Severe sepsis: Are PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK trials comparable? A clinical and statistical heterogeneity analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite the same manufacturer, the same drotrecogin alfa activated dose, and the same placebo-controlled design, the negative result from the PROWESS-SHOCK trial contradicted the survival benefit observed in the PROWESS trial. We hypothesize that the different results were due to factors other than the experimental therapy and performed an analysis of the clinical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' clinical aspects) and the statistical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' statistical aspects) between these trials. Baseline characteristics and co-interventions were analyzed by chi-square testing and mortality was analyzed by random-effects modeling and I2. Our findings show that clinical variables presented significant heterogeneity, and that up to 90% of the mortality differences between both trials were not due to chance. These results demonstrate that PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK are not comparable trials due to the highly significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We propose a new and pragmatic solution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number167
JournalCritical Care
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 4 2013

Fingerprint

Sepsis
Investigational Therapies
Mortality
Placebos
Clinical Trials
drotrecogin alfa activated

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

@article{b94733cda2564ab6bcdee90eb8aff5ca,
title = "Severe sepsis: Are PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK trials comparable? A clinical and statistical heterogeneity analysis",
abstract = "Despite the same manufacturer, the same drotrecogin alfa activated dose, and the same placebo-controlled design, the negative result from the PROWESS-SHOCK trial contradicted the survival benefit observed in the PROWESS trial. We hypothesize that the different results were due to factors other than the experimental therapy and performed an analysis of the clinical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' clinical aspects) and the statistical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' statistical aspects) between these trials. Baseline characteristics and co-interventions were analyzed by chi-square testing and mortality was analyzed by random-effects modeling and I2. Our findings show that clinical variables presented significant heterogeneity, and that up to 90{\%} of the mortality differences between both trials were not due to chance. These results demonstrate that PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK are not comparable trials due to the highly significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We propose a new and pragmatic solution.",
author = "Kalil, {Andre C} and Florescu, {Diana F}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1186/cc12752",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
journal = "Critical Care",
issn = "1364-8535",
publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Severe sepsis

T2 - Are PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK trials comparable? A clinical and statistical heterogeneity analysis

AU - Kalil, Andre C

AU - Florescu, Diana F

PY - 2013/7/4

Y1 - 2013/7/4

N2 - Despite the same manufacturer, the same drotrecogin alfa activated dose, and the same placebo-controlled design, the negative result from the PROWESS-SHOCK trial contradicted the survival benefit observed in the PROWESS trial. We hypothesize that the different results were due to factors other than the experimental therapy and performed an analysis of the clinical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' clinical aspects) and the statistical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' statistical aspects) between these trials. Baseline characteristics and co-interventions were analyzed by chi-square testing and mortality was analyzed by random-effects modeling and I2. Our findings show that clinical variables presented significant heterogeneity, and that up to 90% of the mortality differences between both trials were not due to chance. These results demonstrate that PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK are not comparable trials due to the highly significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We propose a new and pragmatic solution.

AB - Despite the same manufacturer, the same drotrecogin alfa activated dose, and the same placebo-controlled design, the negative result from the PROWESS-SHOCK trial contradicted the survival benefit observed in the PROWESS trial. We hypothesize that the different results were due to factors other than the experimental therapy and performed an analysis of the clinical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' clinical aspects) and the statistical heterogeneity (differences related to the trials' statistical aspects) between these trials. Baseline characteristics and co-interventions were analyzed by chi-square testing and mortality was analyzed by random-effects modeling and I2. Our findings show that clinical variables presented significant heterogeneity, and that up to 90% of the mortality differences between both trials were not due to chance. These results demonstrate that PROWESS and PROWESS-SHOCK are not comparable trials due to the highly significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We propose a new and pragmatic solution.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879798694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879798694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/cc12752

DO - 10.1186/cc12752

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 23826709

AN - SCOPUS:84879798694

VL - 17

JO - Critical Care

JF - Critical Care

SN - 1364-8535

IS - 4

M1 - 167

ER -