Selepressin, a novel selective vasopressin V1A agonist, is an effective substitute for norepinephrine in a phase IIa randomized, placebo-controlled trial in septic shock patients
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: -selective vasopressin analogue, was examined in a phase IIa trial in septic shock patients. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in 53 patients in early septic shock (aged ≥18 years, fluid resuscitation, requiring vasopressor support) who received selepressin 1.25 ng/kg/minute (n = 10), 2.5 ng/kg/minute (n = 19), 3.75 ng/kg/minute (n = 2), or placebo (n = 21) until shock resolution or a maximum of 7 days. If mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg was not maintained, open-label norepinephrine was added. Co-primary endpoints were maintenance of MAP >60 mmHg without norepinephrine, norepinephrine dose, and proportion of patients maintaining MAP >60 mmHg with or without norepinephrine over 7 days. Secondary endpoints included cumulative fluid balance, organ dysfunction, pharmacokinetics, and safety. RESULTS: A higher proportion of the patients receiving 2.5 ng/kg/minute selepressin maintained MAP >60 mmHg without norepinephrine (about 50% and 70% at 12 and 24 h, respectively) vs. 1.25 ng/kg/minute selepressin and placebo (p < 0.01). The 7-day cumulative doses of norepinephrine were 761, 659, and 249 μg/kg (placebo 1.25 ng/kg/minute and 2.5 ng/kg/minute, respectively; 2.5 ng/kg/minute vs. placebo; p < 0.01). Norepinephrine infusion was weaned more rapidly in selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute vs. placebo (0.04 vs. 0.18 μg/kg/minute at 24 h, p < 0.001), successfully maintaining target MAP and reducing norepinephrine dose vs. placebo (first 24 h, p < 0.001). Cumulative net fluid balance was lower from day 5 onward in the selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute group vs. placebo (p < 0.05). The selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute group had a greater proportion of days alive and free of ventilation vs. placebo (p < 0.02). Selepressin (2.5 ng/kg/minute) was well tolerated, with a similar frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events for selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute and placebo. Two patients were infused at 3.75 ng/kg/minute, one of whom had the study drug infusion discontinued for possible safety reasons, with subsequent discontinuation of this dose group. CONCLUSIONS: In septic shock patients, selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute was able to rapidly replace norepinephrine while maintaining adequate MAP, and it may improve fluid balance and shorten the time of mechanical ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01000649 . Registered on September 30, 2009.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There are data from RCTs on short versus long courses in specific conditions such as pneumonia, urinary tract infections, bacteremia, and intraabdominal infections.
“There are data from RCTs in specific conditions such as pneumonia (286-289), urinary tract infections (290), bacteremia (291, 292), and intraabdominal infections (293).”
From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [288]
The Methods (Study population and Study outcomes; page unavailable) describe a randomized comparison of selepressin and placebo for septic shock, not short versus long treatment courses. The Results (Study population; page unavailable) list infection locations, but do not report trials comparing course lengths for those infections. Searches for short versus long antibiotic courses and treatment duration found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredShorter durations of antimicrobial therapy are in general recommended, but critically ill patients often receive antimicrobials for more days than necessary.
“Shorter durations of antimicrobial therapy are in general recommended; however, critically ill patients often receive antimicrobials for more days than necessary (288,301,306).”
From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [288]
The Methods (Study outcomes) and Discussion passages address selepressin, vasopressor support, and mechanical ventilation, not antimicrobial treatment duration. Searches for antimicrobial-therapy recommendations and prolonged antibiotic use found no passage supporting either part of the claim. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSelepressin at 2.5 ng/kg/min maintained MAP above 60 mmHg without norepinephrine in about 50% of patients at 12 hours and about 70% at 24 hours.
“Selepressin at a dose of 2.5 ng/kg/min was demonstrated to be effective in maintaining MAP > 60 mmHg without norepinephrine in about 50% of patients at 12 h and about 70% of patients at 24 h.”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [363]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 103
- Authors
- Russell, J. A., Vincent, J.-L., Kjølbye, A. L., Olsson, H., Blemings, A., Spapen, H., Carl, P., Laterre, P.-F., & Grundemar, L.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
- Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Denmark) (DK)
- Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (BE)
- Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Russell, James A.
- Venue
- Critical Care
- Published
- 2017-08-15
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 213-213
- ISSN
- 1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5557574
- OpenAlex
- W2749901817
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 19
- FWCI
- 12.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Critical Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- cIRcle (University of British Columbia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ferring
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
- Keywords
- septic shock, vasopressor weaning, mean arterial pressure, fluid balance, organ dysfunction, sepsis treatment, pharmacokinetics, drug safety, cumulative fluid balance
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Belgium, Child, Denmark, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hypotension, Male, Middle Aged, Norepinephrine, Placebos, Shock, Septic, United States, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Vasopressins, Receptors, Vasopressin
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