MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051426690 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828e9b03

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2b Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Human Soluble Thrombomodulin, ART-123, in Patients With Sepsis and Suspected Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation*

2013· article· en· W2051426690 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Louis Vincent, M Ramesh, David Ernest, Steven P. LaRosa, Jan Pachl, Naoki Aikawa, Eric A. J. Hoste, Howard Levy, Joe Hirman, Marcel Levi, Mradul Kumar Daga, Demetrios J. Kutsogiannis, Mark Crowther, Gordon R. Bernard, Jacques Devriendt, Joan Vidal Puigserver, Daniel U. Blanzaco, Charles T. Esmon, Joseph E. Parrillo, Louis M. Guzzi, Seton Henderson, Chaicharn Pothirat, Parthiv Mehta, Jawed Fareed, Deepak Talwar, Kazuhisa Tsuruta, Kenneth J. Gorelick, Yutaka Osawa, Inder Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's HospitalRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDisseminated intravascular coagulationPlaceboClinical endpointSepsisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialHemostasisThrombomodulinSurgeryGastroenterologyPathologyPlateletThrombin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of recombinant thrombomodulin (ART-123) in patients with suspected sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation. DESIGN: Phase 2b, international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, screening trial. SETTING: Two hundred and thirty-three ICUs in 17 countries. PATIENTS: All adult patients admitted with sepsis and suspected disseminated intravascular coagulation as assessed using a modified International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis score. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive IV ART-123 (0.06 mg/kg/d) for 6 days or placebo, in addition to standard of care. The primary endpoint was reduction in mortality. Secondary endpoints included reversal of overt disseminated intravascular coagulation and reduction in disease severity. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were randomized, nine of whom did not receive the allocated treatment so that 371 patients received ART-123 and 370 received placebo. There were no meaningful differences between the two groups in any of the baseline variables. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 17.8% in the ART-123 group and 21.6% in the placebo group (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel two-sided p value of 0.273 in favor of ART-123, which met the predefined statistical test for evidence suggestive of efficacy). There were no statistically significant differences in event-free and alive days between the two groups. d-dimer, prothrombin fragment F1.2 and TATc concentrations were lower in the ART-123 group than in the placebo group. There were no differences between the two groups in organ function, inflammatory markers, bleeding or thrombotic events or in the development of new infections. In post hoc analyses, greatest benefit from ART-123 was seen in patients with at least one organ system dysfunction and an international normalized ratio greater than 1.4 at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: ART-123 is a safe intervention in critically ill patients with sepsis and suspected disseminated intravascular coagulation. The study provided evidence suggestive of efficacy supporting further development of this drug in sepsis-associated coagulopathy including disseminated intravascular coagulation. Future study should focus on using ART-123 in the subgroup of patients most likely to respond to this agent.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations322
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207