Nadine K El-Nagdy, Noha O Mansour, Adel Al-Hady Ahmed Diab, Moetaza M Soliman
{"title":"Efficacy of adjuvant use of midodrine in patients with septic shock: An open label randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Nadine K El-Nagdy, Noha O Mansour, Adel Al-Hady Ahmed Diab, Moetaza M Soliman","doi":"10.1002/phar.70018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Midodrine has been primarily studied as an adjunctive oral therapy to reduce the need for vasopressors in intensive care units (ICU). Nonetheless, the available results evaluating midodrine as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of septic shock are limited and inconclusive. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of midodrine, specifically focusing on its effect on mortality outcomes in patients with septic shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an open-label randomized controlled trial. Patients with septic shock (n = 100) were randomized to either the control group, who received intravenous norepinephrine, or the midodrine group, who received intravenous norepinephrine and midodrine 10 mg every 8 h. The primary outcome was the 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 7-day ICU mortality, average dose of norepinephrine, duration of intravenous norepinephrine, ICU length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital LOS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 28-day mortality rate was 68% in the control group compared to 54% in the midodrine group (risk difference -14% (95% confidence interval (CI)) -32.9% to 4.9%). Similarly, the 7-day ICU mortality rate was 56% in the control group and 42% in the midodrine group (risk difference -14% (95% CI -33.4% to 5.4%)). The average intravenous norepinephrine dose in the midodrine group was significantly lower compared to the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.11), p = 0.002). However, midodrine did not have a significant impact on the duration of intravenous norepinephrine use (mean difference 0.66 (95% CI -0.56 to 1.88)). Midodrine did not significantly shorten the course of hospitalization. There was no significant difference in median ICU LOS between the control group and the midodrine group (4 vs. 5 days, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings did not demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality with adjuvant midodrine use in the treatment of septic shock. Midodrine appears to reduce the need for vasopressors. However, our findings did not support that midodrine shortens the duration of vasopressor use nor the course of hospitalization for patients with septic shock.</p>","PeriodicalId":20013,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"264-272"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.70018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Midodrine has been primarily studied as an adjunctive oral therapy to reduce the need for vasopressors in intensive care units (ICU). Nonetheless, the available results evaluating midodrine as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of septic shock are limited and inconclusive. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of midodrine, specifically focusing on its effect on mortality outcomes in patients with septic shock.
Methods: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial. Patients with septic shock (n = 100) were randomized to either the control group, who received intravenous norepinephrine, or the midodrine group, who received intravenous norepinephrine and midodrine 10 mg every 8 h. The primary outcome was the 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 7-day ICU mortality, average dose of norepinephrine, duration of intravenous norepinephrine, ICU length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital LOS.
Results: The 28-day mortality rate was 68% in the control group compared to 54% in the midodrine group (risk difference -14% (95% confidence interval (CI)) -32.9% to 4.9%). Similarly, the 7-day ICU mortality rate was 56% in the control group and 42% in the midodrine group (risk difference -14% (95% CI -33.4% to 5.4%)). The average intravenous norepinephrine dose in the midodrine group was significantly lower compared to the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.11), p = 0.002). However, midodrine did not have a significant impact on the duration of intravenous norepinephrine use (mean difference 0.66 (95% CI -0.56 to 1.88)). Midodrine did not significantly shorten the course of hospitalization. There was no significant difference in median ICU LOS between the control group and the midodrine group (4 vs. 5 days, respectively).
Conclusion: The findings did not demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality with adjuvant midodrine use in the treatment of septic shock. Midodrine appears to reduce the need for vasopressors. However, our findings did not support that midodrine shortens the duration of vasopressor use nor the course of hospitalization for patients with septic shock.
期刊介绍:
Pharmacotherapy is devoted to publication of original research articles on all aspects of human pharmacology and review articles on drugs and drug therapy. The Editors and Editorial Board invite original research reports on pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, and drug interaction studies, clinical trials, investigations of specific pharmacological properties of drugs, and related topics.