MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108435955 · doi:10.1001/jama.290.2.238

Efficacy and Safety of Tifacogin (Recombinant Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor) in Severe Sepsis

2003· article· en· W2108435955 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Abraham, Konrad Reinhart, Steven M. Opal, Ignace Demeyer, Christopher J. Doig, Angel López Rodríguez, Richard Beale, Petr Svoboda, Pierre François Laterre, Stuart H. Simon, Bruce Light, Herbert Spapen, Judy Stone, Allan Seibert, C. Peckelsen, C. De Deyne, Russell G. Postier, Ville Pettilä, Charles L. Sprung, Antonio Artigas, Sandra Percell, Vincent Shu, Christian Zwingelstein, Jeffrey Tobias, Lona Poole, James C. Stolzenbach, Abla A. Creasey

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Thomas HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboSepsisTissue factor pathway inhibitorInternal medicineTissue factorGastroenterologyPopulationDisseminated intravascular coagulationClinical trialRisk factorSurgeryCoagulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The expression and release of tissue factor is a major trigger for the activation of coagulation in patients with sepsis. Tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) forms a complex with tissue factor and blood protease factors leading to inhibition of thrombin generation and fibrin formation. OBJECTIVES: To determine if administration of tifacogin (recombinant TFPI) provides mortality benefit in patients with severe sepsis and elevated international normalized ratio (INR) and to assess tifacogin safety in severe sepsis, including patients with low INR. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial conducted from March 21, 2000, through September 27, 2001, in 245 hospitals in 17 countries in North America, Europe, and Israel. PATIENTS: The primary efficacy population consisted of 1754 patients (> or =18 years) with severe sepsis and a high INR (> or =1.2) randomly assigned to intravenous infusion of either tifacogin (0.025 mg/kg per hour for 96 hours, n = 880) or placebo (arginine citrate buffer, n = 874), and 201 patients with a low INR (<1.2) randomly assigned to receive the same dose of either tifacogin or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall mortality at 28 days in the tifacogin-treated group (n = 880) vs the placebo group (n = 874) for high INR was 34.2% vs 33.9%, respectively (P =.88, Pearson chi2 test; P =.75, logistic regression model). None of the protocol-specified secondary end points differed between the tifacogin vs placebo groups. An analysis on the first 722 patients demonstrated a mortality rate of 38.9% for placebo vs 29.1% for tifacogin (P =.006, Pearson chi2 test). Tifacogin significantly attenuated prothrombin fragment 1.2 and thrombin:antithrombin complex levels (P<.001, 2-sample t test) in patients with high and low INR. Overall mortality was lower in the tifacogin response in patients with low INR (12%; n = 83) vs placebo (22.9%; n = 118) (P =.051, Pearson chi2 test; P =.03, logistic regression model). There was an increase in serious adverse events with bleeding in the tifacogin group in both cohorts (6.5% tifacogin and 4.8% placebo for high INR; 6.0% tifacogin and 3.3% placebo for low INR). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with tifacogin had no effect on all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis and high INR. Tifacogin administration was associated with an increase in risk of bleeding, irrespective of baseline INR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations957
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207