The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of TXA on the immune system, its pharmacokinetics, as well as safety and efficacy in severely injured trauma patients.
Trauma is the leading cause of death in persons younger than 40 years. Hemorrhage is the etiology in 30% of these deaths, and remains the leading cause of potentially preventable mortality (66-80%) on the battlefield. Death secondary to hemorrhagic shock occurs from both surgical bleeding and coagulopathy. Due to the knowledge of increased fibrinolysis promoting a hypocoagulable state in severe trauma, trials have been performed to determine if antifibrinolytics such as tranexamic acid (TXA) could reduce morbidity and mortality by reducing death from hemorrhage. TXA is an antifibrinolytic that inhibits both plasminogen activation and plasmin activity, thus preventing clot break-down rather than promoting new clot formation. Despite the extensive use of TXA in many surgical populations and an increasing use in severe trauma patients, TXA does not have an FDA approved indication for patients with traumatic injuries. The effect of TXA on immune function has not been thoroughly examined, especially in patients with severe traumatic injury. The study of the effects of TXA use on endothelial activation and injury is also important due to the inter-relationship between coagulation and endothelial function. Endothelial injury secondary to local hypoperfusion causes acute traumatic coagulopathy with fibrinolysis. Therefore a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the effects of TXA on immune, coagulation, and endothelial parameters is important to allow for a better understanding of the mechanisms of action of this agent. This is a randomized placebo controlled trial to obtain mechanism of action data, pharmacokinetic information, and efficacy and safety data for the use of TXA in severely injured trauma patients. Participants will be randomized into 1 of 3 treatment arms (1:1:1): TXA 2 gram IV bolus, TXA 4 gram IV bolus, or placebo. The study period is from time of enrollment to hospital discharge or transfer. The study intervention will occur only once upon enrollment in the trial. Participants will receive study drug within two hours from their initial injury. Blood samples will be drawn at multiple time points for immune parameters, Pharmacodynamics, and repository samples. Immune parameter samples will be drawn at at approximately 0, 6, 24 and 72 hours after study drug/placebo administration. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic samples will be drawn according to two schedules. Even number sampling times, blood will be drawn at the approximate time points: 0, 20 min, 1 hr, 2 hr, 4 hr, 6 hr, 8 hr, and 12 hr. A patient sampled on odd number sampling times will have samples drawn at the approximate time points: 0, 10 min, 40 min, 1.5 hr, 3 hr, 6 hr, 10 hr and 24 hr. Repository samples will be drawn at approximate time points: 0, 1, 6, 24, and 72 hours.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
150
Tranexamic acid is a man-made form of an amino acid (protein) called lysine. Tranexamic acid prevents enzymes in the body from breaking down blood clots.
Matching Volume Normal Saline Placebo given IV over 10 minutes within 2 hours of initial injury
Barnes Jewish Hospital
St Louis, Missouri, United States
Change in HLA-DR Expression on Monocytes 72 Hours After Drug or Placebo Administration in Patient Groups (0g TXA (Placebo); 2g TXA; 4g TXA)."
Blood was drawn from patients at baseline (0 h, just before placebo or drug administration) and at 72 hours post placebo or drug administration. Leukocytes in these blood samples were stained with fluroescent antibodies specific for CD45, CD14, and HLA-DR, analyzed by flow cytometry, and the median fluorescen intensity (MFI) of HLA-DR signal was recorded for monocytes (CD45+CD14+). The fold change in HLA-DR expression from prior to placebo/drug administration to 72 h after placebo/drug administration ("0 h : 72 h") was calculated as HLA-DR MFI72hours ÷ HLA-DR CD14 MFI0hours. Non-paramteric one-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis test) was performed between each treatment group at the given time pont, and the p-value reported.
Time frame: Samples Drawn through 72 hours after study initiation
Differences in Cytokine Profiles Between the Three Study Groups
To evaluate the effects of TXA on immune function parameters we will, in a RCT, analyze samples from 150 patients (50 in each study group), at multiple time points. Parameters are: a. Cytokines measured from time 0 to 72 hours.
Time frame: Samples Drawn through 72 hours after study initiation
Differences in Leukocyte Function Parameters Between the Three Study Groups
To evaluate the effects of TXA on immune function parameters we will, in a RCT, analyze samples from 150 patients (50 in each study group), at multiple time points. Parameters are: a. Flow cytometric analyses on leukocytes measured from time 0 to 72 hours.
Time frame: Samples Drawn through 72 hours after study initiation
Total Transfusion Volume CL
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "Total Transfusion Volume CL" equals clearance (CL) affected by the covariate of Total Transfusion Volume (TxTot). This value is unitless per NONMEM reporting.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: 24 hours
Determine the Incidence of Thromboembolic Events (DVT, MI, PE, Stroke) in All Three Study Groups.
The number of events per group for the incidence of thromboembolic events (DVT, MI, PE, Stroke) in all three study groups.
Time frame: Hospital Discharge (average 10 days)
Determine the Incidence of Seizures at 24 Hours in All Three Study Groups.
The incidence of seizures at 24 hours in all three study groups. Number of participants with seizures are reported
Time frame: 24 hours following TXA
Determine the Incidence of All Adverse Events in All Three Study Groups
All adverse events were totaled for each of the three study groups based on the number of incidents.
Time frame: Hospital Discharge (average 10 days)
Platelet Count CL
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "Platelet Count CL" equals clearance (CL) affected by the covariate of Platelet Count (PLTint). This value is unitless per NONMEM reporting.
Time frame: 24 hours
Near Infrared Spectroscopy CL
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "Near Infrared Spectroscopy CL" equals clearance (CL) affected by the covariate of Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRSint). This value is unitless per NONMEM reporting.
Time frame: 24 hours
Creatinine Count CL
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "Creatinine Count CL" equals clearance (CL) affected by the covariate of Creatinine levels (SCRint). This value is unitless per NONMEM reporting.
Time frame: 24 hours
V2- Peripheral Volume (L/70kg)
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "V2" equals Peripheral Volume in L/70kg.
Time frame: 24 hours
Q- Intercompartmental Clearance (L/70kg)
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "Q" equals intercompartmental clearance in L/70kg.
Time frame: 24 hours
V1- Central Volume (L/70kg)
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "V1" equals central volume in L/70kg.
Time frame: 24 hours
CL- Clearance of TXA (mL/(Min*70kg))
Pharmacokinetic data was analyzed with NONMEM, using both the first-order and conditional non-Laplacian (with centering) estimation techniques. We considered two- and three-compartment models, parameterized in terms of both compartment volumes and clearances (distribution and elimination). We compared a basic model (in which pharmacokinetic parameters were independent of weight) to a model in which the pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be proportional to weight. The optimal model was selected on the basis of the objective function logarithm of the likelihood of the results) using standard criteria (NONMEM guide). Equations from optimal model: CL=109\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) \* (SCRint\^-0.084) \* ((NIRSInt)/96)\^ -0.27 ) \* ((PLTint)/130)\^0.45) V1=1,160\*(WT/70) \* (TxTot)\^0.03) Q=174\*((WT/70)\*\*0.75) V2=1080 \*(WT/70) "CL" equals clearance of TXA in mL/(min\*70kg).
Time frame: 24 hours