on mortality could have been lost because of improved overall sepsis care. The heterogeneous nature of the sepsis population could also be a reason for the inconsistencies between PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK [10]. Sepsis is not a single disease entity but a clinical syndrome that is a common endpoint among many causes of infection. There were about 10% more patients with abdominal causes of sepsis in PROWESS-SHOCK compared to PROWESS, and proportionately less with pneumonia as a cause (Table S3 in the supplementary appendix of the study) [2]. Perhaps a difference in the case mix between the two trials contributed to the difference in study results. While one meta-analysis has since evaluated DrotAA efficacy and safety and shown possible benefit, less than 10% of the patients represented were from randomized controlled trials [6].

Recommendation

This study showed a higher risk of bleeding and no mortality benefit from DrotAA in septic shock. DrotAA should no longer be recommended in sepsis guidelines as a standard of care.

Abbreviations

DrotAA:

drotrecogin alpha activated

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

PROWESS:

Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis.

References

  1. 1.

    Marshall JC: Inflammation, coagulopathy, and the pathogenesis of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med 2001,29(Suppl):S99-S106.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, LaRosa SP, Dhainaut JF, Lopez-Rodriguez A, Steingrub JS, Garber GE, Helterbrand JD, Ely EW, Fisher CJ Jr, Recombinant human protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study group: Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2001, 344: 699-709. 10.1056/NEJM200103083441001

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Poole D, Bertolini G, Garattini S: Errors in the approval process and post-marketing evaluation of drotrecogin alfa (activated) for the treatment of severe sepsis. Lancet Infect Dis 2009, 9: 67-72. 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70306-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Finfer S, Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, Dhainaut JF, Douglas IS, Gårdlund B, Marshall JC, Rhodes A: Design, conduct, analysis and reporting of a multi-national placebo controlled trial of activated protein C for persistent septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2008, 34: 1935-1947. 10.1007/s00134-008-1266-6

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P, Zhou Q, Heels-Ansdell D, Walter SD, Guyatt GH, STOPIT-2 Study Group, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, Murad MH, Abu Elnour NO, Lampropulos JF, Sood A, Mullan RJ, Erwin PJ, Bankhead CR, Perera R, Ruiz Culebro C, You JJ, Mulla SM, Kaur J, Nerenberg KA, Schünemann H, Cook DJ, Lutz K, Ribic CM, Vale N, et al.: Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA 2010, 303: 1180-1187. 10.1001/jama.2010.310

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kalil AC, LaRosa SP: Effectiveness and safety of drotrecogin alfa (activated) for severe sepsis: a meta-analysis and metaregression. Lancet Infect. Dis 2012, 12: 678-686. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70157-3

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hollander J: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in septic shock. N Engl J Med 2012, 367: 968. author reply 969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Abraham E, Laterre PF, Garg R, Levy H, Talwar D, Trzaskoma BL, François B, Guy JS, Brückmann M, Rea-Neto A, Rossaint R, Perrotin D, Sablotzki A, Arkins N, Utterback BG, Macias WL, Administration of Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Early Stage Severe Sepsis (ADDRESS) Study Group: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis and a low risk of death. N Engl J Med 2005, 353: 1332-1341. 10.1056/NEJMoa050935

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, Linde-Zwirble WT, Marshall JC, Bion J, Schorr C, Artigas A, Ramsay G, Beale R, Parker MM, Gerlach H, Reinhart K, Silva E, Harvey M, Regan S, Angus DC: The surviving sepsis campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36: 222-231. 10.1007/s00134-009-1738-3

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nayyar V, Solano T: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in septic shock. N Engl J Med 2012, 367: 968-969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David T Huang.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holder, A.L., Huang, D.T. A dream deferred: the rise and fall of recombinant activated protein C. Crit Care 17, 309 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12533

Download citation