Subpopulation-Specific Sepsis Identification Using Machine Learning
NCT ID: NCT03644940
Last Updated: 2021-09-23
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
WITHDRAWN
PHASE2
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-12-31
2021-07-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Gram Type Infection-Specific Sepsis Identification Using Machine Learning
NCT03734484
RCT of Sepsis Machine Learning Algorithm
NCT03882476
Unsupervised Machine Learning for Clustering of Septic Patients to Determine Optimal Treatment
NCT03752489
An Algorithm Driven Sepsis Prediction Biomarker
NCT03015454
Predictive algoRithm for EValuation and Intervention in SEpsis
NCT03235193
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
During the study period, all patients over the age of 18 presenting to the emergency department or admitted to an inpatient unit at the participating facilities will automatically be enrolled in the trial if they are a member of one of the eight subpopulations of interest in this study, until the target enrollment for the study is met. Enrollment will entail randomization to either the control or the experimental arms. Patients will be assigned to the experimental group or control group based on a random allocation sequence, generated by a computer program before the start of the trial, using simple randomization, with a 1:1 allocation ratio. This allocation sequence will be concealed to patients, healthcare providers and study investigators. However the trial will have an open-label design, as full blinding is not possible as some group assignments will become naturally revealed upon receipt of telephonic alerts.
There will be two arms in the study. The control arm will involve patients monitored by the original version of InSight, and the experimental arm will involve patients monitored by the subpopulation-customized version of InSight. In both arms, if the applicable algorithm determines a patient to be at high risk for severe sepsis, a telephonic alert will be sent to the charge nurse on duty in the patient's current location. Response to alerts will follow the protocol from our previous sepsis clinical trial. The procedure consists of a nurse conducting a patient bedside evaluation to rule out suspected infection. This includes assessment of patient vital signs, EHR notes, and recent laboratory results. If the nurse suspects severe sepsis, a physician subsequently assesses the patient and, if appropriate, places an order for administration of the standard sepsis treatment bundle.
In the administration of clinical trials, some open-label studies are cluster-randomized while others are randomized at an individual patient level. Cluster randomization is frequently used to minimize "contamination" between treatment and control groups, because exposure of providers to patients from both arms in an open-label study often invites unintentional behavioral biases. These biases may cause providers to adjust their interventions in the control group to mimic their actions in the experimental group, thereby masking the intervention's effect and skewing the study results towards the null. Although open-label, cluster-randomized trials are effective in minimizing contamination among groups, they have several significant disadvantages, including greater complexity in design and analysis as well as larger patient enrollment requirements to achieve the same statistical power. Because larger sample sizes often necessitate increases in cost, length, or complexity of a trial, current research has indicated that trialists should use individual randomization if possible due to the drawbacks of cluster allocation. Given these considerations, we concluded that individual randomization was the best strategy for our trial, as it affords a significant amount of increase in statistical power and allows each patient outcome to be assessed independently of every other patient. To minimize possible bias, we also decided to make the automated phone call text identical in both arms. The successful use of patient-level randomization in our previous sepsis clinical trial gives us confidence in this trial design.
After the discharge of the last enrolled patient, we will evaluate whether the primary endpoint of in-hospital SIRS-based mortality and secondary endpoints of in-hospital severe sepsis/shock-coded mortality, SIRS-based hospital length of stay, and severe sepsis/shock-coded hospital length of stay are met. Additional outcome measures of interest for each SIRS-based and severe sepsis/shock-coded patient groups will include: time to completion of each element of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundle; ventilator-free days; ICU days; and 30-day hospital readmission rate. The 1-hour SSC bundle consists of obtaining blood cultures, measuring lactate level, administering broad-spectrum antibiotics, administering 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid for hypertension or lactate \>4 mmol/L, and applying vasopressors if patient is hypotensive during or after fluid resuscitation.
Patients will be considered "SIRS-based" and included for primary endpoint analysis if they meet two or more SIRS criteria at any point during their stay. The reason for this inclusion criteria is that the algorithm may detect severe sepsis before it is apparent in the chart, and therefore sepsis may be resolved with early intervention prior to severe sepsis documentation in the medical record. For example, if a CDS alert results in treatment initiation before organ dysfunction indicative labs are drawn, the patient's state of "severe sepsis" may be censored out. Limiting inclusion criteria to the 2001 consensus (Sepsis-2) severe sepsis definition criteria or the Sepsis-3 criteria would exclude such patients from analysis; however, such censorship will be avoided with our use of SIRS-based inclusion criteria.
We plan to draw from EHR-based clinical data for primary endpoint analysis, as opposed to claims-based data, due to its ability to provide more objective measurements on patient outcomes. However, to compare to other studies that use coding-based inclusion, claims data will be used in inclusion criteria for secondary endpoints. Patients will be considered to be documented "severe sepsis/septic shock-coded" and included for secondary endpoint analysis if they meet either Angus implementation criteria or any of the following diagnosis codes: R6520 and/or R6521 with septicemia codes A400, A401, A403, A408, A4101, A4102, A411, A412, A413, A414, A4150, A4151, A4152, A4153, A4159, A4181, A4189, A427, A021, A227, A267, A327, A5486, B377. The use of explicit ICD codes alone for tracking sepsis is known to have high specificity but low sensitivity.
At the conclusion of the study, significant findings will be published as scientific papers.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
DIAGNOSTIC
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Subpopulation-specific Algorithm
CustomSight
Subpopulation-specific clinical decision support (CDS) system for severe sepsis detection
Control Algorithm
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
CustomSight
Subpopulation-specific clinical decision support (CDS) system for severe sepsis detection
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of California, San Francisco
OTHER
Dascena
INDUSTRY
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Ritankar Das, MSc
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Dascena
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Desautels T, Calvert J, Hoffman J, Mao Q, Jay M, Fletcher G, Barton C, Chettipally U, Kerem Y, Das R. Using Transfer Learning for Improved Mortality Prediction in a Data-Scarce Hospital Setting. Biomed Inform Insights. 2017 Jun 12;9:1178222617712994. doi: 10.1177/1178222617712994. eCollection 2017.
Calvert J, Mao Q, Rogers AJ, Barton C, Jay M, Desautels T, Mohamadlou H, Jan J, Das R. A computational approach to mortality prediction of alcohol use disorder inpatients. Comput Biol Med. 2016 Aug 1;75:74-9. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.05.015. Epub 2016 May 24.
Calvert JS, Price DA, Barton CW, Chettipally UK, Das R. Discharge recommendation based on a novel technique of homeostatic analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Jan;24(1):24-29. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw014. Epub 2016 Mar 28.
Calvert J, Mao Q, Hoffman JL, Jay M, Desautels T, Mohamadlou H, Chettipally U, Das R. Using electronic health record collected clinical variables to predict medical intensive care unit mortality. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016 Sep 6;11:52-57. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.09.002. eCollection 2016 Nov.
Shimabukuro DW, Barton CW, Feldman MD, Mataraso SJ, Das R. Effect of a machine learning-based severe sepsis prediction algorithm on patient survival and hospital length of stay: a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2017 Nov 9;4(1):e000234. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2017-000234. eCollection 2017.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
18-347718
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.