A Critical Evaluation of New Agents for the Treatment of Sepsis

Roger C. Bone, MD
JAMA. 1991;266(12):1686-1691. doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470120088038.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective.  —To evaluate new treatments directed against endotoxin, tumor necrosis factor α, and interleukin 1 for use in sepsis and related disorders (sepsis syndrome and septic shock).

Data Sources.  —Investigations of these treatments in animal models, healthy human volunteers, and patients with sepsis and related disorders.

Study Selection.  —Particular attention was paid to studies of patients with sepsis and related disorders, especially randomized, double-blind, controlled trials.

Data Extraction.  —Animal studies and investigations with human volunteers were judged by how closely the experimental model replicated the clinical disorder (sepsis). Patient trials were assessed by sample size and design. Results of all studies were used to evaluate the likelihood that a given treatment would reduce mortality.

Data Synthesis.  —Direct comparison of E5 and HA-1A antibody studies is difficult because of differences in their design, definitions of shock, and methods of subgroup analysis. However, both antibodies improve outcome in some subgroups: E5 benefits patients with gram-negative infection (bacteremic or focal) who do not have refractory shock, and HA-1A benefits those with gramnegative bacteremia (regardless of whether shock is present) but not those with focal gram-negative infection. Two agents that may be beneficial in gram-positive and gram-negative infection are monoclonal antibodies to tumor necrosis factor α and receptor antagonists to interleukin 1. Preliminary results with both are reviewed.

Conclusions.  —All three types of treatment may improve outcome in sepsis. The best results will probably be obtained with combination therapy that interrupts multiple points of the inflammatory cascade underlying sepsis.(JAMA. 1991;266:1686-1691)


Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours




Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.