Impact of intravenous lidocaine on clinical outcomes of patients with ARDS during COVID-19 pandemia (LidoCovid): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on gas exchange and inflammation in acute respiratory distress syndrome due or not to Covid-19 pneumonia. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective monocentric, randomized, quadruple-blinded and placebo-controlled superiority trial. This phase 3 clinical study is based on two parallel groups received either intravenous lidocaine 2% or intravenous NaCl 0.9%. PARTICIPANTS: This study has been conducted at the University Hospitals of Strasbourg (medical and surgical Intensive Care Units in Hautepierre Hospital) since the 4th November 2020. The participants are 18 years-old and older, hospitalized in ICU for a moderate to severe ARDS according to the Berlin definition; they have to be intubated and sedated for mechanical protective ventilation. All participants are affiliated to the French Social security system and a dosage of beta HCG has to be negative for women of child bearing age . For the Covid-19 subgroup, the SARS-CoV2 infection is proved by RT-PCR <7 days before admission and/or another approved diagnostic technique and/or typical CT appearance pneumonia. The data are prospectively collected in e-Case Report Forms and extracted from clinical files. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The participants are randomised in two parallel groups with a 1:1 ratio. In the experimental group, patients receive intravenous lidocaine 2% (20mg/mL) (from FRESENIUS KABI France); the infusion protocol provide a bolus of 1 mg/kg (ideal weight), followed by 3 mg/kg/h for the first hour, 1.5 mg/kg/h for the second hour, 0.72 mg/kg/h for the next 22 hours and then 0.6 mg/kg/h for 14 days at most or 24 hours after extubation or ventilator-weaning. The patients in the control group receive intravenous NaCl 0.9% (9 mg/mL) (from Aguettant, France) as placebo comparator; the infusion protocol provide a bolus of 0.05 mL/kg (ideal weight), followed by 0.15 mL/kg/h for the first hour, 0.075 mL/kg/h for the second hour, 0.036 mL/kg/h for the next 22 hours, and the 0.03 mL/kg/h for up to 14 days or 24 hours after extubation or ventilator-weaning. Lidocaine level is assessed at H4, D2, D7 and D14 to prevent local anesthetics systemic toxicity. Clinical data and biological samples are collected to assess disease progression. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the evolution of alveolar-capillary gas exchange measured by the PaO2/FiO2 ratio after two days of treatment. The secondary endpoints of the study include the following: Evolution of PaO2/FiO2 ratio at admission and after 21 days of treatment Number of ventilator-free days Anti-inflammatory effects by dosing inflammatory markers at different timepoints (ferritin, bicarbonate, CRP, PCT, LDH, IL-6, Troponin HS, triglycerides, complete blood count, lymphocytes) Anti-thrombotic effects by dosing platelets, aPTT, fibrinogen, D-dimers, viscoelastic testing and identification of all thromboembolic events up to 4 weeks. Plasmatic concentration of lidocaine and albumin Incidence of adverse events like cardiac rhythm disorders, need of vasopressors, any modification of the QRS, QTc or PR intervals every day Ileus recovery time Consumption of hypnotics, opioids, neuromuscular blockers. Lengths of stay in the ICU, incidence of reintubation and complications due to intensive care unit care (mortality until 90 days, pneumothorax, bacterial pneumopathy, bronchospasm, cardiogenic shock, acute renal failure, need of renal dialysis, delirium, atrial fibrillation, stroke (CAM-ICU score), tetraplegia (MCR score)). Incidence of cough and sore throat at extubation or ventilator-weaning and within 24 hours. All these outcomes will be evaluated according to positivity to Sars-Cov-2. RANDOMISATION: The participants who meet the inclusion criteria and have signed written informed consent will be randomly allocated using a computer-generated random number to either intervention group or control group. The distribution ratio of the two groups will be 1:1, with a stratification according to positivity to Sars-Cov-2. BLINDING (MASKING): All participants, care providers, investigator and outcomes assessor are blinded. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): We planned to randomize fifty participants in each group, 100 participants total. TRIAL STATUS: The amended protocol version 2.1 was approved by the Ethics Committee "Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Méditerranée II on January 8, 2021 and by the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) on November 10, 2020. The study is currently recruiting participants; the recruitment started in November 2020 and the planned recruitment period is three years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on October 30, 2020 and identified by number NCT04609865 . FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in 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.

Interleukin 6 receptor inhibition in primary Sjögren syndrome: a multicentre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: No immunomodulatory drug has been approved for primary Sjögren's syndrome, a systemic autoimmune disease affecting 0.1% of the population. To demonstrate the efficacy of targeting interleukin 6 receptor in patients with Sjögren's syndrome-related systemic complications. METHODS: Multicentre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial between 24 July 2013 and 16 July 2018, with a follow-up of 44 weeks, involving 17 referral centres. Inclusion criteria were primary Sjögren's syndrome according to American European Consensus Group criteria and score ≥5 for the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease activity Index (ESSDAI, score of systemic complications). Patients were randomised to receive either 6 monthly infusions of tocilizumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was response to treatment at week 24. Response to treatment was defined by the combination of (1) a decrease of at least 3 points in the ESSDAI, (2) no occurrence of moderate or severe activity in any new domain of the ESSDAI and (3) lack of worsening in physician's global assessment on a Visual Numeric Scale ≥1/10, all as compared with enrolment. RESULTS: 110 patients were randomised, 55 patients to tocilizumab (mean (SD) age: 50.9 (12.4) years; women: 98.2%) and 55 patients to placebo (54.8 (10.7) years; 90.9%). At 24 weeks, the proportion of patients meeting the primary endpoint was 52.7% (29/55) in the tocilizumab group and 63.6% (35/55) in the placebo group, for a difference of -11.4% (95% credible interval -30.6 to 9.0) (Pr[Toc >Pla]=0.14). CONCLUSION: Among patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome, the use of tocilizumab did not improve systemic involvement and symptoms over 24 weeks of treatment compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01782235.

Non-TNF-Targeted Biologic vs a Second Anti-TNF Drug to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients With Insufficient Response to a First Anti-TNF Drug: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: One-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis show inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors; little guidance on choosing the next treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a non-TNF-targeted biologic (non-TNF) vs a second anti-TNF drug for patients with insufficient response to a TNF inhibitor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 patients (conducted between 2009-2012) with rheumatoid arthritis, with persistent disease activity (disease activity score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≥ 3.2 [range, 0-9.3]) and an insufficient response to anti-TNF therapy were included in a 52-week multicenter, pragmatic, open-label randomized clinical trial. The final follow-up date was in August 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a non-TNF-targeted biologic agent or an anti-TNF that differed from their previous treatment. The choice of the biologic prescribed within each randomized group was left to the treating clinician. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with good or moderate response according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) scale at week 24. Secondary outcomes included the EULAR response at weeks 12 and 52; at weeks 12, 24, and 52; DAS28ESR, low disease activity (DAS28 ≤3.2), remission (DAS28 ≤2.6); serious adverse events; and serious infections. RESULTS: Of the 300 randomized patients (243 [83.2%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.1 [12.2] years; baseline DAS28-ESR, 5.1 [1.1]), 269 (89.7%) completed the study. At week 24, 101 of 146 patients (69%) in the non-TNF group and 76 (52%) in the second anti-TNF group achieved a good or moderate EULAR response (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.37; P = .004, with imputation of missing data; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 6.2% to 28.2%). The DAS28-ESR was lower in the non-TNF group than in the second anti-TNF group (mean difference adjusted for baseline differences, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.14; P = .004). At weeks 24 and 52, more patients in the non-TNF group vs the second anti-TNF group showed low disease activity (45% vs 28% at week 24; OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.43; P = .004 and 41% vs 23% at week 52; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.86; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with anti-TNF drugs but with inadequate primary response, a non-TNF biologic agent was more effective in achieving a good or moderate disease activity response at 24 weeks than was the second anti-TNF medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01000441.