We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Treatment of septic shock with human monoclonal antibody HA-1A. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. CHESS Trial Study Group.
Annals of Internal Medicine 1994 July 2
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 100 mg of HA-1A and placebo in reducing the 14-day all-cause mortality rate in patients with septic shock and gram-negative bacteremia in the Centocor: HA-1A Efficacy in Septic Shock (CHESS) trial, and to assess the safety of 100 mg of HA-1A given to patients with septic shock who did not have gram-negative bacteremia.
DESIGN: Large, simple, group-sequential, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.
SETTING: 603 investigators at 513 community and university-affiliated hospitals in the United States.
PATIENTS: Within 6 hours before enrollment, the patients had been in shock with a systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg after adequate fluid challenge or had received vasopressors to maintain blood pressure. These episodes of shock began within 24 hours of enrollment. A presumptive clinical diagnosis of gram-negative infection as the cause of the shock episode and a commitment from the patients' physicians to provide full supportive care were required.
MEASUREMENTS: Blood cultures were obtained within 48 hours of enrollment, and death at day 14 after treatment was recorded. Adverse events occurring within 14 days after enrollment were also tabulated.
RESULTS: 2199 patients were enrolled; 621 (28.2%) met all enrollment criteria, received HA-1A or placebo, and had confirmed gram-negative bacteremia. Mortality rates in this group were as follows: placebo, 32% (95 and HA-1A, 33% (109 of 328) (P = 0.864, Fisher exact test, two-tailed; 95% CI for the difference, -6.2% to 8.6%). Mortality rates in the patients without gram-negative bacteremia were as follows: placebo, 37% (292 of 793) and HA-1A, 41% (318 of 785) (P = 0.073, Fisher exact test, one-tailed; CI, -0.8% to 8.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, HA-1A was not effective in reducing the 14-day mortality rate in patients with gram-negative bacteremia and septic shock. These data do not support using septic shock as an indication for HA-1A treatment. If HA-1A is effective in reducing the mortality rate in patients dying from endotoxemia, these patients must be identified using other treatment criteria.
DESIGN: Large, simple, group-sequential, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.
SETTING: 603 investigators at 513 community and university-affiliated hospitals in the United States.
PATIENTS: Within 6 hours before enrollment, the patients had been in shock with a systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg after adequate fluid challenge or had received vasopressors to maintain blood pressure. These episodes of shock began within 24 hours of enrollment. A presumptive clinical diagnosis of gram-negative infection as the cause of the shock episode and a commitment from the patients' physicians to provide full supportive care were required.
MEASUREMENTS: Blood cultures were obtained within 48 hours of enrollment, and death at day 14 after treatment was recorded. Adverse events occurring within 14 days after enrollment were also tabulated.
RESULTS: 2199 patients were enrolled; 621 (28.2%) met all enrollment criteria, received HA-1A or placebo, and had confirmed gram-negative bacteremia. Mortality rates in this group were as follows: placebo, 32% (95 and HA-1A, 33% (109 of 328) (P = 0.864, Fisher exact test, two-tailed; 95% CI for the difference, -6.2% to 8.6%). Mortality rates in the patients without gram-negative bacteremia were as follows: placebo, 37% (292 of 793) and HA-1A, 41% (318 of 785) (P = 0.073, Fisher exact test, one-tailed; CI, -0.8% to 8.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, HA-1A was not effective in reducing the 14-day mortality rate in patients with gram-negative bacteremia and septic shock. These data do not support using septic shock as an indication for HA-1A treatment. If HA-1A is effective in reducing the mortality rate in patients dying from endotoxemia, these patients must be identified using other treatment criteria.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app