ArticleTrials2019
Personalized medicine with IgGAM compared with standard of care for treatment of peritonitis after infectious source control (the PEPPER trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03334006 (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Personalized Medicine With Pentaglobin® After Surgical Infectious Source Control in Patients With Peritonitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Prospective, Randomized Trial of Personalized Medicine With Pentaglobin® After Surgical Infectious Source Control in Patients With Peritonitis
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Modes of (Inter)Actions of Polyvalent Immunoglobulins: Nonclinical and Clinical Research in Severe Bacterial Infections.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- The pathophysiology of sepsis and precision-medicine-based immunotherapy.Nature immunology · 2024Review
- The Role of the Intravenous IgA and IgM-Enriched Immunoglobulin Preparation in the Treatment of Sepsis and Septic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Adjuvant intravenous immunoglobulin administration on postoperative critically ill patients with secondary peritonitis: a retrospective study.Acute and critical care · 2023Article
- Immune Intervention in Sepsis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Sepsis-Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Concepts.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Best-practice IgM- and IgA-enriched immunoglobulin use in patients with sepsis.Annals of intensive care · 2020Review
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 16 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeritonitis is responsible for thousands of deaths annually in Germany alone. Even source control (SC) and antibiotic treatment often fail to prevent severe sepsis or septic shock, and this situation has hardly improved in the past two decades. Most experimental immunomodulatory therapeutics for sepsis have been aimed at blocking or dampening a specific pro-inflammatory immunological mediator. However, the patient collective is large and heterogeneous. There are therefore grounds for investigating the possibility of developing personalized therapies by classifying patients into groups according to biomarkers. This study aims to combine an assessment of the efficacy of treatment with a preparation of human immunoglobulins G, A, and M (IgGAM) with individual status of various biomarkers (immunoglobulin level, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, antigen D-related human leucocyte antigen (HLA-DR), transcription factor NF-κB1, adrenomedullin, and pathogen spectrum). METHODS/
designA total of 200 patients with sepsis or septic shock will receive standard-of-care treatment (SoC). Of these, 133 patients (selected by 1:2 randomization) will in addition receive infusions of IgGAM for 5 days. All patients will be followed for approximately 90 days and assessed by the multiple-organ failure (MOF) score, by the EQ QLQ 5D quality-of-life scale, and by measurement of vital signs, biomarkers (as above), and survival. DISCUSSION: This study is intended to provide further information on the efficacy and safety of treatment with IgGAM and to offer the possibility of correlating these with the biomarkers to be studied. Specifically, it will test (at a descriptive level) the hypothesis that patients receiving IgGAM who have higher inflammation status (IL-6) and poorer immune status (low HLA-DR, low immunoglobulin levels) have a better outcome than patients who do not receive IgGAM. It is expected to provide information that will help to close the knowledge gap concerning the association between the effect of IgGAM and the presence of various biomarkers, thus possibly opening the way to a personalized medicine.
trial registrationEudraCT, 2016-001788-34; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03334006 . Registered on 17 Nov 2017. Trial sponsor: RWTH Aachen University, represented by the Center for Translational & Clinical Research Aachen (contact Dr. S. Isfort).
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.