Efficacy of Losartan in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19-Induced Lung Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed. Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021. Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants. Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009.

Safe and Effective Sarcoma Therapy through Bispecific Targeting of EGFR and uPAR.

Sarcomas differ from carcinomas in their mesenchymal origin. Therapeutic advancements have come slowly, so alternative drugs and models are urgently needed. These studies report a new drug for sarcomas that simultaneously targets both tumor and tumor neovasculature. eBAT is a bispecific angiotoxin consisting of truncated, deimmunized Pseudomonas exotoxin fused to EGF and the amino terminal fragment of urokinase. Here, we study the drug in an in vivo "ontarget" companion dog trial as eBAT effectively kills canine hemangiosarcoma and human sarcoma cells in vitro We reasoned the model has value due to the common occurrence of spontaneous sarcomas in dogs and a limited lifespan allowing for rapid accrual and data collection. Splenectomized dogs with minimal residual disease were given one cycle of eBAT followed by adjuvant doxorubicin in an adaptive dose-finding, phase I-II study of 23 dogs with spontaneous, stage I-II, splenic hemangiosarcoma. eBAT improved 6-month survival from <40% in a comparison population to approximately 70% in dogs treated at a biologically active dose (50 µg/kg). Six dogs were long-term survivors, living >450 days. eBAT abated expected toxicity associated with EGFR targeting, a finding supported by mouse studies. Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and EGFR are targets for human sarcomas, so thorough evaluation is crucial for validation of the dog model. Thus, we validated these markers for human sarcoma targeting in the study of 212 human and 97 canine sarcoma samples. Our results support further translation of eBAT for human patients with sarcomas and perhaps other EGFR-expressing malignancies. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(5); 956-65. ©2017 AACR.

Skin rash and bronchoalveolar histology correlates with clinical benefit in patients treated with gefitinib as a therapy for previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Only 15% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with oral epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib, as a second-line therapy have objective responses. Fifty percent will have improvement of lung cancer related symptoms. It will be critical to identify patients who will benefit clinically from this therapy even when there is no objective response seen on imaging studies. We have performed a retrospective analysis of 76 patients who received gefitinib as a therapy for previously treated metastatic NSCLC at the University of Minnesota Comprehensive Cancer Center in order to describe characteristics of patients who will likely derive benefits from gefitinib therapy. METHODS: All patients treated with gefitinib therapy at the University of Minnesota from September 2001 to January 2004 were entered into the study. The Log-rank Test and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to assess the effect of the number of previous therapy lines, histology subtype, performance status, gender, stage of disease at initial diagnosis, and presence of skin rash on time to disease progression and overall survival (OS). Fisher's Exact Test and multiple logistic regressions were used to assess the effect of these covariates on disease response. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients entered the study, with a median age of 60 years (range 37-82). There were 37 female and 39 male patients; 47 patients had adenocarcinoma, 22 had squamous and 7 had other NSCLC histologies. Six patients had no prior therapy, 23 had one, 32 had two, 8 had three, and 7 had four prior therapies for lung cancer. Fifty-six were current smokers. Median time to disease progression was 3 months (95% CI: 3.0, 6.0). There was no difference in time to disease progression whether patients had one or more prior therapies. Patients with brain metastases (26 patients) benefited from gefitinib therapy at least equally well as those without brain metastatic disease. Patients with adenocarcinoma histology with bronchoalveolar features had superior median time to progression versus other lung cancer histology (14 months versus 3 months, p=0.076), which translated into survival advantage in this group >24 months (95% CI: 0.76, 24+) versus 6.6 months (p=0.0096). Patients with EGFR positive tumors had median survival of 10.2 months (95% CI: 1.45, 16.94) versus 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.66, 4.74) with EGFR negative tumors. Patients who developed any degree of skin rash had prolonged time to disease progression with median of 6 months (95% CI: 2.56, 15.5) versus patients without skin rash median 3 months (95% CI: 1.43, 2.83) (p=0.023). This last factor was the best predictor of improved time to disease progression in multiple regression analysis (p=0.0405). CONCLUSION: A subgroup of patients with NSCLC will benefit from gefitinib therapy. Objective responses will likely be seen in half the patients with mutation of internal domain of EGFR; however, a larger group of patients will also enjoy prolonged disease stabilization and clinical benefit. We suggest that adenocarcinoma with bronchoalveolar features and the presence of skin rash may be used as predictors of gefitinib benefit.