Abstract
This retrospective study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of existing approach of ulinastatin for the treatment of severe sepsis (SS).
A total of 130 eligible patients with SS were included in this study. We divided them into an intervention group (n = 65) and a control group (n = 65). Patients in both groups received conventional therapy. In addition, patients in the intervention group received ulinastatin for 7 days. Outcomes were measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Multiple Organ Failure (MOF), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD4+/CD8+, and adverse events. We assessed all outcomes before and after treatment.
After treatment, patients in the intervention group showed better improvement in APACHE II (P < .01), MOF (P < .01), GCS (P < .01), CD3+ (P = .03), CD4+ (P = .03), and CD4+/CD8+ (P < .01), than those of patients in the control group. There are similar safety profiles between both groups.
This study suggests that ulinastatin may be beneficial for SS. Future studies are still needed to warrant the results of this study.
Keywords: adverse events, efficacy, severe sepsis, ulinastatin
1. Introduction
Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response syndrome to infection.[1,2] It is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with sepsis, particularly in those patients who are elderly and critical ill.[3,4] It manifests as fever, shortness of breath, and increased peripheral blood leukocytes.[5] It is clinically classified as sepsis, severe sepsis (SS), and septic shock in accordance with its severity.[6,7] Of those, SS is often associated with at least 1 organ dysfunction.[8] Its incidence is increasing worldwide annually.[9,10] It has been reported that the incidence rate of SS is about 1/1000 people, and its hospital mortality rate is about 48.7% in China.[11]
Up to present, there is still no ideal approach to prevent and manage SS. Fortunately, ulinastatin, as an urinary trypsin inhibitor, is a very promising candidate to treat patients with SS satisfied.[12–14] It is an important intrinsic broad-spectrum protease inhibitor, and is generally believed to manage a series of proinflammatory mediators and cytokines.[15,16] In addition, it is also reported to have protective effect on many organs against sepsis.[17] Although previous studies have shown a trend towards of decreased mortality and hospital stay in SS,[18,19] there is still insufficient evidence to support ulinastatin for the treatment of SS. Thus, we conduct this retrospective study to assess the efficacy and safety of ulinastatin in patients with SS.
2. Methods
2.1. Design
This retrospective study included 130 eligible patients with SS. We divided them into an intervention group and a control group according to the different treatments they received, 65 patients in each group. Patients in both groups received conventional management. Additionally, patients in the intervention group also underwent ulinastatin for a total of 7 days. All outcome data were collected before and after treatment. This retrospective study did not utilize approach of randomization and blinding to both patients and researchers.
This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Nanjing First Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. All patient case records were performed from this hospital between January 2016 and December 2018. All of them were recruited through department of critical care medicine of Nanjing First Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, and they all provided informed written consent.
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Patients were included if they were adults (over 18, but less than 70 years old) with confirmed diagnosis of SS according to the Guidelines for the treatment of severe sepsis/septic shock in China,[20] and informed consent were provided. In addition, patients should fulfill any one of the following criteria:[20] hypotension caused by sepsis; level of lactic exceeds its upper limit of the normal level tested in the laboratory; even if sufficient fluid is given for resuscitation, and urine volume is still less than 0.5 ml/kg/hour for at least 2 hours; acute lung injury caused by non-pneumonia and PaO2/FiO2 < 250 mm Hg; pneumonia caused by acute lung injury and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mm Hg; serum creatinine level >176.8 μmol/L (2.0 mg/dl); bilirubin >34.2 μmol/L (2 mg/dl); platelet count <100 × 109/L (100, 000 μl); and coagulopathy (INR > 1.5).
Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years old; pregnant or breastfeeding females; cancers in other organs; and allergic to study medication. In addition, we also excluded patient case records if they had insufficient information.
2.3. Intervention
All patients in both groups underwent conventional therapy during the whole treatment period. It was performed as symptomatic support treatment based on the recommended treatment guideline,[20] such as antibiotics, nutrition support, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, intravenous fluids, blood transfusion and purification, and supportive care.
In addition, patients in the intervention group also received intravenous ulinastatin with dose of 200,000 IU, thrice daily for 3 days. After that, the following dose of 100,000 IU ulinastatin, trice daily for 4 successive days.
2.4. Outcome measurements
The primary outcomes were measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II),[21] Multiple Organ Failure (MOF),[22] and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS).[23] APACHE II score ranges from 0 to 71, with higher score indicating more severe disease.[24] MOF scale involves 6 organ systems, ranging from 0 (normal function) to 4 (most severe dysfunction), with a maximum score of 24.[22] GCS ranges from 3 to 15, with lower score suggesting more severity of the disease.[23] The secondary outcomes were measured by CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD4+/CD8+, and adverse events. All outcomes were measured before and after treatment.
2.5. Statistical analysis
SPSS software (SPSSV.19.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was utilized to analyze all baseline and outcome data. As for continuous values, t test or Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze normally distributed or non-normally distributed data, respectively. As for categorical values, χ2 test or Fisher exact test was utilized to analyze the categorical data. We defined a 2-side P < .05 as having statistical significance. Assuming all-cause death rates are 30% and 10% in the control group and intervention group, respectively, we calculated sample size of 65 patients in each group, withα = 0.05, β = 0.20, and an expected dropout rate of 10%.
3. Results
We summarized and presented characteristics of all included patients in both groups in Table 1. There were not significant differences of all patient characteristics between 2 groups (Table 1).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristics | Intervention group (n = 65) | Control group (n = 65) | P value |
| Age (years) | 53.2 (8.6) | 55.0 (9.1) | .25 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 35 (53.8) | 38 (58.5) | .60 |
| Female | 30 (46.2) | 27 (41.5) | – |
| Race | |||
| Han ethnicity | 43 (66.2) | 49 (75.4) | .25 |
| Hui ethnicity | 12 (18.5) | 9 (13.8) | .48 |
| Man ethnicity | 10 (15.3) | 7 (10.8) | .44 |
| Factors cause severs sepsis | |||
| Respiratory distress syndrome | 17 (26.2) | 14 (21.5) | .54 |
| Acute pancreatitis | 11 (16.9) | 9 (13.8) | .63 |
| Peritonitis | 6 (9.2) | 5 (7.7) | .75 |
| Neoplasia | 5 (7.7) | 4 (6.2) | .73 |
| Urinary tract | 12 (18.5) | 15 (23.1) | .52 |
| Central nervous system | 6 (9.2) | 8 (12.3) | .57 |
| Acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis | 6 (9.2) | 7 (10.8) | .77 |
| Others | 2 (3.1) | 3 (4.6) | .65 |
| Co-morbid diseases | |||
| Diabetes mellitus | 15 (23.1) | 17 (26.2) | .68 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 20 (30.8) | 18 (27.7) | .70 |
| Chronic heart failure | 10 (15.4) | 13 (20.0) | .49 |
| Stroke | 8 (12.3) | 7 (10.8) | .78 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 6 (9.2) | 9 (13.8) | .41 |
| Hypertension | 14 (21.5) | 11 (16.9) | .51 |
| APACHE II score | 15.7 (4.3) | 16.1 (4.0) | .58 |
| MOF score | 14.4 (4.8) | 14.9 (4.6) | .54 |
| GCS score | 7.5 (3.3) | 7.8 (3.0) | .59 |
| CD3+ | 49.3 (12.6) | 51.0 (13.1) | .45 |
| CD4+ | 23.7 (7.2) | 23.5 (6.9) | .87 |
| CD8+ | 22.9 (6.3) | 22.4 (6.0) | .64 |
| CD4+/ CD8+ | 1.03 (0.4) | 1.05 (0.3) | .75 |
Data are present as mean ± standard deviation or number (%); APACHE II = Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale, MOF = Multiple Organ Failure.
After treatment, patients in the intervention group showed more promising outcomes in APACHE II (P < .01, Table 2), MOF (P < .01, Table 2), GCS (P < .01, Table 2), CD3+ (P = .03, Table 3), CD4+ (P = .03, Table 3), and CD4+/CD8+ (P < .01, Table 3), than those of patients in the control group.
Table 2.
Comparison of primary outcome measurements after treatment between 2 groups.
| Outcome measurements | Intervention group (n = 65) | Control group (n = 65) | P value |
| APACHE II score | 6.4 (2.5) | 11.7 (6.0) | <.01 |
| MOF score | 4.8 (2.1) | 9.2 (4.4) | <.01 |
| GCS score | 12.2 (1.6) | 9.5 (1.8) | <.01 |
Data are present as mean ± standard deviation; APACHE II = Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale, MOF = Multiple Organ Failure.
Table 3.
Comparison of secondary outcome measurements after treatment between 2 groups.
| Outcome measurements | Intervention group (n = 65) | Control group (n = 65) | P value |
| CD3+ | 65.1 (10.3) | 61.4 (9.4) | .03 |
| CD4+ | 33.6 (8.1) | 30.3 (9.0) | .03 |
| CD8+ | 22.0 (5.5) | 21.3 (5.1) | .45 |
| CD4+/ CD8+ | 1.53 (0.4) | 1.42 (0.4) | <.01 |
Data are present as mean ± standard deviation.
As for safety, although several adverse events were reported in the patient case records, no significant differences were detected between 2 groups in this study (Table 4).
Table 4.
Comparison of associated adverse events between 2 groups.
| Adverse events | Intervention group (n = 65) | Control group (n = 65) | P value |
| Constipation | 5 (7.7) | 2 (3.1) | .26 |
| Rash | 3 (4.6) | 0 (0) | .19 |
| Nausea | 3 (4.6) | 1 (1.5) | .33 |
| Vomiting | 2 (3.1) | 0 (0) | .29 |
| Diarrhea | 4 (6.2) | 2 (3.1) | .82 |
Data are present as number (%).
4. Discussion
SS is a very server condition, and it usually accompanies by immune dysfunction and inflammatory reaction.[25] It results in changes in blood coagulation and immune function, and thus releases a lot of anti-inflammatory factors.[25] During the past few years, ulinastatin is reported to treat patients with SS.[26–32] Although previous studies reported ulinastatin in treating patients with SS,[26–32] most of them involved other similar medication, and very few studies addressed the efficacy and safety of ulnastatin for the treatment of SS. In addition, there are still inconsistent results among those studies.[26–32] Thus, there is still insufficient evidence to support ulnastatin for the treatment of patients with SS. This retrospective study aimed to appraise the efficacy and safety of ulnastatin for SS.
In this retrospective study, we explored and compared the efficacy and safety of conventional therapy and ulnastatin with conventional management alone. For patients in the intervention group, we utilized 200,000 IU intravenous ulinastatin, thrice daily for 3 days. Then, we applied following administration of 100,000 IU ulinastatin, trice daily for 4 successive days. The results of this study showed that patients in the intervention group achieved better outcomes in enhancing APACHE II (P < .01), MOF (P < .01), GCS (P < .01), CD3+ (P = .03), CD4+ (P = .03), and CD4+/CD8+ (P < .01), than those of patients in the control group. Our results suggest that ulnastatin has promising efficacy for the treatment of patients with SS. As for safety, there are not significant differences of all adverse events between 2 groups. It suggests that ulnastatin may have acceptable safety profile for SS.
This study has several limitations. First, the sample size of this study is still relatively small, which may affect its power. Second, all patient case records were harvested from Nanjing First Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, which may restrict its generalization to other hospitals. Third, this study did not apply randomization and blinding approach to both patients and practitioners, because this retrospective study collected data from previously completed case records. Finally, the outcome measurements may be not comprehensive, thus, more outcome information should be provided in the further studies.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study exert that ulinastatin may benefit for SS. Further studies are still needed to warrant the present findings.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Chao Meng, Han Liu.
Data curation: Chao Meng, Yi Qian, Ying Liu, Han Liu, Xiang Wang.
Formal analysis: Han Liu.
Funding acquisition: Han Liu.
Investigation: Han Liu, Xiang Wang.
Methodology: Yi Qian, Wen-hao Zhang, Xiao-chun Song.
Project administration: Han Liu, Xiang Wang.
Resources: Chao Meng, Yi Qian, Wen-hao Zhang, Ying Liu, Xiao-chun Song.
Software: Chao Meng, Yi Qian, Ying Liu.
Supervision: Han Liu, Xiang Wang.
Validation: Chao Meng, Yi Qian, Xiao-chun Song, Han Liu, Xiang Wang.
Visualization: Wen-hao Zhang, Xiao-chun Song, Han Liu.
Writing – original draft: Chao Meng, Yi Qian, Wen-hao Zhang, Ying Liu, Han Liu, Xiang Wang.
Writing – review & editing: Chao Meng, Wen-hao Zhang, Ying Liu, Xiao-chun Song, Han Liu, Xiang Wang.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: APACHE II = Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale, MOF = Multiple Organ Failure, SS = severe sepsis.
How to cite this article: Meng C, Qian Y, Zhang Wh, Liu Y, Song Xc, Liu H, Wang X. A retrospective study of ulinastatin for the treatment of severe sepsis. Medicine. 2020;99:49(e23361).
This study was supported by Science and Technology Development Fund of Nanjing Medical University (NMUB2019147).
The authors declare that they do not have competing interests.
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
- [1].Singh S, Evans TW. Organ dysfunction during sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2006;32:349–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Bermejo-Martin JF, Almansa R, Yebenes JC. New organ failure as an alternative endpoint to develop diagnostic criteria for sepsis. Chest 2018;153:1278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Li S, Zhao D, Cui J, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors and mortality rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome in Chinese patients with sepsis. J Int Med Res 2020;48: 300060519895659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Prin M, Onofrey L, Purcell L, et al. Prevalence, etiology, and outcome of sepsis among critically ill patients in Malawi. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2020;103:472–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Coopersmith CM, Deutschman CS. The new sepsis definitions: implications for the basic and translational research communities. Shock 2016;47:264–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Bracht H, Hafner S, Weiß M. Sepsis update: definition and epidemiology. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2019;54:10–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Flam B, Oldner A. Sepsis-new definitions and criteria proposed. Lakartidningen 2016;113:DY3A. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Mayr FB, Yende S, Angus DC. Epidemiology of severe sepsis. Virulence 2014;5:4–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Bouza C, López-Cuadrado T, Saz-Parkinson Z, et al. Epidemiology and recent trends of severe sepsis in Spain: a nationwide population-based analysis (2006-2011). BMC Infect Dis 2014;14:3863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Martin GS. Sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock: changes in incidence, pathogens and outcomes. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2012;10:701–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Zhou J, Qian C, Zhao M, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in intensive care units in mainland China. PLoS One 2014;9:e107181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Xiao SH, Luo L, Liu XH, et al. Curative efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine xuebijing injections combined with ulinastatin for treating sepsis in the Chinese population: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e10971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Liu D, Yu Z, Yin J, et al. Effect of ulinastatin combined with thymosin alpha1 on sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Chinese and Indian patients. J Crit Care 2017;39:259–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Wang H, Liu B, Tang Y, et al. Improvement of sepsis prognosis by ulinastatin: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Pharmacol 2019;10:1370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Atal SS, Atal S. Ulinastatin- a newer potential therapeutic option for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 2016;27:91–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Inoue K, Takano H, Shimada A, et al. Urinary trypsin inhibitor protects against systemic inflammation induced by lipopolysaccharide. Mol Pharmacol 2005;67:673–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Li YM, Chen H, Li X, et al. A new immunomodulatory therapy for severe sepsis: Ulinastatin plus Thymosin alpha 1. J Intensive Care Med 2009;24:47–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Moon SW, Lee SW, Hong YS, et al. The effects of urinary trypsin inhibitor on the outcomes of severe sepsis and septic shock patients. J Korean Soc Emerg Med 2009;20:80–5. [Google Scholar]
- [19].Shao Y, Zhang L, Deng L, et al. Clinical study on effects of ulinastatin on patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Chin Crit Care Med 2005;17:228–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Society of Critical Care Medicine, Chinese Medical Association. Guidelines for the treatment of severe sepsis/septic shock in China (2014). Chin Crit Care Med 2015;27:401–26. [Google Scholar]
- [21].Osvaldt AB, Viero P, Borges da Costa MS, et al. Evaluation of Ranson, Glasgow, APACHE-II, and APACHE-O criteria to predict severity in acute biliary pancreatitis. Int Surg 2001;86:158–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV, et al. Multiple organ dysfunction score are reliable descriptor of a complex outcome. Crit Care Med 1995;23:1638–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Hudak AM, Caesar RR, Frol AB, et al. Functional outcome scales in traumatic brain injury: a comparison of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (Extended) and the Functional Status Examination. J Neurotrauma 2005;22:1319–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, et al. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Wang HE, Donnelly JP, Griffin R. Derivation of novel risk prediction scores for community-acquired sepsis and severe sepsis. Cri Car Med 2016;44:1285–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Zhang Y, Chen H, Li YM, et al. Thymosin alpha1-and ulinastatin-based immunomodulatory strategy for sepsis arising from intra-abdominal infection due to carbapenem-resistant bacteria. J Infect Dis 2008;198:723–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Lin HY. Clinical trial with a new immunomodulatory strategy: treatment of severe sepsis with Ulinastatin and Maipuxin. Chin Med J (Engl) 2007;87:451–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Chen H, He MY, Li YM. Treatment of patients with severe sepsis using ulinastatin and thymosin alpha1: a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study. Chin Med J (Engl) 2009;122:883–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Wu TJ, Zhang LN, Kang CC. The effect of ulinastatin on disbalance of inflammation and immune status in patients with severe sepsis. Chin Crit Care Med 2013;25:219–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Karnad DR, Bhadade R, Verma PK, et al. Intravenous administration of ulinastatin (human urinary trypsin inhibitor) in severe sepsis: a multicenter randomized controlled study. Intensive Care Med 2014;40:830–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Huanling S, Rongju L, Min J. Effect and analysis of ulinastatin combined with thymosin on cardiopulmonary function and delirium in sepsis patients. Pak J Pharm Sci 2019;32((3 Special)):1281–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Meng F, Du C, Zhang Y, et al. Protective effect of rhubarb combined with ulinastatin for patients with sepsis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e18895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]