Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 495

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Treatment of Septic Shock with Human Monoclonal Antibody HA-1A: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

McCloskey, Richard V., Straube, Richard C., Sanders, Corazon, Smith, Susan M., Smith, Craig R., and CHESS Trial Study Group.·1994·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 100 mg of HA-1A and placebo in reducing the 14-day all-cause mortality rate in patients with septic shock and gram-negative bacteremia in the Centocor: HA-1A Efficacy in Septic Shock (CHESS) trial, and to assess the safety of 100 mg of HA-1A given to patients with septic shock who did not have gram-negative bacteremia. DESIGN: Large, simple, group-sequential, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: 603 investigators at 513 community and university-affiliated hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: Within 6 hours before enrollment, the patients had been in shock with a systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg after adequate fluid challenge or had received vasopressors to maintain blood pressure. These episodes of shock began within 24 hours of enrollment. A presumptive clinical diagnosis of gram-negative infection as the cause of the shock episode and a commitment from the patients' physicians to provide full supportive care were required. MEASUREMENTS: Blood cultures were obtained within 48 hours of enrollment, and death at day 14 after treatment was recorded. Adverse events occurring within 14 days after enrollment were also tabulated. RESULTS: 2199 patients were enrolled; 621 (28.2%) met all enrollment criteria, received HA-1A or placebo, and had confirmed gram-negative bacteremia. Mortality rates in this group were as follows: placebo, 32% (95 and HA-1A, 33% (109 of 328) (P = 0.864, Fisher exact test, two-tailed; 95% CI for the difference, -6.2% to 8.6%). Mortality rates in the patients without gram-negative bacteremia were as follows: placebo, 37% (292 of 793) and HA-1A, 41% (318 of 785) (P = 0.073, Fisher exact test, one-tailed; CI, -0.8% to 8.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, HA-1A was not effective in reducing the 14-day mortality rate in patients with gram-negative bacteremia and septic shock. These data do not support using septic shock as an indication for HA-1A treatment. If HA-1A is effective in reducing the mortality rate in patients dying from endotoxemia, these patients must be identified using other treatment criteria.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00001

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
McCloskey, R. V., Straube, R. C., Sanders, C., Smith, S. M., Smith, C. R., & and CHESS Trial Study Group.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1994-07-01
Volume
121
Issue
1
Pages
1-5
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2027792306
Cited by
495
References
0
FWCI
26.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.