Nadine K El-Nagdy, Noha O Mansour, Adel Al-Hady Ahmed Diab, Moetaza M Soliman
{"title":"midodrine辅助治疗感染性休克的疗效:一项开放标签随机对照试验。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景:在重症监护病房(ICU), Midodrine主要被研究作为一种辅助口服治疗来减少对血管加压药物的需求。尽管如此,评估midodrine作为感染性休克辅助治疗的现有结果是有限的和不确定的。本研究旨在评估midodrine的疗效,特别关注其对脓毒性休克患者死亡率的影响。方法:采用开放标签随机对照试验。感染性休克患者(n = 100)随机分为对照组和midodrine组,对照组静脉注射去甲肾上腺素,midodrine组静脉注射去甲肾上腺素和midodrine,每8 h注射10 mg。主要终点是28天住院死亡率。次要结局为7天ICU死亡率、去甲肾上腺素平均剂量、静脉去甲肾上腺素持续时间、ICU住院时间(LOS)和住院时间(LOS)。结果:对照组28天死亡率为68%,而midodrine组为54%(风险差异为14%(95%可信区间(CI)) -32.9%至4.9%)。同样,对照组7天ICU死亡率为56%,midodrine组为42%(风险差异为-14% (95% CI -33.4% ~ 5.4%))。midodrine组静脉注射去甲肾上腺素的平均剂量显著低于对照组(平均差异0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.11), p = 0.002)。然而,midodrine对静脉注射去甲肾上腺素的持续时间没有显著影响(平均差异0.66 (95% CI -0.56至1.88))。Midodrine没有显著缩短住院时间。对照组和midodrine组ICU LOS中位数无显著差异(分别为4天和5天)。结论:研究结果并没有显示辅助使用米多卡因治疗感染性休克的死亡率有显著降低。Midodrine似乎可以减少对血管加压药的需求。然而,我们的研究结果并不支持midodrine缩短了感染性休克患者血管加压药的使用时间或住院时间。
Efficacy of adjuvant use of midodrine in patients with septic shock: An open label randomized controlled trial.
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.