SepsisPhase 2NCT03882476
RCT of Sepsis Machine Learning Algorithm
A Phase 2 study testing InSight in people with Sepsis and Severe Sepsis, run by Dascena.
Trial summary
The focus of this study will be to conduct a prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) at Cape Regional Medical Center (CRMC), Oroville Hospital (OH), and UCSF Medical Center (UCSF) in which a machine-learning algorithm will be applied to EHR data for the detection of sepsis. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, Septic Shock
- What is being tested?
- InSight
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2020to 28 Feb 2021
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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, until the enrollment target for the study is met
Who cannot join
- Patients under the age of 18
About this study
Official title: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Machine Learning Algorithm for Early Sepsis Detection
The focus of this study will be to conduct a prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) at Cape Regional Medical Center (CRMC), Oroville Hospital (OH), and UCSF Medical Center (UCSF) in which a machine-learning algorithm will be applied to EHR data for the detection of sepsis. For patients determined to have a high risk of sepsis, the algorithm will generate automated voice, telephone notification to nursing staff at CRMC, OH, and UCSF. The algorithm's performance will be measured by analysis of the primary endpoint, in-hospital SIRS-based mortality.
Read the detailed description
From January 2020 to February 2021, inclusive, investigators will perform a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) at CRMC, OH, and UCSF. All aims of this study have been have been submitted for approval by the Pearl Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent.
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, 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 with the usual standard of care, and the experimental arm will involve patients monitored by InSight. If the applicable algorithm determines a patient to be at a high risk for 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 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, investigators concluded that individual randomization was the best strategy for the 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, investigators also decided to make the automated phone call text identical in both arms. The successful use of patient-level randomization in a previous sepsis clinical trial conducted by investigators gives confidence in this trial design.
After the discharge of the last enrolled patient, investigators will evaluate whether the primary endpoint of in-hospital SIRS-based mortality is met. Additional outcome measures of interest for each SIRS-based group 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.
Investigators 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.
At the conclusion of the study, significant findings will be published as scientific papers.
- Conditions
- Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, Septic Shock
- Being tested
- InSight
- Keywords
- Dascena, patient mortality, machine learning, algorithm, diagnostic
- Medical subject headings
- Sepsis, Shock, Septic, Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
InSightDiagnostic test
Clinical decision support (CDS) system for sepsis detection
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Experimental | The experimental arm will involve patients monitored by InSight. Receives: Diagnostic Test: InSight |
| Control | No intervention | The control arm will have no intervention and will involve patients with the usual standard of care. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
In-hospital SIRS-based mortality
Rate of mortality attributed to patients meeting two or more SIRS criteria at some point during their stay
Measured: Through study completion, an average of eight months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Mar 2019
- Study start1 Jan 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion28 Feb 2021 (estimated)
- Study completion28 Feb 2021 (estimated)
Why it stopped: Study not funded
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for SepsisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Dascena
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- University of California, San Francisco
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Ritankar Das, MSc, Principal investigator, Dascena
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03882476
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 19-494662
- Status last verified
- Sep 2021
- First submitted
- 18 Mar 2019
- Last updated
- 23 Sep 2021
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
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.
PubMed 28638239Calvert 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.
PubMed 27253619Calvert 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.
PubMed 27026611Calvert 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.
PubMed 27699003Shimabukuro 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.
PubMed 29435343
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Sep 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Controlled Trial of a Machine Learning Algorithm for Early Sepsis Detection
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03882476
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 19-494662
- Conditions
- Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, Septic Shock
- Keywords
- Dascena, patient mortality, machine learning, algorithm, diagnostic
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Study not funded
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- DascenaIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- University of California, San Francisco
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 28 Feb 2021 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 28 Feb 2021 (estimated)
- First posted
- 20 Mar 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The focus of this study will be to conduct a prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) at Cape Regional Medical Center (CRMC), Oroville Hospital (OH), and UCSF Medical Center (UCSF) in which a machine-learning algorithm will be applied to EHR data for the detection of sepsis. For patients determined to have a high risk of sepsis, the algorithm will generate automated voice, telephone notification to nursing staff at CRMC, OH, and UCSF. The algorithm's performance will be measured by analysis of the primary endpoint, in-hospital SIRS-based mortality.
Detailed description
From January 2020 to February 2021, inclusive, investigators will perform a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) at CRMC, OH, and UCSF. All aims of this study have been have been submitted for approval by the Pearl Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent.
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, 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 with the usual standard of care, and the experimental arm will involve patients monitored by InSight. If the applicable algorithm determines a patient to be at a high risk for 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 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, investigators concluded that individual randomization was the best strategy for the 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, investigators also decided to make the automated phone call text identical in both arms. The successful use of patient-level randomization in a previous sepsis clinical trial conducted by investigators gives confidence in this trial design.
After the discharge of the last enrolled patient, investigators will evaluate whether the primary endpoint of in-hospital SIRS-based mortality is met. Additional outcome measures of interest for each SIRS-based group 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.
Investigators 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.
At the conclusion of the study, significant findings will be published as scientific papers.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Experimental | Diagnostic Test: InSightThe experimental arm will involve patients monitored by InSight. |
| Control | No intervention | –The control arm will have no intervention and will involve patients with the usual standard of care. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 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, until the enrollment target for the study is met
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients under the age of 18
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| InSightClinical decision support (CDS) system for sepsis detection | Diagnostic test | Experimental |
Primary outcome
In-hospital SIRS-based mortality
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of eight months
Rate of mortality attributed to patients meeting two or more SIRS criteria at some point during their stay
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Sep 2021.
- Background: PubMed 28638239Desautels 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.
- Background: PubMed 27253619Calvert 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.
- Background: PubMed 27026611Calvert 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.
- Background: PubMed 27699003Calvert 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.
- Background: PubMed 29435343Shimabukuro 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.
Related trials for Sepsis
RecruitingPhase 3
Selective Antibiotics When Symptoms Develop Versus Universal Antibiotics for Preterm Neonates
Sepsis, PROM, Preterm (Pregnancy)
RecruitingObservational study
Metabolic and Functional Study of γδ T Cells in Critically Ill Patients
Sepsis, Critical Illness
Not yet recruiting
Blood Purification in Septic Children
Sepsis, Blood Purification
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Biomarker-enhanced Artificial Intelligence Based Pediatric Sepsis Screening Tool
Sepsis
RecruitingPhase 3
A Trial of Adjunctive Fludrocortisone (50mcg, 100mcg or Placebo) in Critically Ill Patients With Septic Shock Receiving Hydrocortisone, Evaluating Survival and Functional Recovery and the Influence of Transcriptomic Response
Septic Shock
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ritankar Das, MSc principal investigator
Dascena
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing InSight in people with Sepsis and Severe Sepsis, run by Dascena.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Sep 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
In-hospital SIRS-based mortality (time frame: Through study completion, an average of eight months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03882476, which also lists 5 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Sep 2021.