Pre-emptive hydrocortisone therapy in early septic shock: a double-blind, allocation-concealed, pilot randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Ehsan Emami, Emad Molaei, Samrand Fattah Ghazi, Marjan Sohrabi, Hossein Khalili
{"title":"Pre-emptive hydrocortisone therapy in early septic shock: a double-blind, allocation-concealed, pilot randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Ehsan Emami, Emad Molaei, Samrand Fattah Ghazi, Marjan Sohrabi, Hossein Khalili","doi":"10.1007/s40199-025-00571-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sepsis, a major global health issue, often progresses to septic shock with high morbidity and mortality. Corticosteroids especially low-dose hydrocortisone have shown promise in septic shock management. However, the role of hydrocortisone as pre-emptive therapy in early septic shock remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigates the effects of pre-emptive administration of low-dose, short-course hydrocortisone on outcomes in patients with early septic shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted, enrolling individuals with early septic shock. Patients were randomized to receive either low-dose, short-course hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 h for 48 h) as pre-emptive therapy or usual care. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre-emptive low-dose, short-course hydrocortisone significantly reduced the duration of vasopressor therapy (P = 0.03), cumulative vasopressor dose (38.52 mg vs. 99.11 mg, P = 0.02), and the necessity for mechanical ventilation (10% vs. 40%, P = 0.02). The hydrocortisone group exhibited a lower incidence of septic shock (20% vs. 40%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.17). No significant differences were observed in mortality rates (2 deaths per group), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (P = 0.29), or ICU length of stay (P = 0.66). Serious adverse events were comparable between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although pre-emptive hydrocortisone did not change the progression from early septic shock to septic shock, it significantly reduced both the duration of vasopressor therapy and the cumulative vasopressor dose in patients who entered the shock phase, without any significant adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":10888,"journal":{"name":"DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","volume":"33 2","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12287476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40199-025-00571-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sepsis, a major global health issue, often progresses to septic shock with high morbidity and mortality. Corticosteroids especially low-dose hydrocortisone have shown promise in septic shock management. However, the role of hydrocortisone as pre-emptive therapy in early septic shock remains unclear.

Objective: This study investigates the effects of pre-emptive administration of low-dose, short-course hydrocortisone on outcomes in patients with early septic shock.

Methods: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted, enrolling individuals with early septic shock. Patients were randomized to receive either low-dose, short-course hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 h for 48 h) as pre-emptive therapy or usual care. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirement.

Results: Pre-emptive low-dose, short-course hydrocortisone significantly reduced the duration of vasopressor therapy (P = 0.03), cumulative vasopressor dose (38.52 mg vs. 99.11 mg, P = 0.02), and the necessity for mechanical ventilation (10% vs. 40%, P = 0.02). The hydrocortisone group exhibited a lower incidence of septic shock (20% vs. 40%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.17). No significant differences were observed in mortality rates (2 deaths per group), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (P = 0.29), or ICU length of stay (P = 0.66). Serious adverse events were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions: Although pre-emptive hydrocortisone did not change the progression from early septic shock to septic shock, it significantly reduced both the duration of vasopressor therapy and the cumulative vasopressor dose in patients who entered the shock phase, without any significant adverse events.

早期感染性休克的预防性氢化可的松治疗:一项双盲、分配隐蔽、先导随机对照试验。
背景:脓毒症是一个主要的全球健康问题,经常发展为感染性休克,具有高发病率和死亡率。皮质类固醇,特别是低剂量氢化可的松,在感染性休克治疗中显示出前景。然而,氢化可的松作为早期感染性休克的预防性治疗的作用尚不清楚。目的:探讨低剂量、短疗程氢化可的松对早期感染性休克患者预后的影响。方法:采用双盲、随机对照试验,纳入早期感染性休克患者。患者随机接受低剂量、短时氢化可的松(每6小时50毫克,48小时)作为先发制人的治疗或常规治疗。主要终点是血管加压素需求。结果:预防性低剂量、短疗程氢化可的松显著降低血管加压素治疗持续时间(P = 0.03)、累积血管加压素剂量(38.52 mg vs. 99.11 mg, P = 0.02)和机械通气必要性(10% vs. 40%, P = 0.02)。氢化可的松组脓毒性休克发生率较低(20%比40%),但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.17)。死亡率(每组2例死亡)、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分(P = 0.29)和ICU住院时间(P = 0.66)均无显著差异。两组之间的严重不良事件具有可比性。结论:虽然预防性氢化可的松没有改变早期脓毒性休克向脓毒性休克的进展,但在进入休克期的患者中,它显著减少了血管加压素治疗的持续时间和累积的血管加压素剂量,无明显不良事件发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal published on behalf of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The journal encompasses all fields of the pharmaceutical sciences and presents timely research on all areas of drug conception, design, manufacture, classification and assessment. The term DARU is derived from the Persian name meaning drug or medicine. This journal is a unique platform to improve the knowledge of researchers and scientists by publishing novel articles including basic and clinical investigations from members of the global scientific community in the forms of original articles, systematic or narrative reviews, meta-analyses, letters, and short communications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信