Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
JCI Insight ; 7(5)2022 03 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759583

ABSTRACT

Severe acute lung injury has few treatment options and a high mortality rate. Upon injury, neutrophils infiltrate the lungs and form neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), damaging the lungs and driving an exacerbated immune response. Unfortunately, no drug preventing NET formation has completed clinical development. Here, we report that disulfiram - an FDA-approved drug for alcohol use disorder - dramatically reduced NETs, increased survival, improved blood oxygenation, and reduced lung edema in a transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) mouse model. We then tested whether disulfiram could confer protection in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as NETs are elevated in patients with severe COVID-19. In SARS-CoV-2-infected golden hamsters, disulfiram reduced NETs and perivascular fibrosis in the lungs, and it downregulated innate immune and complement/coagulation pathways, suggesting that it could be beneficial for patients with COVID-19. In conclusion, an existing FDA-approved drug can block NET formation and improve disease course in 2 rodent models of lung injury for which treatment options are limited.


Subject(s)
Acute Lung Injury/drug therapy , COVID-19/complications , Disulfiram/pharmacology , Extracellular Traps/drug effects , Lung/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Acetaldehyde Dehydrogenase Inhibitors/pharmacology , Acute Lung Injury/etiology , Animals , COVID-19/virology , Disease Models, Animal , Extracellular Traps/immunology , Rodentia
2.
Crit Care Med ; 49(7): 1015-1025, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1307568

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Four peer-reviewed publications have reported results from randomized controlled trials of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 infection; none were conducted in the United States nor used standard plasma as a comparator. To determine if administration of convalescent plasma to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 increases antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and improves outcome. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hospital in New York. PATIENTS: Patients with polymerase chain reaction documented coronavirus disease 2019 infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (4:1) to receive 2 U of convalescent plasma versus standard plasma. Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were measured in plasma units and in trial recipients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated after emergency use authorization was granted for convalescent plasma. Seventy-four patients were randomized. At baseline, mean (sd) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.4 [5.6] and 22.5 [6.6]), percent of patients intubated (19% and 20%), and median (interquartile range) days from symptom onset to randomization of 9 (6-18) and 9 (6-15), were similar in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma arms, respectively. Convalescent plasma had high neutralizing activity (median [interquartile range] titer 1:526 [1:359-1:786]) and its administration increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 14.4%, whereas standard plasma administration led to an 8.6% decrease (p = 0.005). No difference was observed for ventilator-free days through 28 days (primary study endpoint): median (interquartile range) of 28 (2-28) versus 28 (0-28; p = 0.86) for the convalescent plasma and standard plasma groups, respectively. A greater than or equal to 2 point improvement in the World Health Organization scale was achieved by 20% of subjects in both arms (p = 0.99). All-cause mortality through 90 days was numerically lower in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma groups (27% vs 33%; p = 0.63) but did not achieve statistical significance. A key prespecified subgroup analysis of time to death in patients who were intubated at baseline was statistically significant; however, sample size numbers were small. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 but was not associated with improved outcome.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
3.
Crit Care Med ; 49(7): 1015-1025, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191494

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Four peer-reviewed publications have reported results from randomized controlled trials of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 infection; none were conducted in the United States nor used standard plasma as a comparator. To determine if administration of convalescent plasma to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 increases antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and improves outcome. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hospital in New York. PATIENTS: Patients with polymerase chain reaction documented coronavirus disease 2019 infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (4:1) to receive 2 U of convalescent plasma versus standard plasma. Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were measured in plasma units and in trial recipients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated after emergency use authorization was granted for convalescent plasma. Seventy-four patients were randomized. At baseline, mean (sd) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.4 [5.6] and 22.5 [6.6]), percent of patients intubated (19% and 20%), and median (interquartile range) days from symptom onset to randomization of 9 (6-18) and 9 (6-15), were similar in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma arms, respectively. Convalescent plasma had high neutralizing activity (median [interquartile range] titer 1:526 [1:359-1:786]) and its administration increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 14.4%, whereas standard plasma administration led to an 8.6% decrease (p = 0.005). No difference was observed for ventilator-free days through 28 days (primary study endpoint): median (interquartile range) of 28 (2-28) versus 28 (0-28; p = 0.86) for the convalescent plasma and standard plasma groups, respectively. A greater than or equal to 2 point improvement in the World Health Organization scale was achieved by 20% of subjects in both arms (p = 0.99). All-cause mortality through 90 days was numerically lower in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma groups (27% vs 33%; p = 0.63) but did not achieve statistical significance. A key prespecified subgroup analysis of time to death in patients who were intubated at baseline was statistically significant; however, sample size numbers were small. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 but was not associated with improved outcome.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
4.
Transfusion ; 61(5): 1461-1470, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1072673

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is undergoing randomized trials as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19 infection. Little empirical evidence exists regarding the determination of donor eligibility and experiences with donor selection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in New York to select plasma donors for a randomized, double-blind, controlled convalescent plasma trial. Clearance for donation required successful completion of an online questionnaire and an in-person screening visit, which included (a) completion of a Donor Health Questionnaire (DHQ), (b) Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody testing using an immunochromatographic anti- severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test, (c) Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing if <28 days from symptom resolution, and (d) routine blood bank testing. RESULTS: After receiving 3093 online questionnaires, 521 individuals presented for in-person screening visits, with 40.1% (n = 209) fully qualifying. Subjects (n = 312) failed to progress due to the following reasons: disqualifying answer from DHQ (n = 30, 9.6%), insufficient antibodies (n = 198, 63.5%), persistent positive PCR tests (n = 14, 4.5%), and blood donation testing labs (n = 70, 22.4%). Importantly, 24.6% and 11.1% of potential donors who reported having PCR-diagnosed infection had low or undetectable SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, respectively. Surprisingly, 62.9% (56/89) of subjects had positive PCR tests 14-27 days after symptom resolution, with 13 individuals continuing to be PCR positive after 27 days. CONCLUSION: It is feasible for a single site to fully qualify a large number of convalescent plasma donors in a short period of time. Among otherwise qualified convalescent plasma donors, we found high rates of low or undetectable antibody levels and many individuals with persistently positive PCR tests.


Subject(s)
Blood Donors , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/blood , Convalescence , Donor Selection , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL