Burns vs sepsis
Burns are easy to identify, quantify and stratify and therefore easier to treat without deviating from a designed protocol. Sepsis is much more difficult to correctly diagnose and timing of both the diagnosis and treatment would likely be more variable.
I agree, Xrymd, and would take it further. Burns are relatively simple in that, it is generally an acute condition, with defined onset, and little likelihood of predisposing medical conditions---although considerable likelihood of confounding societal variables such as poverty, alcoholism, and passive smoking. OTOH, sepsis rarely arises de novo without contributory, if not causative conditions. Patients who develop sepsis generally are already sick before the overwhelming infection. Sepsis these days usually overwhelms patients with HIV, immune suppression from chemotherapy, dialysis patients, advanced cancer, advanced age, malnutrition, etc.
As such, I worry about the difficulty in studying a drug in sepsis where there are confounding variables that are often more important medically than the infection itself. I, for one, would feel easier if Leo had stuck with the burns indication.
Urche
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
