Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multi-center trial of the clinical and biological effects of anti-CD14 treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 is associated with innate immunopathology, and CD14, a proximal activator of innate immunity, has been suggested as a potential therapeutic target. METHODS: We conducted the COVID-19 anti-CD14 Treatment Trial (CaTT), a Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 5 US-sites between April 12, 2021 and November 30, 2021 (NCT04391309). Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen (<30 LPM) were randomized 1:1 to receive 4 daily doses of intravenous IC14, an anti-CD14 monoclonal antibody, or placebo. All participants received remdesivir. The primary outcome was time-to-resolution of illness, defined as improvement on the 8-point NIH-Ordinal COVID-19 Scale to category ≤3. Secondary endpoints were safety and exploratory endpoints were pro-inflammatory and antiviral mediators in serum on days 0-5 & 7. The trial was stopped after 40 patients were randomized and treated due to slow enrollment. FINDINGS: 40 participants were randomized and treated with IC14 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20). The median time-to-recovery was 6 days (95% CI, 5-11) in the IC14 group vs. 5 days (95% CI, 4-10) in the Placebo group (recovery rate ratio: 0.77 (95% CI, 0.40, 1.48) (log-rank p = 0.435). The number of adverse events was similar in each group, and no IC14-attributable secondary infections occurred. In repeated-measures mixed-effects analyses, IC14 treatment increased serum sCD14 concentrations, an expected pharmacodynamic effect. Pre-planned, exploratory analyses suggested that IC14 treatment decreased the trajectories of circulating MIP-1ß and TNF-α. INTERPRETATION: IC14 treatment did not improve time-to-resolution of illness in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 in this small trial. Results of exploratory analyses suggested IC14 had biologic effects that warrant future clinical investigation. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Infusion Within 48 Hours of Hospitalization With SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic a worldwide emergency. Worldwide there have been 170 million cases of the resulting disease coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), of those, 3.53 million have resulted in death. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with Mayo Clinic as the lead institution authorized COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective therapeutic window for CCP administration had yet to be defined. We addressed this gap by characterizing longitudinal biologic response and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with CCP. Primary outcome was discharged to home/home health.

Improving Lung Function in Severe Heterogenous Emphysema with the Spiration Valve System (EMPROVE). A Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control).Measurements and Main Results: The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups-between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060-0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048-0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax.Conclusions: In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

Sepsis as 2 problems: Identifying sepsis at admission and predicting onset in the hospital using an electronic medical record-based acuity score.

PURPOSE: Early identification and treatment improve outcomes for patients with sepsis. Current screening tools are limited. We present a new approach, recognizing that sepsis patients comprise 2 distinct and unequal populations: patients with sepsis present on admission (85%) and patients who develop sepsis in the hospital (15%) with mortality rates of 12% and 35%, respectively. METHODS: Models are developed and tested based on 258 836 adult inpatient records from 4 hospitals. A "present on admission" model identifies patients admitted to a hospital with sepsis, and a "not present on admission" model predicts postadmission onset. Inputs include common clinical measurements and the Rothman Index. Sepsis was determined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. RESULTS: For sepsis present on admission, area under the curves ranged from 0.87 to 0.91. Operating points chosen to yield 75% and 50% sensitivity achieve positive predictive values of 17% to 25% and 29% to 40%, respectively. For sepsis not present on admission, at 65% sensitivity, positive predictive values ranged from 10% to 20% across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This approach yields good to excellent discriminatory performance among adult inpatients for predicting sepsis present on admission or developed within the hospital and may aid in the timely delivery of care.