Combination therapy of Epidermal Growth Factor and Growth Hormone-Releasing Hexapeptide in acute ischemic stroke: a phase I/II non-blinded, randomized clinical trial.

Objective: This study tested the hypothesis that a neuroprotective combined therapy based on epidermal growth factor (EGF) and growth hormone-releasing hexapeptide (GHRP6) could be safe for acute ischemic stroke patients, admitting up to 30% of serious adverse events (SAE) with proven causality. Methods: A multi-centric, randomized, open-label, controlled, phase I-II clinical trial with parallel groups was conducted (July 2017 to January 2018). Patients aged 18-80 years with a computed tomography-confirmed ischemic stroke and less than 12 h from the onset of symptoms were randomly assigned to the study groups I (75 µg rEGF + 3.5 mg GHRP6 i.v., n=10), II (75 µg rEGF + 5 mg GHRP6 i.v., n=10), or III (standard care control, n=16). Combined therapy was given BID for 7 days. The primary endpoint was safety over 6 months. Secondary endpoints included neurological (NIHSS) and functional [Barthel index and modified Rankin scale (mRS)] outcomes. Results: The study population had a mean age of 66 ± 11 years, with 21 men (58.3%), a baseline median NIHSS score of 9 (95% CI: 8-11), and a mean time to treatment of 7.3 ± 2.8 h. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. SAEs were reported in 9 of 16 (56.2%) patients in the control group, 3 of 10 (30%) patients in Group I (odds ratio (OR): 0.33; 95% CI: 0.06-1.78), and 2 of 10 (20%) patients in Group II (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.03-1.22); only two events in one patient in Group I were attributed to the intervention treatment. Compliance with the study hypothesis was greater than 0.90 in each group. Patients treated with EGF + GHRP6 had a favorable neurological and functional evolution at both 90 and 180 days, as evidenced by the inferential analysis of NIHSS, Barthel, and mRS and by their moderate to strong effect size. At 6 months, proportion analysis evidenced a higher survival rate for patients treated with the combined therapy. Ancillary analysis including merged treated groups and utility-weighted mRS also showed a benefit of this combined therapy. Conclusion: EGF + GHRP6 therapy was safe. The functional benefits of treatment in this study supported a Phase III study. Clinical Trial Registration: RPCEC00000214 of the Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials, Unique identifier: IG/CIGB-845I/IC/1601.

A phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike RBD protein vaccine in adults (ABDALA-3 study).

Background: The pandemic of COVID-19 raised the urgent need for safe and efficacious vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new SARS-CoV-2 virus receptor-binding domain (RBD) vaccine. Methods: A phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out at 18 clinical sites in three provinces of the south-eastern region of Cuba. Subjects (healthy or those with controlled chronic diseases) aged between 19 and 80 years, who gave written informed consent were eligible. Subjects were randomly assigned (1:1, in blocks) to two groups: placebo, and 50 µg RBD vaccine (Abdala). The product was administered intramuscularly, 0.5 mL in the deltoid region, in a three-dose immunization schedule at 0-14-28 days. The organoleptic characteristics and presentations of the vaccine and placebo were identical. All participants (subjects, clinical researchers, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and monitors) remained blinded during the study period. The main endpoint was to evaluate the efficacy of the Abdala vaccine in the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19. The trial is registered with the Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials, RPCEC00000359. Findings: Between March 22 to April 03, 2021, 48,290 subjects were included (24,144 and 24,146 in the placebo and Abdala groups, respectively) in the context of predominant D614G variant circulation. The evaluation of the main efficacy outcomes occurred during May-June 2021, starting at May 3rd, in the context of high circulation of mutant viruses, predominantly VOC Beta. The incidence of adverse reactions for individuals in the placebo and Abdala vaccine groups were 1227/24,144 (5.1%) and 1621/24,146 (6.7%), respectively. Adverse reactions were mostly mild, and from the injection site, which resolved in the first 24-48 h. No severe adverse events with demonstrated cause-effect relationship attributable to the vaccine were reported. Symptomatic COVID-19 disease was confirmed in 142 participants in the placebo group (78.44 incidence per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 66.07-92.46) and in 11 participants in Abdala vaccine group (6.05 incidence per 1000 person years; 95% CI 3.02-10.82). The Abdala vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 92.28% (95% CI 85.74-95.82). Moderate/serious forms of COVID-19 occurred in 30 participants (28 in the placebo group and only 2 in the Abdala vaccine group) for a vaccine efficacy of 92.88% (95% CI 70.12-98.31). There were five critical patients (of which four died), all in the placebo group. Interpretation: The Abdala vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and highly effective, fulfilling the WHO target product profile for COVID-19 vaccines. Those results, along with its immunization schedule and the advantage of easy storage and handling conditions at 2-8 °C, make this vaccine an option for the use in immunization strategies as a key tool for the control of the pandemic. Funding: Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), Havana, Cuba.

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike RBD protein vaccine: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1-2 clinical trial (ABDALA Study).

Background: Multiple vaccine candidates against COVID-19 are currently being evaluated. We evaluate the safety and immunogenicity protein of a novel SARS-CoV-2 virus receptor-binding domain (RBD) vaccine. Methods: A phase 1-2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in "Saturnino Lora" Hospital, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. Subjects (healthy or those with controlled chronic diseases) aged between 19 and 80 years, who gave written informed consent were eligible. Subjects were randomly assigned (1:1:1, in blocks) to three groups: placebo, 25 µg and 50 µg RBD vaccine (Abdala). The product was administered intramuscularly, 0·5 mL in the deltoid region. During the first phase, two immunization schedules were studied: 0-14-28 days (short) and 0-28-56 days (long). In phase 2, only the short schedule was evaluated. The organoleptic characteristics and presentations of vaccine and placebo were identical. All participants (subjects, clinical researchers, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and monitors) remained masked during the study period. The main endpoints were safety and the proportion of subjects with seroconversion of anti-RBD IgG antibodies, analysed by intention to treat and per protocol, respectively. The trial is registered with the Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials, RPCEC00000346. Findings: Between Dec 7, 2020, and Feb 9, 2021, 792 subjects were included; 132 (66 in each vaccination schedule, divided into 22 for each group) in phase 1, and 660 (220 in each group plus 66 from the short scheme of phase 1) in phase 2. The product was well tolerated. No severe adverse events were reported. During phase 1, the incidence of adverse events in the 25 µg, 50 µg, and placebo arms for the short schedule were 6/22 (27·3%), 6/22 (27·3%), 3/22 (13·6%), respectively, and for the long schedule were 8/22 (36·4%), 9/22 (40·9%), 4/22 (18·2%), respectively. In phase 2, adverse reactions were reported by 53/242 (21·9%), 75/242 (31·0%) and 41/242 (16·9%) participants in the 25 µg, 50 µg, and placebo group, respectively. Adverse reactions were minimal, mostly mild, and from the injection site, which resolved in the first 24-48 hours. In phase 1, seroconversion at day 56 was seen in 95·2% of the participants (20/21) in the 50 µg group, 81% (17/21) in the 25 µg group, and none in the placebo group (0/22). For the long schedule, seroconversion at day 70 was seen in 100% of the participants (21/21) in the 50 µg group, 94·7% (18/19) in the 25 µg group, and none in the placebo group (0/22). In phase 2, seroconversion of anti-RBD IgG antibodies at day 56 was seen in 89·2% of the participants in the 50 µg group (214/240; 95% CI 84·5-92·82), 77·7% in the 25 µg group (185/238; 72·0-82·9) and 4·6% in the placebo group (11/239; 2·3-8·1). Compared with the placebo arm, the differences in the proportion of participants with seroconversion were 73·1% (95% CI 66·8-79·5) and 84·6% (79·4-89·7) in the 25 µg and 50 µg groups, respectively. The seroconversion rate in the 50 µg group was significantly higher than in the 25 µg group (p=0·0012). Interpretation: The Abdala vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and induced humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. These results, in the context of the emergency COVID-19 pandemic, support the 50 µg dose, applied in a 0-14-28 days schedule, for further clinical trials to confirm vaccine efficacy. Funding: Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), Havana, Cuba.

Specific humoral response in cancer patients treated with a VEGF-specific active immunotherapy procedure within a compassionate use program.

BACKGROUND: CIGB-247 is a cancer therapeutic vaccine that uses as antigen a variant of human vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mixed with the bacterially-derived adjuvant VSSP. CIGB-247 has been already evaluated in two phase I clinical trials (CENTAURO and CENTAURO-2), showing to be safe and immunogenic in advanced cancer patients selected under well-defined and controlled clinical conditions. Surviving patients were submitted to monthly re-immunizations and some of them showed objective clinical benefits. Based on these results, a compassionate use program (CUP) with CIGB-247 was initiated for patients that did not meet the strict entry criteria applied for the CENTAURO and CENTAURO-2 clinical trials, but could potentially benefit from the application of this cancer therapeutic vaccine. RESULTS: Polyclonal IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies specific for VEGF were detected by ELISA in serum samples from patients vaccinated with 400 µg of antigen combined with 200 µg of VSSP. Polyclonal antibody response showed no cross reactivity for other VEGF family member molecules like VEGF-C and VEGF-D. Serum from immunized individuals was able to block the binding of VEGF to its receptors VEGFR2 and VEGFR1. IgG fraction purified from immune sera shared the aforementioned characteristics and also inhibited the interaction between VEGF and the therapeutic recombinant antibody bevacizumab, an anti-angiogenic drug approved for the treatment of different tumors. No serious adverse events attributable to CIGB-247 have been documented yet in participants of the CIGB-247 CUP. The present paper is a first report of our findings concerning the humoral response and safety characteristics in treated CIGB-247 CUP cancer patients. The study has provided the unique opportunity of not only testing CIGB-247 in a broader clinical spectrum sample of Cuban cancer patients, but also within the context of the day-to-day clinical practice and treatment settings for these diseases in Cuban medical institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The CIGB-247 CUP has demonstrated that immunization and follow-up of a variety of cancer patients, under day-to-day clinical practice conditions in several Cuban medical institutions, replicate our previous findings in clinical trials: CIGB-247 is safe and immunogenic.

Evaluation of methodologies to determine the effect of specific active immunotherapy on VEGF levels in phase I clinical trial patients with advanced solid tumors.

Two phase I clinical trials were conducted to evaluate, among other parameters, the humoral response elicited by a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-based therapeutic vaccine in cancer patients with advanced solid tumors. VEGF reduction was studied using an indirect methodology named as "Platelet VEGF". This methodology is based on the estimation of VEGF within platelets by subtracting the plasma VEGF level from the serum level and dividing this by the platelet count, and then this latter expression is additionally corrected by the hematocrit. However, there is broad debate, whether serum or plasma VEGF or platelet-derived VEGF measurements is the most appropriate strategy to study the changes that occur on ligand bioavailability when patients are submitted to a VEGF-based immunotherapy. The current research is a retrospective study evaluating the changes on VEGF levels in serum and plasma as well as platelet-derived measurements. Changes in VEGF levels were related with the humoral response seen in cancer patients after an active immunotherapy with a VEGF-based vaccine. The present study indicates that "Platelet VEGF" is the most reliable methodology to investigate the effect of VEGF-based immunotherapies on ligand bioavailability. "Platelet VEGF" was associated with those groups of individuals that exhibited the best specific humoral response and the variation of "Platelet VEGF" showed the strongest negative correlation with VEGF-specific IgG antibody levels. This methodology will be very useful for the investigation of this VEGF-based vaccine in phase II clinical trials and could be applied to immunotherapies directed to other growth factors that are actively sequestered by platelets.

Characteristics of the specific humoral response in patients with advanced solid tumors after active immunotherapy with a VEGF vaccine, at different antigen doses and using two distinct adjuvants.

BACKGROUND: CIGB-247, a VSSP-adjuvanted VEGF-based vaccine, was evaluated in a phase I clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors (CENTAURO). Vaccination with the maximum dose of antigen showed an excellent safety profile, exhibited the highest immunogenicity and was the only one showing a reduction on platelet VEGF bioavailability. However, this antigen dose level did not achieve a complete seroconversion rate in vaccinated patients. These clinical results led us to the question whether a "reserve" of untapped immune response potential against VEGF could exist in cancer patients. To address this matter, CENTAURO-2 clinical trial was conducted where antigen and VSSP dose scale up were studied, and also incorporated the exploration of aluminum phosphate as adjuvant. These changes were made with the aim to increase immune response against VEGF. RESULTS: The present study reports the characterization of the humoral response elicited by CIGB-247 from the combining of different antigen doses and adjuvants. Cancer patients were immunologically monitored for approximately 1 year. Vaccination with different CIGB-247 formulations exhibited a very positive safety profile. Cancer patients developed IgM, IgG or IgA antibodies specific to VEGF. Elicited polyclonal antibodies had the ability to block the interaction between VEGF and its receptors, VEGFR1 and VEGFR2. The highest humoral response was detected in patients immunized with 800 µg of antigen + 200 µg of VSSP. Off-protocol long-term vaccination did not produce negative changes in humoral response. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with a human VEGF variant molecule as antigen in combination with VSSP or aluminum phosphate is immunogenic. The results of this study could contribute to the investigation of this vaccine therapy in an adequately powered efficacy trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: RPCEC00000155. Cuban Public Clinical Trial Registry. Date of registration: June 06, 2013. Available from: http://registroclinico.sld.cu/ .

Valoración del consumo de analgésicos opiáceos en el Hospital "Manuel Fajardo Rivero" en un período de 5 años / Valuation of the opiate analgesic consumption in the Hospital

El tratamiento farmacológico representa el principio fundamental para el alivio del dolor crónico. Cómo se usan los analgésicos es probablemente más importante que cuáles se usan. Existiendo en la actualidad conceptos claves que deben ser respetados. Dentro de estos hay que considerar dos aspectos fundamentales, un planteamiento preventivo y un ajuste individual para cada paciente, que nos hará conducir de forma más correcta el tratamiento en el dolor agudo y fundamental en el dolor crónico, razones estas que nos motivaron a realizar un estudio retrospectivo, de tipo descriptivo en el Hospital "Comandante Manuel Fajardo Rivero", dedicado a valorar consumo de analgésicos opiáceos en un período de 5 años. La muestra de 1497 pacientes fue seleccionada, entre los sometidos a tratamiento con morfina y petidina para el dolor agudo o crónico. Los hipnoanalgésicos fueron utilizados inadecuadamente al no tener en cuenta la denominada escalera analgésica en el tratamiento del dolor, el año 2000 fue el de mayor número de pacientes sometidos a esta terapia además de ser el de mayor indicación por parte de los residentes. Los servicios principales en la indicación de los opoáceos fueron los quirúrgicos para la morfina, con el diagnóstico de dolor postoperatorio y el servicio de urgencia para la petidina, asociados a diagnósticos de los sistemas genitourinarios y cadiovascular(AU)

Anticoagulación. Revisión actualizada / Anticoagulation. An uo-to-date review

Los anticoagulantes orales (ACO) son fármacos utilizados en la prevención de la enfermedad tromboembólica. Existen otros medicamentos anticoagulantes (Heparina y sus análogos) que son de uso frecuente en la práctica médica; pero el personal que atiende a pacientes con enfermedades tributarias de tratamiento anticoagulante carece de un material donde de forma organizada pueda revisar lo concerniente a estos fármacos. Es por tal motivo que se realizó un amplio trabajo de revisión con vistas a elaborar un material de apoyo a la docencia, donde se ofrece información actualizada sobre el tema, recopilada de conjunto con el CEDIMED. El material recoge la historia de los anticoagulantes y sus análogos, la fisiología de la coagulación, la farmacología de estos medicamentos y sus monografías, 21 en total. Se incluyó un capítulo que trata los aspectos técnicos de la anticoagulación oral según el control y el monitoreo de la anticoagulación y rangos terapéuticos mediante el INR, aspectos clínicos de la anticoagulación y el comportamiento del laboratorio ante un trastorno de la coagulación(AU