Abstract: Poster Presentations |

Comparison of PROGRESS Severe Sepsis Registry Patients to INDEPTH Integrated Severe Sepsis Clinical Trial Database Placebo Patients FREE TO VIEW

Richard Beale, MD*; Konrad Reinhart, MD; Eliezer Silva, MD; Geoffrey Dobb, MD; Samiha Sarwat, MS; Rekha Garg, MD; Jean-Louis Vincent, MD, PhD
Author and Funding Information

Guy’s St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, England


Chest. 2004;126(4_MeetingAbstracts):864S. doi:10.1378/chest.126.4_MeetingAbstracts.864S-b
Text Size: A A A
Published online


PURPOSE:  PROGRESS, an international web-based severe sepsis registry, was created to provide a representative, contemporary description of severe sepsis worldwide. We compare baseline characteristics of over 4000 severe sepsis patients enrolled to date in PROGRESS with characteristics of placebo patients from the severe sepsis combined clinical trial database, INDEPTH.

METHODS:  PROGRESS is a prospective, observational registry. Participating ICUs enroll patients who have severe sepsis (suspected or proven infection and ≥1 acute sepsis-induced organ dysfunction). All data handling is by secure website and all patient data are de-identified. An independent advisory committee with professional society representation governs PROGRESS. PROGRESS software development and website maintenance was funded by Eli Lilly. INDEPTH placebo patients are from 4 severe sepsis clinical trials conducted in 13 countries. All of the INDEPTH trials had similar entry criteria and were conducted by the same sponsor (Eli Lilly). Exclusion criteria differed in the INDEPTH trials and PROGRESS has no exclusion criteria.

RESULTS:  As of April 1, 2004, PROGRESS has enrolled 4387 severe sepsis patients in 32 countries. Baseline characteristics of PROGRESS patients are compared with those of INDEPTH placebo patients in the tableINDEPTH Combined Severe Sepsis Clinical Trial Database Placebo Patients N=1231PROGRESS Severe Sepsis Registry N=4387Age, mean ± SD60.3±16.559.1±18.8Male, %57.659.4Caucasian, %79.452.6APACHE II, mean ± SD24.6±7.822.2±8.2Multiple organ dysfunction (%)78.087.7Mechanical ventilation (%)78.383.5Vasopressors (%)64.179.5Cardiovascular organ dysfunction (%)73.274.3Respiratory organ dysfunction (%)77.582.3Lung as site of infection (%)52.146.6.

CONCLUSION:  Many of the disease severity measures examined indicate the “real-life” patients enrolled in PROGRESS are more severe at baseline. Absence of exclusion criteria in PROGRESS may lead to enrollment of more severe patients. Further comparisons must take into account these and other differences, such as possible country variations.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:  Differences in baseline disease severity between clinical trial patients and clinical practice patients may potentially influence outcomes observed with new therapies.

DISCLOSURE:  R. Beale, I have served as a consultant to Eli Lilly & Co.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

12:30 PM- 2:00 PM




Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543