Timing and dose do not tell the same story: a reply to Wieruszewski and Khanna - Scorecard - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Timing and Dose Offer Different Perspectives: Response to Wieruszewski and Khanna

  • By

  • Žiga Kalamar

  • Giovanni Landoni

  • Andrej Markota

  • October 12, 2026

Share

Clinical Scorecard: Timing and Dose Offer Different Perspectives: Response to Wieruszewski and Khanna

At a Glance

CategoryDetail
ConditionSeptic shock and multimodal vasopressor therapy
Key MechanismsVasopressor dose reflects both elapsed time and the speed and severity of hemodynamic deterioration; chronological timing and dose are distinct measures.
Target PopulationPatients with sepsis or septic shock requiring vasopressor support, including patients considered for adjunctive non-catecholamine vasopressors.
Care SettingHospital-based treatment and clinical trials of septic shock; the article discusses TRICYCLE and ATHOS-3 enrollment timing.

Key Highlights

  • In TRICYCLE, median time from earliest documented hospital presentation with sepsis or septic shock to randomization was 5.2 hours in the intervention group and 7.1 hours in the control group.
  • TRICYCLE allowed enrollment up to 12 hours after the vasopressor eligibility threshold; this was the maximum permitted window, not the observed interval from threshold attainment to randomization.
  • ATHOS-3 enrolled patients after more than 0.2 µg/kg/min norepinephrine-equivalent support for 6–48 hours, so its timing reference differed from TRICYCLE’s.
  • Similar vasopressor doses at randomization do not establish comparable shock duration or stage.
  • The authors argue that a fixed vasopressor dose ceiling alone is not a suitable criterion for defining early multimodal therapy.

Guideline-Based Recommendations

Diagnosis

    Management

    • The authors do not consider an upper vasopressor dose ceiling to be the sole, or necessarily the most suitable, criterion for characterizing multimodal vasopressor therapy as early.
    • The article reports that prior studies associated non-catecholaminergic vasopressors with improved survival across diverse vasodilatory shock populations, including established shock, and associated early addition with improved survival among patients receiving high-dose norepinephrine.

    Monitoring & Follow-up

    • Future trials should describe treatment timing relative to preceding vasopressor exposure more comprehensively and clarify the optimal initiation window.
    • The authors note that broader assessment of disturbances affecting the renin–angiotensin system may help refine patient phenotyping.

    Risks

    • A fixed dose ceiling could exclude patients treated early whose shock progresses rapidly, potentially omitting a clinically important subgroup.
    • Comparisons of treatment timing are constrained when studies use different clinical starting points, such as hospital presentation versus shock onset or duration of vasopressor exposure.

    Patient & Prescribing Data

    Patients with sepsis or septic shock requiring vasopressor support; TRICYCLE and ATHOS-3 used different enrollment timing criteria.

    TRICYCLE’s median interval from earliest documented hospital presentation to randomization was 5.2 hours for intervention and 7.1 hours for control. ATHOS-3 required more than 0.2 µg/kg/min norepinephrine-equivalent support for 6–48 hours before enrollment.

    Clinical Best Practices

    • Distinguish vasopressor dose from elapsed time when describing whether multimodal therapy was initiated early.
    • When reporting trial timing, specify the clinical event used as the starting point and the interval from vasopressor eligibility to randomization.
    • Do not infer shock duration or stage from vasopressor dose at randomization alone.

    Related Resources & Content

    Original Source(s)

    Related Content