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 .

A Retrospective Controlled Cohort Study of the Impact of Glucocorticoid Treatment in SARS-CoV-2 Infection Mortality.

Evidence to support the use of steroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use for COVID-19 pneumonia on hospital mortality. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a university hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March of 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, and we adjusted with a propensity score for patients on steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using the log rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared and adjusted with a second propensity score. During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. The median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8 to 13 days). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.96]; P = 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to the mortality with no steroid treatment (relative risk reduction, 0.42 [95% confidence interval, 0.048 to 0.65]). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg of body weight/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86]; odds ratio [OR], 0.880 [95% confidence interval, 0.449 to 1.726]; P = 0.710). Our results show that the survival of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. Rates of in-hospital mortality were not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.

Early efficacy evaluation of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) combined to biomaterials to treat long bone non-unions.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) frequently lack of clinical data on efficacy to substantiate a future clinical use. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy to heal long bone delayed unions and non-unions, as secondary objective of the EudraCT 2011-005441-13 clinical trial, through clinical and radiological bone consolidation at 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up, with subgroup analysis of affected bone, gender, tobacco use, and time since the original fracture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were recruited and surgically treated with autologous bone marrow derived mesenchymal stromal cells expanded under Good Manufacturing Practices, combined to bioceramics in the surgical room before implantation. Mean age was 39 ± 13 years, 57% were males, and mean Body Mass Index 27 ± 7. Thirteen (46%) were active smokers. There were 11 femoral, 4 humeral, and 13 tibial non-unions. Initial fracture occurred at a mean ± SD of 27.9 ± 31.2 months before recruitment. Efficacy results were expressed by clinical consolidation (no or mild pain if values under 30 in VAS scale), and by radiological consolidation with a REBORNE score over 11/16 points (value of or above 0.6875). Means were statistically compared and mixed models for repeated measurements estimated the mean and confidence intervals (95%) of the REBORNE Bone Healing scale. Clinical and radiological consolidation were analyzed in the subgroups with Spearman correlation tests (adjusted by Bonferroni). RESULTS: Clinical consolidation was earlier confirmed, while radiological consolidation at 3 months was 25.0% (7/28 cases), at 6 months 67.8% (19/28 cases), and at 12 months, 92.8% (26/28 cases including the drop-out extrapolation of two failures). Bone biopsies confirmed bone formation surrounding the bioceramic granules. All locations showed similar consolidation, although this was delayed in tibial non-unions. No significant gender difference was found in 12-month consolidation (95% confidence). Higher consolidation scale values were seen in non-smoking patients at 6 (p = 0.012, t-test) and 12 months (p = 0.011, t-test). Longer time elapsed after the initial fracture did not preclude the occurrence of consolidation. CONCLUSION: Bone consolidation was efficaciously obtained with the studied expanded hBM-MSCs combined to biomaterials, by clinical and radiological evaluation, and confirmed by bone biopsies, with lower consolidation scores in smokers.

Feasibility and safety of treating non-unions in tibia, femur and humerus with autologous, expanded, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells associated with biphasic calcium phosphate biomaterials in a multicentric, non-comparative trial.

BACKGROUND: ORTHO-1 is a European, multicentric, first in human clinical trial to prove safety and feasibility after surgical implantation of commercially available biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramic granules associated during surgery with autologous mesenchymal stromal cells expanded from bone marrow (BM-hMSC) under good manufacturing practices, in patients with long bone pseudarthrosis. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with femur, tibia or humerus diaphyseal or metaphyso-diaphyseal non-unions were recruited and surgically treated in France, Germany, Italy and Spain with 100 or 200 million BM-hMSC/mL associated with 5-10 cc of bioceramic granules. Patients were followed up during one year. The investigational advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) was expanded under the same protocol in all four countries, and approved by each National Competent Authority. FINDINGS: With safety as primary end-point, no severe adverse event was reported as related to the BM-hMSC. With feasibility as secondary end-point, the participating production centres manufactured the BM-hMSC as planned. The ATMP combined to the bioceramic was surgically delivered to the non-unions, and 26/28 treated patients were found radiologically healed at one year (3 out of 4 cortices with bone bridging). INTERPRETATION: Safety and feasibility were clinically proven for surgical implantation of expanded autologous BM-hMSC with bioceramic. FUNDING: EU-FP7-HEALTH-2009, REBORNE Project (GA: 241876).

Cervical Pessary Compared With Vaginal Progesterone for Preventing Early Preterm Birth: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone to prevent spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with cervical lengths 25 mm or less as measured by transvaginal ultrasonography. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial. Women with singleton pregnancies and a short cervix (25 mm or less) measured transvaginally at the second-trimester ultrasonogram were invited to participate. They were computer-randomized (one to one) into cervical pessary placement or treatment with vaginal progesterone (200 mg/24 hours). The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm delivery before 34 weeks of gestation. The noninferiority margin was set at 4% with a 0.025 one-sided α level and a statistical power of 80%. That is, if the 95% CI upper bound exceeded 4%, the pessary could not be deemed noninferior. A sample size of 254 women was required to show noninferiority of the pessary to progesterone. RESULTS: The trial was conducted from August 2012 to April 2016 with the participation of 27 Spanish hospitals. A total of 254 patients were enrolled and 246 included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar across groups. The rate of spontaneous delivery before 34 weeks of gestation was 14% (n=18/127) in the pessary group and 14% (n=17/119) in the progesterone group with a risk difference of -0.11% (95% CI -8.85% to 8.62%; P=.99), that is, noninferiority was not shown for the pessary. The incidence of increased vaginal discharge (87% vs 71%, P=.002) and discomfort (27% vs 3%, P<.001) was significantly higher in the pessary group. CONCLUSION: A cervical pessary was not noninferior to vaginal progesterone for preventing spontaneous birth before 34 weeks of gestation in pregnant women with short cervixes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register, 2012-000241-13; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01643980.

Evaluation of two treatment strategies for the prevention of preterm birth in women identified as at risk by ultrasound (PESAPRO Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Premature birth is considered one of the main problems in modern Obstetrics. It causes more than 50 % of neonatal mortality; it is responsible for a large proportion of infant morbidity and incurs very high economic costs. Cervical length, which can be accurately measured by ultrasound, has an inverse relationship with the risk of preterm birth. As a result, having an effective intervention for asymptomatic patients with short cervix could reduce the prematurity. Although recently published data demonstrates the effectiveness of vaginal progesterone and cervical pessary, these treatments have never been compared to one another. METHODS/DESIGN: The PESAPRO study is a noncommercial, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) in pregnant women with a short cervix as identified by transvaginal ultrasonography at 19 to 22 weeks of gestation. Patients are randomized (1:1) to either daily vaginal progesterone or cervical pessary until the 37th week of gestation or delivery; whichever comes first. During the trial, women visit every 4 weeks for routine questions and tests. The primary outcome is the proportion of spontaneous preterm deliveries before 34 weeks of gestation. A sample size of 254 pregnant women will be included at 29 participating hospitals in order to demonstrate noninferiority of placing a pessary versus vaginal progesterone. The first patient was randomized in August 2012, and recruitment of study subjects will continue until the end of December 2015. DISCUSSION: This trial assesses the comparative efficacy and safety between two accepted treatments, cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone, and it will provide evidence in order to establish clinical recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT2012-000241-13 (Date of registration: 16 January 2012); ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01643980 (Date of registration: 12 June 2012).

Dose increase needed in most cystic fibrosis lung transplantation patients when changing from twice- to once-daily tacrolimus oral administration.

AIM: The aim of this pharmacokinetic (PK) study was to evaluate tacrolimus (TAC) exposure in stable cystic fibrosis (CF) lung transplant (LT) recipients, converted from TAC twice daily to TAC once daily in an open-label, prospective, single-centre study. METHODS: Eligible patients were post-transplant CF patients (18-65 years) with stable lung function, on stable doses of TAC twice daily and who were candidates to switch to TAC once daily. Twelve consecutive patients were included in the study. Patients had their first PK analysis on day 1, still under the stable TAC twice-daily regimen, and were converted to TAC once daily from day 2 onwards. The doses were adjusted according to clinical judgement to achieve target levels, and a second 24-h PK period profile was obtained once the patient was on a stable dosage on the therapeutic range. RESULTS: The mean total (SD) daily dose of TAC twice daily at baseline upon enrolment was 0.17 (0.10) mg/kg/day. The mean (SD) daily dose of TAC once daily after adjustments was 0.22 (0.12) mg/kg/day. In order to achieve target C min levels with a similar AUC0-24, 82% of subjects who were converted to TAC once daily required an increase of dose, in a range of 0-66.7%, with a mean dose increase of 28%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results indicate that the switch for conversion from TAC twice daily to TAC once daily in patients with CF may need dose adjustment in order to reach levels within the therapeutic target.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban versus enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, such as enoxaparin, is standard of care in these patients. Recently, three direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban), have been approved for this indication, but their cost effectiveness is still unclear as it has usually been extrapolated from surrogate venographic outcomes in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the DOACs versus subcutaneous (SC) enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after THR or TKR surgery. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed using TreeAge Pro 2011 to compare the cost utility and cost effectiveness of the DOACs with SC enoxaparin, with separate models for THR and TKR over a 3-month postoperative time horizon from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. The probabilities of events (symptomatic VTE, clinically relevant bleedings, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and deaths) were derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis. We used local cost estimates (€2013) and utility values were obtained from the literature. We reported costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and symptomatic VTE events. We conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The average costs per 1,000 patients treated with enoxaparin were higher than costs incurred by dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in THR (€435,208 vs. €283,574, €257,900 and €212,472, respectively) and TKR (€336,550 vs. €219,856, €251,734 and €201,946, respectively), with cost savings ranging from €151,634 to €222,766 in THR, and from €84,816 to €134,604 in TKR. Cost differences were largely driven by differences in costs associated with drug administration. The average QALYs per 1,000 patients treated were very similar for enoxaparin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in THR (199.34, 198.83, 199.08 and 199.68, respectively) and TKR (198.95, 199.41, 198.75 and 199.97, respectively). Rivaroxaban (in TKR and THR) and apixaban (in THR) avoided additional symptomatic VTE events compared with enoxaparin. Sensitivity analyses generally supported the robustness of the analysis to changes in model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests, based on its underlying assumptions and data, that the DOACs are cost-saving alternatives to SC enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after THR or TKR, in the Spanish healthcare setting.