Early Paramedic Treatment for Sepsis

(PITSTOP Trial)

Not currently recruiting at 3 trial locations

Overseen By Damon Scales, MD PhD FRCPC

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Phase 4

Sponsor: Dr. Damon Scales

Must not be taking: Anticoagulants, Heparin

Disqualifiers: Cardiac arrest, STEMI, CVA, others

Prior Safety Data This treatment has passed at least one previous human trial

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: 1

What You Need to Know Before You Apply

What is the purpose of this trial?

This trial aims to determine if paramedics can save lives by providing early treatment to individuals with sepsis, a serious condition where an infection leads to organ failure. Researchers are testing whether quick administration of antibiotics and fluids by paramedics improves survival compared to waiting for hospital care. They are evaluating three approaches: administering the antibiotic Ceftriaxone, providing more fluids (liberal fluids), or giving fewer fluids (conservative fluids) based on blood pressure. Suitable participants have a suspected infection, fever, and low blood pressure, and are transported by paramedics. As a Phase 4 trial, this research focuses on understanding how an already FDA-approved and effective treatment can benefit more patients.

Will I have to stop taking my current medications?

The trial does not specify if you need to stop taking your current medications, but if you are taking anticoagulants (blood thinners), you cannot participate.

What is the safety track record for these treatments?

Research has shown that the treatments in this trial are generally safe based on past studies.

Ceftriaxone, a commonly used antibiotic in hospitals, has been studied for early use in emergency situations. One study found that it did not cause safety issues for patients with sepsis, suggesting it is well-tolerated when administered by paramedics.

For fluid management, studies have examined both increased and reduced fluid administration in sepsis patients. In one study with 637 participants, no significant difference in survival was observed between those who received more fluids and those who received less, indicating that increased fluid administration does not cause harm.

Similarly, studies on reduced fluid administration found no major differences in outcomes compared to increased fluid administration. This suggests that administering fluids only as needed to maintain stable blood pressure is also safe.

Overall, previous research supports the safety of both ceftriaxone and fluid treatments in sepsis care, making them promising options for early intervention by paramedics. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Why are researchers enthusiastic about this study treatment?

Researchers are excited about this trial because it explores early paramedic interventions for sepsis, a condition that traditionally requires hospital-based treatment. The trial is examining the effects of administering ceftriaxone, a powerful antibiotic, in the prehospital setting, which could potentially lead to faster treatment initiation and better outcomes. Additionally, the trial is comparing different fluid resuscitation strategies: liberal fluids, which involve giving up to 2 liters of saline regardless of blood pressure, and conservative fluids, which tailor fluid administration based on blood pressure levels. This approach could help refine sepsis treatment protocols by determining the most effective and safe method for early intervention, ultimately aiming to improve survival rates and patient recovery.

What evidence suggests that this trial's treatments could be effective for sepsis?

This trial will compare different early treatments for sepsis. Participants in one arm will receive Ceftriaxone, an antibiotic, administered by paramedics. Research has shown that starting sepsis treatment early with Ceftriaxone does not significantly change death rates at 7 or 28 days. However, other studies suggest that administering antibiotics quickly, ideally within an hour of hospital arrival, can improve outcomes for sepsis patients.

In another arm, participants will receive liberal fluids, with paramedics administering up to 2 liters of intravenous saline. A separate arm will involve conservative fluid management, where fluids are given based on blood pressure levels. Research indicates that early intravenous fluid administration, especially by paramedics, has been associated with lower in-hospital death rates for sepsis patients. When comparing different fluid strategies, neither more fluids nor less has shown a clear benefit in improving survival rates. Nevertheless, using fluids to treat sepsis remains crucial in initial care, as it helps stabilize blood pressure and improve blood flow. ^{3 6 7 8 9}

Who Is on the Research Team?

Damon Scales, MD

Principal Investigator

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Are You a Good Fit for This Trial?

Adults over 18 with suspected sepsis, indicated by possible infection, fever (≥38.0°C), and low blood pressure (systolic <100mmHg) can join. Excluded are those with stroke, heart failure, penicillin/cephalosporin allergy, severe trauma or bleeding, recent cardiac arrest or myocardial infarction, fluid overload signs, C. difficile infection in the past 6 weeks, pregnancy/breastfeeding or on certain anticoagulants.

Inclusion Criteria

I have sepsis with suspected infection, fever over 38.0°C, and low blood pressure.

Exclusion Criteria

I am taking blood thinners.

I am suspected to have sudden heart failure.

I have had a Clostridium difficile infection in the past 6 weeks.

Timeline for a Trial Participant

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

1-2 weeks

Prehospital Treatment

Paramedics administer early antibiotics and/or intravenous fluids to patients with suspected sepsis in the field

Immediate intervention

1 visit (in-person)

Hospitalization

Patients are transported to the hospital and receive further treatment and monitoring for sepsis

Up to 90 days

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for mortality and organ dysfunction after treatment

90 days

What Are the Treatments Tested in This Trial?

Interventions

• Ceftriaxone
• Conservative fluids
• Liberal fluids
• Placebo

Trial Overview

The PITSTOP trial is testing if early treatment for sepsis by paramedics improves survival rates. It compares two approaches: one group receives an antibiotic called Ceftriaxone and either liberal or conservative fluids before hospital arrival; the other gets a placebo instead of antibiotics.

How Is the Trial Designed?

Group I: Comparison 2: Liberal fluids Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Paramedics will administer up to 2 litres of intravenous 0.9% saline solution to all participants in this arm regardless of blood pressure, reassessing for signs of volume overload after each 250ml.

Group II: Comparison 1: Prehospital Ceftriaxone Active Control 1 Intervention

1g of Ceftriaxone will be administered by immediate intramuscular (IM) injection. The drug is provided in a sterile and completely covered vial as a white, odourless powder

Group III: Comparison 2: Conservative fluids Active Control 1 Intervention

Paramedics will administer 0.9% saline solution to participants who have systolic blood pressure \<90mmHg, and will only continue the infusion until the systolic blood pressure is \>=100mmHg.

Group IV: Comparison 1: Placebo Placebo Group 1 Intervention

The placebo is provided in a sterile and completely covered vial.

Ceftriaxone is already approved in European Union, United States, Canada for the following indications:

Approved in European Union as Rocephin for:

• Sepsis
• Bacterial infections
• Meningitis
• Gonorrhea
• Pelvic inflammatory disease

Approved in United States as Rocephin for:

• Sepsis
• Bacterial infections
• Meningitis
• Gonorrhea
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• Lower respiratory tract infections
• Skin and skin structure infections
• Urinary tract infections

Approved in Canada as Rocephin for:

• Sepsis
• Bacterial infections
• Meningitis
• Gonorrhea
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• Lower respiratory tract infections
• Skin and skin structure infections
• Urinary tract infections

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Dr. Damon Scales

Lead Sponsor

Trials

1

Recruited

2,000+

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

Collaborator

Trials

1,417

Recruited

26,550,000+

Sunnybrook Research Institute

Collaborator

Trials

33

Recruited

216,000+

Published Research Related to This Trial

Intravenous treatment with ceftriaxone significantly reduces neutrophil counts in patients, with a mean drop from 3.93 to 3.15 × 10^9 L-1, indicating a potential risk of neutropenia.

The extent of neutrophil reduction can be predicted using a multifactor linear regression model based on routine baseline blood indices, allowing for better monitoring and management of patients receiving ceftriaxone.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Biochemical and Haematological Predictors of Reduced Neutrophil Granulocyte Count associated with Intravenous Ceftriaxone Treatment. Puri, BK., Derham, A., Monro, JA.[2020]

In a study of 12 patients (5 with acute renal failure and 7 without), ceftriaxone clearance was found to be significantly impaired in those with renal issues, indicating that dosage adjustments are necessary based on kidney function.

The research showed that renal clearance of ceftriaxone is closely linked to creatinine clearance, and that non-renal clearance is also reduced, suggesting that patients with acute renal failure may not effectively eliminate the drug, necessitating careful monitoring and dosage modifications.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Clearance of ceftriaxone in critical care patients with acute renal failure. Heinemeyer, G., Link, J., Weber, W., et al.[2019]

In a study of 212 ICU patients receiving ceftriaxone for non-CNS infections, those treated with 2 g daily had a significantly lower treatment failure rate (5.7%) compared to those receiving 1 g daily (17.0%), indicating that higher dosing may improve clinical outcomes.

Ceftriaxone 2 g dosing was associated with a reduced likelihood of treatment failure, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.190, suggesting that higher doses could be beneficial for ICU patients at lower risk of mortality.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes among Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving One or Two Grams of Ceftriaxone Daily. Ackerman, A., Zook, NR., Siegrist, JF., et al.[2021]

In a study involving 123 adult patients with sepsis but no shock, a 24-hour protocol that restricted intravenous fluid administration significantly reduced the total IV crystalloid fluid volumes compared to standard care (562 ml vs. 1370 ml).

Despite the reduction in fluid volumes, there were no significant differences in adverse events, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure, or mortality between the restrictive and standard care groups, suggesting that the fluid restriction protocol is safe.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Restrictive fluids versus standard care in adults with sepsis in the emergency department (REFACED): A multicenter, randomized feasibility trial. Jessen, MK., Andersen, LW., Thomsen, MH., et al.[2023]

In a matched-cohort study of 142 critically ill adults, the combination of ceftriaxone and high-dose intravenous calcium did not show a significant increase in hospital mortality or severe adverse outcomes compared to patients not receiving this combination.

The study provides reassurance regarding the safety of using ceftriaxone and calcium together in critically ill adults, although it acknowledges that rare adverse effects cannot be completely ruled out.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Concomitant ceftriaxone and high-concentration intravenous calcium therapy in adult critical care patients: a matched cohort study. Dalton, BR., Zuege, DJ., Shahpori, R., et al.[2015]

Rocephin (ceftriaxone) demonstrated high efficacy in treating septicaemia, with a successful cure in 21 out of 23 cases when administered intravenously at a dosage of 2 x 1 g/day.

The drug showed excellent clinical and biological tolerance, making it easy to administer, although one case required additional treatment with ampicillin and one case was ineffective against resistant enterococci.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Clinical study of Rocephin, a 3d generation cephalosporin, in various septicaemias. Ghosen, V., Chamali, R., Bar-Moshe, O., et al.[2018]

The CLASSIC trial, involving 1554 adult ICU patients with septic shock, aims to compare the effects of restricted versus standard intravenous fluid therapy on 90-day all-cause mortality.

The study will use advanced Bayesian analyses to assess the probabilities of benefits and harms from different fluid therapy approaches, providing clearer insights for clinicians on treatment effectiveness and safety.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conservative vs. liberal fluid therapy in septic shock - Protocol for secondary Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial. Sivapalan, P., Meyhoff, TS., Hjortrup, PB., et al.[2022]

Starch solutions should be avoided in sepsis patients due to lack of benefit and potential harm, including kidney issues and increased mortality, as highlighted by recent large clinical trials.

Norepinephrine is recommended as the first-line vasopressor for sepsis treatment, while early antibiotic therapy is crucial, and etomidate should not be used in these patients.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Perioperative treatment of patients with sepsis. Ibsen, M., Perner, A.[2013]

A systematic review of 7002 articles on fluid therapy in sepsis identified only 20 relevant randomized controlled trials, highlighting a significant lack of detailed information on the characteristics of fluids used, such as chloride content and buffering substances.

The study emphasizes the importance of providing clear descriptions of fluid compositions in clinical trials, as this information is crucial for both researchers and clinicians to make informed decisions about fluid resuscitation in sepsis management.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis and septic shock: systematic description of fluids used in randomized trials. Rochwerg, B., Włudarczyk, A., Szczeklik, W., et al.[2022]

In a study involving 51 cirrhotic patients with 62 episodes of bacterial infection, intravenous ceftriaxone was administered once daily for 7-10 days, showing a good response rate in 90% of cases.

Ceftriaxone was effective in treating various types of infections, including pneumonia and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, indicating its potential as a reliable treatment option for bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Use of ceftriaxone in the treatment of bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients. Mercader, J., Gomez, J., Ruiz, J., et al.[2018]

The REFRESH trial is a multicenter, open-label study designed to compare the effects of standard care (a second 1000-ml fluid bolus) versus restricted fluid maintenance in patients with sepsis and hypotension, aiming to determine the optimal fluid resuscitation strategy.

This trial will not only measure the total fluid volume administered in the first 6 hours but also assess secondary outcomes like organ support days and 90-day mortality, while exploring biomarkers to understand the impact of fluid volume on inflammation and vascular health.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

REstricted Fluid REsuscitation in Sepsis-associated Hypotension (REFRESH): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial. Macdonald, SPJ., Taylor, DM., Keijzers, G., et al.[2018]

In a pilot study of 57 critically ill patients with sepsis, continuous infusion of ceftriaxone showed a trend towards better clinical outcomes compared to once-daily bolus dosing, particularly in patients who received treatment for 4 or more days.

Logistic regression analysis indicated that continuous infusion was associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes, especially in patients with lower APACHE II scores, suggesting that this method of administration may enhance the efficacy of ceftriaxone in severe cases of sepsis.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Is continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot study. Roberts, JA., Boots, R., Rickard, CM., et al.[2015]

Citations

1.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12121580/

Prehospital antibiotics and intravenous fluids for patients with ...

Furthermore, intramuscular ceftriaxone achieves a higher peak concentration compared with intravenous ceftriaxone at 2 hours, and concentrations ...

2.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8973268/

Prehospital administration of broad‐spectrum antibiotics for ...

The rapid administration of antibiotics for septic shock has demonstrated improved outcomes, preferably within 1 h after arrival at the ED. A ...

3.

lsom.uthscsa.edu

lsom.uthscsa.edu/emergency-medicine/wp-content/uploads/sites/144/2025/03/Cederberg.Impact-of-Prehospital-Ceftriaxone-in-Patients-with-Sepsis-1.pdf

Impact of Prehospital Ceftriaxone in Patients with Sepsis

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign provides recommendations for sepsis and septic shock management, including antibiotic utilization. The early administration of ...

4.

tandfonline.com

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10903127.2025.2547653

Performance of Prehospital Antibiotic Administration and ...

However, early ceftriaxone administration showed no impact on 28-day mortality, 7-day mortality, ICU admission and ED and ICU LOS.

5.

sciencedirect.com

sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213260017304691

Prehospital antibiotics in the ambulance for sepsis

They found no significant improvement in survival when antibiotic administration occurred within 3 h of emergency department triage or within 1 h of severe ...

6.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7269488/

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes among Intensive Care Unit ...

We hypothesized that 2 g of ceftriaxone daily would be associated with better clinical outcomes than 1 g of ceftriaxone daily among ICU patients.

7.

sciencedirect.com

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467923005954

Effect of Intravenous Push and Piggyback Administration ...

This study was performed to compare the effects of administering ceftriaxone via intravenous push (IVP) and intravenous piggyback (IVPB) on 28-day mortality in ...

8.

academic.oup.com

academic.oup.com/jac/article/80/8/2194/8159641

Outcomes of ceftriaxone 2 g versus 1 g daily in hospitalized ...

Among the 471 694 eligible patients, 63.3% received 2 g/day and 36.7% received 1 g/day of ceftriaxone. Propensity-score analysis showed no ...

9.

clinicaltrials.gov

clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00449800

Pharmacokinetic of Ceftriaxone in Septic ICU Patients

Our objective is to develop a population pharmacokinetics model of ceftriaxone in intensive care unit patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock and ...