Inhaled mRNA therapy for treatment of cystic fibrosis: Interim results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 clinical study.

BACKGROUND: MRT5005, a codon-optimized CFTR mRNA, delivered by aerosol in lipid nanoparticles, was designed as a genotype-agnostic treatment for CF lung disease. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1/2 study performed in the US. Adults with 2 severe class I and/or II CFTR mutations and baseline ppFEV1 values between 50 and 90% were randomized 3:1 (MRT5005: placebo). Six dose levels of MRT5005 (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 mg) or placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride) were administered by nebulization. The single ascending dose cohort was treated over a range from 8 to 24 mg; the multiple ascending dose cohort received five weekly doses (range 8-20 mg); and the daily dosing cohort received five daily doses (4 mg). RESULTS: A total of 42 subjects were assigned to MRT5005 [31] or placebo [11]. A total of 14 febrile reactions were observed in 10 MRT5005-treated participants, which were mild [3] or moderate [11] in severity; two subjects discontinued related to these events. Additionally, two MRT5005-treated patients experienced hypersensitivity reactions, which were managed conservatively. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were cough and headache. No consistent effects on FEV1 were noted. CONCLUSIONS: MRT5005 was generally safe and well tolerated through 28 days of follow-up after the last dose, though febrile and hypersensitivity reactions were noted. The majority of these reactions resolved within 1-2 days with supportive care allowing continued treatment with MRT5005 and careful monitoring. In this small first-in-human study, FEV1 remained stable after treatment, but no beneficial effects on FEV1 were observed.

Errors in drug computations during newborn intensive care.

Medical personnel in a pediatric center were tested for their ability to correctly compute drug doses for sick newborns. One of every 12 doses computed by 95 registered nurses contained an error that would result in the administration of an amount that was ten times higher or lower than the dose ordered. The error rate was no different for experienced or inexperienced nurses. The test also included an evaluation of the nurse's ability to judge the appropriateness of the drug dose ordered for a specified infant. Experienced nurses tended to be more certain, although wrong, in their judgment when compared to inexperienced nurses. Eleven pediatricians, when given the same test, scored higher than the nurses but still made errors at the rate of one of every 26 computations attempted. Five registered pharmacists who were tested demonstrated far better computational skills than either the nursing or physician group.