Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of TREM-1 inhibition with nangibotide in patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory support: the ESSENTIAL randomised, double-blind trial

Background Activation of the TREM-1 pathway is associated with outcome in life threatening COVID-19. Data suggest that modulation of this pathway with nangibotide, a TREM-1 modulator may improve survival in TREM-1 activated patients (identified using the biomarker sTREM-1). Methods Phase 2 double-blind randomized controlled trial assessing efficacy, safety, and optimum treatment population of nangibotide (1.0 mg/kg/h) compared to placebo. Patients aged 18–75 years were eligible within 7 days of SARS-CoV-2 documentation and within 48 h of the onset of invasive or non-invasive respiratory support because of COVID-19-related ARDS. Patients were included from September 2020 to April 2022, with a pause in recruitment between January and August 2021. Primary outcome was the improvement in clinical status defined by a seven-point ordinal scale in the overall population with a planned sensitivity analysis in the subgroup of patients with a sTREM-1 level above the median value at baseline (high sTREM-1 group). Secondary endpoints included safety and all-cause 28-day and day 60 mortality. The study was registered in EudraCT (2020-001504-42) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04429334). Findings The study was stopped after 220 patients had been recruited. Of them, 219 were included in the mITT analysis. Nangibotide therapy was associated with an improved clinical status at day 28. Fifty-two (52.0%) of patients had improved in the placebo group compared to 77 (64.7%) of the nangibotide treated population, an odds ratio (95% CI) for improvement of 1.79 (1.02–3.14), p = 0.043. In the high sTREM-1 population, 18 (32.7%) of placebo patients had improved by day 28 compared to 26 (48.1%) of treated patients, an odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.17 (0.96–4.90), p = 0.063 was observed. In the overall population, 28 (28.0%) of placebo treated patients were not alive at the day 28 visit compared to 19 (16.0%) of nangibotide treated patients, an absolute improvement (95% CI) in all-cause mortality at day 28, adjusted for baseline clinical status of 12.1% (1.18–23.05). In the high sTREM-1 population (n = 109), 23 (41.8%) of patients in the placebo group and 12 (22.2%) of patients in the nangibotide group were not alive at day 28, an adjusted absolute reduction in mortality of 19.9% (2.78–36.98). The rate of treatment emergent adverse events was similar in both placebo and nangibotide treated patients. Interpretation Whilst the study was stopped early due to low recruitment rate, the ESSENTIAL study demonstrated that TREM-1 modulation with nangibotide is safe in COVID-19, and results in a consistent pattern of improved clinical status and mortality compared to placebo. The relationship between sTREM-1 and both risk of death and treatment response merits further evaluation of nangibotide using precision medicine approaches in life threatening viral pneumonitis. Funding The study was sponsored by Inotrem SA.

Prospective evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and optimal biomarker enrichment strategy for nangibotide, a TREM-1 inhibitor, in patients with septic shock (ASTONISH): a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1) pathway is associated with septic shock outcomes. Data suggest that modulation of this pathway in patients with activated TREM-1 might improve survival. Soluble TREM-1 (sTREM-1), a potential mechanism-based biomarker, might facilitate enrichment of patient selection in clinical trials of nangibotide, a TREM-1 modulator. In this phase 2b trial, we aimed to confirm the hypothesis that TREM1 inhibition might improve outcomes in patients with septic shock. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial assessed the efficacy and safety of two different doses of nangibotide compared with placebo, and aimed to identify the optimum treatment population, in patients across 42 hospitals with medical, surgical, or mixed intensive care units (ICUs) in seven countries. Non-COVID-19 patients (18-85 years) meeting the standard definition of septic shock, with documented or suspected infection (lung, abdominal, or urinary [in patients ≥65 years]), were eligible within 24 h of vasopressor initiation for the treatment of septic shock. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to intravenous nangibotide 0·3 mg/kg per h (low-dose group), nangibotide 1·0 mg/kg per h (high-dose group), or matched placebo, using a computer-generated block randomisation scheme (block size 3). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were grouped according to sTREM-1 concentrations at baseline (established from sepsis observational studies and from phase 2a change to data) into high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL). The primary outcome was the mean difference in total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from baseline to day 5 in the low-dose and high-dose groups compared with placebo, measured in the predefined high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL) population and in the overall modified intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included all-cause 28-day mortality, safety, pharmacokinetics, and evaluation of the relationship between TREM-1 activation and treatment response. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004827-36, and Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04055909. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2019, and April 11, 2022, of 402 patients screened, 355 were included in the main analysis (116 in the placebo group, 118 in the low-dose group, and 121 in the high-dose group). In the preliminary high sTREM-1 population (total 253 [71%] of 355; placebo 75 [65%] of 116; low-dose 90 [76%] of 118; high-dose 88 [73%] of 121), the mean difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 was 0·21 (95% CI -1·45 to 1·87, p=0·80) in the low-dose group and 1·39 (-0·28 to 3·06, p=0·104) in the high-dose group versus placebo. In the overall population, the difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 between the placebo group and low-dose group was 0·20 (-1·09 to 1·50; p=0·76),and between the placebo group and the high-dose group was 1·06 (-0·23 to 2·35, p=0·108). In the predefined high sTREM-1 cutoff population, 23 (31%) patients in the placebo group, 35 (39%) in the low-dose group, and 25 (28%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. In the overall population, 29 (25%) patients in the placebo, 38 (32%) in the low-dose, and 30 (25%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (111 [96%] patients in the placebo group, 113 [96%] in the low-dose group, and 115 [95%] in the high-dose group) and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (28 [24%], 26 [22%], and 31 [26%]) was similar between all three groups. High-dose nangibotide led to a clinically relevant improvement in SOFA score (of two points or more) from baseline to day 5 over placebo in those with higher cutoff concentrations (≥532 pg/mL) of sTREM-1 at baseline. Low dose nangibotide displayed a similar pattern with lower magnitude of effect across all cutoff values. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not achieve the primary outcome of improvement in SOFA score at the predefined sTREM-1 value. Future studies are needed to confirm the benefit of nangibotide at higher concentrations of TREM-1 activation. FUNDING: Inotrem.

Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis (RECORDS): study protocol for a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial.

INTRODUCTION: Corticosteroids affect variably survival in sepsis trials, suggesting heterogeneity in patients' response to corticosteroids. The RECORDS (Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis) trial aimed at defining endotypes associated with adults with sepsis responsiveness to corticosteroids. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RECORDS, a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial, will randomly assign to a biomarker stratum 1800 adults with community-acquired pneumonia, vasopressor-dependent sepsis, septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome. In each stratum, patients will be randomly assigned to receive a 7-day course of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone or their placebos. Patients with COVID-19 will be treated with a 10-day standard course of dexamethasone and randomised to fludrocortisone or its placebo. Primary outcome will be 90-day death or persistent organ dysfunction. Large simulation study will be performed across a range of plausible scenarios to foresee power to detect a 5%-10% absolute difference with corticosteroids. We will assess subset-by-treatment interaction by estimating in a Bayesian framework two quantities: (1) measure of influence, relying on the value of the estimation of corticosteroids' effect in each subset, and (2) measure of interaction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Dijon, France), on 6 April 2020. Trial results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04280497).

Global Judicial Opinions Regarding Government-Issued COVID-19 Mitigation Measures.

Laws play an important role in emergency response capacity. During the COVID-19 outbreak, experts have noted both a lack of law where it is needed and a problematic use of laws that exist. To address those challenges, policymakers revising public health emergency laws can examine how existing laws were used during the COVID-19 response to address problems that arose during their application. Judicial opinions can provide a source of data for this review. This study used legal epidemiology methods to perform an environmental scan of global judicial opinions, published from March 1 through August 31, 2020, from 23 countries, related to government-issued COVID-19 mitigation measures. The opinions were coded, and findings categorize the measures based on: (1) the World Health Organization's May 2020 publication, Overview of Public Health and Social Measures in the Context of COVID-19, and (2) related legal challenges brought in courts, including disputes about authority; conflicts of law; rationality, proportionality, or necessity; implementation; and enforcement. The findings demonstrate how judicial review of emergency measures has played a role in the COVID-19 response. In some cases, court rulings required mitigation measures to be amended or stopped. In others, court rulings required the government to issue a measure not yet in place. These findings provide examples for understanding issues related to the application of law during an emergency response.

Impact of early low-calorie low-protein versus standard-calorie standard-protein feeding on outcomes of ventilated adults with shock: design and conduct of a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.

Admission criteria and management of critical care patients in a pandemic context: position of the Ethics Commission of the French Intensive Care Society, update of April 2021.

Intensive care unit professionals have experience in critical care and its proportionality, collegial decision-making, withholding or withdrawal of treatment deemed futile, and communication with patients' relatives. These elements rely on ethical values from which we must not deviate in a pandemic situation. The recommendations made by the Ethics Commission of the French Intensive Care Society reflect an approach of responsibility and solidarity towards our citizens regarding the potential impact of a pandemic on critical care resources in France, with the fundamental requirement of respect for human dignity and equal access to health care for all.

Relationship Between Obesity and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Post Hoc Analysis of the NUTRIREA2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity are at higher risk for community-acquired and nosocomial infections. However, no study has specifically evaluated the relationship between obesity and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). RESEARCH QUESTION: Is obesity associated with an increased incidence of VAP? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of the Impact of Early Enteral vs Parenteral Nutrition on Mortality in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation and Catecholamines (NUTRIREA2) open-label, randomized controlled trial performed in 44 French ICUs. Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support for shock and parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition were included. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 at ICU admission. VAP diagnosis was adjudicated by an independent blinded committee, based on all available clinical, radiologic, and microbiologic data. Only first VAP episodes were taken into account. Incidence of VAP was analyzed by using the Fine and Gray model, with extubation and death as competing risks. RESULTS: A total of 699 (30%) of the 2,325 included patients had obesity; 224 first VAP episodes were diagnosed (60 and 164 in obese and nonobese groups, respectively). The incidence of VAP at day 28 was 8.6% vs 10.1% in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI 0.63-1.14; P = .26). After adjustment on sex, McCabe score, age, antiulcer treatment, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment at randomization, the incidence of VAP remained nonsignificant between obese and nonobese patients (hazard ratio, 0.893; 95% CI, 0.66-1.2; P = .46). Although no significant difference was found in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, 90-day mortality was significantly lower in obese than in nonobese patients (272 of 692 [39.3%] patients vs 718 of 1,605 [44.7%]; P = .02). In a subgroup of patients (n = 123) with available pepsin and alpha-amylase measurements, no significant difference was found in rate of abundant microaspiration of gastric contents, or oropharyngeal secretions between obese and nonobese patients. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that obesity has no significant impact on the incidence of VAP.