Understanding Causes of Death in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive summary of the published data on cause of death in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DATA SOURCES: PubMed (January 2015 to April 2024), bibliographies of relevant articles, and ARDS Network and Prevention & Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) network websites. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies and clinical trials that reported on cause of death in greater than or equal to 30 patients with ARDS, not obtained from death certificates. Animal studies, case reports, review articles, study protocols, and studies in pediatrics were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Causes of death among ARDS patients who died were extracted and tabulated along with other pertinent study characteristics. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 15 observational studies (nine non-COVID ARDS, five COVID-related ARDS; one both) and five clinical trials (all non-COVID ARDS). Mutually exclusive prespecified categories were used for recording the cause of death in only eight studies although studies differed in the categories included and their definitions. When multiple organ failure was a predetermined category, it was the most common cause of death recorded (~50% of deaths), followed by respiratory causes with proportions varying from 16% to 42% depending on nomenclature (e.g., refractory hypoxemia, pulmonary causes) and definitions. However, the largest observational study in non-COVID ARDS (964 deaths), did not include multiple organ failure as a predetermined category, and found that pulmonary failure (42%) and cardiac failure (37%) were the most common causes of death. In COVID-related ARDS observational studies, pulmonary reasons were the most reported cause of death (up to 88%). CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have reported cause of death in patients with ARDS. In those that do, cause of death categories and definitions used are heterogeneous. Further research is needed to see whether a more rigorous and unified approach to assigning and reporting cause of death in ARDS would help identify more relevant endpoints for the assessment of targeted treatments in clinical trials.

Onset of effect and impact on health-related quality of life, exacerbation rate, lung function, and nasal polyposis symptoms for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab (ANDHI): a randomised, controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: ANDHI was done to assess the efficacy of benralizumab, including onset of effect and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), exacerbation rate, lung function, and nasal polyposis symptoms. METHODS: This phase 3b, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled ANDHI study was completed in adults (aged 18-75 years) with severe eosinophilic asthma with at least 2 exacerbations in the previous year, despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroid plus additional controllers, screening blood eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells per µL, and an Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (ACQ-6) score of 1·5 or more. Patients who met eligibility criteria were randomly assigned (2:1; stratified by previous exacerbation count [two, or three or more], maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and region), using an integrated web-based response system, to receive benralizumab at 30 mg every 8 weeks (first three doses given 4 weeks apart) or matched placebo for 24 weeks. Primary efficacy measure was annualised asthma exacerbation rate, with rate ratio (RR) calculated over the approximate 24-week follow-up. Secondary efficacy measures included change from baseline to end of treatment (week 24) in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (key secondary endpoint), FEV1, peak expiratory flow (PEF), ACQ-6, Predominant Symptom and Impairment Assessment (PSIA), Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C), and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22). All efficacy analyses, except for SNOT-22, were summarised and analysed using the full analysis set on an intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients receiving investigational product, regardless of protocol adherence or continued participation in the study). SNOT-22 was summarised for the subgroup of patients with physician-diagnosed nasal polyposis with informed consent. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170271. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2017, and Sept 25, 2019, 656 patients received benralizumab (n=427) or placebo (n=229). Baseline characteristics were consistent with severe eosinophilic asthma. Benralizumab significantly reduced exacerbation risk by 49% compared with placebo (RR estimate 0·51, 95% CI 0·39-0·65; p<0·0001) over the 24-week treatment period and provided clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline to week 24 in SGRQ total score versus placebo (least squares mean change from baseline -8·11 (95% CI -11·41 to -4·82; p<0·0001), with similar differences at earlier timepoints. Benralizumab improved FEV1, PEF, ACQ-6, CGI-C, PGI-C, PSIA, and SNOT-22 at week 24 versus placebo, with differences observed early (within weeks 1 to 4). Adverse events were reported for 271 (63%) of 427 patients on benralizumab versus 143 (62%) of 229 patients on placebo. The most commonly reported adverse events for the 427 patients receiving benralizumab (frequency >5%) were nasopharyngitis (30 [7%]), headache (37 [9%]), sinusitis (28 [7%]), bronchitis (22 [5%]), and pyrexia (26 [6%]). Fewer serious adverse events were reported for benralizumab (23 [5%]) versus placebo (25 [11%]), and the only common serious adverse event (experienced by >1% of patients) was worsening of asthma, which was reported for nine (2%) patients in the benralizumab group and nine (4%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Our results extend the efficacy profile of benralizumab for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, showing early clinical benefits in patient-reported outcomes, HRQOL, lung function, and nasal polyposis symptoms. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with etanercept: an exploratory, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: An efficacious medical therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains elusive. OBJECTIVES: To explore the efficacy and safety of etanercept in the treatment of IPF. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter exploratory trial in subjects with clinically progressive IPF. Primary endpoints included changes in the percentage of predicted FVC and lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin (Dl(CO(Hb))) and change in the alveolar to arterial oxygen pressure difference P(a-a)(O(2)) at rest from baseline over 48 weeks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-eight subjects received subcutaneous etanercept (25 mg) or placebo twice weekly as their sole treatment for IPF. No differences in baseline demographics and disease status were detected between treatment groups; the mean time from first diagnosis was 13.6 months and mean FVC was 63.9% of predicted. At 48 weeks, no significant differences in efficacy endpoints were observed between the groups. A nonsignificant reduction in disease progression was seen in several physiologic, functional, and quality-of-life endpoints among subjects receiving etanercept. There was no difference in adverse events between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study in patients with clinically progressive IPF, etanercept was well tolerated. Although there were no differences in the predefined endpoints, a decreased rate of disease progression was observed on several measures. Further evaluation of TNF antagonists in the treatment of IPF may be warranted. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00063869).

Safety features of budesonide inhalation suspension in the long-term treatment of asthma in young children.

Early inhaled corticosteroid treatment improves symptom control and pulmonary function in children with asthma; however, long-term safety data are limited in infants and young children. This study assessed the long-term safety of budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) in young children with persistent asthma. To continue to provide BIS to children who needed it-prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval-children 8 years of age or younger with mild, moderate, or severe persistent asthma who previously completed a 52-week open-label study of BIS were enrolled in an additional multicenter, open-label study that was to be concluded upon BIS approval. Patients already receiving BIS continued their current regimens. Patients younger than 4 years and those 4 years of age or older not receiving BIS at baseline started with total daily doses of 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively. BIS doses were adjusted throughout the study based on individual response. Adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters, vital signs, and physical examination findings were assessed. Of 198 enrolled patients, 152 (76.8%), 68 (34.3%), and 31 (15.7%) completed 1, 2, and 3 years of BIS treatment (mean daily dose 0.62+/-0.32 mg), respectively. One hundred sixty-six (83.8%) patients experienced an adverse event, of which 8.6% were considered by the investigator to be drug related. Adverse events were those typically occurring in a pediatric asthma population, with respiratory infection (49.0%) and sinusitis (25.3%) occurring at the greatest incidence. Only 2 patients withdrew due to adverse events. Mean changes in laboratory test results and physical examination findings were not clinically important throughout the study. Long-term BIS treatment is well tolerated in young children with persistent asthma, with a safety profile similar to that of short-term administration.