Vincent Jean-Louis
Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Free University of Brussels, Belgium.
Crit Care Med. 2004 May;32(5 Suppl):S209-13. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000126124.41743.86.
To determine whether an intervention, either therapeutic or diagnostic, is effective, it needs to be assessed according to a predefined endpoint (or outcome measure), the choice of which will vary according to the aims of the study in question and the anticipated effects of the intervention being tested. Studies can have one of several functions (which are not always mutually exclusive), including providing evidence of biological efficacy, determining a clinically important benefit, and achieving regulatory approval. In trials of therapeutic efficacy in sepsis, mortality rates are a good endpoint because death is common and mortality rates are an unambiguous measure: patients either survive or they do not. However, the time at which mortality should be recorded is less clear cut, and this single endpoint provides no information regarding the biological activity or disease modification effects of the agent under investigation. In this article, we will briefly discuss some of the potential alternative endpoints that could be used in the assessment of antisepsis agents.
为了确定一种干预措施(无论是治疗性还是诊断性)是否有效,需要根据预先定义的终点(或结局指标)进行评估,其选择将根据相关研究的目的以及所测试干预措施的预期效果而有所不同。研究可以具有多种功能之一(这些功能并不总是相互排斥的),包括提供生物学疗效的证据、确定具有临床重要意义的益处以及获得监管批准。在脓毒症治疗效果的试验中,死亡率是一个很好的终点,因为死亡很常见,而且死亡率是一个明确的衡量标准:患者要么存活,要么死亡。然而,记录死亡率的时间并不那么明确,而且这个单一终点无法提供有关所研究药物的生物学活性或疾病改善效果的信息。在本文中,我们将简要讨论一些可用于评估抗菌药物的潜在替代终点。