Trends in Molecular Medicine
OpinionSpecial issue: SepsisWhy have clinical trials in sepsis failed?
Section snippets
The landscape of sepsis clinical trials
The first clinical trial of the sepsis hypothesis, that the endogenous inflammatory response of the host determines the outcome of life-threatening infection, was published in 1976 [1]. In a study of 172 patients with septic shock, William Schumer reported that administration of large doses of methylprednisolone could reduce mortality from 39% to 11%. Forty years later, although the use of high dose steroids has been largely abandoned, controversy continues regarding the efficacy of lower
Sepsis and the biology of innate immunity
The work of Pasteur and others in the nineteenth century established the critical role of exogenous microorganisms in the pathogenesis of infection, and created the basic architecture of the germ theory of disease. The consequences have been transformative. Annual mortality from infectious disease in the USA declined from 800 cases per 100 000 in 1900 to approximately 70 cases per 100 000 a century later [6]. Strikingly, however, the most impressive declines reflected public health measures such
The study population
The entry criteria for most clinical trials targeting host- or microbial-derived mediators of a systemic inflammatory response are those of sepsis syndrome [4], or a closely related constellation of clinical manifestations known as the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock [17]. Elizabeth Ziegler and colleagues reported in 1982 that administration of a polyclonal serum neutralizing endotoxin could reduce mortality rates in patients with
Defining the challenge
The challenge of reorienting our approach to the study of modulating the host response in critical illness is a daunting one. It requires a fundamental reassessment of the assumptions of the concept of sepsis, building on contemporary understanding of biology and the complexity of innate immunity and adaptive immunity. It also requires a critical reconsideration of the prevailing research paradigm, from the role of preclinical models to the sources and impact of heterogeneity in clinical
Rethinking the research model
The shortcomings of the prevalent approach to the identification, development, and testing of novel therapies of sepsis are many. How to address them is less clear; elements of a possible approach are articulated here.
Concluding remarks
Defined as a clinical syndrome resulting from the adverse consequences of the host response to infection, sepsis is arguably the leading cause of preventable death in the world today; four of the World Health Organization's top ten causes of global mortality result from sepsis. It can be conservatively estimated that upwards of $10 billion has been spent with the objective of developing effective adjuvant treatments to meet this unmet need. Yet, with the failure of a recent confirmatory trial
References (53)
Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis
Chest
(1992)Double-blind randomised controlled trial of monoclonal antibody to human tumour necrosis factor in treatment of septic shock
Lancet
(1998)Recombinant bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein (rBPI21) as adjunctive treatment for children with severe meningococcal sepsis: a randomised trial
Lancet
(2000)Steroids in the treatment of septic shock
Ann. Surg.
(1976)Another negative clinical trial of a new agent for the treatment of sepsis: rethinking the process of developing adjuvant treatments for serious infections
Crit. Care Med.
(1995)- et al.
Septic shock – evaluating another failed treatment
N. Engl. J. Med.
(2012) Sepsis syndrome: a valid clinical entity
Crit. Care Med.
(1989)Sepsis: rethinking the approach to clinical research
J. Leukoc. Biol.
(2008)Achievements in public health, 1900–1999
MMWR
(1999)- et al.
Studies on the pathogenesis of fever. II. Identification of an endogenous pyrogen in the blood stream following the injection of typhoid vaccine
J. Exp. Med.
(1955)