Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Herbal Teas and Thrombocytopenia: A Curious Case of Yellow Dock and Burdock-Induced Thrombocytopenia.

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a bleeding disorder characterized by a decreased number of platelets. It is an immune system-mediated condition, with formation of antibodies against a structural platelet antigen. Although the pathogenesis remains elusive, primary disease is idiopathic and comprises 80% of cases. However, quite a few secondary causes have been established including Helicobacter pylori, varicella-zoster virus and cytomegalovirus. A few cases with an incidental association with herbal medications have been reported, but this causality has not been studied in detail. Here we present the case of 38-year-old African-American woman who presented with symptomatic thrombocytopenia, with a platelet count of 5 K/µl 1 week after she had consumed herbal tea containing Rumex crispus (yellow dock) and Arctium lappa (burdock). The association between unstudied herbs and ITP needs further research, given the widespread use of these substances and ongoing public uncertainty about their benefits. LEARNING POINTS: Over-the-counter herbal products marketed as having beneficial effects are not always harmless and can have clinically significant side effects.When investigating the causes of thrombocytopenia, physicians should be aware of and search for this rare cause.Treatment for herbal tea-induced thrombocytopenia is the same as for immune thrombocytopenia (i.e., steroids and platelet transfusion if there is actively bleeding).

Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: We investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Methods: We conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results: Between October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). Conclusions: Addition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care. Methods: We conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. Results: A total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections. Conclusions: Infliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Phase 2 study of two sequential three-drug combinations containing bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone as frontline therapy for multiple myeloma.

Novel sequential combination therapy for induction may improve the quality of response and therefore prolong survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We report results from a phase 2 study of two sequential three-drug combinations. Forty-four previously untreated, symptomatic MM patients received: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) (days 1, 4, 8, 11), cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8), plus dexamethasone 40 mg (day of and day after bortezomib) for three 21-day cycles, followed by bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2), dexamethasone 40 mg and thalidomide 100 mg daily for three cycles. Overall response rate for 42 evaluable patients was 95%, including 19% stringent complete response (sCR), 26% CR, and 57%>/= very good partial response. Twenty-two patients have undergone stem-cell transplantation. After a median follow-up of 20.9 months, five patients have died; none was induction therapy-related. Median event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) have not been reached; estimated 1-year EFS and OS rates were 81% and 91% respectively. Both three-drug combinations were well tolerated; 82% of patients completed all six cycles. Toxicities were predictable and manageable; the most-commonly reported grade 3/4 toxicity was neuropathy (11%). This novel sequential three-drug combination therapy is effective and well-tolerated in previously untreated MM patients.

The Effect of a Combination Treatment Using Palonosetron, Promethazine, and Dexamethasone on the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and QTc Interval Duration in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy under General Anesthesia: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a displeasing experience that distresses surgical patients during the first 24 h after a surgical procedure. The incidence of postoperative nausea occurs in about 50%, the incidence of postoperative vomiting is about 30%, and in high-risk patients, the PONV rate could be as high as 80%. Therefore, the study design of this single arm, non-randomized, pilot study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of a triple therapy combination with palonosetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomies under general anesthesia. METHODS: The research protocol was approved by the institutional review board and 40 subjects were provided written informed consent. At induction of anesthesia, a triple therapy of palonosetron 0.075 mg IV, dexamethasone 10 mg IV, and promethazine 25 mg IV was given as PONV prophylaxis. After surgery, subjects were transferred to the surgical intensive care unit or post anesthesia care unit as clinically indicated. Ondansetron 4 mg IV was administered as primary rescue medication to subjects with PONV symptoms. PONV was assessed and collected every 24 h for 5 days via direct interview and/or medical charts review. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The incidence of nausea and emesis 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12) and 7.5% (n = 3), respectively. The mean time to first emetic episode, first rescue, and first significant nausea was 31.3 (±33.6), 15.1 (±25.8), and 21.1 (±25.4) hours, respectively. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting after 24-120 h period after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The percentage of subjects without emesis episodes over 24-120 h postoperatively was 70% (n = 28). No subjects presented a prolonged QTc interval ≥500 ms before and/or after surgery. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated that this triple therapy regimen may be an adequate alternative regimen for the treatment of PONV in patients undergoing neurological surgery under general anesthesia. More studies with a control group should be performed to demonstrate the efficacy of this regimen and that palonosetron is a low risk for QTc prolongation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02635828 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02635828).

Managing hematologic toxicities.

This overview of the hematologic toxicities of cancer chemotherapy addresses the frequency and clinical significance of neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia and attempts to provide evidence-based guidelines, based on clinical trials, for the use of cytokine growth factors and transfusion support. The current emphasis on high-dose and dose-dense chemotherapy increases the need for close attention to the amelioration ofhematologic toxicities. The latter is highly dependent upon the appropriate and judicious use of cytokine support. Although these supportive agents may be relatively nontoxic, it is important to understand their potential side effects and to use them only when warranted by evidence-based studies.

The impact of diabetes mellitus on breast cancer outcomes: a single center retrospective study.

Diabetes mellitus has been implicated to affect the prognostic outcomes of patients with various types of cancer. This study explores the impact of diabetes mellitus on the survival outcomes of patients with all stages of breast cancer. We performed a retrospective analysis of 255 patients with all stages of breast cancer. Survival outcomes were compared for diabetic and non-diabetic patients. A greater percent of patients in the non-diabetic group (54.1%) presented with early-stage (stage 0 and 1) cancer than diabetics for which 41.2% presented with stage 0 or 1 breast cancer; however this difference did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.068). Overall, we observed a significant difference in survival between the diabetics and non-diabetic subjects (p = 0.001). Even after adjustment for all covariates and after stratification for Body Mass Index (BMI), diabetics were found to have a poorer prognosis in terms of survival time. In patients with breast cancer, diabetes mellitus is an independent predictor of lower overall survival rates, even after adjusting for other comorbidities. Primary caregivers and oncologists alike should aggressively screen breast cancer patients for diabetes mellitus and vice versa.