Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 208(3): 256-269, 2023 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37154608

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may modulate inflammation, promoting repair in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objectives: We investigated the safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362 [cluster of differentiation 362]-enriched, umbilical cord-derived MSCs) in COVID-19-related ARDS. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03042143), patients with moderate to severe COVID-19-related ARDS were randomized to receive ORBCEL-C (400 million cells) or placebo (Plasma-Lyte 148). The primary safety and efficacy outcomes were the incidence of serious adverse events and oxygenation index at Day 7, respectively. Secondary outcomes included respiratory compliance, driving pressure, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Clinical outcomes relating to duration of ventilation, lengths of ICU and hospital stays, and mortality were collected. Long-term follow-up included diagnosis of interstitial lung disease at 1 year and significant medical events and mortality at 2 years. Transcriptomic analysis was performed on whole blood at Days 0, 4, and 7. Measurements and Main Results: Sixty participants were recruited (final analysis: n = 30 received ORBCEL-C, n = 29 received placebo; 1 participant in the placebo group withdrew consent). Six serious adverse events occurred in the ORBCEL-C group and three in the placebo group (risk ratio, 2.9 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-13.2]; P = 0.25). Day 7 mean (SD) oxygenation index did not differ (ORBCEL-C, 98.3 [57.2] cm H2O/kPa; placebo, 96.6 [67.3] cm H2O/kPa). There were no differences in secondary surrogate outcomes or in mortality at Day 28, Day 90, 1 year, or 2 years. There was no difference in the prevalence of interstitial lung disease at 1 year or significant medical events up to 2 years. ORBCEL-C modulated the peripheral blood transcriptome. Conclusion: ORBCEL-C MSCs were safe in subjects with moderate to severe COVID-19-related ARDS but did not improve surrogates of pulmonary organ dysfunction.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Diseases, Interstitial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Lung , Stromal Cells
2.
Trials ; 23(1): 401, 2022 May 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35562778

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in ARDS due to immunomodulatory and reparative properties. This trial investigates a novel CD362 enriched umbilical cord derived MSC product (REALIST ORBCEL-C), produced to Good Manufacturing Practice standards, in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 and ARDS due to other causes. METHODS: Phase 1 is a multicentre open-label dose-escalation pilot trial. Patients will receive a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (100 × 106 cells, 200 × 106 cells or 400 × 106 cells) in a 3 + 3 design. Phase 2 is a multicentre randomised, triple blind, allocation concealed placebo-controlled trial. Two cohorts of patients, with ARDS due to COVID-19 or ARDS due to other causes, will be recruited and randomised 1:1 to receive either a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (400 × 106 cells or maximal tolerated dose in phase 1) or placebo. Planned recruitment to each cohort is 60 patients. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is oxygenation index at day 7. The trial will be reported according to the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) statement. DISCUSSION: The development and manufacture of an advanced therapy medicinal product to Good Manufacturing Practice standards within NHS infrastructure are discussed, including challenges encountered during the early stages of trial set up. The rationale to include a separate cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 in phase 2 of the trial is outlined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143. Registered on 3 February 2017. EudraCT Number 2017-000584-33.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mesenchymal Stem Cells , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
3.
EClinicalMedicine ; 41: 101167, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34746723

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to immunomodulatory, reparative, and antimicrobial actions. ORBCEL-C is a population of CD362 enriched umbilical cord-derived MSCs. The REALIST phase 1 trial investigated the safety and feasibility of ORBCEL-C in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. METHODS: REALIST phase 1 was an open label, dose escalation trial in which cohorts of mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS received increasing doses (100, 200 or 400 × 106 cells) of a single intravenous infusion of ORBCEL-C in a 3 + 3 design. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events. Dose limiting toxicity was defined as a serious adverse reaction within seven days. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03042143. FINDINGS: Nine patients were recruited between the 7th January 2019 and 14th January 2020. Study drug administration was well tolerated and no dose limiting toxicity was reported in any of the three cohorts. Eight adverse events were reported for four patients. Pyrexia within 24 h of study drug administration was reported in two patients as pre-specified adverse events. A further two adverse events (non-sustained ventricular tachycardia and deranged liver enzymes), were reported as adverse reactions. Four serious adverse events were reported (colonic perforation, gastric perforation, bradycardia and myocarditis) but none were deemed related to administration of ORBCEL-C. At day 28 no patients had died in cohort one (100 × 106), three patients had died in cohort two (200 × 106) and one patient had died in cohort three (400 × 106). Overall day 28 mortality was 44% (n = 4/9). INTERPRETATION: A single intravenous infusion of ORBCEL-C was well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. No dose limiting toxicity was reported up to 400 × 106 cells.

4.
JAMA ; 326(11): 1013-1023, 2021 09 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34463700

ABSTRACT

Importance: In patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. Objective: To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. Results: Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, -7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, -2.1 [95% CI, -3.8 to -0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02654327.


Subject(s)
Carbon Dioxide/blood , Extracorporeal Circulation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Extracorporeal Circulation/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Tidal Volume
5.
Trials ; 21(1): 462, 2020 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32493473

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study is to assess the safety of a single intravenous infusion of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Secondary objectives are to determine the effects of MSCs on important clinical outcomes, as described below. TRIAL DESIGN: REALIST COVID 19 is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple blinded trial. PARTICIPANTS: The study will be conducted in Intensive Care Units in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS as defined by the Berlin definition, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and with a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on clinical diagnosis or PCR test will be eligible. Patients will be excluded for the following reasons: more than 72 hours from the onset of ARDS; age < 16 years; patient known to be pregnant; major trauma in previous 5 days; presence of any active malignancy (other than non-melanoma skin cancer); WHO Class III or IV pulmonary hypertension; venous thromboembolism currently receiving anti-coagulation or within the past 3 months; patient receiving extracorporeal life support; severe chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh > 12); Do Not Attempt Resuscitation order in place; treatment withdrawal imminent within 24 hours; prisoners; declined consent; non-English speaking patients or those who do not adequately understand verbal or written information unless an interpreter is available; previously enrolled in the REALIST trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Allogeneic donor CD362 enriched human umbilical cord derived mesenchymal stromal cells (REALIST ORBCEL-C) supplied as sterile, single-use cryopreserved cell suspension of a fixed dose of 400 x106 cells in 40ml volume, to be diluted in Plasma-Lyte 148 to a total volume of 200mls for administration. Comparator (placebo): Plasma-Lyte 148 Solution for Infusion (200mls). The cellular product (REALIST ORBCEL-C) was developed and patented by Orbsen Therapeutics. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is Oxygenation Index (OI) at day 7. Secondary outcomes include: OI at days 4 and 14; respiratory compliance, driving pressure and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (PF ratio) at days 4, 7 and 14; Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at days 4, 7 and 14; extubation and reintubation; ventilation free days at day 28; duration of mechanical ventilation; length of ICU and hospital stay; 28-day and 90-day mortality. RANDOMISATION: After obtaining informed consent, patients will be randomised via a centralised automated 24-hour telephone or web-based randomisation system (CHaRT, Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen). Randomisation will be stratified by recruitment centre and by vasopressor use and patients will be allocated to REALIST ORBCEL-C or placebo control in a 1:1 ratio. BLINDING (MASKING): The investigator, treating physician, other members of the site research team and participants will be blinded. The cell therapy facility and clinical trials pharmacist will be unblinded to facilitate intervention and placebo preparation. The unblinded individuals will keep the treatment information confidential. The infusion bag will be masked at the time of preparation and will be administered via a masked infusion set. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A sample size of 60 patients with 30 patients randomised to the intervention and 30 to the control group. If possible, recruitment will continue beyond 60 patients to provide more accurate and definitive trial results. The total number of patients recruited will depend on the pandemic and be guided by the data monitoring and ethics committee (DMEC). TRIAL STATUS: REALIST Phase 1 completed in January 2020 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was an open label dose escalation study of REALIST ORBCEL-C in patients with ARDS. The COVID-19 pandemic emerged as REALIST Phase 2 was planned to commence and the investigator team decided to repurpose the Phase 2 trial as a COVID-19 specific trial. This decision was discussed and approved by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC) and DMEC. Submissions were made to the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and MHRA to amend the protocol to a COVID-19 specific patient population and the protocol amendment was accepted by the REC on 27th March 2020 and MHRA on 30th March 2020 respectively. Other protocol changes in this amendment included an increase in the time of onset of ARDS from 48 to 72 hours, inclusion of clinical outcomes as secondary outcomes, the provision of an option for telephone consent, an indicative sample size and provision to continue recruitment beyond this indicative sample size. The current protocol in use is version 4.0 23.03.2020 (Additional file 1). Urgent Public Health status was awarded by the NIHR on 2 April 2020 and the trial opened to recruitment and recruited the first participant the same day. At the time of publication the trial was open to recruitment at 5 sites across the UK (Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, King's College London, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital London, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham) and 12 patients have been recruited across these sites. Additional sites are planned to open and appropriate approvals for these are being obtained. It is estimated recruitment will continue for 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143 (Registered 3 Feb 2017). EudraCT 2017-000585-33 (Registered 28 Nov 2017). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0 23.03.2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/surgery , Lung/virology , Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation , Pneumonia, Viral/surgery , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Lung/physiopathology , Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Recovery of Function , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Transplantation, Homologous , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom
6.
Chest ; 152(1): 181-193, 2017 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28267435

ABSTRACT

ARDS is associated with poor clinical outcomes, with a pooled mortality rate of approximately 40% despite best standards of care. Current therapeutic strategies are based on improving oxygenation and pulmonary compliance while minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury. It has been demonstrated that relative hypoxemia can be well tolerated, and improvements in oxygenation do not necessarily translate into survival benefit. Cardiac failure, in particular right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), is commonly encountered in moderate to severe ARDS and is reported to be one of the major determinants of mortality. The prevalence rate of echocardiographically evident RVD in ARDS varies across studies, ranging from 22% to 50%. Although there is no definitive causal relationship between RVD and mortality, severe RVD is associated with increased mortality. Factors that can adversely affect RV function include hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, hypercapnia, and invasive ventilation with high driving pressure. It might be expected that early diagnosis of RVD would be of benefit; however, echocardiographic markers (qualitative and quantitative) used to prospectively evaluate the right ventricle in ARDS have not been tested in adequately powered studies. In this review, we examine the prognostic implications and pathophysiology of RVD in ARDS and discuss available diagnostic modalities and treatment options. We aim to identify gaps in knowledge and directions for future research that could potentially improve clinical outcomes in this patient population.


Subject(s)
Disease Management , Heart Failure , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right , Early Diagnosis , Echocardiography/methods , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/etiology , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Prognosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/diagnosis , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/etiology , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/physiopathology , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/therapy
7.
Health Technol Assess ; 19(23): 1-177, vii, 2015 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25800686

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require artificial ventilation but this treatment may produce secondary lung damage. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this damage. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of HFOV in patients with ARDS compared with standard mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: A parallel, randomised, unblinded clinical trial. SETTING: UK intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: Mechanically ventilated patients with a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (P : F) ratio of 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days at recruitment. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment arm HFOV using a Novalung R100(®) ventilator (Metran Co. Ltd, Saitama, Japan) ventilator until the start of weaning. Control arm Conventional mechanical ventilation using the devices available in the participating centres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation. The primary health economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six of 398 patients (41.7%) randomised to the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) randomised to the conventional mechanical ventilation group died within 30 days of randomisation (p = 0.85), for an absolute difference of 0.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.1% to 7.5%]. After adjustment for study centre, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and the initial P : F ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional ventilation group was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.40; p = 0.87 logistic regression). Survival analysis showed no difference in the probability of survival up to 12 months after randomisation. The average QALY at 1 year in the HFOV group was 0.302 compared to 0.246. This gives an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the cost to society per QALY of £88,790 and an ICER for the cost to the NHS per QALY of £ 78,260. CONCLUSIONS: The use of HFOV had no effect on 30-day mortality in adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS and no economic advantage. We suggest that further research into avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury should concentrate on ventilatory strategies other than HFOV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10416500.


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis , High-Frequency Ventilation , Hospital Mortality , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Aged , Cause of Death , Female , High-Frequency Ventilation/economics , High-Frequency Ventilation/instrumentation , High-Frequency Ventilation/mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/economics , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/economics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Severity of Illness Index , State Medicine , Survival Analysis , United Kingdom
8.
N Engl J Med ; 368(9): 806-13, 2013 Feb 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23339638

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require mechanical ventilation to maintain arterial oxygenation, but this treatment may produce secondary lung injury. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this secondary damage. METHODS: In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults requiring mechanical ventilation for ARDS to undergo either HFOV with a Novalung R100 ventilator (Metran) or usual ventilatory care. All the patients had a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO) of 200 mm Hg (26.7 kPa) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, which occurred in 166 of 398 patients (41.7%) in the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) in the conventional-ventilation group (P=0.85 by the chi-square test). After adjustment for study center, sex, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and the initial PaO:FiO ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional-ventilation group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.40; P=0.87 by logistic regression). CONCLUSIONS: The use of HFOV had no significant effect on 30-day mortality in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; OSCAR Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN10416500.).


Subject(s)
High-Frequency Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Aged , Algorithms , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Female , High-Frequency Ventilation/methods , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Treatment Failure
9.
Lancet ; 379(9812): 229-35, 2012 Jan 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22166903

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a previous randomised controlled phase 2 trial, intravenous infusion of salbutamol for up to 7 days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) reduced extravascular lung water and plateau airway pressure. We assessed the effects of this intervention on mortality in patients with ARDS. METHODS: We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomised trial at 46 UK intensive-care units between December, 2006, and March, 2010. Intubated and mechanically ventilated patients (aged ≥16 years) within 72 h of ARDS onset were randomly assigned to receive either salbutamol (15 µg/kg ideal bodyweight per h) or placebo for up to 7 days. Randomisation was done by a central telephone or web-based randomisation service with minmisation by centre, pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional inspired oxygen concentration (PaO(2)/F(I)O(2)) ratio, and age. All participants, caregivers, and investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was death within 28 days of randomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered, ISRCTN38366450 and EudraCT number 2006-002647-86. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 162 patients to the salbutamol group and 164 to the placebo group. One patient in each group withdrew consent. Recruitment was stopped after the second interim analysis because of safety concerns. Salbutamol increased 28-day mortality (55 [34%] of 161 patients died in the salbutamol group vs 38 (23%) of 163 in the placebo group; risk ratio [RR] 1·47, 95% CI 1·03-2·08). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with intravenous salbutamol early in the course of ARDS was poorly tolerated. Treatment is unlikely to be beneficial, and could worsen outcomes. Routine use of ß-2 agonist treatment in ventilated patients with this disorder cannot be recommended. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK Department of Health, UK Intensive Care Foundation.


Subject(s)
Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists/administration & dosage , Albuterol/administration & dosage , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists/adverse effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Albuterol/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Middle Aged
10.
Br J Gen Pract ; 58(551): 400-2, 2008 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18505611

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Every winter, hospitals in the UK and other developed countries experience a surge in respiratory admissions. Ecological studies suggest that social circumstances may be an important determinant. AIM: To establish the most important factors associated with winter hospital admissions among older people presenting with acute respiratory disease, especially the relative effect of social factors. DESIGN OF STUDY: case-control study. SETTING: Seventy-nine general practices in central England. METHOD: Of a cohort of patients consulting medical services with lower respiratory tract infection or exacerbation of chronic respiratory disease, 157 hospitalised cases were compared to 639 controls. Social, medical, and other factors were examined by interview and GP records. RESULTS: Measures of material deprivation were not significant risk factors for admission at either individual or area level, although social isolation (odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3 to 15.8) resulted in an increased risk of admission. The most important independent risk factor was the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; OR 4.0; 95% CI = 1.4 to 11.4), other chronic disease (OR 2.9; 95% CI = 1.2 to 7.0), or both (OR 6.7; 95% CI = 2.4 to 18.4). Being housebound was also an independent risk factor (OR 2.2; 95% CI = 1.0 to 4.8). CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic factors had little relative effect compared with medical and functional factors. The most important was the presence of long-term medical conditions (especially COPD), being housebound, and having received two or more courses of oral steroid treatment in the previous year. This combination of factors could be used by primary medical services to identify older patients most vulnerable to winter admissions. Clinicians should ensure that patients with COPD are better supported to manage their condition.


Subject(s)
Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Seasons , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Epidemiologic Methods , Humans , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/therapy , Social Isolation , Socioeconomic Factors , United Kingdom/epidemiology
11.
Crit Care ; 12(1): R12, 2008.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18269741

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Kerbs von Lungren 6 antigen (KL-6) is expressed on the surface of alveolar type II cells, and elevated plasma and epithelial lining fluid levels of KL-6 have previously been shown to correlate with the severity of disease and survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The relationship between alveolar inflammation and KL-6 measurements has not been ascertained. We hypothesized that the elevation of KL-6 in ARDS is dependent upon the severity of neutrophilic inflammation. Furthermore we were interested in the relationship between significant alveolar infection and KL-6 levels. METHODS: Plasma arterial samples were collected from ARDS patients on day 1 and when possible on day 4 along with bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples on the same day. Bacterial growth in the BALF was determined by quantitative cultures and was defined as significant at counts >1 x 10(4) colony-forming units. RESULTS: Plasma KL-6 levels in ARDS patients were elevated compared with at-risk control individuals (P = 0.014) and with normal control individuals (P = 0.02). The plasma KL-6 level correlated with the Murray Lung Injury Score (r = 0.68, P = 0.001) and with BALF KL-6 (r = 0.3260, P = 0.04). The BALF KL-6 level was detectable in all ARDS cases and was lower on both day 0 and day 4 in those who survived. BALF KL-6 also correlated with the BALF myeloperoxidase activity (r = 0.363, P = 0.027), with the BALF cell count per millilitre (r = 0.318, P = 0.038), with BALF epithelial-cell-derived neutrophil attractant 78; (r = 0.37, P = 0.016) and with BALF vascular endothelial growth factor (r = 0.35, P = 0.024). The BALF KL-6 level of ARDS patients with significant pathogenic bacterial growth was similar compared with those without significant infection. CONCLUSION: KL-6 may represent a useful marker of alveolar type II cell dysfunction in ARDS since the levels reflect the severity of lung injury and neutrophilic inflammation. KL-6 release across the alveolar epithelial barrier is associated with a poor prognosis. The pathophysiological roles of KL-6 in the development of ARDS warrant further study.


Subject(s)
Mucin-1/blood , Pneumonia/blood , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/blood , Biomarkers , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid , Bronchoscopy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mucin-1/physiology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Prognosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/classification , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Severity of Illness Index
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...