Halpern, Gabriele Alves

Introduction Sepsis is a global health priority with nearly 50 million cases annually. Cardiovascular dysfunction is common, frequently manifesting as hypotension that persists despite fluid resuscitation. Most affected patients require the use of intravenous (IV) vasoactive agents, typically necessitating intensive care unit (ICU)-level monitoring, invasive interventions and contributing substantially to healthcare costs. Midodrine, an oral alpha-1 agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension, has increasingly been used off-label as a vasopressor-sparing (reducing IV vasopressor use) strategy in sepsis, despite limited and inconsistent evidence. This pragmatic, randomised, open-label trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of midodrine in patients with sepsis-associated hypotension. We hypothesise that, compared with standard care, midodrine administration will reduce the duration of IV vasopressor use. Methods and analysis A total of 308 adult patients with sepsis-associated hypotension will be enrolled (154 per arm). The intervention group will, in addition to standard of care, receive enteral midodrine 10 mg three times daily. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via electronic health record-based data retrieval and adjudicated by research coordinators blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time alive and off IV vasopressors in the first 28 days (in hours) after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include cumulative vasopressor exposure; use and duration of central venous access; cumulative fluid balance over the first 48 hours and up to 7 days of ICU stay; ICU and hospital length of stay; and ICU-, hospital-, and organ support-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes include adverse events potentially attributable to midodrine during hospitalisation including acute kidney injury. Primary analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, including all randomised participants according to their assigned treatment groups. Primary and secondary outcomes will be compared using a van Elteren test stratified by randomisation factors. A predefined secondary Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome will provide complementary estimates of treatment effect. Safety outcomes will be summarised descriptively without formal between-arm hypothesis testing. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this protocol and required written informed consent from all participants (IRB# 24–0 00 121). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT06319248 .

This systematic review examined multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during the Sepsis-3 era that evaluated pharmaceutical and mechanistic interventions in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock, with a focus on identifying interventions that demonstrated mortality benefit. A comprehensive search was performed across Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Web of Science for trials published since 2016. Studies were included if they enrolled adult patients with sepsis or septic shock using Sepsis-3 criteria and reported mortality as either a primary or secondary outcome. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and included trial design characteristics, funding source, randomization methods, and reported outcomes. Among the 31 eligible multicenter RCTs enrolling over 7,000 patients across 550 centers, only four trials showed a mortality benefit. These included three studies from China—two evaluating herbal anti-inflammatory compounds and one evaluating aminophylline—and one European study assessing corticosteroid therapy in vasopressor-dependent septic shock. The remaining 27 trials reported no mortality benefit, and substantial heterogeneity was observed in patient populations, sepsis definitions, and outcome reporting. Median mortality in control arms was 31.6% (IQR 24.1–45.5), and 35.4% (IQR 25.7–49.6) in intervention arms. These findings suggest that despite extensive efforts, most interventions have not reduced mortality in multicenter sepsis trials. Future research should focus on optimizing trial design, refining patient selection, and incorporating patient-centered outcomes beyond mortality.