ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02843685Updated Jul 26, 2016

Regression Discontinuity Design to Evaluate of Drotrecogin Alpha Effectiveness

An observational study in Sepsis, sponsored by Boston Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2016-07-26.

Sponsored by Boston Medical Center · Observational

Study type
Observational
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
12,492
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Many health care interventions and medications found to have benefits ("efficacy") in experimental, tightly-controlled, human research trials are later found to lack real-world health benefits ("effectiveness"). Inadequate surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness may falsely reassure clinicians and those who monitor healthcare quality, propagating unrecognized ineffective or harmful treatments at high costs to patients and society. The failure to translate potential health benefits into realized gains, or to detect unexpected harms in healthcare delivery, stems from a lack of methods with which to robustly measure real-world (in)effectiveness. Current methods to detect changes in outcomes 'before and after' implementation may be biased by secular trends in healthcare practice and outcomes; other methods to compare outcomes for treated and untreated patients may be biased by unmeasured factors.

The current project aims to develop and demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept - the use of a quasi-experimental research method called 'regression discontinuity design (RDD)' in surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness. RDD had previously found use in the evaluation of educational programs in which students scoring below a threshold were assigned an intervention. The US Department of Education considers RDD designs to have quality similar to randomized trials.

Read the detailed description

Many health care interventions and medications found to have benefits ("efficacy") in experimental, tightly-controlled, human research trials are later found to lack real-world health benefits ("effectiveness"). Inadequate surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness may falsely reassure clinicians and those who monitor healthcare quality, propagating unrecognized ineffective or harmful treatments at high costs to patients and society. The failure to translate potential health benefits into realized gains, or to detect unexpected harms in healthcare delivery, stems from a lack of methods with which to robustly measure real-world (in)effectiveness. Current methods to detect changes in outcomes 'before and after' implementation may be biased by secular trends in healthcare practice and outcomes; other methods to compare outcomes for treated and untreated patients may be biased by unmeasured factors.

The current project aims to develop and demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept - the use of a quasi-experimental research method called 'regression discontinuity design (RDD)' in surveillance of real-world clinical effectiveness. RDD had previously found use in the evaluation of educational programs in which students scoring below a threshold were assigned an intervention. The US Department of Education considers RDD designs to have quality similar to randomized trials. However, RDD has not been rigorously evaluated in the context of evaluating clinical effectiveness. RDD can be used whenever an intervention is given to patients scoring above a threshold on a continuous biomarker or risk score. This scenario often arises in clinical practice, in which thresholds are used to identify and treat 'high risk' patients. In RDD, outcomes are compared for patients just above and just below the threshold, who are similar, but receive different treatments.

The project will study the use of RDD in evaluating the real-world effectiveness of drotrecogin alpha, a medication that was recommended by the FDA to be given to critically ill patients with severe sepsis at high risk for mortality (APACHE score > 25). Drotrecogin alpha was shown to potentially have "effectiveness" using traditional methods of real-world research, but was eventually shown to not be clinically efficacious in subsequent large randomized trials. The present proposal is a 'proof-of-concept' study that will allow evaluation of effect estimates derived from RDD methods to those of gold standard, pooled randomized trial results. The demonstration of feasibility for a new research method, such as RDD, to evaluate real-world clinical effectiveness would be a major leap forward in the ability monitor for potential real world benefits and harms of new treatments.

02

Conditions studied

  • Sepsis

Browse trials for

03

In context

Sepsis

1,946 studies on the registry are indexed under Sepsis; 471 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 12,492 is above the median of 160 across 957 observational studies indexed under Sepsis.

Browse Sepsis studies →

Lead sponsor

Boston Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 323 studies on the registry; 33 are open to participants now.

Of its 34 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 28 (82%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

An International Observational Study Among Severe Sepsis Patients Treated in the Intensive Care Unit (PROGRESS severe sepsis registry).

The PROGRESS registry of severe sepsis cases is a unique resource that contains data linking APACHE scores, drotrecogin alpha administration, and hospital mortality outcomes, providing an opportunity to study RDD as a novel method of comparative effectiveness research, and compare results derived from RDD to prior studies using more traditional comparative effectiveness designs (i.e., propensity score adjustment).

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Included in PROGRESS severe sepsis registry

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None
05

Study design

Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
12,492 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Interventions

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Relative risk reduction for mortality

    The study will evaluate the change in the relationship between APACHE II scores and hospital mortality rate at the APACHE II threshold score of 25

    Time frame: Duration of hospitalization, on average approximately 14 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. APACHE II scores at which drotrecogin alpha was used

    Evaluation of drotrecogin alpha practice patterns at APACHE II score of 25

    Time frame: Baseline

  2. Change in mortality risk over time

    The study will assess interaction between year and relative risk for mortality associated with drotrecogin alpha

    Time frame: 3 years

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Boston Medical Center
    Boston, Massachusetts 02118, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Martin G, Brunkhorst FM, Janes JM, Reinhart K, Sundin DP, Garnett K, Beale R. The international PROGRESS registry of patients with severe sepsis: drotrecogin alfa (activated) use and patient outcomes. Crit Care. 2009;13(3):R103. doi: 10.1186/cc7936. Epub 2009 Jun 30. PubMed 19566927 ↗
  • Beale R, Reinhart K, Brunkhorst FM, Dobb G, Levy M, Martin G, Martin C, Ramsey G, Silva E, Vallet B, Vincent JL, Janes JM, Sarwat S, Williams MD; PROGRESS Advisory Board. Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis (PROGRESS): lessons from an international sepsis registry. Infection. 2009 Jun;37(3):222-32. doi: 10.1007/s15010-008-8203-z. Epub 2009 Apr 28. PubMed 19404580 ↗
  • Walkey AJ, Bor J. Risk-based Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Trials and Implications for Surveillance of Clinical Effectiveness Using Regression Discontinuity Designs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Dec 1;192(11):1399. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201508-1533LE. No abstract available. PubMed 26623693 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Individual participant data (IPD) is only available through consultation with the original PROGRESS registry study sponsor through https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com/

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Dec 2002 and a primary completion of Dec 2005. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jul 15, 2016
First posted
Jul 26, 2016
Start
Dec 2002
Primary completionActual
Dec 2005
Last update
Jul 26, 2016
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 26, 2016, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02843685
Responsible party
Allan J. Walkey (Assistant Professor of Medicine, Boston Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 26, 2016
Start date
Dec 2002
Primary completion
Dec 2005
Last update
Jul 26, 2016

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2016. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion