Manu Shankar-Hari1, David A Harrison2, Kathryn M Rowan3, Gordon D Rubenfeld4. 1. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, ICU Support Offices, St Thomas' Hospital, 1st Floor, East Wing, SE1 7EH, UK; Division of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, Kings College London, SE1 9RT, UK; Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK. Electronic address: manu.shankar-hari@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK. Electronic address: david.harrison@icnarc.org. 3. Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK. Electronic address: Kathy.rowan@icnarc.org. 4. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, D5 03, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. Electronic address: Gordon.Rubenfeld@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nearly all sepsis trials report no statistically significant difference in mortality. The attributable fraction of deaths due to sepsis (AFsepsis) may be an important, yet overlooked consideration. We derived AFsepsis and explored the effect of incorporating AFsepsis into sample size calculations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We derived AFsepsis with a matched cohort study using consecutive admissions to adult general intensive care units (ICUs) in England (n = 614,509). Cases were ICU patients with sepsis and the two controls were ICU-non-sepsis controls, matched for propensity to have sepsis and age-sex-matched general population. The primary exposure was sepsis. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. We generated sample size graphs, by varying control group mortality (10%-60%), relative risk reduction (0-1), for 80% power and 5% alpha. We then compared AFsepsis derived sample sizes with sample size calculations from published sepsis trials. RESULTS: AFsepsis was 15% (95% CI: 14%-16%) compared with propensity matched ICU-non-sepsis controls and 93% (95% CI: 92%-93%) compared with age-sex-matched general population controls. When comparing AFsepsis derived sample sizes with sample size calculations from 18 trials meeting our selection criteria, these calculations assumed very high AFsepsis and/or very effective treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating trial specific AFsepsis to inform sample size calculations could be an additional step in sepsis trial design.
PURPOSE: Nearly all sepsis trials report no statistically significant difference in mortality. The attributable fraction of deaths due to sepsis (AFsepsis) may be an important, yet overlooked consideration. We derived AFsepsis and explored the effect of incorporating AFsepsis into sample size calculations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We derived AFsepsis with a matched cohort study using consecutive admissions to adult general intensive care units (ICUs) in England (n = 614,509). Cases were ICU patients with sepsis and the two controls were ICU-non-sepsis controls, matched for propensity to have sepsis and age-sex-matched general population. The primary exposure was sepsis. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. We generated sample size graphs, by varying control group mortality (10%-60%), relative risk reduction (0-1), for 80% power and 5% alpha. We then compared AFsepsis derived sample sizes with sample size calculations from published sepsis trials. RESULTS: AFsepsis was 15% (95% CI: 14%-16%) compared with propensity matched ICU-non-sepsis controls and 93% (95% CI: 92%-93%) compared with age-sex-matched general population controls. When comparing AFsepsis derived sample sizes with sample size calculations from 18 trials meeting our selection criteria, these calculations assumed very high AFsepsis and/or very effective treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating trial specific AFsepsis to inform sample size calculations could be an additional step in sepsis trial design.
Authors: Matthew Fish; Kate Arkless; Aislinn Jennings; Julie Wilson; Michael J Carter; Gill Arbane; Sara Campos; Neus Novellas; Rianne Wester; Nedyalko Petrov; Umar Niazi; Barney Sanderson; Richard Ellis; Mansoor Saqi; Jo Spencer; Mervyn Singer; Rocio T Martinez-Nunez; Simon Pitchford; Chad M Swanson; Manu Shankar-Hari Journal: J Intensive Care Soc Date: 2020-11-06
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Jonathan D Casey; Marina Clement; Sean P Collins; Étienne Gayat; Michelle Ng Gong; Samir Jaber; Pierre-François Laterre; John C Marshall; Michael A Matthay; Rhonda E Monroe; Todd W Rice; Eileen Rubin; Wesley H Self; Alexandre Mebazaa Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Darryl Abrams; Sydney B Montesi; Sarah K L Moore; Daniel K Manson; Kaitlin M Klipper; Meredith A Case; Daniel Brodie; Jeremy R Beitler Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Manu Shankar-Hari; Rohit Saha; Julie Wilson; Hallie C Prescott; David Harrison; Kathryn Rowan; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Neill K J Adhikari Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Shalini Santhakumaran; Anthony Gordon; A Toby Prevost; Cecilia O'Kane; Daniel F McAuley; Manu Shankar-Hari Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Catherine L Auriemma; Hanjing Zhuo; Kevin Delucchi; Thomas Deiss; Tom Liu; Alejandra Jauregui; Serena Ke; Kathryn Vessel; Matthew Lippi; Eric Seeley; Kirsten N Kangelaris; Antonio Gomez; Carolyn Hendrickson; Kathleen D Liu; Michael A Matthay; Lorraine B Ware; Carolyn S Calfee Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 17.440