ArticleShock (Augusta, Ga.)2016
An Enrichment Strategy For Sepsis Clinical Trials.
Article in Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock: A Phase-Adapted, Endothelium-Sparing Approach to Mitigate Capillary Leak.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Applying Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Clinical Trials: Potential Impacts and Obstacles.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2024Article
- A Precision Medicine Approach to Biomarker Utilization in Pediatric Sepsis-Associated Acute Kidney Injury.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
- Plasma sTNFR1 and IL8 for prognostic enrichment in sepsis trials: a prospective cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
- Intensive care medicine in 2050: clinical trials designs.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSelecting participants for research based on their risk is an enrichment strategy with potential for enhancing clinical trials in sepsis. Adult Septic Shock Information and Stratification (ASSIST) is a tool for estimating mortality risk that incorporates a panel of biomarkers, age, lactate, and chronic health status. We assessed the utility of ASSIST as an enrichment strategy in a clinical trial testing the efficacy of a polyclonal antitumor necrosis factor-α fragment antibody (AZD9773) in adults with severe sepsis or septic shock. We hypothesized that the effects of AZD9773 are dependent on baseline mortality risk, as estimated by ASSIST.
methodsThis was a post hoc analysis of a recently completed trial of 300 subjects, randomized to placebo, low-dose AZD9773, or high-dose AZD9773. The study's primary endpoint was number of ventilator-free days. There were 286 subjects with available plasma samples from study entry. We measured the ASSIST biomarkers and assigned each subject to low, intermediate, and high-risk strata based on their ASSIST mortality probability. To mirror the study's original statistical plan, we estimated the least squares mean ventilator-free days for each study arm within risk strata.
resultsThe effect of study arm within ASSIST-based risk strata was significant (P = 0.017). Within the low-risk group, there was an increase in ventilator-free days for both drug arms. Within the intermediate-risk group, there was an increase in ventilator-free days among those in the low-dose arm, but a decrease in the high-dose arm. Among high-risk patients, there was a decrease of ventilator-free days in both drug arms. Analogous associations were observed when modeling 28-day mortality.
conclusionsIn this study, a beneficial effect of AZD9773 might have been observed if the trial selected low to intermediate-risk patients. ASSIST has the potential to serve as an enrichment tool for sepsis clinical trials.
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.