Selepressin Evaluation Programme for Sepsis-Induced Shock - Adaptive Clinical Trial
Ferring Pharmaceuticalsn = 868Jul 2015 to 26 Feb 2018
Septic Shock
PepBank has 11 selepressin studies with results. All of them gave selepressin, with 63 results, grouped by what the studies measured. In each group, results from studies in people come first. Data as of 2026-10-30.
Searches 63 results and 34 papers. Newer studies from Europe PMC
Identifiers, parent molecule, targets and development stage, from curated data.
Selepressin (FE 202158) is a synthetic vasopressin analogue and a selective V1A receptor agonist. SEPSIS-ACT found no significant improvement in ventilator- and vasopressor-free days versus placebo. The trial stopped for futility after its first part.
| Target | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AVPR1AAVPR1AP37288 (opens in a new tab) | Full agonist | Primary functional reporter and binding assays establish selective human V1A receptor agonism.Source (opens in a new tab) |
Residues, differences from the parent, calculated properties and 3D structure. Source values and calculated values are shown separately.
9 amino acids · 4 modifications · 1 disulfide bond
No sequence is listed for the parent, so no alignment is shown.The primary pharmacology paper defines [Phe2,Ile3,Hgn4,Orn(iPr)8]vasopressin. UniProt maps mature human vasopressin to residues 20-28. Substitution numbers refer to the mature nine-residue chain.
Some values cannot be calculated. The sequence has a non-canonical residue (X). Residue tables cover only the 20 standard amino acids.
@pepdb/chem 0.2.0 · EMBOSS pKa set · ExPASy residue masses
No charge curve
The sequence has a non-canonical residue (X). Residue tables cover only the 20 standard amino acids.
9 residues. Each residue counts in one class; F and W count as aromatic.
Loads the 3D viewer (3Dmol.js, about 150 KB) and the model file from AlphaFold DB (EMBL-EBI).
Draws the structure in your browser with RDKit (about 2.3 MB, loaded once).
SMILES fromPubChem CID 53330936(opens in a new tab)
CC[C@H](C)[C@H]1C(=O)N[C@H](C(=O)N[C@H](C(=O)N[C@@H](CSSC[C@@H](C(=O)N[C@H](C(=O)N1)CC2=CC=CC=C2)N)C(=O)N3CCC[C@H]3C(=O)N[C@@H](CCCNC(C)C)C(=O)NCC(=O)N)CC(=O)N)CCCC(=O)NPeople first in each area, then animals, then lab cells. Counts are exact and come from studies that gave the peptide.
PepBank reads each paper before it shows the results. This search looks in Europe PMC for newer papers that PepBank has not read yet.
Counts are exact and come from studies that gave the peptide.
Studies by year
11 of 34 studies have results (32%), published 2011 to 2022. Top row: every study. Bottom row: studies with results about Selepressin, by class. The rows use different scales.
Studies34 in all, 2010 to 2026
Studies with results11 in all, 2011 to 2022
Retracted studies are left out. A study with results in two classes counts in both.
AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.
Registered trials that test the peptide, with phase, status and dates. A dot marks trials with posted results.
3 trials match. Highest phase first. Data from ClinicalTrials.gov.
3 trials · 2 completed · 1 stopped early · 3 with posted results
Investigating FE 202158 as Potential Primary Treatment in Patients With Early Septic Shock
NCT01612676Jun 2012 to Nov 2013
3 trials · 2 completed · 1 stopped early · 3 with posted results · source ClinicalTrials.gov (opens in a new tab)
Ferring Pharmaceuticalsn = 868Jul 2015 to 26 Feb 2018
Septic Shock
Ferring Pharmaceuticalsn = 53Nov 2009 to Sept 2011
Septic Shock
Ferring Pharmaceuticalsn = 31Jun 2012 to Nov 2013
Septic Shock
Studies on this peptide. Some have results. The others have none yet.
34 studies match. Retracted studies are left out.
Showing 25 of 34 studiesquery qry_815062709f3c2be3e1bfbf60
11 studies in all, 8 on this page
Randomized controlled trial · 2017
Russell et al. 2017Critical care (London, England)n = 40cited by 77
PMID 28807037PMC5557574DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1798-7PUB-28807037
Animal study (in vivo) · sheep · 2016
He et al. 2016Critical care medicinen = 46cited by 64
PMID 26496451PMC4684247DOI 10.1097/ccm.0000000000001380PUB-26496451
Animal study (in vivo) · sheep · 2014
Maybauer et al. 2014Critical care medicinecited by 59
PMID 24674922PMC4346299DOI 10.1097/ccm.0000000000000300PUB-24674922
Animal study (in vivo) · rat · 2011
Wisniewski et al. 2011Journal of medicinal chemistrycited by 38
PMID 21688787DOI 10.1021/jm200278mPUB-21688787
Animal study (in vivo) · rat · 2011
Laporte et al. 2011The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeuticscited by 31
PMID 21411496DOI 10.1124/jpet.111.178848PUB-21411496
Observational study · 2022
Jozwiak et al. 2022Frontiers in medicinecited by 23
PMID 35677822PMC9168038DOI 10.3389/fmed.2022.826446PUB-35677822
Animal study (in vivo) · sheep · 2012
Rehberg et al. 2012Critical care medicinen = 6cited by 14
PMID 22488005PMC7461604DOI 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31824e0fe5PUB-22488005
Animal study (in vivo) · dog · 2013
Boucheix et al. 2013Shock (Augusta, Ga.)n = 8cited by 12
PMID 23429645DOI 10.1097/shk.0b013e31828aac4bPUB-23429645
23 studies in all, 17 on this page
PubMed tag: review-article, Review · 2018
Levy et al. 2018Critical care (London, England)cited by 160
PMID 29486781PMC6389278DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-1967-3PUB-29486781
PubMed tag: Review · 2019
Russell et al. 2019Intensive care medicinecited by 147
PMID 31646370DOI 10.1007/s00134-019-05801-zPUB-31646370
PubMed tag: none · 2016
Stolk et al. 2016American journal of respiratory and critical care medicinecited by 114
PMID 27398737DOI 10.1164/rccm.201604-0862cpPUB-27398737
PubMed tag: none · 2019
Laterre et al. 2019JAMAcited by 111
PMID 31577035PMC6802260DOI 10.1001/jama.2019.14607PUB-31577035
PubMed tag: review-article, Review · 2020
Demiselle et al. 2020Annals of intensive carecited by 85
PMID 31970567PMC6975768DOI 10.1186/s13613-020-0628-2PUB-31970567
PubMed tag: none · 2021
Russell et al. 2021Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicinecited by 57
PMID 32820475DOI 10.1055/s-0040-1710320PUB-32820475
PubMed tag: review-article, Review · 2019
Kislitsina et al. 2019Current cardiology reviewscited by 47
PMID 30543176PMC6520577DOI 10.2174/1573403x15666181212125024PUB-30543176
PubMed tag: Clinical Trial Protocol · 2018
Lewis et al. 2018Annals of the American Thoracic Societycited by 29
PMID 29388815DOI 10.1513/annalsats.201708-669sdPUB-29388815
PubMed tag: Review · 2016
Heming et al. 2016Expert opinion on emerging drugscited by 23
PMID 26751198DOI 10.1517/14728214.2016.1132700PUB-26751198
PubMed tag: none · 2010
Lövgren et al. 2010Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysiscited by 18
PMID 20456896DOI 10.1016/j.jpba.2010.03.024PUB-20456896
PubMed tag: Review · 2015
Vincent et al. 2015Current opinion in anaesthesiologycited by 18
PMID 26087275DOI 10.1097/aco.0000000000000210PUB-26087275
PubMed tag: review-article, Review · 2022
Jozwiak et al. 2022Journal of intensive medicinecited by 18
PMID 36788938PMC9924015DOI 10.1016/j.jointm.2022.05.001PUB-36788938
PubMed tag: Review · 2020
Meresse et al. 2020Minerva anestesiologicacited by 17
PMID 31994366DOI 10.23736/s0375-9393.20.13826-4PUB-31994366
PubMed tag: none · 2020
Zhong et al. 2020Journal of intensive carecited by 15
PMID 33292658PMC7603734DOI 10.1186/s40560-020-00500-0PUB-33292658
PubMed tag: Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review · 2024
Kotani et al. 2024Critical care (London, England)cited by 15
PMID 39736782PMC11686893DOI 10.1186/s13054-024-05212-7PUB-39736782
PubMed tag: Review · 2017
Saad et al. 2017Journal of critical carecited by 13
PMID 28319910DOI 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.03.008PUB-28319910
PubMed tag: Systematic Review · 2020
Rodriguez et al. 2020Journal of intensive care medicinecited by 13
PMID 30563433DOI 10.1177/0885066618818460PUB-30563433
Page 1 of 1
Russell JA · Critical care (London, England) · 2017
Randomized controlled trial · 9 results
Jozwiak M · Frontiers in medicine · 2022
Observational study · 1 result
He X · Critical care medicine · 2016
Animal study (in vivo) · sheep · 19 results
Boucheix OB · Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2013
Animal study (in vivo) · dog · 4 results
Rehberg S · Critical care medicine · 2012
Animal study (in vivo) · sheep · 2 results
Maybauer MO · Critical care medicine · 2014
Animal study (in vivo) · sheep · 2 results
Wisniewski K · Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2011
Animal study (in vivo) · rat · 2 results
Laporte R · The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2011
Animal study (in vivo) · rat · 5 results
Milano SP · Peptides · 2020
Animal study (in vivo) · rabbit · 4 results
Boucheix O · PloS one · 2016
Animal study (in vivo) · rabbit · 8 results
Barabutis N · The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2020
In vitro (cells) · 9 results
Approval and sport status, and the safety outcomes reported in study results. Laws and labels change, so check the regulator for the current status.
| Jurisdiction | Body | Status | As of | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | FDA | No marketing approval was established. The FDA UNII record establishes substance identity only and explicitly does not imply approval. Drugs@FDA page extraction did not provide a usable product search result. | 27 Oct 2026 | precision.fda.gov (opens in a new tab) |
| EU | EMA | Central approval remains unverified. The EMA search page returned a timeout, then HTTP 403. Trial authorization does not establish marketing approval. | 27 Oct 2026 | ema.europa.eu (opens in a new tab) |
| Sport | WADA | Status unknown Selepressin is not named in the 2026 list. | 2026 List | wada-ama.org (opens in a new tab) |
| National jurisdictions | Note | No national marketing authorization record was established. The FDA substance record is an identity record, not evidence of national approval. | 27 Oct 2026 | precision.fda.gov (opens in a new tab) |
17 safety results for Selepressin.
In septic shock, treatment-emergent adverse event frequency was similar with selepressin 2.5 ng/kg/minute and placebo.
Randomized controlled trialn = 40
In septic shock, one of two patients receiving selepressin 3.75 ng/kg/minute discontinued infusion for possible safety reasons, ending this dose group.
Randomized controlled trialn = 2
In worldwide pharmacovigilance reports, selepressin did not show a significant disproportionality association with acute mesenteric ischemia.
Observational studyn not reported
In sheep, the maximal vWF:Ag/Hb ratio with FE 202158 did not differ significantly from sham (9 ± 2%, p = .208).
Animal study (in vivo)sheepn = 6
In sheep, FE 202158 produced a lower maximal vWF:Ag/Hb ratio than arginine vasopressin (p < .005).
Animal study (in vivo)sheepn = 6
In endotoxemic rabbits, selepressin reduced mesenteric blood flow significantly less than arginine vasopressin.
Animal study (in vivo)rabbit
In rabbits with and without early-stage atherosclerosis, selepressin induced a slight dose-dependent increase in arterial pressure.
Animal study (in vivo)rabbit
In endotoxemic rabbits, selepressin reduced gastric mucosa perfusion significantly less than arginine vasopressin.
Animal study (in vivo)rabbit
In non-endotoxemic and endotoxemic rabbits, selepressin induced a pronounced dose-dependent increase in mesenteric vascular resistance.
Animal study (in vivo)rabbit
In rabbits, selepressin-induced mesenteric vascular resistance increases tended to be smaller with endotoxemia than without endotoxemia.
Animal study (in vivo)rabbit
In rabbits with and without early-stage atherosclerosis, selepressin moderately decreased heart rate.
Animal study (in vivo)rabbit
The doses that these studies used. They are not recommendations.
2.5 ng/kg/minuteHuman
1.25 ng/kg/minuteHuman
3.75 ng/kg/minuteHuman
Initially 1 pmol/kg/min, then titratedAnimal
1-300 ng · kg(-1) · min(-1)Animal
10 pmol·kg(-1)·min(-1)Animal
PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.
Data version, change history and code for this peptide.
curl -s https:// pepbank.io/ v1/ briefs/ selepressinEvidence summary for Selepressin: counts by class, key results with sources, notices, data version.
In PepBank now:147 peptides, 6 blends and 13 other compounds97,577 study results from 17,383 studies8,473 clinical trialsUpdated
Top outcomes
The 8 outcome groups with the most study results, by evidence class.
Data version 308560. Bar length is the number of results, not the size of an effect.
Evidence matrix
Study results by outcome and evidence class. Arrows show how the measured outcome moved, not whether the change is good.
| Outcome group | Human | Animal | Lab | Computer model | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood pressureCardiovascular | Human: 5 results from 1 study: 2 increase, 2 decrease, 1 not reported. Strongest design: Randomized controlled trial | Animal: 9 results from 4 studies: 6 increase, 1 decrease, 1 no significant change, 1 not reported. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | Lab: 1 result from 1 study: 1 increase. Strongest design: Ex vivo tissue | No results | 15 |
| Adverse eventsWhole body | Human: 3 results from 2 studies: 2 no significant change, 1 not reported. Strongest design: Randomized controlled trial | Animal: 2 results from 1 study: 1 decrease, 1 no significant change. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | No results | No results | 5 |
| Electrolyte balanceWhole body | Human: 1 result from 1 study: 1 decrease. Strongest design: Randomized controlled trial | Animal: 2 results from 1 study: 2 decrease. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | No results | No results | 3 |
| Respiratory functionRespiratory | Human: 1 result from 1 study: 1 increase. Strongest design: Randomized controlled trial | No results | No results | No results | 1 |
| Vascular functionRespiratory | No results | Animal: 9 results from 4 studies: 3 increase, 5 decrease, 1 no significant change. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | Lab: 5 results from 1 study: 1 increase, 4 decrease. Strongest design: In vitro (cells) | No results | 14 |
| Heart functionCardiovascular | No results | Animal: 8 results from 3 studies: 2 increase, 3 decrease, 3 no significant change. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | No results | No results | 8 |
| Receptor activity and mechanismRespiratory | No results | Animal: 2 results from 2 studies: 1 increase, 1 not reported. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | Lab: 5 results from 3 studies: 3 increase, 1 decrease, 1 not reported. Strongest design: In vitro (cells) | No results | 7 |
| Inflammation markersImmune and inflammation | No results | Animal: 4 results from 1 study: 4 decrease. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | No results | No results | 4 |
| Lung injury and fibrosisRespiratory | No results | Animal: 4 results from 1 study: 4 decrease. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | No results | No results | 4 |
| Kidney functionKidney and urinary | No results | Animal: 1 result from 1 study: 1 not reported. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | No results | No results | 1 |
| MortalityWhole body | No results | Animal: 1 result from 1 study: 1 increase. Strongest design: Animal study (in vivo) | No results | No results | 1 |
11 outcome groups shown of 11 · 63 study results
Data version 308560. Shade grows with the number of results. Every cell shows the exact count.
Trials by phase
3 registered trials, grouped by phase and shown by status.
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, data version 308560. Status is the registry status.