Guselkumab demonstrates long-term efficacy and maintenance of treatment response postwithdrawal in systemic treatment-naïve patients and nonresponders to fumaric acid esters: results from parts II and III of a randomized active-comparator-controlled phase IIIb trial (POLARIS).

BACKGROUND: The anti-interleukin-23 antibody guselkumab (GUS) demonstrated favourable week 24 efficacy and safety over fumaric acid esters (FAE) in systemic treatment-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (study part I). OBJECTIVES: To compare, in study part II, the sustainability of treatment responses (weeks 24-32) in GUS- and FAE-treated patients and treatment responses (weeks 32-56) in patients treated with GUS and FAE and in FAE nonresponders switching to GUS; and, in part III, to investigate the maintenance of response through week 100 in patients withdrawn from GUS at week 56. METHODS: At week 0, systemic treatment-naïve patients were randomized 1 : 1 to GUS or FAE as per label. At week 32, patients with a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 (≥ 75% improvement in PASI score) response (r) continued assigned treatment (GUSr-GUS; FAEr-FAE), whereas nonresponders (nr) received GUS (FAEnr-GUS; GUSnr-GUS). GUS-treated patients with a week 56 PASI 90 response (≥ 90% improvement in PASI score) were withdrawn (w) and followed until loss of response or week 100. RESULTS: At week 32, 98% (n = 54/55) of GUS- and 41% (n = 14/34) of FAE-treated patients were PASI 75 responders. At week 56, 91%, 50% and 80% of GUSr-GUS, FAEr-FAE and FAEnr-GUS patients, respectively, achieved a PASI 90 response; 72%, 29% and 45%, respectively, achieved a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of 0/1. At week 100, 44 weeks postwithdrawal, 47% (n = 17/36) and 25% (n = 3/12) of GUS-GUSw and FAE-GUSw patients, respectively, maintained a PASI score ≤ 5. Overall, the adverse event and discontinuation rates were lower for GUS than FAE. CONCLUSIONS: In these exploratory analyses, GUS, as a first-line systemic treatment or second-line systemic treatment in FAE nonresponders, was associated with long-term clinical efficacy up to week 100, including a withdrawal period.

Recombinant surfactant protein C-based surfactant for patients with severe direct lung injury.

RATIONALE: Patients with acute lung injury have impaired function of the lung surfactant system. Prior clinical trials have shown that treatment with exogenous recombinant surfactant protein C (rSP-C)-based surfactant results in improvement in blood oxygenation and have suggested that treatment of patients with severe direct lung injury may decrease mortality. OBJECTIVES: Determine the clinical benefit of administering an rSP-C-based synthetic surfactant to patients with severe direct lung injury due to pneumonia or aspiration. METHODS: A prospective randomized blinded study was performed at 161 centers in 22 countries. Patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus up to eight doses of rSP-C surfactant administered over 96 hours (n = 419) or only usual care (n = 424). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mortality to 28 days after treatment, the requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the number of nonpulmonary organ failure-free days were not different between study groups. In contrast to prior studies, there was no improvement in oxygenation in patients receiving surfactant compared with the usual care group. Investigation of the possible reasons underlying the lack of efficacy suggested a partial inactivation of rSP-C surfactant caused by a step of the resuspension process that was introduced with this study. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, rSP-C-based surfactant was of no clinical benefit to patients with severe direct lung injury. The unexpected lack of improvement in oxygenation, coupled with the results of in vitro tests, suggest that the administered suspension may have had insufficient surface activity to achieve clinical benefit.

An informatics strategy to assure enrollment criteria compliance in studies of the critically ill.

Up to 18% of acutely ill patients randomized into multicenter clinical trials may not satisfy inclusion/exclusion criteria. To improve compliance with such criteria in an ICU-based multicenter international drug trial, we established a novel Internet/telephone-based strategy for providing rapid case approval or disapproval by centralized panels of critical care physicians. We assessed whether these panels could acquire and record accurate patient information, and whether this approach would minimize enrollment of ineligible patients and could be accomplished in a timely fashion. Analysis of the first 1000 submitted patients showed accurate data capture for 98.7% of enrolled and randomized patients. Median response time from case submission to panel member decision was 34.7 min. Over 99% of enrolled patients met critical study criteria. We conclude that, an Internet-based communications strategy appears to be a valuable adjunct to multicenter clinical trials in acutely ill patients when rapid assurance of eligibility is required.

A Search for subgroups of patients with ARDS who may benefit from surfactant replacement therapy: a pooled analysis of five studies with recombinant surfactant protein-C surfactant (Venticute).

BACKGROUND: Studies to date have shown no survival benefit for the use of exogenous surfactant to treat patients with the ARDS. To identify specific patient subgroups for future study, we performed an exploratory post hoc analysis of clinical trials of recombinant surfactant protein-C (rSP-C) surfactant (Venticute; Nycomed GmbH; Konstanz, Germany). METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of all five multicenter studies in which patients with ARDS due to various predisposing events were treated with rSP-C surfactant. Patients received either usual care (n = 266) or usual care plus up to four intratracheal doses (50 mg/kg) of rSP-C surfactant (n = 266). Factors influencing the study end points were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analysis of covariance, and logistic regression models. RESULTS: ARDS was most often associated with pneumonia or aspiration, sepsis, and trauma or surgery. For the overall patient population, treatment with rSP-C surfactant significantly improved oxygenation (p = 0.002) but had no effect on mortality (32.6%). Multivariate analysis showed age and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score to be the strongest predictors of mortality. In the subgroup of patients with severe ARDS due to pneumonia or aspiration, surfactant treatment was associated with markedly improved oxygenation (p = 0.0008) and improved survival (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: rSP-C surfactant improved oxygenation in patients with ARDS irrespective of the predisposition. Post hoc evidence of reduced mortality associated with surfactant treatment was obtained in patients with severe respiratory insufficiency due to pneumonia or aspiration. Those patients are the focus of a current randomized, blinded, clinical trial with rSP-C surfactant.

Effect of recombinant surfactant protein C-based surfactant on the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that exogenous surfactant may be of value in the treatment of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and two phase 2 clinical trials have shown a trend toward benefit. We conducted two phase 3 studies of a protein-containing surfactant in adults with ARDS. METHODS: In two multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials involving 448 patients with ARDS from various causes, we compared standard therapy alone with standard therapy plus up to four intratracheal doses of a recombinant surfactant protein C-based surfactant given within a period of 24 hours. RESULTS: The overall survival rate was 66 percent 28 days after treatment, and the median number of ventilator-free days was 0 (68 percent range, 0 to 26); there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation. Patients receiving surfactant had a significantly greater improvement in blood oxygenation during the initial 24 hours of treatment than patients receiving standard therapy, according to both univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The use of exogenous surfactant in a heterogeneous population of patients with ARDS did not improve survival. Patients who received surfactant had a greater improvement in gas exchange during the 24-hour treatment period than patients who received standard therapy alone, suggesting the potential benefit of a longer treatment course.