Suchergebnisse

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis remains a major health problem with an increasing incidence, high morbidity and high mortality. Apart from treatment with antibiotics and organ support, no approved specific adjunct therapies currently exist. Adrenomedullin (ADM) is a vasoactive peptide. High plasma concentrations of ADM correlate with worse outcome in sepsis patients. Preclinical work with the non-neutralising ADM-binding antibody adrecizumab showed promising effects in animal models of septic shock, including improved vascular barrier function, reduced vasopressor demand and organ dysfunction and increased survival. Therapeutic use of adrecizumab may therefore improve outcome in critically ill patients with septic shock and high ADM plasma concentrations. Phase I studies in healthy volunteers did not reveal any safety concerns. In this biomarker-guided trial, the safety and efficacy of adrecizumab will be investigated in patients with septic shock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe a phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, proof-of-concept and dose-finding clinical trial in patients with early septic shock and high concentration of circulating ADM. A total of 300 patients will be enrolled at approximately 30 sites within the European Union. Patients are randomised to receive active treatment (2 and 4 mg/kg adrecizumab) or placebo, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Patient selection is guided by clinical parameters, and biomarker-guided by measurement of circulating biologically active ADM concentration at admission. Primary endpoint is safety and tolerability of adrecizumab over a 90-day period. A key secondary endpoint is the Sepsis Severity Index over a 14-day period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by relevant institutional review boards/independent ethics committees and is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the European Medicines Agency guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and all other applicable regulations. Results of this study will ...

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis remains a major health problem with an increasing incidence, high morbidity and high mortality. Apart from treatment with antibiotics and organ support, no approved specific adjunct therapies currently exist. Adrenomedullin (ADM) is a vasoactive peptide. High plasma concentrations of ADM correlate with worse outcome in sepsis patients. Preclinical work with the non-neutralising ADM-binding antibody adrecizumab showed promising effects in animal models of septic shock, including improved vascular barrier function, reduced vasopressor demand and organ dysfunction and increased survival. Therapeutic use of adrecizumab may therefore improve outcome in critically ill patients with septic shock and high ADM plasma concentrations. Phase I studies in healthy volunteers did not reveal any safety concerns. In this biomarker-guided trial, the safety and efficacy of adrecizumab will be investigated in patients with septic shock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe a phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, proof-of-concept and dose-finding clinical trial in patients with early septic shock and high concentration of circulating ADM. A total of 300 patients will be enrolled at approximately 30 sites within the European Union. Patients are randomised to receive active treatment (2 and 4 mg/kg adrecizumab) or placebo, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Patient selection is guided by clinical parameters, and biomarker-guided by measurement of circulating biologically active ADM concentration at admission. Primary endpoint is safety and tolerability of adrecizumab over a 90-day period. A key secondary endpoint is the Sepsis Severity Index over a 14-day period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by relevant institutional review boards/independent ethics committees and is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the European Medicines Agency guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and all other applicable regulations. Results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03085758; Pre-results.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis remains a major health problem with an increasing incidence, high morbidity and high mortality. Apart from treatment with antibiotics and organ support, no approved specific adjunct therapies currently exist. Adrenomedullin (ADM) is a vasoactive peptide. High plasma concentrations of ADM correlate with worse outcome in sepsis patients. Preclinical work with the non-neutralising ADM-binding antibody adrecizumab showed promising effects in animal models of septic shock, including improved vascular barrier function, reduced vasopressor demand and organ dysfunction and increased survival. Therapeutic use of adrecizumab may therefore improve outcome in critically ill patients with septic shock and high ADM plasma concentrations. Phase I studies in healthy volunteers did not reveal any safety concerns. In this biomarker-guided trial, the safety and efficacy of adrecizumab will be investigated in patients with septic shock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe a phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, proof-of-concept and dose-finding clinical trial in patients with early septic shock and high concentration of circulating ADM. A total of 300 patients will be enrolled at approximately 30 sites within the European Union. Patients are randomised to receive active treatment (2 and 4 mg/kg adrecizumab) or placebo, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Patient selection is guided by clinical parameters, and biomarker-guided by measurement of circulating biologically active ADM concentration at admission. Primary endpoint is safety and tolerability of adrecizumab over a 90-day period. A key secondary endpoint is the Sepsis Severity Index over a 14-day period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by relevant institutional review boards/independent ethics committees and is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the European Medicines Agency guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and all other applicable regulations. Results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03085758; Pre-results.

Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575-590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

International audience ; Background: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial.Methods: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care.Conclusion: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

The complexity of standard medical treatment for heart failure is growing, and such therapy typically involves 5 or more different medications. Given these pressures, there is increasing interest in harnessing cardiovascular biomarkers for clinical application to more effectively guide diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapy. It may be possible to realize an era of personalized medicine for heart failure treatment in which therapy is optimized and costs are controlled. The direct mechanistic coupling of biologic processes and therapies achieved in cancer treatment remains elusive in heart failure. Recent clinical trials and meta-analyses of biomarkers in heart failure have produced conflicting evidence. In this article, which comprises a summary of discussions from the Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum held in Paris, France, we offer a brief overview of the background and rationale for biomarker testing in heart failure, describe opportunities and challenges from a regulatory perspective, and summarize current positions from government agencies in the United States and European Union.

BACKGROUND: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial. METHODS: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care. CONCLUSION: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

BACKGROUND: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial. METHODS: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care. CONCLUSION: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

Aims Changes in echocardiographic parameters and biomarkers of cardiac and venous pressures or estimated plasma volume during hospitalization associated with decongestive treatments in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with either preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFPEF) or reduced LVEF (HFREF) are poorly assessed. Methods and results From the metabolic road to diastolic heart failure: diastolic heart failure (MEDIA-DHF) study, 111 patients were included in this substudy: 77 AHF (43 HFPEF and 34 HFREF) and 34 non-cardiac dyspnea patients. Echocardiographic measurements and blood samples were obtained within 4 h of presentation at the emergency department and before hospital discharge. In AHF patients, echocardiographic indices of cardiac and venous pressures, including inferior vena cava diameter [from 22 (16-24) mm to 13 (11-18) mm, P = 0.009], its respiratory variability [from 32 (8-44) % to 43 (29-70) %, P = 0.04], medial E/e' [from 21.1 (15.8-29.6) to 16.6 (11.7-24.3), P = 0.004], and E wave deceleration time [from 129 (105-156) ms to 166 (128-203) ms, P = 0.003], improved during hospitalization, similarly in HFPEF and HFREF patients. By contrast, no changes were seen in non-cardiac dyspnea patients. In AHF patients, all plasma biomarkers of cardiac and venous pressures, namely B-type natriuretic peptide [from 935 (514-2037) pg/mL to 308 (183-609) pg/mL, P < 0.001], mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide [from 449 (274-653) pmol/L to 366 (242-549) pmol/L, P < 0.001], and soluble CD-146 levels [from 528 (406-654) ng/mL to 450 (374-529) ng/mL, P = 0.003], significantly decreased during hospitalization, similarly in HFPEF and HFREF patients. Echocardiographic parameters of cardiac chamber dimensions [left ventricular end-diastolic volume: from 120 (76-140) mL to 118 (95-176) mL, P = 0.23] and cardiac index [from 2.1 (1.6-2.6) mL/min/m(2) to 1.9 (1.4-2.4) mL/min/m(2), P = 0.55] were unchanged in AHF patients, except tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) that improved during hospitalization [from 16 (15-19) mm to 19 (17-21) mm, P = 0.04]. Estimated plasma volume increased in both AHF [from 4.8 (4.2-5.6) to 5.1 (4.4-5.8), P = 0.03] and non-cardiac dyspnea patients (P = 0.01). Serum creatinine [from 1.18 (0.90-1.53) to 1.19 (0.86-1.70) mg/dL, P = 0.89] and creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate [from 59 (40-75) mL/min/1.73m(2) to 56 (38-73) mL/min/1.73m(2), P = 0.09] were similar, while plasma cystatin C [from 1.50 (1.20-2.27) mg/L to 1.78 (1.33-2.59) mg/L, P < 0.001] and neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin (NGAL) [from 127 (95-260) ng/mL to 167 (104-263) ng/mL, P = 0.004] increased during hospitalization in AHF. Conclusions Echocardiographic parameters and plasma biomarkers of cardiac and venous pressures improved during AHF hospitalization in both acute HFPEF and HFREF patients, while cardiac chamber dimensions, cardiac output, and estimated plasma volume showed minimal changes. ; This study was supported by a grant from the European Union funded by the Seventh Framework Programme for Health in 2010 (FP7-HEALTH-2010-MEDIA; Luxembourg) (F.Z., P.R., A. M) and research fellowship from Japan Heart Foundation (E. A.). P.R., N.G., T.C., and F.Z. are supported by a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the second "Investissements d'Avenir" programmes Fighting Heart Failure (reference: ANR-15-RHU-0004), GEENAGE Impact Lorraine Universite d'Excellence and by the Contrat de Plan Etat Lorraine IT2MP and FEDER Lorraine. ; Mebazaa, A (corresponding author), Hop Univ St Louis Lariboisiere, Dept Anesthesia & Crit Care, 2 Rue Ambroise Pare, F-75010 Paris, France. alexandre.mebazaa@aphp.fr

WOS: 000356799600005 ; PubMed ID: 25999021 ; Acute heart failure is a fatal syndrome. Emergency physicians, cardiologists, intensivists, nurses and other health care providers have to cooperate to provide optimal benefit. However, many treatment decisions are opinion-based and few are evidenced-based. This consensus paper provides guidance to practicing physicians and nurses to manage acute heart failure in the pre-hospital and hospital setting. Criteria of hospitalization and of discharge are described. Gaps in knowledge and perspectives in the management of acute heart failure are also detailed. This consensus paper on acute heart failure might help enable contiguous practice. ; Bayer; Cardiorentis; Medicine Company; Critical Diagnostics; Novartis; Steering Committee member of Cardiorentis; TUBITAK; Medicines Company; Cornerstone Therapeutics; Otsuka; Janssen; Apex Innovations; Inte-Section Medical; Trevena; Vifor Pharma Ltd; Amgen; Servier; Abbott Vascular; Coridea; Respicardia; Swiss National Science Foundation; Swiss Heart Foundation; Cardiovascular Research Foundation Basel; 8sense; Abbott; ALERE; Brahms; Nanosphere; Roche; Siemens; University Hospital Basel; Astra Zeneca; BG medicine; Biomerieux; Lilly; Orion; Resmed; Roche Diagnostics; Ratiopharm; BMS; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Pfizer; Daiichi Sankyo; Boehinger Ingelheim; AstraZeneca; European Union ; A.M. received speaker's honoraria from Alere, Bayer, Edwards Life Sciences, The Medicines Company, Novartis, Orion, Servier, Thermofisher, Vifor Pharma and also received fee as member of advisory board and/or Steering Committee from Bayer, Cardiorentis, The Medicine Company, Critical Diagnostics.; M.B.Y. received speaker's honoraria and research fee from Novartis and received fee as Steering Committee member of Cardiorentis, and is supported by TUBITAK.; P.L. received speaker's honoraria from Beckman Coulter and Novartis and also received fees as a member of advisory board and/or Steering Committee from Bayer, Cardiorentis, The Medicines Company, Cornerstone Therapeutics, Novartis, Otsuka, Janssen, Apex Innovations, Inte-Section Medical, and Trevena.; P.P. received speaker's honoraria from Bayer, Novartis, Servier, Vifor Pharma, Amgen, Pfizer, Cardiorentis, Merck-Serono, Abbott Vascular and Respicardia and also received fee as member of advisory board and/or Steering Committee from Bayer, Cardiorentis, Novartis, Vifor Pharma Ltd, Amgen, Servier, Abbott Vascular, Coridea and Respicardia.; E.L. received consultancy fee from Novartis.; J.M. received honoraria for speaker or advisor from Abbott, Novartis, Orion, Otsuka, and Sanofi and fee as a member of Steering Committee from Corthera, Novartis, and Cardiorentis.; C.M. received research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation Basel, 8sense, Abbott, ALERE, Brahms, Critical Diagnostics, Nanosphere, Roche, Siemens, and the University Hospital Basel, as well as speaker/consulting honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Abbott, ALERE, BG medicine, Biomerieux, Brahms, Cardiorentis, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Siemens.; V.P.H. received speaker's fee: Bayer, Orion, Resmed, Roche Diagnostics, Ratiopharm; consultation fees: Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Servier. H.A.T. received speaker's honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Medicines Company, AstraZeneca, Boehinger Ingelheim. Advisory board for Maquet Cardiovascular. Institutional research support by Maquet Cardiovascular, Teleflex, Terumo, Lilly, The Medicine Company.; G.F. has received research grants and/or has served as Committee member or Cochair of studies sponsored by Bayer, Novartis, Cardiorentis, Vifor Pharma, and the European Union.