Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 29
Filter
1.
Crit Care Clin ; 37(4): 717-732, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1414515

ABSTRACT

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit. Improving outcomes depends on not only evidence-based care once ARDS has already developed but also preventing ARDS incidence. Several environmental exposures have now been shown to increase the risk of ARDS and related adverse outcomes. How environmental factors impact the risk of developing ARDS is a growing and important field of research that should inform the care of individual patients as well as public health policy.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
2.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 Jul 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1950556
3.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; : 101121, 2022 Jun 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914093

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(7): 700-714, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1886186

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Research Design
5.
BMJ Open ; 12(6): e060664, 2022 06 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1879135

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic brought an urgent need to discover novel effective therapeutics for patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19. The Investigation of Serial studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging And moLecular Analysis (ISPY COVID-19 trial) was designed and implemented in early 2020 to evaluate investigational agents rapidly and simultaneously on a phase 2 adaptive platform. This manuscript outlines the design, rationale, implementation and challenges of the ISPY COVID-19 trial during the first phase of trial activity from April 2020 until December 2021. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ISPY COVID-19 Trial is a multicentre open-label phase 2 platform trial in the USA designed to evaluate therapeutics that may have a large effect on improving outcomes from severe COVID-19. The ISPY COVID-19 Trial network includes academic and community hospitals with significant geographical diversity across the country. Enrolled patients are randomised to receive one of up to four investigational agents or a control and are evaluated for a family of two primary outcomes-time to recovery and mortality. The statistical design uses a Bayesian model with 'stopping' and 'graduation' criteria designed to efficiently discard ineffective therapies and graduate promising agents for definitive efficacy trials. Each investigational agent arm enrols to a maximum of 125 patients per arm and is compared with concurrent controls. As of December 2021, 11 investigational agent arms had been activated, and 8 arms were complete. Enrolment and adaptation of the trial design are ongoing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: ISPY COVID-19 operates under a central institutional review board via Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00066805. Data generated from this trial will be reported in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04488081.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Bayes Theorem , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
6.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1874929

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Autopsy and biomarker studies suggest that endotheliopathy contributes to COVID-19-associated ARDS. However, the effects of COVID-19 on the lung endothelium are not well-defined. We hypothesized that the lung endotheliopathy of COVID-19 is caused by circulating host factors and direct endothelial infection by SARS-CoV-2. Objectives: We aimed to determine the effects of SARS-CoV-2 or sera from patients with COVID-19 on permeability and inflammatory activation of lung microvascular endothelial cells. Methods: Human lung microvascular endothelial cells were treated with live SARS-CoV-2, inactivated viral particles, or sera from COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients and healthy volunteers. Permeability was determined by measuring transendothelial resistance to electrical current flow, where decreased resistance signifies increased permeability. Inflammatory mediators were quantified in culture supernatants. Endothelial biomarkers were quantified in patient sera. Measurements and Main Results: Viral PCR confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 enters and replicates in endothelial cells. Live SARS-CoV-2, but not dead virus or spike protein, induces endothelial permeability and secretion of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 and vascular endothelial growth factor. There was substantial variability in the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on endothelial cells from different donors. Sera from COVID-19 patients induced endothelial permeability, which correlated with disease severity. Serum levels of endothelial activation and injury biomarkers were increased in COVID-19 patients and correlated with severity of illness. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infects and dysregulates endothelial cell functions. Circulating factors in COVID-19 patients also induces endothelial cell dysfunction. Our data point to roles for both systemic factors acting on lung endothelial cells and viral infection of endothelial cells in COVID-19-associated endotheliopathy. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

7.
JCI Insight ; 7(9)2022 05 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1868830

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThe value of the soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products (sRAGE) as a biomarker in COVID-19 is not well understood. We tested the association between plasma sRAGE and illness severity, viral burden, and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were not mechanically ventilated.MethodsBaseline sRAGE was measured among participants enrolled in the ACTIV-3/TICO trial of bamlanivimab for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between sRAGE and other plasma biomarkers, including viral nucleocapsid antigen. Fine-Gray models adjusted for baseline supplemental oxygen requirement, antigen level, positive endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response, sex, age, BMI, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, corticosteroid treatment, and log2-transformed IL-6 level were used to assess the association between baseline sRAGE and time to sustained recovery. Cox regression adjusted for the same factors was used to assess the association between sRAGE and mortality.ResultsAmong 277 participants, baseline sRAGE was strongly correlated with viral plasma antigen concentration (ρ = 0.57). There was a weaker correlation between sRAGE and biomarkers of systemic inflammation, such as IL-6 (ρ = 0.36) and CRP (ρ = 0.20). Participants with plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile had a significantly lower rate of sustained recovery (adjusted recovery rate ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.90]) and a higher unadjusted risk of death (HR, 4.70 [95% CI, 2.01-10.99]) compared with participants in the lower quartiles.ConclusionElevated plasma sRAGE in hospitalized, nonventilated patients with COVID-19 was an indicator of both clinical illness severity and plasma viral load. Plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile was associated with a lower likelihood of sustained recovery and higher unadjusted risk of death. These findings, which we believe to be novel, indicate that plasma sRAGE may be a promising biomarker for COVID-19 prognostication and clinical trial enrichment.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04501978.FundingNIH (5T32GM008440-24, 18X107CF6, HHSN261201500003I, R35HL140026, and OT2HL156812).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Biomarkers , Humans , Interleukin-6 , Prognosis , Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products
8.
Anesthesiology ; 136(5): 732-748, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764668

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite expanding use, knowledge on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support during the COVID-19 pandemic remains limited. The objective was to report characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in France and to identify pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation factors associated with in-hospital mortality. A hypothesis of similar mortality rates and risk factors for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was made. METHODS: The Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure and/or Heart failure related to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (ECMOSARS) registry included COVID-19 patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in France. This study analyzed patients included in this registry up to October 25, 2020, and supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure with a minimum follow-up of 28 days after cannulation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 494 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients included in the registry, 429 were initially supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and followed for at least 28 days. The median (interquartile range) age was 54 yr (46 to 60 yr), and 338 of 429 (79%) were men. Management before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation included prone positioning for 411 of 429 (96%), neuromuscular blockage for 419 of 427 (98%), and NO for 161 of 401 (40%). A total of 192 of 429 (45%) patients were cannulated by a mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation unit. In-hospital mortality was 219 of 429 (51%), with a median follow-up of 49 days (33 to 70 days). Among pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation modifiable exposure variables, neuromuscular blockage use (hazard ratio, 0.286; 95% CI, 0.101 to 0.81) and duration of ventilation (more than 7 days compared to less than 2 days; hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.83) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Both age (per 10-yr increase; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.50) and total bilirubin at cannulation (6.0 mg/dl or more compared to less than 1.2 mg/dl; hazard ratio, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.5) were confounders significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality was higher than recently reported, but nearly half of the patients survived. A high proportion of patients were cannulated by a mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation unit. Several factors associated with mortality were identified. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support should be considered early within the first week of mechanical ventilation initiation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies
9.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(2): 234-243, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753917

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antigens, Viral/blood , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure
11.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 404, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745432

ABSTRACT

Identifying new effective treatments for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including COVID-19 ARDS, remains a challenge. The field of ARDS investigation is moving increasingly toward innovative approaches such as the personalization of therapy to biological and clinical sub-phenotypes. Additionally, there is growing recognition of the importance of the global context to identify effective ARDS treatments. This review highlights emerging opportunities and continued challenges for personalizing therapy for ARDS, from identifying treatable traits to innovative clinical trial design and recognition of patient-level factors as the field of critical care investigation moves forward into the twenty-first century.


Subject(s)
Precision Medicine , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/complications , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology
12.
Trends Pharmacol Sci ; 43(9): 703-705, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703950

ABSTRACT

The need for new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutic strategies continues, especially as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants emerge. Zhang and colleagues elegantly engineered a mutant angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) that competitively binds SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, reduces viral uptake by human lung cells, and ameliorates SARS-CoV-2-induced lung injury in mice expressing human ACE2.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 , COVID-19 , Animals , Humans , Mice , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
13.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 404, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533274

ABSTRACT

Identifying new effective treatments for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including COVID-19 ARDS, remains a challenge. The field of ARDS investigation is moving increasingly toward innovative approaches such as the personalization of therapy to biological and clinical sub-phenotypes. Additionally, there is growing recognition of the importance of the global context to identify effective ARDS treatments. This review highlights emerging opportunities and continued challenges for personalizing therapy for ARDS, from identifying treatable traits to innovative clinical trial design and recognition of patient-level factors as the field of critical care investigation moves forward into the twenty-first century.


Subject(s)
Precision Medicine , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/complications , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology
15.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(8): 933-936, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1413072

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Early Diagnosis , Humans , Patient Selection , Respiratory Insufficiency/blood , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time-to-Treatment/standards
16.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 5152, 2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376195

ABSTRACT

The immunological features that distinguish COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes of ARDS are incompletely understood. Here, we report the results of comparative lower respiratory tract transcriptional profiling of tracheal aspirate from 52 critically ill patients with ARDS from COVID-19 or from other etiologies, as well as controls without ARDS. In contrast to a "cytokine storm," we observe reduced proinflammatory gene expression in COVID-19 ARDS when compared to ARDS due to other causes. COVID-19 ARDS is characterized by a dysregulated host response with increased PTEN signaling and elevated expression of genes with non-canonical roles in inflammation and immunity. In silico analysis of gene expression identifies several candidate drugs that may modulate gene expression in COVID-19 ARDS, including dexamethasone and granulocyte colony stimulating factor. Compared to ARDS due to other types of viral pneumonia, COVID-19 is characterized by impaired interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) expression. The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 viral load and expression of ISGs is decoupled in patients with COVID-19 ARDS when compared to patients with mild COVID-19. In summary, assessment of host gene expression in the lower airways of patients reveals distinct immunological features of COVID-19 ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/genetics , RNA/genetics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/genetics , Trachea/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Cytokines/genetics , Cytokines/immunology , Female , Gene Expression Profiling , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , RNA/metabolism , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/immunology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Sequence Analysis, RNA
18.
Front Immunol ; 12: 691249, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241171

ABSTRACT

Background: Dynamic D-dimer level is a key biomarker for the severity and mortality of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). How aberrant fibrinolysis influences the clinical progression of COVID-19 presents a clinicopathological dilemma challenging intensivists. Methods: We performed meta-analysis and meta regression to analyze the associations of plasma D-dimer with 106 clinical variables to identify a panoramic view of the derangements of fibrinolysis in 14,862 patients of 42 studies. There were no limitations of age, gender, race, and country. Raw data of each group were extracted separately by two investigators. Individual data of case series, median and interquartile range, and ranges of median or mean were converted to SDM (standard deviation of mean). Findings: The weighted mean difference of D-dimer was 0.97 µg/mL (95% CI 0.65, 1.29) between mild and severe groups, as shown by meta-analysis. Publication bias was significant. Meta-regression identified 58 of 106 clinical variables were associated with plasma D-dimer levels. Of these, 11 readouts were negatively related to the level of plasma D-dimer. Further, age and gender were confounding factors. There were 22 variables independently correlated with the D-dimer level, including respiratory rate, dyspnea plasma K+, glucose, SpO2, BUN (blood urea nitrogen), bilirubin, ALT (alanine aminotransferase), AST (aspartate aminotransferase), systolic blood pressure, and CK (creatine kinase). Interpretation: These findings support elevated D-dimer as an independent predictor for both mortality and complications. The identified D-dimer-associated clinical variables draw a landscape integrating the aggregate effects of systemically suppressive and pulmonary hyperactive derangements of fibrinolysis, and the D-dimer-associated clinical biomarkers, and conceptually parameters could be combined for risk stratification, potentially for tracking thrombolytic therapy or alternative interventions.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers/metabolism , COVID-19/metabolism , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Disease Progression , Humans , Patient Admission , Severity of Illness Index
19.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 18(4): 698-708, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186616

ABSTRACT

Patients hospitalized for pneumonia are at high risk for mortality. Effective therapies are therefore needed. Recent randomized clinical trials suggest that systemic steroids can reduce the length of hospital stays among patients hospitalized for pneumonia. Furthermore, preliminary findings from a feasibility study demonstrated that early treatment with a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a bronchodilator can improve oxygenation and reduce risk of respiratory failure in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether such a combination administered early is effective in reducing acute respiratory failure (ARF) among patients hospitalized with pneumonia is unknown. Here we describe the ARREST Pneumonia (Arrest Respiratory Failure due to Pneumonia) trial designed to address this question. ARREST Pneumonia is a two-arm, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial designed to test the efficacy of a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a ß-agonist compared with placebo for the prevention of ARF in hospitalized participants with severe pneumonia. The primary outcome is ARF within 7 days of randomization, defined as a composite endpoint of intubation and mechanical ventilation; need for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation for >36 hours (each alone or combined); or death within 36 hours of being placed on respiratory support. The planned enrollment is 600 adult participants at 10 academic medical centers. In addition, we will measure selected plasma biomarkers to better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the U.S. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04193878).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
20.
N Engl J Med ; 384(10): 905-914, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998037

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Failure
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL