Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have immunomodulatory and tissue-regenerative properties and have shown promising results in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of multiple causes, including COVID-19. We conducted a randomised (1:1), placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of one bone marrow-derived MSC infusion in twenty patients with moderate to severe ARDS caused by COVID-19. The primary endpoint (increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio from baseline to day 7, MSC 83.3 versus placebo 57.6) was not statistically significant, although a clinical improvement at day 7 in the WHO scale was observed in MSC patients (5, 50% vs 0, 0%, p = 0.033). Median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was also shorter in the experimental arm (14 versus 23 days, p = 0.007), resulting in a shorter hospital stay (17.5 versus 28 days, p = 0.042). No significant differences were observed for other efficacy or safety secondary endpoints. No infusion or treatment-related serious adverse events occurred during the one-year follow-up. This study did not meet the primary endpoint of PaO2/FiO2 increase by day 7, although it suggests that MSC are safe in COVID-19 ARDS and may accelerate patients' clinical recovery and hospital discharge. Larger studies are warranted to elucidate their role in ARDS and other inflammatory lung disorders.Trial Registration: EudraCT Number: 2020-002193-27, registered on July 14th, 2020, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-002193-27/ES . NCT number: NCT04615429, registered on November 4th, 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04615429 .

Factors related to the development of high antibody titres against SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent plasma donors from the ConPlas-19 trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CP) associates with high titres of antibodies. ConPlas-19 clinical trial showed that CP reduces the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 at 28 days. Here, we aim to study ConPlas-19 donors and characteristics that associate with high anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four-hundred donors were enrolled in ConPlas-19. The presence and titres of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were evaluated by EUROIMMUN anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG ELISA. RESULTS: A majority of 80.3% of ConPlas-19 donor candidates had positive EUROIMMUN test results (ratio ≥1.1), and of these, 51.4% had high antibody titres (ratio ≥3.5). Antibody levels decline over time, but nevertheless, out of 37 donors tested for an intended second CP donation, over 90% were still EUROIMMUN positive, and nearly 75% of those with high titres maintained high titres in the second sample. Donors with a greater probability of developing high titres of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies include those older than 40 years of age (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.24-3.42), with more than 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms (RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.05-3.43) and collected within 4 months from infection (RR 2.61; 95% CI 1.16-5.90). Male donors had a trend towards higher titres compared with women (RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.91-3.06). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 CP candidate donors' age, duration of COVID-19 symptoms and time from infection to donation associate with the collection of CP with high antibody levels. Beyond COVID-19, these data are relevant to inform decisions to optimize the CP donor selection process in potential future outbreaks.

Clinical research and drug regulation in the challenging times of individualized therapies: A pivotal role of clinical pharmacology.

Since the 1980s, medical specialists in Clinical Pharmacology have been playing a crucial role in the development of drug regulation in Spain. In this article we report on the activities carried out and the prospects for development in three very relevant areas from the regulatory perspective: 1) the development of stable public infrastructures to facilitate non-commercial clinical research with medicines, 2) the regulatory aspects of individual access to medicines in special situations, beyond their regular access after marketing approval and funding by the National Health System, and 3) the challenges of development and access to advanced therapies, with special reference to the figure of the hospital exemption.

Bronchopulmonary penetration of isavuconazole in lung transplant recipients.

Isavuconazole's (ISA) pharmacokinetics was studied among lung transplant recipients to evaluate its bronchopulmonary penetration. This study included 13 patients and showed mean serum concentrations of 3.30 (standard deviation [SD] 0.45), 5.12 (SD 1.36), and 6.31 (SD 0.95) at 2 h, 4 h, and 24 h respectively. Mean concentrations in the epithelial lining fluid were 0.969 (SD 0.895), 2.141 (SD 1.265), and 2.812 (SD 0.693) at the same time points. ISA is a drug with a tolerable safety profile that achieves adequate concentrations in the lung.

The Need for the Closer Monitoring of Novel Drugs in MS: A Siponimod Retrospective Cohort Study (Realhes Study).

BACKGROUND: Severe cases of lymphopenia have been reported during siponimod clinical trials, which may negatively impact its benefit/risk profile. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the incidence of lymphopenia following the initiation of siponimod treatment in clinical practice. The secondary objectives included the analysis of factors predisposing to and the clinical relevance of lymphopenia events. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, information collected from the medical records of 129 patients with MS from 15 tertiary hospitals in Spain who initiated treatment with Siponimod were followed-up for at least 3 months, including at least one lymphocyte count evaluation per patient. RESULTS: Of the 129 patients, 121 (93.6%) reported lymphopenia events, including 110 (85.3%) with grade ≤ 3 and 11 (8.5%) with grade 4 lymphopenia, higher than those reported in the pivotal clinical trial (73.3% and 3.3% for grade ≤ 3 and grade 4 lymphopenia, respectively). The study included an unexpectedly high proportion of male subjects (72.9%), which might have led to an underestimation of the actual magnitude of the risk. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the incidence and severity of lymphopenia after starting siponimod treatment were higher than those reported in previous clinical trials. Therefore, our results reinforce the need for the closer monitoring of novel MS drugs in clinical practice, as well as larger and longer follow-up studies to properly characterize this risk.

Gender inequity in the medical profession: the women doctors in Spain (WOMEDS) study.

BACKGROUND: The long-standing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in medicine is well-known, but poorly documented globally. There is some evidence of the gender gap in academia, medical society leadership, or specific problems in some specialties. However, there are no investigations analyzing all medical specialties together and reporting the glass ceiling from a 360º perspective that includes positions in academia, research, professional organizations, and clinical activity. Additionally, the majority of studies have a US perspective, and we wonder if the perspective of a European country might be different. The WOmen in MEDicine in Spain (WOMEDS) project ( https://womeds.es ) aims to describe and characterize, in a systematic and detailed way, the gender bias in the medical profession in Spain in order to monitor its evolution over time and contribute to prioritizing gender policies. METHODS: We retrieved data for the calendar years 2019-2021 from several sources and selected surveys. We built four groups of indicators to describe leadership positions in the medical profession: (i) leadership in healthcare according to specialty and region; (ii) leadership in scientific and professional bodies; (iii) academic career; and (iv) leadership in clinical research activity. As a summary measure, we reported the women ratios, calculated as the percentage of women in specific top positions divided by the percentage of women in the relevant population. RESULTS: We found gender inequity in leadership positions in all four settings. During the observed period, only 27.6% of the heads of departments in hospitals were women compared to 61.1% of women in medical staff. Ten of the 46 medical societies grouped in the Spanish Federation of Medical Societies (FACME) (21.7%) had a women president at some point during the study period, and only 4 annual congresses had ratios of women speakers higher than 1. Women were over-represented in the lower positions and underrepresented in the top academic ones. Only 26% and 27%, respectively, of the heads of departments and deans were women. The applications for public funding for research projects are led by women only in 45% of the cases, and the budget granted to women in public calls was 24.3% lower than that of men. CONCLUSION: In all the areas analyzed, the leadership positions are still mostly occupied by men despite the feminization of medicine in Spain. The severe gender inequity found calls for urgent interventions within a defined time horizon. Such measures must concern all levels, from national or regional regulation to changes in organizational culture or incentives in specific organizations.

RESUMEN EN ESPAÑOL: ANTECEDENTES: La prolongada infrarrepresentación de las mujeres en los puestos de liderazgo en medicina es bien conocida, pero está poco documentada de forma global. Hay evidencia sobre la brecha de género en la universidad, en el liderazgo en sociedades médicas o en determinadas especialidades. Sin embargo, no hay investigaciones que analicen el techo de cristal de cada una de las especialidades médicas desde una perspectiva 360º que incluya el liderazgo en la universidad, en la investigación con fondos públicos, en la representación en sociedades científicas y colegios profesionales y en la actividad clínica. Además, la mayoría de los estudios tienen una perspectiva estadounidense y nos preguntamos si la perspectiva de un país europeo podría ser diferente. El proyecto Mujeres en Medicina en España (WOMEDS) ( https://womeds.es ) tiene como objetivo describir y caracterizar de forma sistemática y detallada sesgo de género en la profesión médica en España, para monitorizar su evolución en el tiempo y contribuir a priorizar las políticas de género. MéTODOS: Construimos cuatro grupos de indicadores sobre liderazgo de mujeres médicos: (i) en la asistencia sanitaria; (ii) en las organizaciones científicas y profesionales; (iii) carrera académica, y; and (iv) l en la investigación basándonos en datos públicos y resultados de encuestas propias s referidas a los años 2019­2021. Como medida de análisis, calculamos los ratios de mujeres, definidos como el porcentaje de mujeres en puestos altos específicos dividido por el porcentaje de mujeres en la población relevante. RESULTADOS: Encontramos un sesgo de género en los cuatro ámbitos. Durante el periodo observado, solo el 27.6% de los jefes de servicio de los hospitales eran mujeres, frente al 61.1% de mujeres en la plantilla. Diez de las 46 sociedades médicas agrupadas en la Federación de Asociaciones Científico Médicas Españolas (FACME) (21.7%) tuvieron una mujer como presidente en algún momento del periodo de estudio y sólo 4 congresos anuales tenían ratios de mujeres ponentes superiores a 1. Las mujeres estaban sobrerepresentadas en los cargos inferiores e infrarrepresentadas en los cargos académicos superiores. Sólo el 26% y el 27%, respectivamente, de los jefes de departamento y decanos eran mujeres. La solicitud de proyectos de investigación con financiación pública fue liderada por mujeres en un 45% de los casos y la financiación media de los proyectos concedidos a las mujeres fue un 24.3% inferior a la de los hombres. CONCLUSIóN: En todos los ámbitos analizados, las posiciones de liderazgo siguen siendo mayoritariamente ocupada por varones a pesar de la feminización de la medicina. Para cambiar esto, será necesario tomar medidas, tanto regulatorias -a nivel nacional y nacional regional como promover cambios en la cultura organizativa o en los incentivos en organizaciones concretas.

Longer intervals between SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA-1273 doses improve the neutralization of different variants of concern.

The humoral immune response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern elicited by vaccination was evaluated in COVID-19 recovered individuals (Rec) separated 1-3 months (Rec2m) or 4-12 months (Rec9m) postinfection and compared to the response in naïve participants. Antibody-mediated immune responses were assessed in 66 participants by three commercial immunoassays and a SARS-CoV-2 lentiviral-based pseudovirus neutralization assay. Immunoglobulin (Ig) levels against SARS-CoV-2 spike were lower in naïve participants after two doses than in Rec after a single dose (p < 0.05). After two doses in Rec, levels of total Ig to receptor-binding domain were significantly increased in Rec9m compared to Rec2m (p < 0.001). The neutralizing potency observed in Rec9m was consistently higher than in Rec2m against variants of concern (VOCs) Alpha, Beta, Delta, and BA.1 sublineage of Omicron with 2.2-2.8-fold increases. Increasing the interval between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the vaccination with messenger RNA-based vaccines to more than 3 months generates a more efficient heterologous humoral immune response against VOCs by allowing enough time to mount a strong recall memory B cell response.

Pathogen reduction with methylene blue does not have an impact on the clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a concern about a possible deleterious effect of pathogen reduction (PR) with methylene blue (MB) on the function of immunoglobulins of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). We have evaluated whether MB-treated CCP is associated with a poorer clinical response compared to other inactivation systems at the ConPlas-19 clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an ad hoc sub-study of the ConPlas-19 clinical trial comparing the proportion of patients transfused with MB-treated CCP who had a worsening of respiration versus those treated with amotosalen (AM) or riboflavin (RB). RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-five inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were transfused with a single CCP unit. The inactivation system of the CCP units transfused was MB in 90 patients (51.4%), RB in 60 (34.3%) and AM in 25 (14.3%). Five out of 90 patients (5.6%) transfused with MB-treated CCP had worsening respiration compared to 9 out of 85 patients (10.6%) treated with alternative PR methods (p = 0.220). Of note, MB showed a trend towards a lower rate of respiratory progressions at 28 days (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.50). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that MB-treated CCP does not provide a worse clinical outcome compared to the other PR methods for the treatment of COVID-19.

Economic evaluation of restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy following acute myocardial infarction (REALITY): trial-based cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses.

AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios of a restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with anaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 666) with AMI and haemoglobin between 7-8 and 10 g/dL recruited in 35 hospitals in France and Spain were randomly assigned to a restrictive (n = 342) or a liberal (n = 324) transfusion strategy with 1-year prospective collection of resource utilization and quality of life using the EQ5D3L questionnaire. The economic evaluation was based on 648 patients from the per-protocol population. The outcomes were 30-day and 1-year cost-effectiveness, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) averted as the effectiveness outcome. and a 1-year cost-utility ratio.The 30-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €33 065 saved per additional MACE averted with the restrictive vs. liberal strategy, with an 84% probability for the restrictive strategy to be cost-saving and MACE-reducing (i.e. dominant). At 1 year, the point estimate of the cost-utility ratio was €191 500 saved per quality-adjusted life year gained; however, the cumulated MACE was outside the pre-specified non-inferiority margin, resulting in a decremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a point estimate of €72 000 saved per additional MACE with the restrictive strategy. CONCLUSION: In patients with AMI and anaemia, the restrictive transfusion strategy was dominant (cost-saving and outcome-improving) at 30 days. At 1 year, the restrictive strategy remained cost-saving, but clinical non-inferiority on MACE was no longer maintained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02648113. ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY: The use of a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction is associated with lower healthcare costs, but more evidence is needed to ascertain its long-term clinical impact.

Bronchopulmonary Penetration of Isavuconazole in Pulmonary Transplant Recipients (PBISA01): Protocol for a Phase IV Clinical Trial With a Single Treatment Arm.

BACKGROUND: Aspergillosis is the most frequently observed invasive fungal disease (IFD) in lung transplant recipients. Isavuconazole (ISA) has shown a better safety profile and noninferiority to voriconazole in the treatment of patients with IFD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the bronchopulmonary pharmacokinetic profile of oral ISA by analyzing the degree of penetration in the epithelial lining fluid and alveolar macrophages in patients receiving lung transplantation with a diagnosis of IFD. METHODS: A total of 12 patients aged ≥18 years receiving a lung transplant with an IFD diagnosis and indication for ISA treatment and follow-up bronchoscopy will be included in the study. After 5 days of treatment with ISA and before the treatment is discontinued, the patients will be randomized (1:1:1:1) to perform the scheduled bronchoscopy at various times after the administration of ISA (2, 4, 8, and 12 hours). In total, 4 blood samples will be obtained per patient: at 72 hours after treatment initiation, on the day of the bronchoscopy, at the time of the bronchoalveolar lavage (simultaneously), and at 7 days after treatment initiation, to analyze tacrolimus and ISA plasma levels. ISA concentrations will be measured in plasma, epithelial lining fluid, and alveolar macrophages by a high-performance liquid chromatography/UV coupled to fluorescence method. RESULTS: Enrollment for the PBISA01 trial began in October 2020 and was completed in October 2021. All samples will be analyzed once recruitment is complete, and the results are expected to be published in October 2022. CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinical studies that analyze the bronchopulmonary penetration of ISA. Bronchoalveolar lavage performed routinely in the follow-up of lung transplant recipients constitutes an opportunity to analyze the bronchopulmonary penetration of ISA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Clinical Trials Register 2019-004240-30; www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2019-004240-30/ES. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37275.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Status in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. Objective: To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. Data Sources: From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. Study Selection: Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. Results: Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

Development and Validation of a Treatment Benefit Index to Identify Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Who May Benefit From Convalescent Plasma.

Importance: Identifying which patients with COVID-19 are likely to benefit from COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment may have a large public health impact. Objective: To develop an index for predicting the expected relative treatment benefit from CCP compared with treatment without CCP for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 using patients' baseline characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used data from the COMPILE study, ie, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP vs control in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. A combination of baseline characteristics, termed the treatment benefit index (TBI), was developed based on 2287 patients in COMPILE using a proportional odds model, with baseline characteristics selected via cross-validation. The TBI was externally validated on 4 external data sets: the Expanded Access Program (1896 participants), a study conducted under Emergency Use Authorization (210 participants), and 2 RCTs (with 80 and 309 participants). Exposure: Receipt of CCP. Main Outcomes and Measures: World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal COVID-19 clinical status scale and 2 derivatives of it (ie, WHO score of 7-10, indicating mechanical ventilation to death, and WHO score of 10, indicating death) at day 14 and day 28 after randomization. Day 14 WHO 11-point ordinal scale was used as the primary outcome to develop the TBI. Results: A total of 2287 patients were included in the derivation cohort, with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (15.2) years and 815 (35.6%) women. The TBI provided a continuous gradation of benefit, and, for clinical utility, it was operationalized into groups of expected large clinical benefit (B1; 629 participants in the derivation cohort [27.5%]), moderate benefit (B2; 953 [41.7%]), and potential harm or no benefit (B3; 705 [30.8%]). Patients with preexisting conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases), with blood type A or AB, and at an early COVID-19 stage (low baseline WHO scores) were expected to benefit most, while those without preexisting conditions and at more advanced stages of COVID-19 could potentially be harmed. In the derivation cohort, odds ratios for worse outcome, where smaller odds ratios indicate larger benefit from CCP, were 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.48-1.06) for B1, 0.82 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.11) for B2, and 1.58 (95% CrI, 1.14-2.17) for B3. Testing on 4 external datasets supported the validation of the derived TBIs. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the CCP TBI is a simple tool that can quantify the relative benefit from CCP treatment for an individual patient hospitalized with COVID-19 that can be used to guide treatment recommendations. The TBI precision medicine approach could be especially helpful in a pandemic.

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in patients with COVID19 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Phase III Clinical Trial (SARTRE Study).

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is often associated with hyper-inflammation. The cytokine-storm-like is one of the targets of current therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). High Interleukin-6 (IL6) blood levels have been identified in severe COVID-19 disease, but there are still uncertainties regarding the actual role of anti-IL6 antagonists in COVID-19 management. Our hypothesis was that the use of sarilumab plus corticosteroids at an early stage of the hyper-inflammatory syndrome would be beneficial and prevent progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized patients under standard oxygen therapy and laboratory evidence of hyper-inflammation to receive sarilumab plus usual care (experimental group) or usual care alone (control group). Corticosteroids were given to all patients at a 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (defined as a score in the Brescia-COVID19 scale ≥ 3) up to day 15. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients underwent randomization: 99 patients in the sarilumab group and 102 patients in the control group. The rate of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (Brescia-COVID scale score ≥ 3) up to day 15 was 16.16% in the Sarilumab group versus 15.69% in the control group (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48-2.20). No relevant safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia, who were under standard oxygen therapy and who presented analytical inflammatory parameters, an early therapeutic intervention with sarilumab plus standard of care (including corticosteroids) was not shown to be more effective than current standard of care alone. The study was registered at EudraCT with number: 2020-002037-15.

A multicenter randomized open-label clinical trial for convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUNDPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19. Evidence from controlled clinical trials is inconclusive.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial at 27 hospitals in Spain. Patients had to be admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia within 7 days from symptom onset and not on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with CP in addition to standard of care (SOC) or to the control arm receiving only SOC. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5 (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen), 6 (invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), or 7 (death) at 14 days. Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSBetween April 4, 2020, and February 5, 2021, 350 patients were randomly assigned to either CP (n = 179) or SOC (n = 171). At 14 days, proportion of patients in categories 5, 6, or 7 was 11.7% in the CP group versus 16.4% in the control group (P = 0.205). The difference was greater at 28 days, with 8.4% of patients in categories 5-7 in the CP group versus 17.0% in the control group (P = 0.021). The difference in overall survival did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14, log-rank P = 0.087).CONCLUSIONCP showed a significant benefit in preventing progression to noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO, or death at 28 days. The effect on the predefined primary endpoint at 14 days and the effect on overall survival were not statistically significant.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04345523.FUNDINGGovernment of Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head Safely Healed with Autologous, Expanded, Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in a Multicentric Trial with Minimum 5 Years Follow-Up.

Background: Osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head represents a potentially severe disease of the hip where the lack of bone regeneration may lead to femoral head collapse and secondary osteoarthritis, with serious pain and disability. The aim of this European, multicentric clinical trial was to prove safety and early efficacy to heal early femoral head ON in patients through minimally invasive surgical implantation of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) expanded from bone marrow (BM) under good manufacturing practices (GMP). Methods: Twenty-two patients with femoral head ON (up to ARCO 2C) were recruited and surgically treated in France, Germany, Italy and Spain with BM-derived, expanded autologous MSC (total dose 140 million MSC in 7 mL). The investigational advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) was expanded from BM under the same protocol in all four countries and approved by each National Competent Authority. Patients were followed during two years for safety, based on adverse events, and for efficacy, based on clinical assessment (pain and hip score) and imaging (X-rays and MRIs). Patients were also reviewed after 5 to 6 years at latest follow-up for final outcome. Results: No severe adverse event was recalled as related to the ATMP. At 12 months, 16/20 per protocol and 16/22 under intention-to-treat (2 drop-out at 3 and 5 months) maintained head sphericity and showed bone regeneration. Of the 4 hips with ON progression, 3 required total hip replacement (THR). At 5 years, one patient (healed at 2 years visit) was not located, and 16/21 showed no progression or THR, 4/21 had received THR (all in the first year) and 1 had progressed one stage without THR. Conclusions: Expanded MSCs implantation was safe. Early efficacy was confirmed in 80% of cases under protocol at 2 years. At 5 years, the overall results were maintained and 19% converted to THR, all in the first year.

Effect of a Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategy on Major Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: The REALITY Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia is unclear. Objective: To determine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy would be clinically noninferior to a liberal strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted in 35 hospitals in France and Spain including 668 patients with myocardial infarction and hemoglobin level between 7 and 10 g/dL. Enrollment could be considered at any time during the index admission for myocardial infarction. The first participant was enrolled in March 2016 and the last was enrolled in September 2019. The final 30-day follow-up was accrued in November 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to undergo a restrictive (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤8; n = 342) or a liberal (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL; n = 324) transfusion strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of all-cause death, stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) at 30 days. Noninferiority required that the upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the relative risk of the primary outcome be less than 1.25. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. Results: Among 668 patients who were randomized, 666 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 77 [69-84] years; 281 [42.2%] women) completed the 30-day follow-up, including 342 in the restrictive transfusion group (122 [35.7%] received transfusion; 342 total units of packed red blood cells transfused) and 324 in the liberal transfusion group (323 [99.7%] received transfusion; 758 total units transfused). At 30 days, MACE occurred in 36 patients (11.0% [95% CI, 7.5%-14.6%]) in the restrictive group and in 45 patients (14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-17.9%]) in the liberal group (difference, -3.0% [95% CI, -8.4% to 2.4%]). The relative risk of the primary outcome was 0.79 (1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-1.19), meeting the prespecified noninferiority criterion. In the restrictive vs liberal group, all-cause death occurred in 5.6% vs 7.7% of patients, recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 2.1% vs 3.1%, emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia occurred in 1.5% vs 1.9%, and nonfatal ischemic stroke occurred in 0.6% of patients in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy resulted in a noninferior rate of MACE after 30 days. However, the CI included what may be a clinically important harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02648113.

Evaluation of convalescent plasma versus standard of care for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: study protocol for a phase 2 randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. At the time this clinical trial was planned, there were no available vaccine or therapeutic agents with proven efficacy, but the severity of the condition prompted the use of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. It has long been hypothesized that the use of convalescent plasma (CP) from infected patients who have developed an effective immune response is likely to be an option for the treatment of patients with a variety of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) of viral etiology. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS/DESIGN: The ConPlas-19 study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label controlled trial. The study has been planned to include 278 adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 infection not requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Subjects are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (139 per treatment arm), stratified by center, to receive intravenously administered CP (single infusion) plus SOC or SOC alone, and are to be followed for 30 days. The primary endpoint of the study is the proportion of patients that progress to category 5, 6, or 7 (on the 7-point ordinal scale proposed by the WHO) at day 15. Interim analyses for efficacy and/or futility will be conducted once 20%, 40%, and 60% of the planned sample size are enrolled and complete D15 assessment. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma for the treatment of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The results of this study are expected to contribute to establishing the potential place of CP in the therapeutics for a new viral disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345523 . Registered on 30 March, 2020. First posted date: April 14, 2020.