Hydrocortisone in Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Whether the antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of glucocorticoids may decrease mortality among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe community-acquired pneumonia to receive intravenous hydrocortisone (200 mg daily for either 4 or 7 days as determined by clinical improvement, followed by tapering for a total of 8 or 14 days) or to receive placebo. All the patients received standard therapy, including antibiotics and supportive care. The primary outcome was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients had undergone randomization when the trial was stopped after the second planned interim analysis. Data from 795 patients were analyzed. By day 28, death had occurred in 25 of 400 patients (6.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 8.6) in the hydrocortisone group and in 47 of 395 patients (11.9%; 95% CI, 8.7 to 15.1) in the placebo group (absolute difference, -5.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.6 to -1.7; P = 0.006). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, endotracheal intubation was performed in 40 of 222 (18.0%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 65 of 220 (29.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.86). Among the patients who were not receiving vasopressors at baseline, such therapy was initiated by day 28 in 55 of 359 (15.3%) of the hydrocortisone group and in 86 of 344 (25.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.82). The frequencies of hospital-acquired infections and gastrointestinal bleeding were similar in the two groups; patients in the hydrocortisone group received higher daily doses of insulin during the first week of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia being treated in the ICU, those who received hydrocortisone had a lower risk of death by day 28 than those who received placebo. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; CAPE COD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517489.).

Efficacy and safety of anakinra in adults presenting deteriorating respiratory symptoms from COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether anakinra, an interleukin-1receptor inhibitor, could improve outcome in moderate COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial, we enrolled adults with COVID-19 requiring oxygen. We randomly assigned patients to receive intravenous anakinra plus optimized standard of care (oSOC) vs. oSOC alone. The primary outcome was treatment success at day 14 defined as patient alive and not requiring mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. RESULTS: Between 27th April and 6th October 2020, we enrolled 71 patients (240 patients planned to been enrolled): 37 were assigned to the anakinra group and 34 to oSOC group. The study ended prematurely by recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board due to safety concerns. On day 14, the proportion of treatment success was significantly lower in the anakinra group 70% (n = 26) vs. 91% (n = 31) in the oSOC group: risk difference-21 percentage points (95% CI, -39 to -2), odds ratio 0.23 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.91), p = 0.027. After a 28-day follow-up, 9 patients in the anakinra group and 3 in the oSOC group had died. Overall survival at day 28 was 75% (95% CI, 62% to 91%) in the anakinra group versus 91% (95% CI, 82% to 100%) (p = 0.06) in the oSOC group. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (51%) patients in the anakinra group and 18 (53%) in the oSOC group (p = 0·89). CONCLUSION: This trial did not show efficacy of anakinra in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, contrary to our hypothesis, we found that anakinra was inferior to oSOC in patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia.

Gabapentinoid-induced peripheral edema and acute heart failure: A translational study combining pharmacovigilance data and in vitro animal experiments.

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentinoids are ligands of the α2-δ subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels (Cav) that have been associated with a risk of peripheral edema and acute heart failure in connection with a potentially dual mechanism, vascular and cardiac. OBJECTIVES & METHODS: All cases of peripheral edema or heart failure involving gabapentin or pregabalin reported to the French Pharmacovigilance Centers between January 1, 1994 and April 30, 2020 were included to describe their onset patterns (e.g., time to onset). Based on these data, we investigated the impact of gabapentinoids on the myogenic tone of rat third-order mesenteric arteries and on the electrophysiological properties of rat ventricular cardiomyocytes. RESULTS: A total of 58 reports were included (gabapentin n = 5, pregabalin n = 53). The female-to-male ratio was 4:1 and the median age was 77 years (IQR 57-85, range 32-95). The median time to onset were 23 days (IQR 10-54) and 17 days (IQR 3-30) for non-cardiogenic edema and acute heart failure, respectively. Cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic peripheral edema occurred frequently after a dose escalation (27/45, 60%), and the course was rapidly favorable after discontinuation of gabapentinoid (median 7 days, IQR 5-13). On rat mesenteric arteries, gabapentinoids significantly decreased the myogenic tone to the same extent as verapamil and nifedipine. Acute application of gabapentinoids had no significant effect on Cav1.2 currents of ventricular cardiomyocytes. CONCLUSION: Gabapentinoids can cause concentration-dependent peripheral edema of early onset. The primary mechanism of non-cardiogenic peripheral edema is vasodilatory edema secondary to altered myogenic tone, independent of Cav1.2 blockade under the experimental conditions tested.

Sirolimus (Rapamycin) for Slow-Flow Malformations in Children: The Observational-Phase Randomized Clinical PERFORMUS Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Sirolimus is increasingly being used to treat various vascular anomalies, although evidence of its efficacy is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sirolimus for children with slow-flow vascular malformations to better delineate the indications for treatment. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, open-label, observational-phase randomized clinical trial included 59 children aged 6 to 18 years with a slow-flow vascular malformation who were recruited between September 28, 2015, and March 22, 2018, in 11 French tertiary hospital centers. Statistical analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis from December 4, 2019, to November 10, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent an observational period, then switched to an interventional period when they received oral sirolimus (target serum levels, 4-12 ng/mL). The switch time was randomized from month 4 to month 8, and the whole study period lasted 12 months for each patient. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in the volume of vascular malformations detected on magnetic resonance imaging scan (with centralized interpretation) per unit of time (ie, between the interventional period and the observational period). Secondary outcomes included subjective end points: pain, bleeding, oozing, quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: Among the participants (35 girls [59.3%]; mean [SD] age, 11.6 [3.8] years), 22 (37.3%) had a pure venous malformation, 18 (30.5%) had a cystic lymphatic malformation, and 19 (32.2%) had a combined malformation, including syndromic forms. Variations in the volume of vascular malformations detected on magnetic resonance imaging scans associated with the duration period were not overall significantly different between the interventional period and the observational period (all vascular malformations: mean [SD] difference, -0.001 [0.007]; venous malformations: mean [SD] difference, 0.001 [0.004]; combined malformations: mean [SD] difference, 0.001 [0.009]). However, a significant decrease in volume was observed for children with pure lymphatic malformations (mean [SD] difference, -0.005 [0.005]). Overall, sirolimus had positive effects on pain, especially for combined malformations, and on bleeding, oozing, self-assessed efficacy, and quality of life. During sirolimus treatment, 56 patients experienced 231 adverse events (5 serious adverse events, none life-threatening). The most frequent adverse event was an oral ulcer (29 patients [49.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This observational-phase randomized clinical trial allows for clarifying the goals of patients and families when starting sirolimus therapy for children older than 6 years. Pure lymphatic malformations seem to be the best indication for sirolimus therapy because evidence of decreasing lymphatic malformation volume per unit of time, oozing, and bleeding and increasing quality of life was found. In combined malformations, sirolimus significantly reduced pain, oozing, and bleeding. Benefits seemed lower for pure venous malformations than for the 2 other subgroups, also based on symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02509468; clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-001096-43.

Drug-induced peripheral oedema: An aetiology-based review.

Many drugs are responsible, through different mechanisms, for peripheral oedema. Severity is highly variable, ranging from slight oedema of the lower limbs to anasarca pictures as in the capillary leak syndrome. Although most often noninflammatory and bilateral, some drugs are associated with peripheral oedema that is readily erythematous (eg, pemetrexed) or unilateral (eg, sirolimus). Thus, drug-induced peripheral oedema is underrecognized and misdiagnosed, frequently leading to a prescribing cascade. Four main mechanisms are involved, namely precapillary arteriolar vasodilation (vasodilatory oedema), sodium/water retention (renal oedema), lymphatic insufficiency (lymphedema) and increased capillary permeability (permeability oedema). The underlying mechanism has significant impact on treatment efficacy. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the main causative drugs by illustrating each pathophysiological mechanism and their management through an example of a drug.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on 21-Day Mortality or Respiratory Support Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe lung damage. Corticosteroids are a possible therapeutic option. Objective: To determine the effect of hydrocortisone on treatment failure on day 21 in critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized double-blind sequential trial conducted in France, with interim analyses planned every 50 patients. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure were enrolled from March 7 to June 1, 2020, with last follow-up on June 29, 2020. The study intended to enroll 290 patients but was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive low-dose hydrocortisone (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, was defined as death or persistent dependency on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the need for tracheal intubation (among patients not intubated at baseline); cumulative incidences (until day 21) of prone position sessions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inhaled nitric oxide; Pao2:Fio2 ratio measured daily from day 1 to day 7, then on days 14 and 21; and the proportion of patients with secondary infections during their ICU stay. Results: The study was stopped after 149 patients (mean age, 62.2 years; 30.2% women; 81.2% mechanically ventilated) were enrolled. One hundred forty-eight patients (99.3%) completed the study, and there were 69 treatment failure events, including 11 deaths in the hydrocortisone group and 20 deaths in the placebo group. The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, occurred in 32 of 76 patients (42.1%) in the hydrocortisone group compared with 37 of 73 (50.7%) in the placebo group (difference of proportions, -8.6% [95.48% CI, -24.9% to 7.7%]; P = .29). Of the 4 prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference. No serious adverse events were related to the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, low-dose hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce treatment failure (defined as death or persistent respiratory support) at day 21. However, the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517489.

[Alitretinoin (Toctino®): A French follow-up study of harmacovigilance]. / Alitrétinoïne (Toctino®) : données françaises de pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: The adverse reaction profile of alitretinoin, a retinoid indicated in severe topical corticosteroid-refractory chronic hand eczema, is similar to that of other oral retinoids, especially isotretinoin. The objective of this study was to detect new adverse effects (not listed) of alitretinoin and to estimate the number of pregnancies exposed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All cases of ADR reported in France with alitretinoin between October 1st, 2012 and February 29th, 2016 were analysed. RESULTS: During the 41 months of follow-up, 52 cases of serious adverse drug reaction (ADR) and 88 cases of non-serious and unexpected ADR were notified. The most frequent serious ADRs were psychiatric, neurological and dermatological. Psychiatric disorders, mainly depression and suicidal ideation represented 23% of serious ADRs. New adverse drug reactions were detected: myocardial infarction, pancreatitis and digestive haemorrhage. Three pregnancies exposed during the teratogenic risk period, were registered. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The safety profile of alitretinoin matches that of other retinoids. However, the rate of psychiatric disorders appears to be high. Otherwise, the risk of myocardial infarction in patients with cardiovascular risk factor should be considered as a safety concern. It could be explained by the hyperlipemic effects of alitretinoin and studies suggest a cardiovascular risk with retinoids through their effects on lipids (class effect), especially for patients with others cardiovascular risk factors. Pancreatitis and digestive hemorrhage are described with isotretinoin. The rate of reporting of pregnancy induced by a non-compliance with the Pregnancy Prevention Program is near the rate observed with isotretinoin. The high incidence of serious ADR and the non-application of pregnancy prevention program lead the French National Agency for Medicines to limit the first prescription of alitretinoin to dermatologists.