TRPC6 inhibitor (BI 764198) to reduce risk and severity of ARDS due to COVID-19: a phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations, there remains a need to investigate treatments to reduce the risk or severity of potentially fatal complications of COVID-19, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the transient receptor potential channel C6 (TRPC6) inhibitor, BI 764198, in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support (oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen). METHODS: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase II trial comparing once-daily oral BI 764198 (n=65) with placebo (n=64) for 28 days (+2-month follow-up). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation at day 29. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients alive and discharged without oxygen (day 29); occurrence of either in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation (day 29); time to first response (clinical improvement/recovery); ventilator-free days (day 29); and mortality (days 15, 29, 60 and 90). RESULTS: No difference was observed for the primary endpoint: BI 764198 (83.1%) versus placebo (87.5%) (estimated risk difference -5.39%; 95% CI -16.08 to 5.30; p=0.323). For secondary endpoints, a longer time to first response (rate ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99; p=0.045) and longer hospitalisation (+3.41 days; 95% CI 0.49 to 6.34; p=0.023) for BI 764198 versus placebo was observed; no other significant differences were observed. On-treatment adverse events were similar between trial arms and more fatal events were reported for BI 764198 (n=7) versus placebo (n=2). Treatment was stopped early based on an interim observation of a lack of efficacy and an imbalance of fatal events (Data Monitoring Committee recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: TRPC6 inhibition was not effective in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients with COVID-19 requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04604184.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome: causes, pathophysiology, and phenotypes.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common clinical syndrome of acute respiratory failure as a result of diffuse lung inflammation and oedema. ARDS can be precipitated by a variety of causes. The pathophysiology of ARDS is complex and involves the activation and dysregulation of multiple overlapping and interacting pathways of injury, inflammation, and coagulation, both in the lung and systemically. Mechanical ventilation can contribute to a cycle of lung injury and inflammation. Resolution of inflammation is a coordinated process that requires downregulation of proinflammatory pathways and upregulation of anti-inflammatory pathways. The heterogeneity of the clinical syndrome, along with its biology, physiology, and radiology, has increasingly been recognised and incorporated into identification of phenotypes. A precision-medicine approach that improves the identification of more homogeneous ARDS phenotypes should lead to an improved understanding of its pathophysiological mechanisms and how they differ from patient to patient.

Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide, it also induced urgent mobilisation of research teams to develop treatments preventing or curing the disease and its consequences. It has, therefore, challenged critical care research to rapidly focus on specific fields while forcing critical care physicians to make difficult ethical decisions. This narrative review aims to summarise critical care research -from organisation to research fields- in this pandemic setting and to highlight opportunities to improve research efficiency in the future, based on what is learned from COVID-19. This pressure on research revealed, i.e., (i) the need to harmonise regulatory processes between countries, allowing simplified organisation of international research networks to improve their efficiency in answering large-scale questions; (ii) the importance of developing translational research from which therapeutic innovations can emerge; (iii) the need for improved triage and predictive scores to rationalise admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, key areas for future critical care research and better pandemic preparedness are artificial intelligence applied to healthcare, characterisation of long-term symptoms, and ethical considerations. Such collaborative research efforts should involve groups from both high and low-to-middle income countries to propose worldwide solutions. As a conclusion, stress tests on healthcare organisations should be viewed as opportunities to design new research frameworks and strategies. Worldwide availability of research networks ready to operate is essential to be prepared for next pandemics. Importantly, researchers and physicians should prioritise realistic and ethical goals for both clinical care and research.

Redefining critical illness.

Research and practice in critical care medicine have long been defined by syndromes, which, despite being clinically recognizable entities, are, in fact, loose amalgams of heterogeneous states that may respond differently to therapy. Mounting translational evidence-supported by research on respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-suggests that the current syndrome-based framework of critical illness should be reconsidered. Here we discuss recent findings from basic science and clinical research in critical care and explore how these might inform a new conceptual model of critical illness. De-emphasizing syndromes, we focus on the underlying biological changes that underpin critical illness states and that may be amenable to treatment. We hypothesize that such an approach will accelerate critical care research, leading to a richer understanding of the pathobiology of critical illness and of the key determinants of patient outcomes. This, in turn, will support the design of more effective clinical trials and inform a more precise and more effective practice at the bedside.

Use of pragmatic and explanatory trial designs in acute care research: lessons from COVID-19.

Unique challenges arise when conducting trials to evaluate therapies already in common clinical use, including difficulty enrolling patients owing to widespread open-label use of trial therapies and the need for large sample sizes to detect small but clinically meaningful treatment effects. Despite numerous successes in trials evaluating novel interventions such as vaccines, traditional explanatory trials have struggled to provide definitive answers to time-sensitive questions for acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Pragmatic trials, which can increase efficiency by allowing some or all trial procedures to be embedded into clinical care, are increasingly proposed as a means to evaluate therapies that are in common clinical use. In this Personal View, we use two concurrently conducted COVID-19 trials of hydroxychloroquine (the US ORCHID trial and the UK RECOVERY trial) to contrast the effects of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs on trial conduct, trial results, and the care of patients managed outside of clinical trials. In view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs, we make recommendations for their optimal use in the evaluation of therapies in the acute care setting.

Design and Rationale of the Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SESAR) Randomized Controlled Trial.

Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics may have beneficial effects on injured lungs, and pilot clinical data support improved arterial oxygenation, attenuated inflammation, and decreased lung epithelial injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving inhaled sevoflurane compared to intravenous midazolam. Whether sevoflurane is effective in improving clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS is unknown, and the benefits and risks of inhaled sedation in ARDS require further evaluation. Here, we describe the SESAR (Sevoflurane for Sedation in ARDS) trial designed to address this question. SESAR is a two-arm, investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment designed to test the efficacy of sedation with sevoflurane compared to intravenous propofol in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and off the ventilator at 28 days, considering death as a competing event, and the key secondary outcome is 90 day survival. The planned enrollment is 700 adult participants at 37 French academic and non-academic centers. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated, and biomarker measurements will help better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and Sedana Medical.

Advancing precision medicine for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Understanding of the complex pathways involved in lung injury pathogenesis, resolution, and repair has grown considerably in recent decades. Nevertheless, to date, only therapies targeting ventilation-induced lung injury have consistently proven beneficial, and despite these gains, ARDS morbidity and mortality remain high. Many candidate therapies with promise in preclinical studies have been ineffective in human trials, probably at least in part due to clinical and biological heterogeneity that modifies treatment responsiveness in human ARDS. A precision medicine approach to ARDS seeks to better account for this heterogeneity by matching therapies to subgroups of patients that are anticipated to be most likely to benefit, which initially might be identified in part by assessing for heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. In October 2019, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop of multidisciplinary experts to explore research opportunities and challenges for accelerating precision medicine in ARDS. Topics of discussion included the rationale and challenges for a precision medicine approach in ARDS, the roles of preclinical ARDS models in precision medicine, essential features of cohort studies to advance precision medicine, and novel approaches to clinical trials to support development and validation of a precision medicine strategy. In this Position Paper, we summarise workshop discussions, recommendations, and unresolved questions for advancing precision medicine in ARDS. Although the workshop took place before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for precision therapies for ARDS as the global scientific community grapples with many of the key concepts, innovations, and challenges discussed at this workshop.

The Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome: should patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen be included?

The 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) provided validated support for three levels of initial arterial hypoxaemia that correlated with mortality in patients receiving ventilatory support. Since 2015, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has become widely used as an effective therapeutic support for acute respiratory failure, most recently in patients with severe COVID-19. We propose that the Berlin definition of ARDS be broadened to include patients treated with HFNO of at least 30 L/min who fulfil the other criteria for the Berlin definition of ARDS. An expanded definition would make the diagnosis of ARDS more widely applicable, allowing patients at an earlier stage of the syndrome to be recognised, independent of the need for endotracheal intubation or positive-pressure ventilation, with benefits for the testing of early interventions and the study of factors associated with the course of ARDS. We identify key questions that could be addressed in refining an expanded definition of ARDS, the implementation of which could lead to improvements in clinical practice and clinical outcomes for patients.

Phenotypes and personalized medicine in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Although the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is well defined by the development of acute hypoxemia, bilateral infiltrates and non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema, ARDS is heterogeneous in terms of clinical risk factors, physiology of lung injury, microbiology, and biology, potentially explaining why pharmacologic therapies have been mostly unsuccessful in treating ARDS. Identifying phenotypes of ARDS and integrating this information into patient selection for clinical trials may increase the chance for efficacy with new treatments. In this review, we focus on classifying ARDS by the associated clinical disorders, physiological data, and radiographic imaging. We consider biologic phenotypes, including plasma protein biomarkers, gene expression, and common causative microbiologic pathogens. We will also discuss the issue of focusing clinical trials on the patient's phase of lung injury, including prevention, administration of therapy during early acute lung injury, and treatment of established ARDS. A more in depth understanding of the interplay of these variables in ARDS should provide more success in designing and conducting clinical trials and achieving the goal of personalized medicine.