ArticleCritical care (London, England)2009
The international PROGRESS registry of patients with severe sepsis: drotrecogin alfa (activated) use and patient outcomes.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02843685 (Regression Discontinuity Designs to Evaluate Real-world Effectiveness), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Regression Discontinuity Designs to Evaluate Real-world Effectiveness: a Case Study of Drotrecogin Alpha
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The involvement of regulatory non-coding RNAs in sepsis: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2016Pooled it
- Propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature: a systematic review.Intensive care medicine · 2010Pooled it
- Development and Validation of a Minimum Dataset for a Pediatric Septic Shock Registry: A Descriptive and Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Loss of PADI2 and PADI4 ameliorates sepsis-induced acute lung injury by suppressing NLRP3+ macrophages.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Mid-German Sepsis Cohort (MSC): a prospective observational study of sepsis survivorship.BMJ open · 2021Observational
- The Clinical Significance of Low Serum Arachidonic Acid in Sepsis Patients with Hypoalbuminemia.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2018Observational
- Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation.Journal of biomedical science · 2017Article
- Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein in early diagnosis of sepsis caused by either Gram-negative or Gram-positive bacteria.Irish journal of medical science · 2017Article
- Tuftsin-derived T-peptide prevents cellular immunosuppression and improves survival rate in septic mice.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Human recombinant activated protein C-coated stent for the prevention of restenosis in porcine coronary arteries.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2015Article
- Current challenges in understanding immune cell functions during septic syndromes.BMC immunology · 2015Review
- Sepsis induced by Staphylococcus aureus: participation of biomarkers in a murine model.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015Article
- The efficacy of activated protein C for the treatment of sepsis: incorporating observational evidence with a Bayesian approach.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Do-not-resuscitate status and observational comparative effectiveness research in patients with septic shock*.Critical care medicine · 2014Article
- Therapeutic targeting of NOD1 receptors.British journal of pharmacology · 2013Review
- Why activated protein C was not successful in severe sepsis and septic shock: are we still tilting at windmills?Current infectious disease reports · 2013Article
- Sepsis: multiple abnormalities, heterogeneous responses, and evolving understanding.Physiological reviews · 2013Article
- Resolving conflicting comparative effectiveness research in critical care*.Critical care medicine · 2012Article
- Drotrecogin alfa (activated)...a sad final fizzle to a roller-coaster party.Critical care (London, England) · 2012Review
- The loss of homeostasis in hemostasis: new approaches in treating and understanding acute disseminated intravascular coagulation in critically ill patients.Clinical and translational science · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince the launch of drotrecogin alfa activated (DrotAA), institutions and individual countries have published data on its use in clinical practice, based on audit or registry data. These studies were limited in size and geographic locale and included patients with greater disease severity and higher mortality than those in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes (using appropriate statistical adjustments) of patients treated or not treated with DrotAA from the international PROGRESS (Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.
methodsPROGRESS was a global, non-interventional, multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients having a diagnosis of severe sepsis treated in intensive care units at a participating institution. All treatment modalities were as per standard of care at the participating institutions. Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed and regression techniques used to develop propensity and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.
resultsOverall, 14,543 patients from 37 countries were enrolled and 12,492 had complete data for analysis. Germany was the highest enrolling country (1,810; 14.5%) and the US had the most DrotAA patients (206, 23.3%); 882 (7%) overall received DrotAA therapy. DrotAA-treated patients were younger (median age 58 vs. 61 years), had greater organ dysfunction (cardiovascular: 90% vs. 74%; respiratory: 90% vs. 81%; renal: 60% vs. 45%; metabolic: 63% versus 42%; 3 or more organ dysfunctions: 84% vs. 67%) and had a higher median APACHE II score (26 vs. 23, all with P < 0.001). Although in-hospital mortality was similar for DrotAA and non-DrotAA-treated patients (49.6% vs. 49.7%, respectively), after adjusting for imbalances, patients receiving DrotAA had a 28% (0.60 to 0.86, 95% Confidence Intervals) reduction in the odds of death and a relative risk reduction of 17% (P = 0.0003).
conclusionsIn the PROGRESS registry, DrotAA-treated patients were younger, more severely ill, and had fewer co-morbidities than patients not treated with DrotAA. After adjustment for group differences, a significant reduction in the odds of death was observed for patients that received DrotAA compared with those that did not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.