October 26th, 2011

Xigris is Gone — Not That Many ID Docs Will Notice

From the FDA comes this news:

FDA notified healthcare professionals and the public that on October 25, 2011, Eli Lilly and Company announced a worldwide voluntary market withdrawal of Xigris [drotrecogin alfa (activated)]. In a recently completed clinical trial (PROWESS-SHOCK trial), Xigris failed to show a survival benefit for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Some quick (and non-scientific) thoughts on these perhaps no-so-surprising turn of events:

  • The use of various adjunctive therapies in acute sepsis has a long and mostly checkered history. ACTH-directed glucocorticoids, mineralocorticoids, intensive insulin therapy, disparate antibody treatments (most famously anti-endotoxin antibodies) — none has really worked very well. Now we can add recombinant human activated protein C — Xigris — to the list of disappointing (and sometimes dangerous) therapies. In failure there may be opportunity, but treatment of sepsis is one tough nut to crack.
  • I know trade names are frowned upon in academic medicine, but is there anyone who actually said, “drotrecogin alpha (activated)”? What kind of word is “drotrecogin”? Is there a “Drotrecogin Beta (Activated),” and is it a space ship? The use of the parenthetical post-name word — “(activated)” — is particularly cumbersome.
  • Finally, how many ID doctors ever literally prescribed this drug? In our institution, the use of drotecogin alpha … oh you know, Xigris … was overwhelmingly in the hands of the intensivists. They would consult us sometimes after giving it to their critically-ill patients for advice on the usual ID issues (choice of antibiotics, source of fever, whether to change the lines). I only remember being specifically asked, “should we give it” a few times, and am certain I never ordered it.

Meanwhile, “Xigris” happens to be a terrific name. Kudos to whatever advertising brainiac thought of that one.

I’m sure he/she cashed the check for these services many years ago.

5 Responses to “Xigris is Gone — Not That Many ID Docs Will Notice”

  1. Howard J. Wilk says:

    Pharma companies deliberately make generic names awkward in order to get/keep doctors in the habit of calling the drugs by their tradenames. Generic names, like trade names, must be government-approved; companies get away with what they can.

    • Paul Sax says:

      Howard,
      Hadn’t thought of that — always thought they were somehow related to the chemical structure of the drug, but I’m pretty lame when it comes to biochemistry so what do I know. But this one sure was a toughie.
      Paul

  2. lucas darrigo says:

    Dr Sax,

    Your comments on Xigris seems to me very useful. I live and practice medicine in a country with huge inequalities. Xigris have been advertised here as a great innovation, endorsed by doctors and services that are considered to be our best. Even good practices, such as protocols to standardize treatment, drive the doctor to the use of the drug. If you don’t have it, you’re lost. I never used it, because it is not available at the institution I work and because it never seemed to me all that jazz. As that old song from The Rolling Stones, “Time is on my side…” Thank you for your blog, Lucas. São José dos Campos, Brasil.

  3. James says:

    At my academic institution, ordering Xigris required an ID consult – I was never clear on why ID was the proper gatekeeper.

    • Paul Sax says:

      James, I’m in complete agreement — seems that the doctors who work in ICUs should have been determining whether to give Xigris, may it R.I.P.

      Paul

HIV Information: Author Paul Sax, M.D.

Paul E. Sax, MD

Contributing Editor

NEJM Journal Watch
Infectious Diseases

Biography | Disclosures | Summaries

Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.