Sepsis is a global health priority with nearly 50 million cases annually. Cardiovascular dysfunction is common, frequently manifesting as hypotension that persists despite fluid resuscitation. Most affected patients require the use of intravenous (IV) vasoactive agents, typically necessitating intensive care unit (ICU)-level monitoring, invasive interventions and contributing substantially to healthcare costs. Midodrine, an oral alpha-1 agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension, has increasingly been used off-label as a vasopressor-sparing (reducing IV vasopressor use) strategy in sepsis, despite limited and inconsistent evidence. This pragmatic, randomised, open-label trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of midodrine in patients with sepsis-associated hypotension. We hypothesise that, compared with standard care, midodrine administration will reduce the duration of IV vasopressor use.

A total of 308 adult patients with sepsis-associated hypotension will be enrolled (154 per arm). The intervention group will, in addition to standard of care, receive enteral midodrine 10 mg three times daily. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via electronic health record-based data retrieval and adjudicated by research coordinators blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time alive and off IV vasopressors in the first 28 days (in hours) after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include cumulative vasopressor exposure; use and duration of central venous access; cumulative fluid balance over the first 48 hours and up to 7 days of ICU stay; ICU and hospital length of stay; and ICU-, hospital-, and organ support-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes include adverse events potentially attributable to midodrine during hospitalisation including acute kidney injury. Primary analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, including all randomised participants according to their assigned treatment groups. Primary and secondary outcomes will be compared using a van Elteren test stratified by randomisation factors. A predefined secondary Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome will provide complementary estimates of treatment effect. Safety outcomes will be summarised descriptively without formal between-arm hypothesis testing.

The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this protocol and required written informed consent from all participants (IRB# 24–0 00 121). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations.

NCT06319248.

The literature examining direct-to-consumer (DTC) commercial virtual care has expanded rapidly over the past decade. Our objective was to synthesise the nature and range of evidence on DTC commercial virtual care.

Scoping review.

MEDLINE ALL, EMBASE Classic+Embase, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and grey literature sources.

We included original research studies published in English or French between 1 January 2016 and 30 April 2025 that assessed DTC commercial virtual care in all contexts and in all populations.

Screening titles and abstracts, and full-text manuscripts, and extracting data was done in duplicate. We analysed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and reported findings in tables. We provided a narrative summary of textual data.

After excluding duplicates, we identified 8055 studies for title and abstract screening; 691 articles for full-text screening; and 103 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. 32 studies (31.1%) reported financial ties to the virtual care industry. 67 (65.0%) studies were conducted in the USA. Studies were largely quantitative (87/103 (84.5%)) or mixed methods (8/103 (7.8%)) studies and used cross-sectional (85/95 (89.5%)) designs. Most quantitative studies were descriptive, reporting on quality of care, health outcomes, platform characteristics and patient views, with only 24 of the 95 quantitative studies (25.3%) including a control or comparison group. 18 of these 24 studies (75.0%) compared the quality of care, costs and/or utilisation to other models of care and reported variable findings. The rest compared patient characteristics. Few studies assessed clinician perspectives or addressed privacy-related ethical concerns.

Despite a large number of studies assessing DTC commercial virtual care, we have little insight into impacts on quality of care, health outcomes, health system utilisation and privacy-related ethical concerns. The financial ties with industry suggest that there may be bias in the body of research literature.