SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012
Human recombinant protein C for severe sepsis and septic shock in adult and paediatric patients.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
68 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting capillary leak in experimental sepsis and endotoxemia: a systematic review of therapeutic agents, methods and models in animal studies.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Human recombinant protein C for severe sepsis and septic shock in adult and paediatric patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Interleukin-1 Receptor Blockade Is Associated With Reduced Mortality in Sepsis Patients With Features of Macrophage Activation Syndrome: Reanalysis of a Prior Phase III Trial.Critical care medicine · 2016Trial
- Human Genetic Analysis Reveals Circulating Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Level as a Protective Factor in Sepsis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Andrographolide in Sepsis: Mechanistic Basis, New Drug States, and Advanced Delivery Systems.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Protease engineering: Approaches, tools, and emerging trends.Biotechnology advances · 2025Review
- Review
- A review of gut failure as a cause and consequence of critical illness.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Structural bioinformatics for rational drug design.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Toward Precision in Critical Care Research: Methods for Observational and Interventional Studies.Critical care medicine · 2024Review
- Review
- Unraveling the Molecular Mechanisms of Activated Protein C (APC) in Mitigating Reperfusion Injury and Cardiac Ischemia: a Promising Avenue for Novel Therapeutic Interventions.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2024Review
- Regulation of immune responses to infection through interaction between stem cell-derived exosomes and toll-like receptors mediated by microRNA cargoes.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Review
- Neutrophils and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS).International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Purpura fulminans in a hyposplenic patient arising from pneumococcal sinusitis.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
- Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy: An Update on Pathophysiology, Biomarkers, and Current Guidelines.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Sepsis - it is all about the platelets.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Dysregulated haemostasis in thrombo-inflammatory disease.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2022Review
- MIF but not MIF-2 recruits inflammatory macrophages in an experimental polymicrobial sepsis model.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Article
- Signaling pathways and intervention therapies in sepsis.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2021Review
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a common and frequently fatal condition. Human recombinant activated protein C (APC) has been introduced to reduce the high risk of death associated with severe sepsis or septic shock. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2007.
objectivesWe assessed the benefits and harms of APC for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE (2010 to June 2012); EMBASE (2010 to June 2012); BIOSIS (1965 to June 2012); CINAHL (1982 to June 2012) and LILACS (1982 to June 2012). There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of APC for severe sepsis or septic shock in adults and children. We excluded studies on neonates. We considered all-cause mortality at day 28 and at the end of study follow up, and hospital mortality as the primary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently performed trial selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We used a random-effects model. MAIN
resultsWe identified one new randomized clinical trial in this update which includes six randomized clinical trials involving 6781 participants in total, five randomized clinical trials in adult (N = 6307) and one randomized clinical trial in paediatric (N = 474) participants. All trials had high risk of bias and were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. APC compared with placebo did not significantly affect all-cause mortality at day 28 compared with placebo (780/3435 (22.7%) versus 767/3346 (22.9%); RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.16; I(2) = 56%). APC did not significantly affect in-hospital mortality (393/1767 (22.2%) versus 379/1710 (22.1%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.16; I(2) = 20%). APC was associated with an increased risk of serious bleeding (113/3424 (3.3%) versus 74/3343 (2.2%); RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.94; I(2) = 0%). APC did not significantly affect serious adverse events (463/3334 (13.9%) versus 439/3302 (13.2%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; I(2) = 0%). Trial sequential analyses showed that more trials do not seem to be needed for reliable conclusions regarding these outcomes. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis updated review found no evidence suggesting that APC should be used for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC seems to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding. The drug company behind APC, Eli Lilly, has announced the discontinuation of all ongoing clinical trials using this drug for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC should not be used for sepsis or septic shock outside randomized clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.