Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42294899›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of clinical investigation2026

Host-directed immune therapies: a second front in the battle against sepsis.

Richard S Hotchkiss, Guillaume Monneret

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of clinical investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Richard S HotchkissDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Guillaume MonneretHospices Civils de Lyon, Immunology Laboratory, Hôpital E. Herriot, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Each year, sepsis claims more lives in the United States than many major cancers and HIV/AIDS combined, yet therapeutic progress has been modest. Adding to this crisis is the alarming rise of multidrug-resistant "superbugs," which increasingly render conventional antibiotics ineffective. Pathogen-targeted antibiotics will always remain a cornerstone of sepsis treatment, and research into novel antibiotics must continue unabated. However, the consistent mortality in sepsis tells us this approach is insufficient. Most deaths in sepsis do not occur during the early cytokine storm-driven hyper-inflammatory phase but rather days or weeks after the initial insult, during a protracted phase of immune suppression. Here, we make the case that a crucial way to reduce sepsis mortality lies in restoration of the patient's immune competence, enabling the patient to contain and kill the invading microbes. Adjuvant immune therapies will not only enable killing of the initial, invading pathogens but also prevent secondary, hospital-acquired infections. Immunotherapy revolutionized oncology by challenging the assumption that cancer was best treated through cytotoxic or targeted tumor-directed approaches, and sepsis now stands at a similar inflection point. We argue that embracing immune restoration as a core therapeutic objective offers the most promising means to improve survival in this lethal disorder.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapySepsisAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsHost-Directed TherapyHumansAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID42294899
PMCPMC13262717

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.