CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2752 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone,
does it really help with Reduced 90-day mortality in adults with vasopressor-dependent septic shock?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 76 · Safety caution
Ninety-day mortality decreased, but the exact combination lacks independent replication
Overall serious adverse events were similar, but hyperglycemia was more common with combination therapy. ICU prescribing requires monitoring of glucose, electrolytes, infection, and gastrointestinal bleeding.
What the
research shows
The grade is B. APROCCHSS randomized and analyzed 1,241 participants. Ninety-day mortality was 264/614 (43.0%) with combination therapy versus 308/627 (49.1%) with placebo: an absolute reduction of 6.1 points, RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78–0.99), and an approximate number needed to treat of 17. This is a large publicly funded mortality trial, but the exact combination lacks independent confirmatory replication, giving B with 76 points.
What the
ads claim
This result concerns the specified seven-day two-steroid regimen in septic shock. It should not be generalized to hydrocortisone alone, other stages of shock, outpatient infection, or unsupervised long-term steroid use.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Hydrocortisone 50 mg was given intravenously every six hours and fludrocortisone 50 micrograms once daily for seven days.
  • The absolute 90-day mortality difference was -6.1 points, with an approximate number needed to treat of 17.
  • The 10-point sample-size assumption was a detectable design value, not a validated minimum important threshold.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2752 · B 76
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

APROCCHSS was an investigator-led publicly funded trial in 34 French ICUs. Lilly supplied drotrecogin alfa for the original factorial component, which ended after market withdrawal; no company-provision statement was identified for the study products in the final steroid comparison.

Axis 6 B0 evidence ① Allocation concealment: "randomization was centralized through a secured Web site and used permutation blocks where size was not known" ② Blinding: "hospital staff, investigators, pharmacists and outcome assessors will remain blinded until public release of trial findings" ③ Analysis population and missing data: "Statistical analysis was planned to be performed in intent-to-treat"; "Missing data were not replaced." ④ Prespecified primary endpoint: "Primary endpoint was 90-day mortality rate." — consistent with registration NCT00625209

02

Why this is classified as B (76)

A large publicly funded double-blind placebo-controlled trial found a 6.1-point absolute mortality reduction and documented core safeguards, but lack of independent replication gives B with 76 points.

Counterpoint. The lower confidence-bound benefit was small and hyperglycemia increased, requiring patient selection and glucose monitoring.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Accounts for the 6.1-point mortality reduction in a 1,241-participant publicly funded double-blind placebo trial and the absence of independent replication

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced 90-day mortalityBThe absolute reduction was 6.1 points, RR 0.88.
Reduced serious adverse eventsDOverall serious adverse events were similar.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled superiority trial at 34 centers627French Ministry of Health contracts P090902 and P12-002-0030; initial approval P070128All-cause mortality at 90 days264/614 (43.0%) versus 308/627 (49.1%); absolute difference -6.1 points, RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78–0.99), approximate NNT 17Single large publicly funded confirmatory mortality trial
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Annane D, Renault A, Brun-Buisson C, et al. Hydrocortisone plus Fludrocortisone for Adults with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):809-818. PMID: 29490185. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705716. NCT00625209.
checked
Annane D, Brun-Buisson C, Cariou A, et al. Design and conduct of the activated protein C and corticosteroids for human septic shock (APROCCHSS) trial. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6:43. PMID: 27154719. PMCID: PMC4859323.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone x 90-day mortality in septic shock Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone x 90-day mortality in septic shock — Evidence Grade B·76. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/immunity/hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone-septic-shock-90-day-mortality/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.