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.

Study protocol of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre phase 3 pivotal trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human alkaline phosphatase for treatment of patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis, the leading cause of acute kidney injury (AKI), is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an endogenous detoxifying enzyme. A recombinant human ALP compound, ilofotase alfa, showed no safety or tolerability concerns in a phase 2 trial. Renal function improvement over 28 days was significantly greater in the ilofotase alfa group. Moreover, a significant relative reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality of >40% was observed. A follow-up trial has been designed to confirm these findings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase 3, global, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential design trial in which patients are randomly assigned to either placebo or 1.6 mg/kg ilofotase alfa. Randomisation is stratified by baseline modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) score and trial site. The primary objective is to confirm the survival benefit with ilofotase alfa by demonstrating a reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with sepsis-associated AKI requiring vasopressors. A maximum of 1400 patients will be enrolled at ∼120 sites in Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Up to four interim analyses will take place. Based on predefined decision rules, the trial may be stopped early for futility or for effectiveness. In addition, patients with COVID-19 disease and patients with 'moderate to severe' chronic kidney disease are analysed as 2 separate cohorts of 100 patients each. An independent Data Monitoring Committee evaluates safety data at prespecified intervals throughout the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by relevant institutional review boards/independent ethics committees and is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, guidelines of Good Clinical Practice, Code of Federal Regulations and all other applicable regulations. Results of this study will determine the potential of ilofotase alfa to reduce mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated AKI and will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT CT Number 2019-0046265-24. US IND Number 117 605 Pre-results. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT04411472.

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).