Skip to main content

Table 2 Primary efficacy analysis—conditional logistic regression model including AIM Panel PCs

From: Pharmacogenomic biomarkers do not predict response to drotrecogin alfa in patients with severe sepsis

Factor/effect

Estimate

SE

Odds ratio (OR) estimate

OR 95% CI

P valuec

Lower

Upper

Primary efficacy analysis for IRP A

IRP A*Treatment Interactiona

− 0.31

0.303

0.731

0.403

1.324

0.30

IRP A+: DrotAA versus NonDrotAA

0.11

0.245

1.112

0.688

1.799

0.66

IRP A−: DrotAA versus NonDrotAA

0.42

0.145

1.522

1.145

2.024

< 0.01

DrotAA: IRP A+ versus IRP A−

− 0.30

0.258

0.740

0.446

1.228

0.24

NonDrotAA: IRP A+ versus IRP A−

0.01

0.150

1.013

0.755

1.359

0.93

AIM Panel PCsb

     

0.14

Primary efficacy Analysis for IRP B

IRP B*Treatment Interactiona

− 0.09

0.325

0.912

0.482

1.722

0.78

IRP B+: DrotAA versus NonDrotAA

0.23

0.277

1.257

0.730

2.162

0.41

IRP B−: DrotAA versus NonDrotAA

0.32

0.138

1.379

1.052

1.807

0.02

DrotAA: IRP B+ versus IRP B−

− 0.19

0.285

0.829

0.475

1.449

0.51

NonDrotAA: IRP B+ versus IRP B−

− 0.09

0.156

0.910

0.670

1.236

0.55

AIM Panel PCsb

     

0.14

  1. Analysis for IRP A involved 376 discordant matched sets from a total of 637 matched sets
  2. Analysis for IRP B involved 372 discordant matched sets from a total of 634 matched sets
  3. aThe interaction odds ratio is a ratio of odds ratios
  4. bA total of 10 AIM Panel PCs were included which accounted for 33.9% of the variance in the AIM Panel data for the Matched-INDICATED Primary Analysis Population based on all cohorts
  5. cP values from conditional logistic regression partial likelihood ratio tests for the IRP*Treatment Interaction and the combined AIM Panel PCs; all other P values are from Wald Chi-square tests