Skip to main content

Euphrates Trial Results: Let the Dicing and Slicing Begin! by Steven P. LaRosa, M.D.

This week the much anticipated results of the Euphrates Trial were presented in Vicenza. For those of you not familiar with this acronym, this was the first blinded randomized controlled trial of the Immobilized Polymyxin (PMX) Filter in the treatment of patients with septic shock. This filter known as TORAYMYXIN has been used for years in thousands of patients in Japan and Europe. The mechanism of action is the removal of endotoxin believed to be a noxious mediator of sepsis. This clinical trial was novel in that it included a biomarker, the endotoxin activity assay (EAA), as an inclusion criteria to select patients who had the target of the therapy. Patients were included if they had septic shock and a high EAA level of > or = 0.6. Patients randomized to the treatment arm had hemoperfusion of their blood over the PMX filter during 2 2hour sessions 24 hours apart. Patients in the sham group had the usual standard of care but had a venous catheter layed over their skin with bandage in place. Hemoperfusion was performed by unblinded nephrologists behind a screen such that the clinical investigators where unaware of the patient's treatment assignment.

In all 450 patients were randomized in the study and composed the primary analysis intent to treat (ITT) population. No difference in 28 day mortality was observed in the PMX group in this primary analysis. Much was made in this presentation of an a priori analysis of a per protocol population (patients who had both PMX sessions) and had a MODS score of >9. In this population the 28 day mortality was 31.9% in the treatment arm vs. 36.9% in the sham group. The p value for this analysis however was 0.407 indicating a 40% chance that this observed 5% difference in mortality could have been due to chance alone. The data was further diced into a posthoc subgroup of this subgroup of per-protocol patients with MODS > 9 and EAA levels between 0.6 and 0.9. In this subgroup a 10.7% lower mortality was observed in the PMX group compared to the sham group with a p value of 0.0474. This analysis does not correct for the multiplicity of analysis that took place in the study i.e. a Bonferroni correction. Simply stated you must divide the p value by the number of subgroups you are testing. In this case, we know that at least 2 subgroups have been tested so the p value of 0.05  must at least be divided by 2 so that statistical significance must be less than 0.025. You are not in statistical sense allowed cut the data multiple times until you find a subgroup with a statistically significant benefit and then infer efficacy. The best that can be said about this subgroup is that it is "hypothesis- generating" and that this treatment effect would need to be confirmed in an additional adequately powered trial.

In conclusion, the efficacy of the PMX filter in patients with septic shock was not confirmed in THE EUPHRATES TRIAL. This therapy should not be approved by regulators for the treatment of patients with septic shock. If the sponsor, SPECTRAL DIAGNOSTICS, truly believes that this therapy works in patients with MODS > 9 and EAA levels between 0.6 and 0.9 then they will need to perform an additional trial to prove this.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Testing Strategies Against Lyme Persisters" by Steven LaRosa, MD

Recently I was contacted and interviewed by a party to get my feelings about the state of treatment of Lyme disease. On the phone we lamented about the sizable number of poor souls who continue to suffer symptoms after what is considered standard of care treatment. I made it clear to the interviewer that I practice only evidence-based medicine and that I treat patients based upon the IDSA guidelines. I also railed against physicians who treat patients with months of parenteral antibiotic therapy for “Chronic Limes’ Disease” (ha ha). I stated fairly aggressive and believe that such practices opens the patient to life threatening infections including catheter-related bacteremia and Clostridium difficile colitis. After I got off the phone I started to do some soul searching. I have gotten so used to saying the same lines over and over again, but when was the last time that I actually had looked at the literature? The answer obviously was way too long ago. I was able to identify 5 cli...
2 comments
Read more

"The Viral Hypothesis of Alzheimer's Disease: Time to put it to the test!" by Steven P. LaRosa, M.D.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) was estimated to affect 35.5 million people worldwide in 2010 and is expected to affect 115.4 million people by 2050. Approximately 10% of people over 65 are affected and 50% of population > 85 are affected. The currently approved drugs provide minimal benefit. The benefit of experimental drugs observed in Phase II clinical trials has been followed by resounding failures in adequately powered Phase III clinical trials. Even the results of the highly publicized Biogen study have significant questions associated with it. It is quite clear that a new strategy must be entertained and tested. Four members of the Human Herpes Virus family have been associated with development of Alzheimer’s disease; HSV-1, VZV, HHV-6A, and HHV-7. HSV-1 is capable in vitro leading to the production the Beta amyloid protein found in senile plaques and phosphorylating tau protein seen in neurofibrillary tangles seen in Alzheimer’s, a   phenomenon that can be blocked by co-i...
2 comments
Read more

Opening One’s Mind to Lyme Disease Treatment (at least to need for more clinical trials)

Recently I was contacted and interviewed by a party to get my feelings about the state of treatment of Lyme disease. On the phone we lamented about the sizable number of poor souls who continue to suffer symptoms after what is considered standard of care treatment. I made it clear to the interviewer that I practice only evidence-based medicine and that I treat patients based upon the IDSA guidelines. I also railed against physicians who treat patients with months of parenteral antibiotic therapy for “Chronic Limes’ Disease” (ha ha). I stated fairly aggressive and believe that such practices opens the patient to life threatening infections including catheter-related bacteremia and Clostridium difficile colitis. After I got off the phone I started to do some soul searching. I have gotten so used to saying the same lines over and over again, but when was the last time that I actually had looked at the literature? The answer obviously was way too long ago. I was able to ...
Post a Comment
Read more