Journal of Critical Care
Volume 21, Issue 1 , Pages 38-47, March 2006

Controversies in sepsis clinical trials: proceedings of a meeting of the International Sepsis Forum, Lausanne, Switzerland, September 29, 2001

  • R. Phillip Dellinger, MD

      Affiliations

    • Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA
    • Section of Critical Care Medicine, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ 08103, USA
  • ,
  • Edward Abraham, MD

      Affiliations

    • Administrative Affairs, Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO 80262, USA
  • ,
  • Gordon Bernard, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
  • ,
  • John C. Marshall, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, 9 EN-234 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4
    • Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
  • ,
  • Jean-Louis Vincent, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +32 2 555 3380; fax: +32 2 555 4555.

Received 9 July 2004; received in revised form 17 January 2005; accepted 12 July 2005.

Abstract 

Despite some recent success with clinical trials studying innovative therapies in sepsis, the field remains predominantly one of failure despite compounds with significant preclinical activity. Preclinical animal experimentation remains an important component of drug development, and a portfolio approach is recommended. Failure in animals is more likely to predict failure in humans; however, success in animals often does not predict success in humans. Because the signal with innovative therapy of sepsis is likely to be low, an oncology model clinical trial approach, in which studies start with a high-risk homogeneous population and look for a large treatment effect with smaller numbers of patients, is likely to be more relevant than the commonly used cardiology model, in which studies search for a small treatment effect using large, heterogeneous, low-risk populations. With certain rules in place, improvement in organ function may be a worthwhile alternative to mortality as a clinical end point. Once a therapy is approved, adopting less stringent but still appropriate criteria for the use of that therapy in clinical practice may be appropriate.

Keywords: International Sepsis Forum, Sepsis clinical trials, Preclinical animal experimentation, Drug development

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0883-9441(05)00205-4

doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.07.002

Journal of Critical Care
Volume 21, Issue 1 , Pages 38-47, March 2006