 |
|
E5 Murine Monoclonal Antiendotoxin Antibody in Gram-Negative Sepsis
A Randomized Controlled Trial
Derek C. Angus, MB, ChB, MPH;
Mary C. Birmingham, PharmD;
Robert A. Balk, MD;
Patrick J. Scannon, MD;
David Collins, MA;
James A. Kruse, MD;
Donald R. Graham, MD;
Harakh V. Dedhia, MD;
Scott Homann, MD;
Neil MacIntyre, MD;
for the E5 Study Investigators
JAMA. 2000;283:1723-1730.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context Knowledge and understanding of gram-negative sepsis have grown over the past 20 years, but the ability to treat severe sepsis successfully has not.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of E5 in the treatment of patients with severe gram-negative sepsis.
Design A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 136 US medical centers from April 1993 to April 1997, designed with 90% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction, incorporating 2 planned interim analyses.
Setting Intensive care units at university medical centers, Veterans Affairs medical centers, and community hospitals.
Patients Adults aged 18 years or older, with signs and symptoms consistent with severe sepsis and documented or probable gram-negative infection.
Intervention Patients were assigned to receive 2 doses of either E5, a murine monoclonal antibody directed against endotoxin (n = 550; 2 mg/kg per day by intravenous infusion 24 hours apart) or placebo (n = 552).
Main Outcome Measures The primary end point was mortality at day 14; secondary end points were mortality at day 28, adverse event rates, and 14-day and 28-day mortality in the subgroup without shock at presentation.
Results The trial was stopped after the second interim analysis. A total of 1090 patients received study medication and 915 had gram-negative infection confirmed by culture. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality between the E5 and placebo groups at either day 14 (29.7% vs 31.1%; P = .67) or day 28 (38.5% vs 40.3%; P = .56). Patients presenting without shock had a slightly lower mortality when treated with E5 but the difference was not significant (28.9% vs 33.0% for the E5 and placebo groups, respectively, at day 28; P = .32). There was a similar profile of adverse event rates between E5 and placebo.
Conclusions Despite adequate sample size and high enrollment of patients with confirmed gram-negative sepsis, E5 did not improve short-term survival. Current study rationale and designs should be carefully reviewed before further large-scale studies of patients with sepsis are conducted.
INTRODUCTION
While knowledge and understanding of gram-negative sepsis have grown over the last 20 years, the ability to treat it successfully has not changed substantially.1 Despite the introduction of more potent antibiotics and more sophisticated life-support technology, an estimated 200,000 Americans develop gram-negative sepsis each year with reported mortality rates of 30% to 65%.2-5 The prime initiator of gram-negative sepsis is endotoxin, the lipopolysaccharide component of the bacterial outer membrane.6-8 Endotoxin triggers the production of proinflammatory monokines (eg, tumor necrosis factor) which in turn stimulate a variety of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediator cascades that result in the systemic signs and organ dysfunction that characterize clinical sepsis.9 Accordingly, it has been hypothesized that agents that bind endotoxin may mitigate the subsequent cascade, resulting in a decrease in the clinical manifestations of sepsis and improvement in outcome.1, 10-11
A murine monoclonal antibody of the IgM class, E5 (XOMA Corp, Berkeley, Calif) was developed by immunizing mice to endotoxin from the J5 mutant of Escherichia coli.12-13 Although endotoxins vary across gram-negative species, E5 has been demonstrated in vitro to react with the core elements of endotoxin, implying specific binding to a broad range of gram-negative endotoxins.12, 14 In several animal models of sepsis, including neutropenic rats inoculated with Pseudomonas,15 rats who underwent cecal perforation,16 and mice who were exposed to lipopolysaccharide,17 E5 therapy administered after the onset of clinical signs significantly reduced mortality when compared with controls.
Prior human studies include 2 small studies (N = 9 and N = 39)18-19 in which safety and dosage were assessed in septic patients and 2 large efficacy trials (N = 486 and N = 847). Both efficacy trials were randomized, double-blind multicenter trials of patients with known or suspected gram-negative sepsis in which the primary end point was 30-day mortality. The first trial failed to detect a reduction in mortality overall but post-hoc analysis of patients with gram-negative infection, who were not in refractory shock at enrollment (n = 137), showed improved resolution of organ dysfunction and survival.10 The subsequent trial excluded patients in refractory shock and demonstrated improved resolution of organ failure but failed to demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality.20 In both trials, E5 appeared to be well tolerated with no significant increase in adverse events.
Based on these observations, we undertook a third efficacy trial of E5 to determine whether the administration of E5 enhances survival in patients with severe sepsis due to documented or probable gram-negative infection. This trial was designed to have greater power than the 2 previous efficacy trials, to exclude patients with refractory shock, and to analyze the subgroup without nonrefractory shock. However, the study was discontinued after the second interim analysis because of insufficient effect per a prespecified stopping rule.
METHODS
Study Design
This prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 136 medical centers in the United States from April 1993 to April 1997. To be eligible for the study, patients had to have documented or probable gram-negative infection, meet criteria for severe sepsis, be 18 years or older, require care in an intensive care unit, and not be improving despite standard supportive therapy and appropriate antibiotic coverage. Patients were entered into the study only after review and approval of entry criteria by a screening authorization committee on call 24 hours per day.
Gram-negative infection was considered documented by a positive culture or convincing gram stain no more than 2 calendar days prior to enrollment. A patient could be enrolled without a documented gram-negative infection in the setting of postsurgical intra-abdominal sepsis in which the intestinal tract had either been perforated or required partial resection for ischemia (provided that >1 day but <7 days had elapsed since surgery). Where frank spillage of stool into the abdomen resulted from these events, the patient could qualify without a gram stain or culture and without the 24-hour waiting period.
Sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock were defined as per the recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference.21 Specifically, sepsis was defined as the presence of any 2 of the following: temperature higher than 38°C or lower than 36°C; heart rate greater than 90/min, respiratory rate greater than 20/min, minute ventilation greater than 10 L/min, or PaCO2 of less than 32 mm Hg; and white blood cell count greater than 12 x 109/L or less than 4 x 109/L, or greater than 10% immature forms (bands).
Severe sepsis was defined as sepsis and either hypotension or evidence of hypoperfusion and organ dysfunction. Hypotension was defined either as: systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg or a reduction of greater than 40 mm Hg from baseline despite administration of greater than 500-mL crystalloid solution or greater than 250-mL colloid suspension, or vasopressor therapy to maintain a systolic blood pressure of greater than 90 mm Hg despite an appropriate fluid challenge.
Hypoperfusion or organ system dysfunction was defined as one of the following: blood lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L; renal dysfunction (>44.2 µmol/L [>0.5 mg/dL] increase in serum creatinine or urine output <0.5 mL/kg for >2 hours despite hydration in patients with normal baseline renal function or >76.26 µmol/L [>1 mg/dL] increase in serum creatinine in patients with chronic renal impairment); disseminated intravascular coagulation (abnormally low or acutely decreased [>25%] platelet count with elevated prothrombin time, elevated partial thromboplastin time, or clinical bleeding, and absence of confounding factors such as liver failure or anticoagulant therapy); hepatobiliary dysfunction (serum bilirubin of 34.2 µmol/L [>2.0 mg/dL] with elevation of alkaline phosphatase,  -glutamyl transferase, or serum transaminases beyond twice the upper limit of normal and no evidence of preexisting hepatobiliary disease); acute lung injury (PaO2<70 mm Hg on room air or ratio of PaO2 to fraction of inspired oxygen [FIO2] <280 mm Hg in the absence of congestive heart failure or primary pulmonary pathology such as lower respiratory tract infection, pulmonary embolism, or interstitial lung disease). In patients presenting with pneumonia, pulmonary dysfunction could not be used as the sole criterion for organ dysfunction. Septic shock was defined as sepsis with hypotension plus hypoperfusion and organ dysfunction.
Patients were excluded from participation if any of the following conditions were present: granulocyte count of less than 1 x 109/L prior to the onset of sepsis; infections associated with burns, pregnancy, or lactation; prior therapy with, or known allergy to, murine antibodies; human immunodeficiency virus infection; documented or suspected recent acute myocardial infarction; refractory shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg despite maximum vasopressor therapy); treatment with another investigational therapy; or lack of commitment to full life-support measures by the primary physician.
Patients were required to meet all entry criteria (except gram stain and culture documentation) within the 12 hours prior to commencing study medication. The study protocol was approved by each study center's institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from the patient, next of kin, or legally authorized representative prior to enrollment.
Intervention
The formulation of E5 that was used in the study contained a clear solution of 2-mg murine monoclonal antibody per milliliter of 5 mmol/L of sodium phosphate per 0.15 mmol/L of sodium chloride buffer, containing 0.01% polysorbate 80. Placebo consisted of a 0.1 mg/mL human serum albumin solution that was identical in appearance to E5. The dose of study medication was 2 mg/kg administered by intravenous infusion over 1 hour as 1 mL/kg of E5 solution. The full dose was administered twice, first on study day 1, and again 24 hours later on study day 2. This dosage regimen was based on prior pharmacokinetic studies in septic patients and was the same as that used in the 2 prior efficacy trials.10, 20
Data Collection and End Points
Clinical data were collected on standardized case report forms and included specific entry criteria, date and time of study drug infusion, and relevant data concerning adverse clinical events and efficacy end points. Each case report form was verified against the medical record by a study monitor and reviewed by a medical monitor, both of whom were blinded to treatment allocation. Adverse events were independently reviewed by an independent data safety and monitoring board.
Mortality at day 14 was the primary study end point. However, survival was determined through day 28, and adverse events were monitored until day 32. Patients discharged before day 28 were contacted by telephone. In the event that a patient was inaccessible at day 28, at least 2 additional telephone calls were made, and a telegram was sent within the next 2 weeks to ascertain survival status.
Study medication was discontinued and the patient was withdrawn from the study if a serious adverse event occurred; the patient was determined to be ineligible for the study following assignment of study medication; or if the investigator, patient, or patient's representative decided to withdraw consent.
Statistical Analysis
For sample size calculation, the 14-day, all-cause mortality for documented, severe gram-negative sepsis was assumed to be 28% for placebo patients. A sample size of 1700 was calculated as adequate to show a 25% or greater relative risk reduction in 14-day all-cause mortality with at least 90% power at the 4.5% significance level. Because prior studies suggested patients in severe sepsis without shock were more likely to benefit from E5, we also decided prospectively to analyze this subgroup. In a previous study, 43% of the patients with documented gram-negative sepsis were not in shock at time of treatment. Assuming a similar proportion, we estimated 730 patients in the nonshock subset, providing 80% power to detect a reduction in mortality from 25% to 14.5% with  = .01.
The planned interim analyses were based on the approach of Lan and DeMets.22 The stopping rules were derived using the method of Pampallona, Tsiatis, and Kim, an extension of the Lan and DeMets approach to control for statistical power, which preserves both type I error at .0225 (under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference) and type II error at .0225 (under the alternative hypothesis of a differential mortality rate of 0.0909 [placebo - E5]). The interim analyses were reviewed by the data safety and monitoring board.
Data for patients were considered evaluable and included in the efficacy and safety analyses if any amount of study medication was administered. Baseline characteristics and mortality rates were compared between treatment groups using the 2 sample t tests and Pearson  2 tests as appropriate. Patients who received study medication, who had incomplete dose administration, or who did not receive study medication were summarized by reason. Patient mortality was also reviewed by individual sites for each treatment group, and Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were determined and compared by the log-rank test. In addition to the primary analyses of all patients who received treatment and the subgroup who presented without shock, we also conducted post-hoc analyses using intention-to-treat and in subgroups classified by the presence or absence of major comorbidities, organ failure, site of infection, and infectious origin. The incidence of serious adverse events among randomized and treated patients was summarized by treatment group using the World Health Organization dictionary.23
Significance for the primary end point was based on the stopping rule above. Significance for distribution of baseline characteristics, adverse events, and post-hoc analyses was assumed at P<.05.
RESULTS
Baseline Characteristics
A total of 1102 patients were randomly assigned to receive either E5 or placebo (Figure 1). Of those, 1090 (98.9%) received some amount of study medication and were therefore considered to have been treated. For the 12 patients who did not receive treatment (8 in the placebo arm and 4 in the E5 arm), reasons cited included the development of a serious adverse event between enrollment and initiation (6 in the placebo arm and 3 in the E5 arm), error in intravenous administration (1 in the placebo arm), and exclusion criteria not met (1 in the placebo arm). No reason was given for failure to administer therapy for 1 patient in the E5 arm.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Trial Flow Diagram of Patients
|
|
|
The mean number of patients enrolled per site was 8 (range, 1-50). Baseline characteristics of the cohort are described in Table 1. Patients ranged in age from 18 to 95 years with a mean age of 60.7 years. Hypotension or need for vasopressors was present in three quarters of the patients at presentation, shock and renal dysfunction were each present in half, pulmonary dysfunction and lactic acidosis were each present in a third, and disseminated intravascular coagulation was present in a quarter. Hepatobiliary dysfunction was only noted in 5% of the patients at presentation. Most patients (84%) had acute dysfunction of at least 1 organ system at enrollment.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics for All Treated Patients*
|
|
|
Most patients presented with primary bacteremia, intra-abdominal infection, pneumonia, or urinary tract infection. Gram-negative infection was confirmed by culture in 915 patients (83.9%). In 736 cases (67.5%), a single gram-negative organism was isolated. E coli was isolated most commonly (39.0% of cases), followed by Klebsiella (18.6%), Pseudomonas (13.7%), Enterobacter (11.7%), Bacteroides (5.2%), Proteus (3.8%), Citrobacter (3.4%), Serratia (3.4%), Acinetobacter (2.7%), Haemophilus (2.3%), and Xanthomonas (2.1%) species. The microbiologic origin was generally similar across sites of infection though Pseudomonas species were the most common isolate in patients presenting with respiratory tract infection (32.4%).
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the E5 group and the placebo group with the exception of lactic acidosis, which was more common in the E5 group (P = .04). A total of 546 patients received E5 and 544 patients received placebo. Approximately 90% of patients in each treatment group completed both doses of study medication. For 61 patients in the E5 group (11.1%) and 46 patients in the placebo group (8.3%), dose administration was incomplete. Four patients in the E5 group and 8 patients in the placebo group had no infusion of study medication. The most common reason for incomplete infusion was death, which occurred in 5.5% of randomized patients in the E5 group and 5.4% of patients in the placebo group. Among patients who received no infusion, the most common reason was the occurrence of a serious adverse event for 0.5% of patients in the E5 group and 1.1% of patients in the placebo group.
Outcome
Mortality rates are shown in Table 2. No patients were lost to follow-up. There were no observed differences between E5- and placebo-treated patients at 14 or 28 days. Mortality at 14 days was 29.7% (162 deaths) and 31.1% (169 deaths) in the E5 and placebo groups, respectively (P = .67). This net difference (1.4%) fell within the formal stopping boundaries and hence led to termination of the study by the data safety and monitoring board. Mortality at 28 days was 38.5% (210 deaths) and 40.3% (219 deaths) in the E5 and placebo groups, respectively (P = .56). Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed the lack of a statistically significant difference in survival during the first 28 days (Figure 2).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Mortality Rates at Days 14 and 28 for All Treated Patients*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier Estimates of Survival to Day 28 Among Treated Patients
There was no difference in survival between patients treated with E5 and placebo. P value is for log-rank test.
|
|
|
Not surprisingly, patients without shock (n = 469) had a lower mortality rate than those with shock (n = 621); (30.9% vs 45.7% on day 28, respectively; P<.001). In the prospectively defined post-hoc analysis of those without shock, mortality was lower in those treated with E5 but the difference was not significant (mortality at 28 days was 28.9% in the E5 group and 32.6% in the placebo group, P = .32; Table 2 and Figure 3). Other post-hoc analyses, including intention-to-treat analysis and subgroup analyses based on comorbidity, organ failure, site of infection, and organism, failed to demonstrate any significant difference between treatment groups (Table 2).
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier Estimates of Survival to Day 28 Among Treated Patients With and Without Shock at Presentation
There was no difference in survival between treatment groups in patients who presented in shock (left panel). There was a trend to increased survival in those treated with E5 who presented without shock (right panel) but the difference was not significant. P value is for log-rank test.
|
|
|
Safety
Both serious (54.1%) and nonserious (56.7%) adverse events were commonly reported in the study. However, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms and most events appeared to be complications of sepsis. In particular, allergic reactions to E5 were not apparent in this cohort. Serious adverse events occurring with an incidence greater than 1% are presented in Table 3.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Serious Adverse Events With an Incidence of 1% or Higher Among Patients Treated With E5 or Placebo*
|
|
|
COMMENT
In this third phase 3 study of the E5 monoclonal antiendotoxin antibody, we failed to demonstrate that E5 reduces mortality in patients with gram-negative sepsis. Furthermore, though mortality in those without shock was lower when treated with E5, as had been hypothesized previously, neither this difference nor any other post-hoc analysis was statistically significant. These results are disappointing and raise important issues regarding the role of antiendotoxin therapies, our understanding of sepsis, and the evaluation of potential antisepsis therapies.
There have been several large clinical efficacy trials of antisepsis strategies that have failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect on mortality.24-25 The many reasons cited for the failure of prior trials can be categorized under 3 domains: choice of therapy, study design,26 and the prevailing conceptual model of sepsis.27
Problems with choice of therapy include insufficient knowledge regarding the biologic effects and the appropriate dosage and duration of therapy. With the exception of E5, HA-1A antiendotoxin monoclonal antibody,11 and taurolidine,28 most antisepsis strategies tested in the last decade have targeted endogenous inflammatory mediators.24 However, these mediators have multiple effects and the degree of suppression or enhancement required to optimize survival is complex and poorly understood.1, 9 In contrast, endotoxin is an exogenous, toxic stimulus and its neutralization in the acute setting is likely to be beneficial to the host. Unlike some antiendotoxin agents, E5 was shown in preclinical studies to not only bind endotoxin12-14,29-31 but to neutralize it with subsequent attenuated inflammatory response and improved outcome.15-17,30-34 The considerable prior experience with E5 has also led to a good understanding of its underlying pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, and 2 prior large clinical trials have used E5 at the same dosage with encouraging results in similar populations.10, 20 We do not, however, know the optimal duration of therapy. One might hypothesize that E5 should have been administered over a longer period since sepsis and organ dysfunction can often last for many days, during which recurrent endotoxemia may occur.
Attempting to learn from potential design flaws in previous trials, we undertook several steps in the design and conduct of this trial to minimize the chance of failure due to study design. First, we shortened the time window during which patients had to present with severe sepsis from 24 to 12 hours. Second, only patients failing to improve during the 12-hour period could be enrolled. Third, we targeted only patients with strong evidence of gram-negative infection and sepsis (ie, those most likely to benefit from an antiendotoxin strategy). Fourth, patients who appeared too sick to benefit (ie, were experiencing refractory shock or deemed unlikely to survive) were excluded.
Each of the above steps was monitored and tracked prospectively through the use of a screening authorization center staffed 24 hours per day by experts familiar with sepsis. The screening center authorized enrollment only after discussion with the clinical site investigators to determine suitability. The entire enrollment process was then reviewed separately by a patient evaluation and review committee to ensure compliance with study goals. In addition, the 2 prior phase 3 studies provided valuable information regarding potentially important subgroups in which benefit might be maximal. We used this information to construct entry criteria that would maximize enrollment of particular subgroups, to determine sample size, and to specify prospective subgroups for analysis.
A potential limitation of this study was our ability to detect a treatment effect in the subgroup of patients with gram-negative sepsis without shock, who were identified in previous studies as the group most likely to benefit. Even if we had completed enrollment, we would only have been able to detect a significant effect in this subgroup if mortality were reduced by almost half. Because not all patients had confirmed gram-negative infection and the trial was stopped after the second interim analysis, we had little statistical power to determine whether the observed decrease in mortality with E5 was significant. Another potential limitation of our study was the large number of sites and long enrollment period. Both of these factors may have increased the variability in management and outcome of sepsis and organ dysfunction. However, analyses of time trends and interinstitutional comparisons failed to demonstrate significant differences in outcome (data not shown). Thus, we believe our study design was generally sound with regard to most prior criticisms of sepsis trial design. Therefore, we conclude E5 either has no effect or has an effect too small to be detected using our standard approach to sepsis trial design and sample size.
If there is an important effect of E5, or of other unsuccessful antisepsis strategies, we may have to consider a more radical change in sepsis study design. For example, we may wish to study more homogeneous patient groups. As with other sepsis studies, our cohort varied widely with respect to site of infection, microorganism, and number and type of organ failures. It is possible that E5, or other antisepsis strategies, may work in particular subgroups in which mortality is most prominently driven by the septic process. To isolate this effect would likely require more focused enrollment, higher sample size, or both. Successful cardiology trials, for example, have been targeted at a relatively focused group of patients with acute myocardial infarction and have been powered to detect much smaller changes in mortality than most sepsis trials. If we had powered our study to find the same absolute risk reductions in 28-day mortality as the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO I) study of thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction,35 we would have required 76,000 patients. Other design modifications might include the study of combination therapies, or therapies titrated to particular elements of the inflammatory response that characterizes sepsis and are documented in all enrolled patients. Finally, choosing end points other than all-cause, short-term mortality may allow easier determination of therapies that have an important effect on septic morbidity.
In conclusion, despite prior encouraging results regarding the potential effects of both E5 and other antiendotoxin antibodies, and despite our efforts to conduct a study of a large cohort of carefully selected patients, we have failed to prove that E5 is beneficial in the treatment of sepsis. This trial concludes, at least for now, more than 20 years of antiendotoxin research without providing any definitive answers about mortality reduction despite a nagging tendency to show beneficial effects in post-hoc analyses. If we are to avoid such an indeterminate outcome from future endeavors, it behooves us not only to look to better and more realistic discovery programs and laboratory research but also to focus on improved clinical study design.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Advisory Board: David Bihari, MD; Christian Brun-Buisson, MD; Timothy Evans, MD; John Heffner, MD; Norman Paradis, MD.
Financial Disclosure: Drs Angus, Balk, and Graham have previously received honoraria or unrestricted educational grants from Pfizer Inc or XOMA Corp. Dr Graham owns stock in Pfizer Inc. Dr Scannon is an employee and stockholder of XOMA Corp.
E5 Investigators: Screening Authorization Committee: Mary C. Birmingham, PharmD, James R. Carr, PharmD, Joseph A. Paladino, PharmD, Jennifer D. Root, PharmD, Jerome J. Schentag, PharmD, Michael Wynd, PharmD, and Gabrial S. Zimmer, PharmD, Millard Fillmore Hospital, Buffalo, NY.
Patient Evaluation Review Committee: Robert A. Balk, MD, Rush-Presbyterian-St Luke's Hospital, Chicago, Ill; Trish M. Perl, MD, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City; and Eric Rackow, MD, St Vincent's Hospital Medical Center, New York, NY.
Site Investigators: Paul Alessi, MD, Our Lady of Lourdes, Cherry Hill, NJ; Roblee Allen, MD, University of California Medical Center, Sacramento; Derek C. Angus, MD, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa; Timothy Babinchak, MD, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa; Larry Baddour, MD, University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville; Ian Barid, MD, Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; Daniel Barbaro, MD, All Saints Hospital, Ft Worth, Tex; William Beliveau, MD, Fatima Unit of St Joseph's Hospital, Johnston, RI; Ernest Benjamin, MD, MS Medical Center, New York, NY; Bruce Berman, MD, Good Samaritan Hospital, West Palm Beach, Fla; Joseph Bertino, MD, Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Cooperstown, NY; Frank Booth, MD, Buffalo General, Buffalo, NY; David Bower, MD, Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, Ga; Ita Brandman, MD, Episcopal Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa; Thomas Butler, MD, Texas Tech University HSC, Lubbock; Stanley Chapman, MD, University of Mississippi, Medical Center, Jackson; William Cheadle, MD, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Louisville, Ky; Herman Chmel, MD, St Francis Hospital, Trenton, NJ; Richard Chmielewski, MD, St Vincent Charity Hospital and Health Center, Cleveland, Ohio; L. James Cochrane, MD, Greenville Memorial Hospital, Greenville, SC; Stephen Colodny, MD, Mercy Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa; Robert Condon, MD, Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Milwaukee, Wis; Gerald Criner, MD, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa; Kenneth Crist, MD, Bethesda Hospital, Zanesville, Ohio; Michael Dahn, MD, Allen Park Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Detroit, Mich; Robert Davis, MD, Brooklyn Hospital, Brooklyn, NY; Harakh Dedhia, MD, West Virginia University HSC, Morgantown; Steven Dougherty, MD, Thomason Hospital, El Paso, Tex; Michael Driks, MD, Baptist Medical Center, Kansas City, Mo; Stephen Eyer, MD, St Paul-Ramsey Medical Center, St Paul, Minn; Chris Farmer, MD, PS-IC Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Tex; Alan Fein, MD, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY; Donald Fry, MD, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque; Brooks Gainer, MD, Manongalia General Hospital, Morgantown, WV; Michael Gelfand, MD, Methodist Hospital of Memphis, Memphis, Tenn; Steven Gentry, MD, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hampton, Va; Leonard Goldberg, MD, Sunnyvale Medical Center, Sunnyvale, Calif; Keith Goldstein, MD, Hunterdon Medical Center, Flemington, NJ; Donald Graham, MD, St John's Hospital, Springfield, Ill; Stephen Greensberg, MD, Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Tex; John Greene, MD, H. Lee Moffit Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla; J. Keven Griffith, MD, Rex Hospital, Raleigh, NC; Joseph Guglielmo, MD, University of California, San Francisco; Robert Gullberg, MD, Racine Medical Clinic, Racine, Wis; Dieter Gump, MD, Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, Burlington; Guillermo Gutierrez, MD, Hermann Hospital, Houston, Tex; Jesse Hall, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Ill; Charles Hanna, MDF, Spartanburg Medical Center, Spartanburg, SC; Keck Hartman, MD, St Francis Regional Medical Center, Wichita, Kan; John Heffner, MD, St Joseph's Hospital Medical Center, Phoenix, Ariz; Charles Helms, MD, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City; Eileen Hilton, MD, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Hew Hyde Park, NY; Robert Hindes, MD, Danbury Hospital, Danbury, Conn; David Hitzeman, MD, Tulsa Regional Medical Center, Tulsa, Okla; Jesse Hofflin, MD, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, Colo; William Hoffman, MD, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio; Scott Homann, MD, Swedish-American Hospital, Rockford, Ill; Vatchel Israbian, MD, Central Texas Medical Center, Temple; Rao Ivatury, MD, Lincoln Medical & Mental Health Center, Bronx, NY; Luis Jauregui, MD, St Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio; David Johnson, MD, Bay Pines Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bay Pines, Fla; Steven Johnson, MD, University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, Lexington; Nancy Khadori, MD, Memorial Medical Center, Springfield, Ill; Uri Khazan, MD, Toledo Hospital, Toledo, Ohio; Richard Kohler, MD, Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis; James A. Kruse, MD, Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, Mich; Paul Kuperschmid, MD, New York Hospital of Queens, Flushing; Rodney Kusumi, MD, Grant Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; Vladimir Kvetan, MD, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; Mark Lipman, MD, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Sarasota, Fla; Neil MacIntyre, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; William Maher, MD, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Dennis Maki, MD, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison; Mark Malangoni, MD, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio; George Matuschak, MD, St Louis University Hospital, St Louis, Mo; Debbie Matzke, MD, Flower Memorial Hospital, Toledo, Ohio; Mary McCarthy, MD, Miami Valley Hospital, Dayton, Ohio; Michael Metzler, MD, University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, Columbia; Miguel Mogyoros, MD, St Joseph Hospital, Denver, Colo; John Molavi, MD, Allegheny University Hospitals, Philadelphia, Pa; Mark E. Morrison, MD, PhD, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY; Marc Moss, MD, Crawford Long Hospital, Atlanta, Ga; Jay N'Fonoyim, MD, Elmhurst Hospital, Elmhurst, NY; Ronald Nichols, MD, Medical Center of Louisiana, New Orleans; Vincent Nicolais, MD, The Medical Center, Columbus, Ga; Mike Parry, MD, Stamford Hospital, Stamford, Conn; Jeffrey Parsommet, MD, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Robert Penn, MD, Methodist Hospital, Omaha, Neb; Trish Perl, MD, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City; Rick Player, MD, Cooper Green Hospital, Birmingham, Ala; Hiram Polk, MD, University of Louisville Medical Center, Louisville, Ky; Philip Price, MD, Mount Carmel Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; Eric Rackow, MD, St Vincent's Hospital Medical Center, New York, NY; John Raffalli, MD, New York Medical College, Valhalla; Hank Rafkin, MD, St Francis Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa; James Ramage, MD, Memorial Medical Center, Savannah, Ga; Julio Ramirez, MD, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky; Eric Reines, MD, Alexandria Hospital, Alexandria, Va; John Reinhardt, MD, Wilmington Hospital, Wilmington, Del; Joel Rosenstock, MD, Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, Ga; Richard Sall, MD, Reston Hospital, Herndon, Va; Jeffrey Salon, MD, Mount Carmel Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; Donald Scholten, MD, Butterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Mich; Stanley Schwartz, MD, St Francis Hospital, Tulsa, Okla; Darryl See, MD, UCI Medical Center, Orange, Calif; Curtis Sessler, MD, West Hospital, Richmond, Va; Vinod Seth, MD, St Alexius Hospital, Bismark, ND; David Shatz, MD, Ryder Trauma Center, Miami, Fla; Urmila Shivaram, MD, and Robert Seigel, MD, State University of New York, HSC Brooklyn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Brooklyn; David Simon, MD, Cook County Hospital, Chicago, Ill; Raymond Smith, MD, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Albany, NY; Rodney Snow, MD, Carraway Methodist Medical Center, Birmingham, Ala; Timothy Sorg, MD, Good Samaritan Hospital, Dayton, Ohio; Charles Stark, MD, Harbor University of California Los Angeles Research and Education Institute, Torrance; Judy Stone, MD, Memorial Hospital and Medical Center, Cumberland, Md; James Tan, MD, Akron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio; Max Taylor, MD, North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo; Martin Tobin, MD, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, Ill; Scott Traub, MD, Mercy Hospital and Center for Health, Springfield, Mass; Gordon Trenholme, MD, Rush-Presbyterian-St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, Ill; John Trowbridge, MD, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, Calif; Carmelita Tuazon, MD, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC; Joyce Vaclav, MD, Memorial Medical Center, Monroe, Mich; Bahman Venus, MD, Mercy Memorial Hospital, Jacksonville, Fla; Merceditas Villanueva, MD, Waterbury Hospital, Waterbury, Conn; Richard Wacksman, MD, Merit Care Hospital, Fargo, ND; Michael Walkenstein, MD, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa; Donald Washington, MD, John Peter Smith Hospital, Ft Worth, Tex; Warren Whitlock, MD, DDE Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Ga; David Wilson, MD, Shadyside Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa; Lynn Witty, MD, Ball Memorial Hospital, Muncie, Ind; Larry Woods, MD, St Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, Ohio; Richard Wunderink, MD, Regional Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn; Bienvenido Yangco, MD, St Joseph's Hospital, Tampa, Fla; Albert Yellin, MD, LAC-University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles; Marcus Zervos, MD, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich.
Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants from Pfizer Inc, XOMA Corp (manufacturer of E5), and Covance.
Acknowledgment: This study would not have been possible without the considerable effort of the E5 product team at Pfizer Inc (Donna Campbell, Stephen Curley, Herb DeRiesthal, Jacqueline Doyle, Anne Dussel, Paul Jeffrey, Janet Johnson, PhD, Marcia Levenstein, Mark E. Morrison, MD, PhD, Elyse Shapiro, and C. Douglas Webb, PhD), the support of XOMA Corporation and Covance, and the tireless efforts of all study coordinators at the clinical sites.
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Derek C. Angus, MB, ChB, MPH, Room 604, Scaife Hall, Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (e-mail: angusdc{at}anes.upmc.edu).
Author Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine Division, and Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (Dr Angus); Kaleida Health/Millard Fillmore Hospital and the State University of New York, Buffalo (Dr Birmingham and Mr Collins); Rush-Presbyterian-St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, Ill (Dr Balk); XOMA Corporation, Berkeley, Calif (Dr Scannon); Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, Mich (Dr Kruse); St John's Hospital-Springfield Clinic, Springfield, Ill (Dr Graham); West Virginia University Health Science Center, Morgantown (Dr Dedhia); Swedish-American Hospital, Rockford, Ill (Dr Homann); and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (Dr MacIntyre).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Dellinger RP. From the bench to the bedside: the future of sepsis research. Executive Summary of an American College of Chest Physicians, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop. Chest. 1997;111:744-753.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Linde-Zwirble WT, Angus DC, Carcillo J, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Pinsky MR. Age-specific incidence and outcome of sepsis in the US. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:A33.
3. Centers for Disease Control. Increase in national hospital discharge survey rates for septicemia: United States, 1979-1987. JAMA. 1990;263:937-938.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Rangel-Frausto MS, Pittet D, Costigan M, Hwang T, Davis CS, Wenzel RP. The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS): a prospective study. JAMA. 1995;273:117-123.
FREE FULL TEXT
5. Sands KE, Bates DW, Lanken PN, et al for the Academic Medical Center Consortium Sepsis Project Working Group. Epidemiology of sepsis syndrome in 8 academic medical centers. JAMA. 1997;278:234-240.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Morrison DC, Ryan JL. Endotoxins and disease mechanisms. Annu Rev Med. 1987;38:417-432.
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Brade H, Brade L, Schade U, et al. Structure, endotoxicity, immunogenicity and antigenicity of bacterial lipopolysaccharides (endotoxins, O-antigens). Prog Clin Biol Res. 1988;272:17-45.
PUBMED
8. Glauser MP, Zanetti G, Baumgartner JD, Cohen J. Septic shock: pathogenesis. Lancet. 1991;338:732-736.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
9. Wheeler AP, Bernard GR. Treating patients with severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:207-214.
FREE FULL TEXT
10. Greenman RL, Schein RM, Martin MA, et al. A controlled clinical trial of E5 murine monoclonal IgM antibody to endotoxin in the treatment of gram-negative sepsis. JAMA. 1991;266:1097-1102.
FREE FULL TEXT
11. Ziegler EJ, Fisher CJ Jr, Sprung CL, et al. Treatment of gram-negative bacteremia and septic shock with HA-1A human monoclonal antibody against endotoxin: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:429-436.
ABSTRACT
12. Wood DM, Parent JB, Gazzano-Santoro H, et al. Reactivity of monoclonal antibody E5 with endotoxin, I: binding to lipid A and rough lipopolysaccharides. Circ Shock. 1992;38:55-62.
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Young LS, Gascon R, Alam S, Bermudez LE. Monoclonal antibodies for treatment of gram-negative infections. Rev Infect Dis. 1989;11:S1564-S1571.
14. Parent JB, Gazzano-Santoro H, Wood DM, et al. Reactivity of monoclonal antibody E5 with endotoxin, II: binding to short- and long-chain smooth lipopolysaccharides. Circ Shock. 1992;38:63-73.
ISI
| PUBMED
15. Romulo RL, Palardy JE, Opal SM. Efficacy of anti-endotoxin monoclonal antibody E5 alone or in combination with ciprofloxacin in neutropenic rats with pseudomonas sepsis. J Infect Dis. 1993;167:126-130.
ISI
| PUBMED
16. Lundblad R, Edstroem P, Giercksky KE. E5 monoclonal anti-endotoxin antibody improves survival and reduces LPS, TNF and endothelin in lethal rat abdominal sepsis. In: Biologic Response Modifiers. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1993.
17. Inada K, Endo S, Yamashita H, Suzuki M, Yoshida H, Yoshoda M. Inhibitory effect of mouse antiendotoxin monoclonal antibody (E5) on hypotension induced by endotoxin and TNF-alpha. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1993 Nov;67(11):1108-1114.
18. Harkonen S, Scannon P, Mischak RP, et al. Phase I study of a murine monoclonal anti-lipid A antibody in bacteremic and nonbacteremic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:710-716.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. Greenberg RN, Wilson KM, Kunz AY, Wedel NI, Gorelick KJ. Observations using antiendotoxin antibody (E5) as adjuvant therapy in humans with suspected, serious, gram-negative sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1992;20:730-735.
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Bone RC, Balk RA, Fein AM, et al. A second large controlled clinical study of E5, a monoclonal antibody to endotoxin: results of a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:994-1006.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
21. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al for the Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis Chest. 1992;101:1644-1655.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Lan KKG, DeMets DL. More flexible sequential and non-sequential designs in long-term clinical trials. Commun Stat Theor Methods. 1984;13:2339-2353.
23. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences Working Group I. International Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1990.
24. Natanson C, Esposito CJ, Banks SM. The sirens' songs of confirmatory sepsis trials: selection bias and sampling error. Crit Care Med. 1998;26:1927-1931.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
25. Zeni F, Freeman B, Natanson C. Anti-inflammatory therapies to treat sepsis and septic shock: a reassessment. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1095-1100.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
26. Angus DC. Discourse on method: measuring the value of new therapies in intensive care. In: Vincent JL, ed. Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1998:263-279.
27. Bone RC, Grodzin CJ, Balk RA. Sepsis: a new hypothesis for pathogenesis of the disease process. Chest. 1997;112:235-243.
FREE FULL TEXT
28. Willatts SM, Radford S, Leitermann M. Effect of the antiendotoxic agent, taurolidine, in the treatment of sepsis syndrome: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:1033-1039.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
29. Gorelick KJ, Wood DM, Parent JB, et al. Binding characteristics of the antiendotoxin antibody XomenJ-E5 to bacterial whole-cell antigens. In: Faist E, Meakins JL, Schildberg FW, eds. 2nd International Congress on the Immune Consequences of Trauma, Shock and Sepsis: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1993:1212-1217.
30. Seelen MA, Athanassiou P, Lynn WA, et al. The anti-lipid A monoclonal antibody E5 binds to rough gram-negative bacteria, fixes C3, and facilitates binding of bacterial immune complexes to both erythrocytes and monocytes. Immunology. 1995;84:653-661.
ISI
| PUBMED
31. Bouter AS, van Kessel KPM, Cornelissen JJ, et al. Antibiotics enhance binding of lipid A-specific murine monoclonal antibody E5 to gram-negative bacteria. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1994;4:191-195.
PUBMED
32. Kobayashi H, Oishi S, Koumoto A, Yoshida T, Matsunaga T, Ogawa M. The inhibitory effect of mouse monoclonal IgM antibody E5 against endotoxin on limulus activity of various lipopolysaccharides. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1994;68:314-318.
PUBMED
33. Inada K, Endo S, Yamashita H, Suzuki M, Yoshida H, Yoshida M. Inhibitory effect of mouse antiendotoxin monoclonal antibody (E5) on hypotension induced by endotoxin and TNF-alpha. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1993;67:1108-1114.
PUBMED
34. Chen TY, Zapol WM, Greene E, Robinson DR, Rubin RH. Protective effects of E5, an antiendotoxin monoclonal antibody, in the ovine pulmonary circulation. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75:233-239.
FREE FULL TEXT
35. The GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:673-682.
FREE FULL TEXT
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient Section Editor: Deborah J. Cook, MD, Consulting Editor, JAMA.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
April 5, 2000
JAMA. 2000;283(13):1759-1760.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Phase 1/2 Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose Escalation, Safety, and Pharmacokinetic Study of Pagibaximab (BSYX-A110), an Antistaphylococcal Monoclonal Antibody for the Prevention of Staphylococcal Bloodstream Infections, in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Neonates
Weisman et al.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009;53:2879-2886.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Serious adverse events in academic critical care research
Cook et al.
CMAJ 2008;178:1181-1184.
FULL TEXT
Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Severe Sepsis
Friedrich et al.
NEJM 2006;354:94-96.
FULL TEXT
The importance of the gastrointestinal system in the pathogenesis of heart failure
Krack et al.
Eur Heart J 2005;26:2368-2374.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Extended Evaluation of Recombinant Human Activated Protein C United States Trial (ENHANCE US): A Single-Arm, Phase 3B, Multicenter Study of Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Severe Sepsis
Bernard et al.
Chest 2004;125:2206-2216.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Human lipoproteins have divergent neutralizing effects on E. coli LPS, N. meningitidis LPS, and complete Gram-negative bacteria
Sprong et al.
J. Lipid Res. 2004;45:742-749.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Receptors, Mediators, and Mechanisms Involved in Bacterial Sepsis and Septic Shock
Van Amersfoort et al.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003;16:379-414.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The role of the endothelium in severe sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome
Aird
Blood 2003;101:3765-3777.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Problems and Challenges of Immunotherapy in Sepsis
Nasraway
Chest 2003;123:451S-459S.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Epidemiology of Sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000
Martin et al.
NEJM 2003;348:1546-1554.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Epidemiology of Severe Sepsis in Children in the United States
Watson et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2003;167:695-701.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Therapeutic efficacy of intraperitoneal polymyxin B and polymyxin-like peptides alone or combined with levofloxacin in rat models of septic shock
Giacometti et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2002;49:193-196.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Efficacy and Safety of Recombinant Human Activated Protein C for Severe Sepsis
Bernard et al.
NEJM 2001;344:699-709.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinically-oriented therapies in sepsis: a review
Dubois and Vincent
Innate Immunity 2000;6:463-469.
ABSTRACT
Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
Concato et al.
NEJM 2000;342:1887-1892.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Intensive Care Medicine 2000: First Signs of Maturity?
Suter
Anesth. Analg. 2000;90:1236-1237.
FULL TEXT
|
