Efficacy and safety of the investigational complement C5 inhibitor zilucoplan in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: an open-label randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of complement inhibition in COVID-19 patients is unclear. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled, open-label trial. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with signs of systemic inflammation and hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 below 350 mmHg) were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive standard of care with or without the C5 inhibitor zilucoplan daily for 14 days, under antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary outcome was improvement in oxygenation at day 6 and 15. RESULTS: 81 patients were randomly assigned to zilucoplan (n = 55) or the control group (n = 26). 78 patients were included in the safety and primary analysis. Most were men (87%) and the median age was 63 years. The mean improvement in PaO2/FiO2 from baseline to day 6 was 56.4 mmHg in the zilucoplan group and 20.6 mmHg in the control group (mean difference + 35.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 9.4 to 80.9; p = 0.12), an effect also observed at day 15. Day 28 mortality was 9% in the zilucoplan and 21% in the control group (odds ratio 0.4; 95% CI 0.1 to 1.5). At long-term follow up, the distance walked in a 6-min test was 539.7 m in zilucoplan and 490.6 m in the control group (p = 0.18). Zilucoplan lowered serum C5b-9 (p < 0.001) and interleukin-8 (p = 0.03) concentration compared with control. No relevant safety differences between the zilucoplan and control group were identified. CONCLUSION: Administration of zilucoplan to COVID-19 patients in this proof-of-concept randomized trial was well tolerated under antibiotic prophylaxis. While not reaching statistical significance, indicators of respiratory function (PaO2/FiO2) and clinical outcome (mortality and 6-min walk test) suggest that C5 inhibition might be beneficial, although this requires further research in larger randomized studies.

Effect of anti-interleukin drugs in patients with COVID-19 and signs of cytokine release syndrome (COV-AID): a factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Infections with SARS-CoV-2 continue to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 blockade have been proposed as therapeutic strategies in COVID-19, but study outcomes have been conflicting. We sought to study whether blockade of the IL-6 or IL-1 pathway shortened the time to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, and signs of systemic cytokine release syndrome. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, hypoxia, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome across 16 hospitals in Belgium. Eligible patients had a proven diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms between 6 and 16 days, a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) of less than 350 mm Hg on room air or less than 280 mm Hg on supplemental oxygen, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome in their serum (either a single ferritin measurement of more than 2000 µg/L and immediately requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation, or a ferritin concentration of more than 1000 µg/L, which had been increasing over the previous 24 h, or lymphopenia below 800/mL with two of the following criteria: an increasing ferritin concentration of more than 700 µg/L, an increasing lactate dehydrogenase concentration of more than 300 international units per L, an increasing C-reactive protein concentration of more than 70 mg/L, or an increasing D-dimers concentration of more than 1000 ng/mL). The COV-AID trial has a 2 × 2 factorial design to evaluate IL-1 blockade versus no IL-1 blockade and IL-6 blockade versus no IL-6 blockade. Patients were randomly assigned by means of permuted block randomisation with varying block size and stratification by centre. In a first randomisation, patients were assigned to receive subcutaneous anakinra once daily (100 mg) for 28 days or until discharge, or to receive no IL-1 blockade (1:2). In a second randomisation step, patients were allocated to receive a single dose of siltuximab (11 mg/kg) intravenously, or a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously, or to receive no IL-6 blockade (1:1:1). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement, defined as time from randomisation to an increase of at least two points on a 6-category ordinal scale or to discharge from hospital alive. The primary and supportive efficacy endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the safety population. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04330638) and EudraCT (2020-001500-41) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 4, and Dec 6, 2020, 342 patients were randomly assigned to IL-1 blockade (n=112) or no IL-1 blockade (n=230) and simultaneously randomly assigned to IL-6 blockade (n=227; 114 for tocilizumab and 113 for siltuximab) or no IL-6 blockade (n=115). Most patients were male (265 [77%] of 342), median age was 65 years (IQR 54-73), and median Systematic Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at randomisation was 3 (2-4). All 342 patients were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. The estimated median time to clinical improvement was 12 days (95% CI 10-16) in the IL-1 blockade group versus 12 days (10-15) in the no IL-1 blockade group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·73-1·21]). For the IL-6 blockade group, the estimated median time to clinical improvement was 11 days (95% CI 10-16) versus 12 days (11-16) in the no IL-6 blockade group (HR 1·00 [0·78-1·29]). 55 patients died during the study, but no evidence for differences in mortality between treatment groups was found. The incidence of serious adverse events and serious infections was similar across study groups. INTERPRETATION: Drugs targeting IL-1 or IL-6 did not shorten the time to clinical improvement in this sample of patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, low SOFA score, and low baseline mortality risk. FUNDING: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center and VIB Grand Challenges program.

Does nivolumab for progressed metastatic lung cancer fulfill its promises? An efficacy and safety analysis in 20 general hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with refractory or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after first line chemotherapy, phase III trials showed superiority of nivolumab, an IgG4 programmed death-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, over docetaxel. We evaluated case mix, effectiveness and safety of nivolumab upon implementation in general practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 20 general hospitals, all consecutive NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab within the medical need program (inclusion period 12 months) in Flanders - Belgium were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 267 patients, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score was 2 in 24% and 0-1 in 76%. In 48%, two or more systemic regimens were given before nivolumab. The median overall survival was 7.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3-9.3). At one year, the overall survival rate was 36.5±0.34%. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.9-4.5). An objective response was obtained in 23.2%. ECOG score 2 and presence of liver metastasis strongly correlated with worse survival (p<0.00001). Treatment related adverse events grade 3 or 4 were reported in 21%, colitis (4%) and pneumonitis (7%) were most frequent. CONCLUSION: Upon implementation of nivolumab therapy in general hospitals, the case mix was characterized by a more heavily pretreated population with a substantial fraction of patients with ECOG score 2. The median overall survival is slightly inferior to what was published in the randomized phase III trials. An ECOG score 2 and the presence of liver metastasis correlated strongly with a worse survival. We report a high prevalence of serious adverse events.

Maxillary changes with bone-borne surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion: A prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this prospective study was to analyze the postexpansion positional changes of the maxillary halves and their initial stability after transpalatal distraction with a bone-borne distractor and standard corticotomies of the anterior, lateral, and median bony supports of the maxilla without pterygomaxillary disjunction. METHODS: The sample consisted of 21 patients (15 female, 6 male; mean age, 26 years 5 months). Measurements on the maxillary study casts and the posteroanterior cephalograms were obtained before surgery, at the end of palatal expansion, and 10 weeks later. No orthodontic treatment was initiated during the examination period. RESULTS: After palatal expansion, significantly wider measurements were noted in the canine (35.5%), premolar (26.3%), and molar (17.8%) regions. Angulation changes in the premolar (-7°) and molar (-8°) segments were observed. No significant changes were seen between the end of palatal expansion and 10 weeks later. Arch perimeter increased by 9.16% between presurgery and 10 weeks after the end of expansion. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that more expansion was achieved anteriorly, and that there was buccal tipping of the split maxillary halves. Bone-borne surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion can provide significant expansion of the maxilla with an increase in arch perimeter, and it shows initial stability.

Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study.

The objective of this study was to compare glass fibre reinforced (GFR) with multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers in terms of success rate and periodontal implications. A 2 year parallel study was conducted of 184 patients scheduled to receive bonded retainers in the upper and lower anterior segments. In three centres, the patients (mean age 14 years; 90 males and 94 females) were sequentially assigned to receive GFR retainers containing 500 unidirectional glass fibres (GFR500), 1000 unidirectional glass fibres (GFR1000), or multistranded retainers (gold standard). Retainer failures and periodontal conditions were monitored every 6 months. In a control group of 90 subjects without retainers, periodontal conditions were examined (negative control). Of the 274 recruited patients, 15 dropped out during the 2 year study period. Kaplan-Meier plots were drawn to assess survival of the different retainers. The Mantel-Cox log-rank test was used to identify significant differences in survival functions among the groups. Repeated measures analysis of variance and appropriate post hoc tests were adopted to evaluate periodontal conditions over time. GFR retainers showed unacceptably high failure rates in comparison with multistranded retainers (51 versus 12 per cent). The most significant periodontal conditions were found in patients with GFR retainers with no significant differences between the GFR500 and the GFR1000 group for any parameter at any time point. Subjects without retainers showed significantly lower levels of gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation when compared with patients in any retainer group. Multistranded retainers should remain the gold standard for orthodontic retention, although periodontal complications are common. The use of GFR retainers should be discouraged in daily practice.