ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with severe COVID-19 seem to have a compromised antiviral response and hyperinflammation. Neutrophils are critical players in COVID-19 pathogenesis. IL-17A plays a major role in protection against extracellular pathogens and neutrophil attraction and activation. We hypothesized that secukinumab, an anti-IL17A monoclonal antibody, could mitigate the deleterious hyperinflammation in COVID-19. MethodsBISHOP was an open-label, single-center, phase-II controlled trial. Fifty adults hospitalized Covid-19 patients, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, were randomized 1:1 to receive 300mg of secukinumab subcutaneously at day-0 (group A) plus standard of care (SoC: antiviral drugs, antimicrobials, corticosteroids, and/or anticoagulants) or SoC alone (group B). A second dose of 300mg of secukinumab could be administered on day-7, according to staff judgment. The primary endpoint was ventilator-free days at day-28 (VFD-28). Secondary efficacy and safety outcomes were also explored. FindingsAn intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in VFD-28: 23.7 (95%CI 19.6-27.8) in group A vs. 23.8 (19.9-27.6) in group B, p=0.62; There was also no difference in hospitalization time, intensive care unit demand, the incidence of circulatory shock, acute kidney injury, fungal or bacterial co-infections, and severe adverse events. Pulmonary thromboembolism was less frequent in group A (4.2% vs. 26.2% p=0.04). There was one death in each group. Viral clearance, defined by the viral load fold change (2-{Delta}{Delta}CT) in upper airways, between day-0 and day-7, was also similar: 0.17 (0.05-0.56) in group A vs. 0.24 (0.10-0.57) in group B. InterpretationThe efficacy of secukinumab in the treatment of Covid19 was not demonstrated. No difference between groups in adverse events and no unexpected events were observed. FundingNovartis Brazil supported this research providing expert input in the development of the project, drug supply, data management, and monitoring.
ABSTRACT
Around 5% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients develop critical disease, with severe pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In these cases, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be considered when conventional therapy fails. This study aimed to assess the clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 patients with ARDS refractory to standard lung-protective ventilation and pronation treated with ECMO support and to compare them to patients who did not receive ECMO. Patients were selected from the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry. At the moment of the analysis, 7,646 patients were introduced in the registry, eight of those received ECMO support (0.1%). The convenience sample of patients submitted to ECMO was compared to control patients selected by genetic matching for gender, age, comorbidities, pronation, ARDS and hospital, in a 5:1 ratio. From the 48 patients included in the study, eight received ECMO and 40 were matched controls. There were no significant differences in demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics. Mortality was higher in the ECMO group (n = 7; 87.5%) when compared with controls (n = 17; 42.5%), (p=0.048). In conclusion, COVID 19 patients with ARDS refractory to conventional therapy who received ECMO support had worse outcomes to patients who did not receive ECMO. Our findings are not different from previous studies including a small number of patients, however there is a huge difference from Extracorporeal Life Support Organization results, which encourages us to keep looking for our best excellence.
