The premature closure of ROMPA clinical trial: mortality reduction in septic shock by plasma adsorption

Carola Giménez-Esparza, Cristina Portillo-Requena, Francisco Colomina-Climent, José Manuel Allegue-Gallego, María Galindo-Martínez, Cristina Mollà-Jiménez, José Luis Antón-Pascual, Enrique Mármol-Peis, Cristina Dólera-Moreno, Manuel Rodríguez-Serra, José Luis Martín-Ruíz, Pablo Juan Fernández-Arroyo, Eugenia María Blasco-Císcar, José Cánovas-Robles, Enrique González-Hernández, Fernando Sánchez-Morán, Manuel Solera-Suárez, Jesús Torres-Tortajada, Antonio Palazón-Bru, Vicente F Gil-Guillen, Carola Giménez-Esparza, Cristina Portillo-Requena, Francisco Colomina-Climent, José Manuel Allegue-Gallego, María Galindo-Martínez, Cristina Mollà-Jiménez, José Luis Antón-Pascual, Enrique Mármol-Peis, Cristina Dólera-Moreno, Manuel Rodríguez-Serra, José Luis Martín-Ruíz, Pablo Juan Fernández-Arroyo, Eugenia María Blasco-Císcar, José Cánovas-Robles, Enrique González-Hernández, Fernando Sánchez-Morán, Manuel Solera-Suárez, Jesús Torres-Tortajada, Antonio Palazón-Bru, Vicente F Gil-Guillen

Abstract

Objectives: Coupled Plasma Filtration and Adsorption (CPFA) use in septic shock remains controversial. The objective is to clarify whether the application of high doses of CPFA in addition to the current clinical practice could reduce hospital mortality in septic shock patients in Intensive Care Units at 28 days and at 90 days follow-up.

Design: We designed a prospective randomised clinical trial, Reducción de la Mortalidad Plasma-Adsorción (ROMPA), to demonstrate an absolute mortality reduction of 20% (α=0.05; 1-β=0.8; n=190 (95×2)).

Setting: Being aware of the pitfalls associated with previous medical device trials, we developed a training programme to improve CPFA use (especially clotting problems). The protocol was approved by the ethics committees of all participating centres. Circumstances beyond our control produced a change in recruitment conditions unacceptable to ROMPA researchers and the trial was discontinued.

Participants: By closure, five centres from an initial 10 fulfilled the necessary trial criteria, with 49 patients included, 30 in the control group (CG) and 19 in the intervention group (IG).

Intervention: CPFA.

Main outcome measures: Hospital mortality at 28 days and 90 days follow-up.

Results: After 28 days, 14 patients died (46.7%) from the CG and 11 (57.9%) from the IG, not reaching statistical significance (p=0.444). At 90 days, 19 patients had died (63.3%) from the CG and 11 patients (57.9%) from the IG, (p=0.878). The adjustment by propensity score or the use of the Kaplan-Meier technique failed to achieve statistical difference, neither by Intention to Treat nor by the Actual Intervention Received.

Conclusion: We herewith present the results gained from the prematurely closed trial. The results are inconclusive due to low statistical power but we consider that this data is of interest for the scientific community and potentially necessary for any ensuing debate.

Register: NCT02357433 in clinicaltrials.gov.

Keywords: adult intensive & critical care; clinical trials; infectious diseases.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the clinical trial (partial results).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier estimator comparing both groups. Red, intervention; blue, control. A, intention to treat; B, real intervention.

References

    1. Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, et al. . Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States. Crit Care Med 2013;41:1167–74. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c09f8
    1. Opal SM, Dellinger RP, Vincent J-L, et al. . The next generation of sepsis clinical trial designs: what is next after the demise of recombinant human activated protein C?*. Crit Care Med 2014;42:1714–21. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000325
    1. Wong JLC, Mason AJ, Gordon AC, et al. . Are large randomised controlled trials in severe sepsis and septic shock statistically disadvantaged by repeated inadvertent underestimates of required sample size? BMJ Open 2018;8:e020068 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020068
    1. Vincent J-L, Marini JJ, Pesenti A. Do trials that report a neutral or negative treatment effect improve the care of critically ill patients? no. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:1989–91. 10.1007/s00134-018-5220-y
    1. Livigni S, Bertolini G, Rossi C, et al. . Efficacy of coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) in patients with septic shock: a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ Open 2014;4:e003536 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003536
    1. Colomina-Climent F, Giménez-Esparza C, Portillo-Requena C, et al. . Mortality reduction in septic shock by plasma adsorption (rOmpA): a protocol for a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011856 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011856
    1. Gruppo Italiano per la Valutazione degli Interventi in Terapia Intensiva COMPACT-2: combining Plasmafiltration and adsorption clinical Trial-2. Available: [Accessed 27 Nov 2018].
    1. Gruppo Italiano per la Valutazione degli Interventi in Terapia Intensiva Chiusura anticipata dello Studio COMPACT-2. Available: [Accessed 27 Nov 2018].
    1. Stuart BL, Grebel LE, Butler CC, et al. . Comparison between treatment effects in a randomised controlled trial and an observational study using propensity scores in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2017;67:e643–9. 10.3399/bjgp17X692153
    1. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, et al. . Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2189–94. 10.1056/NEJMsr077003

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa