Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Led by the International Society of Hypertension.

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19.

Comparison of antibody response durability of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: There are limited comparative immunologic durability data post COVID-19 vaccinations. METHODS: Approximately 8.4 months after primary COVID-19 vaccination, 647 healthcare workers completed surveys about COVID-19 vaccinations/infections and blood draws. The groups included participants vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (n = 387), BNT162b2 (n = 212), or Ad26.COV2.S (n = 10) vaccines; unvaccinated participants (n = 10); and participants who received a booster dose (n = 28). The primary outcome was immunoglobin anti-spike titer. Secondary/tertiary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based pseudoneutralization) and vaccine effectiveness (VE). Antibody levels were compared using analysis of variance and linear regression. RESULTS: Mean age was 49.7 and 75.3% of the participants were female. Baseline variables were balanced except for immunosuppression, previous COVID-19 infection, and post-primary vaccination time. Unadjusted median (interquartile range [IQR]) anti-spike titers (AU/ml) were 1539.5 (876.7-2626.7) for mRNA-1273, 751.2 (422.0-1381.5) for BNT162b2, 451.6 (103.0-2396.7) for Ad26.COV2.S, 113.4 (3.7-194.0) for unvaccinated participants, and 31898.8 (21347.1-45820.1) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.006; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). Unadjusted median (IQR) pseudoneutralization was as follows: 90.9% (80.1-95.0) for mRNA-1273, 77.2% (59.1-89.9) for BNT162b2, 57.9% (36.6-95.8) for Ad26.COV2.S, 40.1% (21.7-60.6) for unvaccinated, and 96.4% (96.1-96.6) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.028; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). VE was 87-89% for participants administered mRNA-1273 vaccine, BNT162b2 vaccine, and booster dose, and 33% for Ad26.COV2.S (none significantly different). CONCLUSION: Antibody responses 8.4 months after primary vaccination were significantly higher with mRNA-1273 than those observed with BNT162b2.

COVIDMED - An early pandemic randomized clinical trial of losartan treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of losartan for COVID-19 patients. Methods: COVIDMED was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled platform RCT. Enrollees were randomized to standard care plus hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, losartan, or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms were discontinued early. We report losartan data vs. combined (lopinavir-ritonavir and placebo) and prespecified placebo-only controls. The primary endpoint was the mean COVID-19 Ordinal Severity Score (COSS) slope of change. Slow enrollment prompted early termination. Results: Fourteen patients were included in our final analysis (losartan [N = 9] vs. control [N = 5] [lopinavir/ritonavir [N = 2], placebo [N = 3]]). Most baseline parameters were balanced. Losartan treatment was not associated with a difference in mean COSS slope of change vs. combined (p = 0.4) or placebo-only control (p = 0.05) (trend favoring placebo). 60-day mortality and overall AE/SAE rates were insignificantly higher with losartan. Conclusion: In this small RCT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, losartan did not improve outcome and was associated with adverse safety signals.

Tick magnets: The occupational risk of tick-borne disease exposure in forestry workers in New York.

BACKGROUND: Outdoor workers, such as forestry workers, are at an increased risk for contracting tick-borne diseases due to their prolonged time spent in tick habitats. Although well studied in Europe, no studies have been conducted with forestry workers in the Northeastern United States since 1990s. METHODS: Full-time forestry workers and two comparison groups (volunteer firefighter/first responders and indoor/healthcare workers) within New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were recruited for this cross-sectional seroprevalence study. Blood draws were conducted to test for antibodies to Lyme, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and ehrlichiosis. Surveys were administered to determine personal risk factors and protective behaviors. RESULTS: Between November 2020 and May 2021, 256 (105 forestry, 101 firefighter/first responder, and 50 indoor/healthcare) workers participated in this study. Forestry workers had a probability of testing positive nearly twice as high for any tick-borne disease (14%) compared to firefighter/first responders (8%) and to indoor workers (6%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .140). Forestry workers were more likely to find embedded ticks on themselves (f = 33.26, P < .0001 vs both comparison groups) and to have been previously diagnosed with a tick-borne disease (P = .001 vs firefighter/first responders, P = .090 vs indoor/healthcare workers). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests a higher proportion of tick-borne disease risk among forestry workers compared to firefighters/first responders and indoor/healthcare workers with lesser exposure. A larger study to confirm or refute this pilot data could help optimize mitigation/prevention strategies.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Background: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Results: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Mosquito bite immunization with radiation-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites: safety, tolerability, protective efficacy and humoral immunogenicity.

BACKGROUND: In this phase 1 clinical trial, healthy adult, malaria-naïve subjects were immunized with radiation-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites (PfRAS) by mosquito bite and then underwent controlled human malaria infection (CHMI). The PfRAS model for immunization against malaria had previously induced >90 % sterile protection against homologous CHMI. This study was to further explore the safety, tolerability and protective efficacy of the PfRAS model and to provide biological specimens to characterize protective immune responses and identify protective antigens in support of malaria vaccine development. METHODS: Fifty-seven subjects were screened, 41 enrolled and 30 received at least one immunization. The true-immunized subjects received PfRAS via mosquito bite and the mock-immunized subjects received mosquito bites from irradiated uninfected mosquitoes. Sera and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected before and after PfRAS immunizations. RESULTS: Immunization with PfRAS was generally safe and well tolerated, and repeated immunization via mosquito bite did not appear to increase the risk or severity of AEs. Local adverse events (AEs) of true-immunized and mock-immunized groups consisted of erythaema, papules, swelling, and induration and were consistent with reactions from mosquito bites seen in nature. Two subjects, one true- and one mock-immunized, developed large local reactions that completely resolved, were likely a result of mosquito salivary antigens, and were withdrawn from further participation as a safety precaution. Systemic AEs were generally rare and mild, consisting of headache, myalgia, nausea, and low-grade fevers. Two true-immunized subjects experienced fever, malaise, myalgia, nausea, and rigours approximately 16 h after immunization. These symptoms likely resulted from pre-formed antibodies interacting with mosquito salivary antigens. Ten subjects immunized with PfRAS underwent CHMI and five subjects (50 %) were sterilely protected and there was a significant delay to parasitaemia in the other five subjects. All ten subjects developed humoral immune responses to whole sporozoites and to the circumsporozoite protein prior to CHMI, although the differences between protected and non-protected subjects were not statistically significant for this small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The protective efficacy of this clinical trial (50 %) was notably less than previously reported (>90 %). This may be related to differences in host genetics or the inherent variability in mosquito biting behavior and numbers of sporozoites injected. Differences in trial procedures, such as the use of leukapheresis prior to CHMI and of a longer interval between the final immunization and CHMI in these subjects compared to earlier trials, may also have reduced protective efficacy. This trial has been retrospectively registered at ISRCTN ID 17372582, May 31, 2016.

Use of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) as pre-hospital treatment in a swine model of fluid percussion traumatic brain injury.

CONTEXT: Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) has been used as an adjunctive therapy for acute post-traumatic hemorrhage and reversal of iatrogenic coagulopathy in trauma patients in the hospital setting. However, investigations regarding its potential use in pre-hospital management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have not been conducted extensively. AIMS: In the present study, we investigated the physiology, hematology and histology effects of a single pre-hospital bolus injection of rFVIIa compared to current clinical practice of no pre-hospital intervention in a swine model of moderate fluid percussion TBI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Animals were randomized to receive either a bolus of rFVIIa (90 µg/kg) or nothing 15 minutes (T15) post-injury. Hospital arrival was simulated at T60, and animals were euthanized at experimental endpoint (T360). RESULTS: Survival was 100% in both groups; baseline physiology parameters were similar, vital signs were comparable. Animals that received rFVIIa demonstrated less hemorrhage in subarachnoid space (P = 0.0037) and less neuronal degeneration in left hippocampus, pons, and cerebellum (P = 0.00009, P = 0.00008, and P = 0.251, respectively). Immunohistochemical staining of brain sections showed less overall loss of microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP2) and less Flouro-Jade B positive cells in rFVIIa-treated animals. CONCLUSIONS: Early pre-hospital administration of rFVIIa in this swine TBI model reduced neuronal necrosis and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). These results merit further investigation of this approach in pre-hospital trauma care.

Effectiveness of active self-care complementary and integrative medicine therapies: options for the management of chronic pain symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain management typically consists of prescription medications or provider-based, behavioral, or interventional procedures that are often ineffective, may be costly, and can be associated with undesirable side effects. Because chronic pain affects the whole person (body, mind, and spirit), patient-centered complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) therapies that acknowledge the patients' roles in their own healing processes have the potential to provide more efficient and comprehensive chronic pain management. Active self-care CIM (ACT-CIM) therapies allow for a more diverse, patient-centered treatment of complex symptoms, promote self-management, and are relatively safe and cost-effective. To date, there are no systematic reviews examining the full range of ACT-CIM used for chronic pain symptom management. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, using Samueli Institute's Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature methodology, to rigorously assess both the quality of the research on ACT-CIM modalities and the evidence for their efficacy and effectiveness in treating chronic pain symptoms. A working group of subject matter experts was also convened to evaluate the overall literature pool and develop recommendations for the use and implementation of these modalities. RESULTS: Following key database searches, 146 randomized controlled trials were included in the review, 18 of which directly compared ACT-CIM approaches with one another. CONCLUSIONS: This article summarizes the current evidence, quality, effectiveness, and safety of these modalities. Recommendations and next steps to move this field of research forward are also discussed. The entire scope of the review is detailed throughout the current Pain Medicine supplement.

Fluid resuscitation of uncontrolled hemorrhage using a hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier: effect of traumatic brain injury.

Animal models of combined traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hemorrhagic shock (HS) suggest a benefit of hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier (HBOC)-based resuscitation, but their use remains controversial, and little is known of the specific effects of TBI and high-pressure (large arterial injury) bleeding on resuscitation. We examine the effect of TBI and aortic tear injury on low-volume HBOC resuscitation in a swine polytrauma model and hypothesize that HBOC-based resuscitation will improve survival in the setting of aortic tear regardless of the presence of TBI. Anesthetized swine subjected to HS with aortic tear with or without fluid percussion TBI underwent equivalent limited resuscitation with HBOC, lactated Ringer's solution, or HBOC + nitroglycerine (vasoattenuated HBOC) and were observed for 6 h. There was no independent effect of TBI on survival time after adjustment for fluid type, and there was no interaction between TBI and resuscitation fluid type. However, total catheter hemorrhage volume required to reach target shock blood pressure was less with TBI (14.0 mL · kg(-1) [confidence interval, 12.4-15.6 mL · kg(-1)]) versus HS only (21.0 mL · kg(-1) [confidence interval, 19.5-22.5 mL · kg(-1)]), with equivalent lactate accumulation. Traumatic brain injury did not affect survival in this polytrauma model, but less hemorrhage was required in the presence of TBI to achieve an equivalent degree of shock suggesting globally impaired cardiovascular response to hemorrhage in the presence of TBI. There was also no benefit of HBOC-based fluid resuscitation over lactated Ringer's solution, contrary to models using liver injury as the source of hemorrhage, considering wound location is of paramount importance when choosing resuscitation strategy.

Clinical trial in healthy malaria-naïve adults to evaluate the safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and efficacy of MuStDO5, a five-gene, sporozoite/hepatic stage Plasmodium falciparum DNA vaccine combined with escalating dose human GM-CSF DNA.

When introduced in the 1990s, immunization with DNA plasmids was considered potentially revolutionary for vaccine development, particularly for vaccines intended to induce protective CD8 T cell responses against multiple antigens. We conducted, in 1997-1998, the first clinical trial in healthy humans of a DNA vaccine, a single plasmid encoding Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (PfCSP), as an initial step toward developing a multi-antigen malaria vaccine targeting the liver stages of the parasite. As the next step, we conducted in 2000-2001 a clinical trial of a five-plasmid mixture called MuStDO5 encoding pre-erythrocytic antigens PfCSP, PfSSP2/TRAP, PfEXP1, PfLSA1 and PfLSA3. Thirty-two, malaria-naïve, adult volunteers were enrolled sequentially into four cohorts receiving a mixture of 500 µg of each plasmid plus escalating doses (0, 20, 100 or 500 µg) of a sixth plasmid encoding human granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (hGM-CSF). Three doses of each formulation were administered intramuscularly by needle-less jet injection at 0, 4 and 8 weeks, and each cohort had controlled human malaria infection administered by five mosquito bites 18 d later. The vaccine was safe and well-tolerated, inducing moderate antigen-specific, MHC-restricted T cell interferon-γ responses but no antibodies. Although no volunteers were protected, T cell responses were boosted post malaria challenge. This trial demonstrated the MuStDO5 DNA and hGM-CSF plasmids to be safe and modestly immunogenic for T cell responses. It also laid the foundation for priming with DNA plasmids and boosting with recombinant viruses, an approach known for nearly 15 y to enhance the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of DNA vaccines.

Sodium nitroprusside ameliorates systemic but not pulmonary HBOC-201-induced vasoconstriction: an exploratory study in a swine controlled haemorrhage model.

BACKGROUND: Vasoconstriction is a side effect that may prevent the use of haemoglobin based oxygen carrier (HBOC) as blood substitute. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that the NO donor, sodium nitroprusside (SNP), would mitigate systemic and pulmonary hypertension associated with HBOC-201 in a simple controlled haemorrhage swine model. METHODS: After 55% estimated blood volume withdrawal through a venous catheter, invasively anesthetized and instrumented animals were resuscitated with three 10 ml/kg infusions of either HBOC-201 or Hextend (HEX) with or without 0.8 µg/kg/min SNP (infused concomitantly via different lines). Haemodynamics, direct and indirect measures of tissue oxygenation, and coagulation were measured for 2h. RESULTS: Haemorrhage caused a state of shock manifested by hypotension and base deficit. HBOC-201 resuscitation resulted in higher systemic (p<0.0001) and pulmonary (p<0.002) blood pressure than with HEX. Elevation of systemic (p<0.0001) but not pulmonary (p>0.05) arterial pressure was attenuated by co-infusion of SNP, without significant group differences in haemodynamics, tissue oxygenation, platelet function, coagulation, methaemoglobin, or survival (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: In swine with haemorrhagic shock, co-administration of the NO donor, SNP, effectively and safely reduces HBOC-201-related systemic but not pulmonary vasoactivity. Interestingly, co-administration of the vasodilator SNP with HEX had no deleterious effects in comparison with HEX alone.

The effect HBOC-201 and sodium nitrite resuscitation after uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock in swine.

BACKGROUND: Development of Haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs) as blood substitutes has reached an impasse due to clinically adverse outcomes attributed to vasoconstriction secondary to nitric oxide (NO) scavenging. Studies suggest haemoglobin exhibits nitrite reductase activity that generates NO and N(2)O(3); harnessing this property may offset NO scavenging. Therefore, the effects of concomitantly infusing sodium nitrite (NaNO(2)) with HBOC-201 were investigated. METHODS: Swine underwent uncontrolled liver haemorrhage before receiving up to three 10min 10ml/kg infusions of HBOC-201 (HBOC) with or without concurrent NaNO(2) (5.4µmol/kg [LD NaNO(2)] or 10.8µmol/kg [HD NaNO(2)]) or 6% Hetastarch (HEX) with or without HD NaNO(2) during "prehospital" resuscitation (15, 30 and 45min after injury). Definitive surgical care occurred at 75min; anaesthetic recovery at 120min. Animals were euthanised at 72h. RESULTS: NaNO(2) temporarily reduced systemic and pulmonary blood pressure increases from HBOC in a dose-dependent fashion. There was no significant effect between groups in indices of tissue oxygenation or survival. Adverse clinical signs requiring humane euthanasia occurred with highest frequency after HBOC+HD NaNO(2) (3 of 4 pigs) and HBOC+LD NaNO(2) (2 of 4 pigs). Gross evidence of pulmonary congestion was observed in 5 of 8 swine receiving a HBOC and NaNO(2) combination compared to 1 of 16 swine receiving HBOC alone, HEX alone, or HEX+NaNO(2). Gross lesions correlated with histological evidence of pulmonary oedema and congestion, and in 2 of 4 HBOC+HD NaNO(2) pigs, pulmonary fibrin thrombi also were found. No other pig had similar evidence of thrombi. Asymmetric pre-resuscitation cardiac index was a potential confounder. CONCLUSIONS: A significant interaction between NaNO(2) and HBOC-201 ameliorated HBOC-201 vasoconstrictive effects, consistent with HBOC possessing a nitrite reductase activity that generates vasodilator NO equivalents. Results were relatively equivalent in survival and markers of tissue oxygenation. The highest dose of NaNO(2) was the most effective in reducing HBOC-associated pulmonary and systemic vasoactivity but also with the highest incidence of adverse events. In this model, the transient nature of NaNO(2) in off-setting HBOC-201 vasoconstriction makes it less clinically promising than anticipated and the combination of NaNO(2) and HBOC appear to increase the risk of pulmonary complications in a dose-dependent fashion independently of haemodilutional effects on haemostatic components.

Traumatic brain injury and severe uncontrolled haemorrhage with short delay pre-hospital resuscitation in a swine model.

INTRODUCTION: Unavailability of blood (and oxygen delivery) for pre-hospital resuscitation in haemorrhagic shock patients are major problems, supporting the importance for novel resuscitation strategies. In a combined polytrauma model of uncontrolled haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury (TBI) in swine, we investigated if pre-hospital administration of the haemoglobin based oxygen carrier HBOC-201 will improve tissue oxygenation and physiologic parameters compared to Lactated Ringer's (LR) solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anaesthetised Yorkshire swine underwent fluid-percussion TBI and Grade III liver laceration. During a 30-min pre-hospital phase, the animals were resuscitated with a single infusion of HBOC-201, LR solution, or nothing (NON). Upon hospital arrival, the animals were given blood or normal saline as needed. Surviving animals were euthanised 6h post-injury. Cerebral blood flow was measured by microsphere injection, and pathology was assessed by gross observation and immunohistochemical analysis. RESULTS: Mean TBI force (2.4±0.1atm) (means±standard error of the mean) and blood loss (22.5±1.7mL/kg) were similar between groups. Survival at the 6h endpoint was similar in all groups (∼50%). Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and brain tissue oxygen tension were significantly greater in HBOC-201 as compared with LR animals (p<0.005). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) were not significantly different amongst groups. Blood transfusion requirements were delayed in HBOC-201 animals. Animals treated with HBOC-201 or LR showed no immunohistopathological differences in glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP-2). Severity of subarachnoid and intraparenchymal haemorrhages were similar for HBOC and LR groups. CONCLUSION: In this polytrauma swine model of uncontrolled haemorrhage and TBI with a 30-min delay to hospital arrival, pre-hospital resuscitation with one bolus of HBOC-201 indicated short term benefits in systemic and cerebrovascular physiological parameters. True clinical benefits of this strategy need to be confirmed on TBI and haemorrhagic shock patients.

Pre-hospital resuscitation with HBOC-201 and rFVIIa compared to HBOC-201 alone in uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock in swine.

In a previous dose escalation study our group found that combining 90µg/kg rFVIIa with HBOC-201 reduced blood loss and improved physiologic parameters compared to HBOC alone. In this follow-up study in a swine liver injury model, we found that while there were no adverse hematology effects and trends observed in the previous study were confirmed, statistical significance could not be reached. Additional pre-clinical studies are indicated to identify optimal components of a multifunctional blood substitute for clinical use in trauma.

Toward a surrogate marker of malaria exposure: modeling longitudinal antibody measurements under outbreak conditions.

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers of exposure to Plasmodium falciparum would be a useful tool for the assessment of malaria burden and analysis of intervention and epidemiological studies. Antibodies to pre-erythrocytic antigens represent potential surrogates of exposure. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In an outbreak cohort of U.S. Marines deployed to Liberia, we modeled pre- and post-deployment IgG against P. falciparum sporozoites by immunofluorescence antibody test, and both IgG and IgM against the P. falciparum circumsporozoite protein by enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay. Modeling seroconversion thresholds by a fixed ratio, linear regression or nonlinear regression produced sensitivity for identification of exposed U.S. Marines between 58-70% and specificities between 87-97%, compared with malaria-naïve U.S. volunteers. Exposure was predicted in 30-45% of the cohort. CONCLUSION: Each of the three models tested has merits in different studies, but further development and validation in endemic populations is required. Overall, these models provide support for an antibody-based surrogate marker of exposure to malaria.

Sterile protective immunity to malaria is associated with a panel of novel P. falciparum antigens.

The development of an effective malaria vaccine remains a global public health priority. Less than 0.5% of the Plasmodium falciparum genome has been assessed as potential vaccine targets and candidate vaccines have been based almost exclusively on single antigens. It is possible that the failure to develop a malaria vaccine despite decades of effort might be attributed to this historic focus. To advance malaria vaccine development, we have fabricated protein microarrays representing 23% of the entire P. falciparum proteome and have probed these arrays with plasma from subjects with sterile protection or no protection after experimental immunization with radiation attenuated P. falciparum sporozoites. A panel of 19 pre-erythrocytic stage antigens was identified as strongly associated with sporozoite-induced protective immunity; 16 of these antigens were novel and 85% have been independently identified in sporozoite and/or liver stage proteomic or transcriptomic data sets. Reactivity to any individual antigen did not correlate with protection but there was a highly significant difference in the cumulative signal intensity between protected and not protected individuals. Functional annotation indicates that most of these signature proteins are involved in cell cycle/DNA processing and protein synthesis. In addition, 21 novel blood-stage specific antigens were identified. Our data provide the first evidence that sterile protective immunity against malaria is directed against a panel of novel P. falciparum antigens rather than one antigen in isolation. These results have important implications for vaccine development, suggesting that an efficacious malaria vaccine should be multivalent and targeted at a select panel of key antigens, many of which have not been previously characterized.

The effect of rFVIIa on pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in serum and cerebrospinal fluid in a swine model of traumatic brain injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with significant infectious and inflammatory complications. Though increasing evidence suggests that rFVIIa administration may be efficacious for the pre-hospital treatment of TBI, the FVIIa-tissue factor complex has been shown to be immunologically active. To date the cytokine response to rFVIIa administration for the treatment of TBI has not been evaluated. Twenty anesthetized immature Yorkshire swine underwent fluid percussion TBI. At 15 min following injury, animals were randomized to receive either 90 µg/kg rFVIIa (rFVIIa) or nothing. Animals were observed for 6 h and then euthanized. Plasma and cerebrospinal (CSF) samples were collected at 0 min and 360 min, and ELISA analysis of TNF-α, IL-1ß and IL-10 was performed. Survival in both groups was 100%. Baseline cytokine concentrations were not statistically different between rFVIIa and control animals in plasma or CSF. Animals in both groups did not have significant changes in plasma cytokine concentrations following TBI. Control animals did not demonstrate significant changes from baseline of CSF cytokine concentrations following TBI. The administration of rFVIIa however, resulted in significant increases in CSF TNF-α concentration (232.0 pg/ml ± 75.9 vs 36.4 pg/ml ± 10.4, p = 0.036) and IL-10 concentration (10.7 pg/ml ± 0.6 vs 8.8 pg/ml ± 0.1, p = 0.015). IL-1ß concentrations were not significantly changed over the experimental time course. These results suggest that rFVIIa administration for the treatment of TBI is not immunologically inert, and is associated with increased CSF concentrations of TNF-α and IL-10.