OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor 546C88 in patients with septic shock. The predefined primary efficacy objective was resolution of shock, defined as a mean arterial pressure > or =70 mm Hg in the absence of both conventional vasopressors and study drug, determined at the end of the 72-hr treatment period. DESIGN: Multicentered, randomized, placebo-controlled, safety and efficacy study. SETTING: Forty-eight intensive care units in Europe, North America, and Australia. PATIENTS: A total of 312 patients with septic shock diagnosed within 24 hr before randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 546C88 or placebo (5% dextrose) by intravenous infusion for up to 72 hrs. Conventional vasoactive therapy was restricted to norepinephrine, dopamine, and dobutamine. Study drug was initiated at 0.1 mL/kg/hr (5 mg/kg/hr 546C88) and titrated according to response up to a maximum rate of 0.4 mL/kg/hr with the objective to maintain mean arterial pressure at 70 mm Hg while attempting to withdraw any concurrent vasopressor(s). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Requirement for vasopressors, systemic hemodynamics, indices of organ function and safety (including survival up to day 28) were assessed. The median mean arterial pressure for both groups was maintained >70 mm Hg. Administration of 546C88 was associated with a decrease in cardiac index while stroke index was maintained. Resolution of shock at 72 hr was achieved by 40% and 24% of the patients in the 546C88 and placebo cohorts, respectively (p =.004). There was no evidence that treatment with 546C88 had any major adverse effect on pulmonary, hepatic, or renal function. Day 28 survival was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, treatment with the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor 546C88 promoted the resolution of shock in patients with severe sepsis. This was associated with an acceptable overall safety profile.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor 546C88 in patients with septic shock. The predefined primary efficacy objective was resolution of shock, defined as a mean arterial pressure > or =70 mm Hg in the absence of both conventional vasopressors and study drug, determined at the end of the 72-hr treatment period. DESIGN: Multicentered, randomized, placebo-controlled, safety and efficacy study. SETTING: Forty-eight intensive care units in Europe, North America, and Australia. PATIENTS: A total of 312 patients with septic shock diagnosed within 24 hr before randomization. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 546C88 or placebo (5% dextrose) by intravenous infusion for up to 72 hrs. Conventional vasoactive therapy was restricted to norepinephrine, dopamine, and dobutamine. Study drug was initiated at 0.1 mL/kg/hr (5 mg/kg/hr 546C88) and titrated according to response up to a maximum rate of 0.4 mL/kg/hr with the objective to maintain mean arterial pressure at 70 mm Hg while attempting to withdraw any concurrent vasopressor(s). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Requirement for vasopressors, systemic hemodynamics, indices of organ function and safety (including survival up to day 28) were assessed. The median mean arterial pressure for both groups was maintained >70 mm Hg. Administration of 546C88 was associated with a decrease in cardiac index while stroke index was maintained. Resolution of shock at 72 hr was achieved by 40% and 24% of the patients in the 546C88 and placebo cohorts, respectively (p =.004). There was no evidence that treatment with 546C88 had any major adverse effect on pulmonary, hepatic, or renal function. Day 28 survival was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, treatment with the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor 546C88 promoted the resolution of shock in patients with severe sepsis. This was associated with an acceptable overall safety profile.
Authors: Hendrik Bracht; Enrico Calzia; Michael Georgieff; Joel Singer; Peter Radermacher; James A Russell Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Ricky Cheung; Fran Shen; Joseph H Phillips; Mandy J McGeachy; Daniel J Cua; Paul G Heyworth; Robert H Pierce Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Seung Hyun Han; Je Hak Kim; Ho Seong Seo; Michael H Martin; Gook-Hyun Chung; Suzanne M Michalek; Moon H Nahm Journal: J Immunol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Roger G Spragg; Gordon R Bernard; William Checkley; J Randall Curtis; Ognjen Gajic; Gordon Guyatt; Jesse Hall; Elliott Israel; Manu Jain; Dale M Needham; Adrienne G Randolph; Gordon D Rubenfeld; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Lorraine B Ware; Duncan Young; Andrea L Harabin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Matthias Lange; Rhykka Connelly; Daniel L Traber; Atsumori Hamahata; Robert A Cox; Yoshimitsu Nakano; Kamna Bansal; Aimalohi Esechie; Sanna von Borzyskowski; Collette Jonkam; Lillian D Traber; Hal K Hawkins; David N Herndon; Perenlei Enkhbaatar Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 7.598