ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57-0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. INTERPRETATION: Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Double-Blind Method , Serine Proteases , Dipeptidyl-Peptidases and Tripeptidyl-PeptidasesABSTRACT
A 65 year-old gentleman had been brought to our Respiratory Emergency Department for patients with respiratory symptoms and a possible COVID-19 infection with a 3-day history of shortness of breath (SOB), fever, a productive cough of yellow sputum, and right-sided chest pain. The patient had received both vaccinations at the time and initially reported no travel history, although later it was revealed that he had recently stayed at a hotel. He tested positive for COVID-19 and had hyponatremia and a raised procalcitonin, indicating a bacterial infection as well. He had been initiated on our local treatment guidelines for COVID with antibiotics, guided by local hospital guidelines. An atypical pneumonia screen returned a positive result for Legionella urine antigen, and his antibiotic regime was changed accordingly. Our patient deteriorated significantly, and despite being escalated to our intensive care unit (ICU), he unfortunately passed away. Our case highlights the importance of early ICU involvement and escalation of antibiotics in cases of suspected concurrent Legionella and COVID-19 infections.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the need for hand trauma services during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, specifically related to surgical requirements. This will provide useful information for planning and resource allocation in the event of any further lockdown. METHODS: A prospective analsysis of all patients attending our hand trauma unit throughout the UK COVID-19 lockdown period (24 March to 10 May 2020) was carried out. Prospectively collected departmental data from the same period in 2019 was obtained and reviewed for comparison. The number of patients attending clinic, undergoing surgery, the type of surgical procedure, and rate of surgery was compared. RESULTS: In all, 463 patients attended hand trauma services during the lockdown period compared to 793 in 2019 (32% reduction); 190 surgical procedures were carried out during lockdown compared to 236 in 2019 (20% reduction). Intervention rate was higher during the lockdown period (41% compared to 30%). There was no difference in the type of cases. In the first half of lockdown, 47% fewer procedures were performed than in 2019, but in the second half of lockdown 13% more procedures were carried out than the same period in 2019. CONCLUSION: Requirements for hand trauma surgery remain high during a pandemic lockdown. Attendances and surgical requirements can be expected to steadily return to normal levels during a prolonged lockdown period. Throughout any future lockdown period adequate surgical provision must be maintained for patients with hand injuries.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:639-643.