4.6 Article

Use of Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in Italian intensive care units: the results of a nationwide survey

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 426-434

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0554-x

关键词

intensive care; Drotrecogin alfa activated; drug utilization review; severe sepsis; septic shock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To monitor the use of drotrecogin alfa activated (DrotAA) in Italy and its effects on patients' health. Design: Prospective pharmaco-surveillance program with a parallel non-randomized control group. Setting: The Ministry of Health required all intensive care units (ICUs) using DrotAA to participate in the pharmaco-surveillance program. Our control group was formed of patients eligible for treatment with DrotAA but who had not received it. Patients and participants: The data we collected included basic demographic characteristics, indications, modalities of use, adverse events, and ICU mortality. We identified potentially non-collaborating centres on the basis of data on DrotAA purchasing by hospitals. Measurements and results: From 2003 to 2006, 668 cases of treatment with DrotAA were reported. We estimate that 79.3% of all patients treated in Italy in this period were recruited. Off-label use was common. Delayed start was the main reason for off-label prescription. Bleeding during infusion occurred in 73 patients (10.9%). The ICU mortality was higher in patients with bleeding (57.5 vs. 44.9%; p = 0.041). Crude ICU mortality was lower in patients receiving DrotAA than in controls (46.4 vs. 54.9%; p = 0.0004); however, multivariate analysis, which adjusted for certain relevant differences, showed that DrotAA treatment was associated with higher mortality after scheduled surgery. Conclusions: These results question the way in which the drug is used in everyday clinical practice and its efficacy in a selected subgroup, and reinforce the need for a new, independent, confirmatory trial to reassess the risk-to-benefit ratio of DrotAA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据