Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Next Generation of Sepsis Clinical Trial Designs: What Is Next After the Demise of Recombinant Human Activated Protein C?*

Open access
Opal, Steven M., Dellinger, R. Phillip, Vincent, Jean-Louis, Masur, Henry, Angus, Derek C.·2014·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The developmental pipeline for novel therapeutics to treat sepsis has diminished to a trickle compared to previous years of sepsis research. While enormous strides have been made in understanding the basic molecular mechanisms that underlie the pathophysiology of sepsis, a long list of novel agents have now been tested in clinical trials without a single immunomodulating therapy showing consistent benefit. The only antisepsis agent to successfully complete a phase III clinical trial was human recumbent activated protein C. This drug was taken off the market after a follow-up placebo-controlled trial (human recombinant activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation of Severe Sepsis and septic Shock [PROWESS SHOCK]) failed to replicate the favorable results of the initial registration trial performed ten years earlier. We must critically reevaluate our basic approach to the preclinical and clinical evaluation of new sepsis therapies. DATA SOURCES: We selected the major clinical studies that investigated interventional trials with novel therapies to treat sepsis over the last 30 years. STUDY SELECTION: Phase II and phase III trials investigating new treatments for sepsis and editorials and critiques of these studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Selected manuscripts and clinical study reports were analyzed from sepsis trials. Specific shortcomings and potential pit falls in preclinical evaluation and clinical study design and analysis were reviewed and synthesized. DATA SYNTHESIS: After review and discussion, a series of 12 recommendations were generated with suggestions to guide future studies with new treatments for sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: We need to improve our ability to define appropriate molecular targets for preclinical development and develop better methods to determine the clinical value of novel sepsis agents. Clinical trials must have realistic sample sizes and meaningful endpoints. Biomarker-driven studies should be considered to categorize specific "at risk" populations most likely to benefit from a new treatment. Innovations in clinical trial design such as parallel crossover design, alternative endpoints, or adaptive trials should be pursued to improve the outlook for future interventional trials in sepsis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000000325

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Opal, S. M., Dellinger, R. P., Vincent, J.-L., Masur, H., & Angus, D. C.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2014-07
Volume
42
Issue
7
Pages
1714-1721
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2412277735
Cited by
191
References
6
FWCI
17.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Next Generation of Sepsis Clinical Trial Designs: What Is Next After the Demise of Recombinant Human Activated Protein C?*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000325
The paper
Opal, S. M., Dellinger, R. P., Vincent, J.-L., Masur, H., & Angus, D. C. (2014). The Next Generation of Sepsis Clinical Trial Designs: What Is Next After the Demise of Recombinant Human Activated Protein C?*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000325

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.