Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42223758›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2026

Innovation in sepsis trials: rethinking endpoints, statistics and patient stratification.

Sascha David, Marc Leone, Massimo Girardis, Mattia M Müller, Srdjan Gavrilovic, Roberta Domizi, Elisa Damiani, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Ricard Ferrer, Christian Bode and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sascha DavidInstitute of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Zurich & University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. Sascha.david@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8231-0461
Marc LeoneDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Nord Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux Universitaires de Marseille, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France.
Massimo GirardisDepartment of Anesthesia and ICU, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Mattia M MüllerInstitute of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Zurich & University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Srdjan GavrilovicFaculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Roberta DomiziClinic of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Elisa DamianiClinic of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Ignacio Martin-LoechesDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), St James's Hospital, Dublin, D08 NHY1, Ireland.
Ricard FerrerIntensive Care Department, Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, SODIR Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain.
Christian BodeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Benjamin ChoustermanUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM U942 MASCOT, 75006, Paris, France.
Lene RussellDepartment of Intensive Care, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite extensive research, effective causal therapies for sepsis remain elusive, highlighting a persistent translational gap between biological understanding and clinical outcomes. Traditional randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have largely failed, likely due to profound patient heterogeneity, dynamic immune trajectories, and reliance on broad syndromic definitions coupled with mortality-centric endpoints. Such designs risk diluting treatment effects and obscuring biologically meaningful signals. Recent studies, however, suggest that precision medicine approaches may overcome these limitations. Trials such as ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2, IMMUNOSEP, INSPIRE, and TIGRIS have operationalised patient stratification based on physiological or immunological phenotypes and employed novel endpoints or statistical frameworks. ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2 used capillary refill time guided haemodynamic resuscitation and a hierarchical win-ratio composite endpoint to personalise treatment and enhance sensitivity to benefit. IMMUNOSEP stratified patients by macrophage activation-like syndrome or immunoparalysis, demonstrating improved organ function with targeted interventions using the SOFA score as a primary endpoint. Similarly, INSPIRE focused on progression to organ dysfunction in high-risk pneumonia patients, while TIGRIS employed Bayesian analysis to enrich patients by endotoxin activity, increasing trial efficiency. These studies illustrate that aligning interventions with biological pathways, incorporating adaptive trial designs, and moving beyond short-term mortality can reveal clinically meaningful benefits obscured in conventional trials. Collectively, they signal a conceptual shift in sepsis research towards precision-guided therapies, adaptive protocols, and biologically informed endpoints, suggesting that the era of universal failure may be giving way to more targeted, effective approaches in critical care.

Indexed as

AndromedaEndpointsHemoadsorptionImmunosepImmunotherapyPrecision medicineTrials

Identifiers

PMID42223758
PMCPMC13226760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.