Earlier this year, the World Health Organization recognized sepsis as a global health problem, responsible for millions of preventable deaths every year, and adopted a resolution targeting the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of sepsis, especially in low-and middle-income countries. 1 Although most sepsis cases are assumed to occur in low-and middle-income countries, nearly all research on both the epidemiology of sepsis and optimal treatment comes from high-income countries.High-income countries can claim some success with regard to declining rates of mortality related to sepsis in recent years, whereas data from low-and middle-income countries suggest sepsis still carries very high fatality rates. 2,3 In other words, data about which patients develop sepsis and how they should be treated are lacking from locations where sepsis is thought to be most common and associated with the poorest outcomes.If sepsis was a homogenous condition and the effectiveness of therapy was uniform, such paucity of data would not be troubling. However, neither is the case. Sepsis is a broad syndrome of acute organ dysfunction arising due to a complex host response to a wide variety of inciting pathogens, with the result that both the presenting symptoms and subsequent course are highly variable. Furthermore, the effectiveness of each element of the antimicrobial, resuscitation, and organ support therapies used to treat sepsis appears to be highly conditional on these host and pathogen factors, as well as on what other therapies are deployed, and on the capacity of the health care setting to deliver therapies optimally and monitor, prevent, and treat complications.In many low-and middle-income countries, patients who develop sepsis may be much more likely to have malnutrition, HIV, or malarial infection. These patients may also develop sepsis secondary to a spectrum of infections different from that seen in high-income countries, such as highly resistant gram-negative infections, dengue, melioidosis, or viral hemorrhagic fevers. Patients may also incur extreme delays before receiving definitive care, which may be lacking basic resources, such as vasopressors or oxygen, as well as artificial respiratory or kidney support. It is therefore extremely valuable to determine how well even the most basic therapeutic strategies work in these settings.In this issue of JAMA, Andrews and colleagues 4 report the results of an unblinded randomized clinical trial testing whether a protocol approach to resuscitation for patients with presumed sepsis-induced hypotension presenting to the emergency department of a 1500-bed referral hospital in Zambia would improve survival compared with usual care. The overarching premise was that patients who received usual care were