• Michael Haley, Xizhong Cui, Peter C Minneci, Katherine J Deans, Charles Natanson, and Peter Q Eichacker.
• Critical Care Medicine Department, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. michael.haley@nih.hhs.gov
• Am. J. Med. Sci. 2004 Oct 1; 328 (4): 215-9.

AbstractBased on the results of the phase III PROWESS trial, recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in severely septic patients. Concerns regarding rhAPC's inconsistent effects, incomplete understanding of its mechanism of action, and its safety in particular subgroups were raised during the FDA's evaluation. This study attempts to assess the cost-effectiveness rhAPC by comparing its effects during recent clinical use to its prior phase III trial testing and by considering other potentially less expensive treatments with effects that may overlap those of rhAPC. In patients with similar numbers of injured organs, mortality rates may be higher with rhAPC during clinical use compared with the phase III trial. There may also be an increased risk of hemorrhage and other adverse events that necessitate early discontinuation of treatment. Many of the patients receiving rhAPC during clinical use may have otherwise been excluded from its phase III trial testing. Data from several recent phase III trials as well as a recent meta-analysis suggest that heparin and physiologic dose steroids offer substantially less expensive alternatives to rhAPC. Further phase IV testing will be required to confirm such possibilities.

16 keywords...

hide…