Marshall John C
Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Crit Care. 2005;9(6):626-8. doi: 10.1186/cc3907. Epub 2005 Nov 22.
Human sepsis is an intrinsically complex disease. Populations of patients enrolled into clinical trials of novel sepsis therapies are notoriously heterogeneous with respect to the inciting cause of their disease, the co-morbid conditions that define its course, and the acute severity of their initial presentation. This heterogeneity is reflected in strikingly variable mortality risks across studies, and probably, though less clearly-established, in variable response rates to a given intervention. In an accompanying article in this issue of Critical Care, Macias and colleagues argue that the effectiveness of adjuvant sepsis therapies is not dependent on the baseline mortality risk, since the few "positive" trials that have been published show widely divergent placebo mortality rates. But this analysis assumes that biologically distinct interventions will be equally efficacious in clinically diverse populations, and confuses severity as a population descriptor with severity as a surrogate measure of a biologic state in an individual patient. In a pivotal trial of recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) in patients with severe sepsis, an aggregate 6% mortality decrement appeared to be the result of negligible efficacy in the least severely ill patients, and considerably greater efficacy in those who were at greatest risk of dying. A larger follow-up study recruiting low risk patients confirmed this impression, showing a convincing absence of benefit in patients who clinicians judged to be less severely ill. If we accept Macias' argument, we are led to the conclusion that rhAPC is of limited use in the management of severe sepsis. On the other hand, if we view severity as a crude surrogate for a particular pathologic state, we would shift our focus to better defining those populations most likely to benefit from intervention, including patients who may not have met criteria for entry in the original PROWESS trial--those with disseminated intravascular coagulation or acute organ dysfunction from causes other than sepsis. Staging systems that stratify heterogeneous patient populations by risk and by potential to benefit from intervention have proven to be essential to the development of multimodal adjuvant treatment for cancer. They will be no less important in the optimal management of sepsis.
人类脓毒症是一种本质上很复杂的疾病。参与新型脓毒症治疗临床试验的患者群体在疾病的诱发原因、决定病程的合并症以及初始表现的急性严重程度方面存在显著的异质性。这种异质性反映在各研究中显著不同的死亡风险上,并且可能(尽管不太明确)反映在对特定干预的不同反应率上。在本期《重症监护》杂志的一篇随附文章中,马西亚斯及其同事认为辅助性脓毒症治疗的有效性并不取决于基线死亡风险,因为已发表的少数“阳性”试验显示安慰剂死亡率差异很大。但这种分析假定生物学上不同的干预措施在临床上不同的人群中会同样有效,并且将作为人群描述指标的严重程度与作为个体患者生物学状态替代指标的严重程度混为一谈。在一项针对严重脓毒症患者的重组人活化蛋白C(rhAPC)关键试验中,总体死亡率降低6%似乎是因为病情最不严重的患者疗效可忽略不计,而在死亡风险最高的患者中疗效则显著更高。一项纳入低风险患者的更大规模随访研究证实了这一印象,表明临床判断病情不太严重的患者显然没有获益。如果我们接受马西亚斯的观点,就会得出rhAPC在严重脓毒症管理中用途有限的结论。另一方面,如果我们将严重程度视为特定病理状态的粗略替代指标,就会将重点转移到更好地界定最可能从干预中获益的人群,包括那些可能未达到最初PROWESS试验入选标准的患者——那些因脓毒症以外的原因出现弥散性血管内凝血或急性器官功能障碍的患者。通过风险和从干预中获益的可能性对异质患者群体进行分层的分期系统已被证明对癌症多模式辅助治疗的发展至关重要。它们在脓毒症的最佳管理中同样重要。