Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have immunomodulatory and tissue-regenerative properties and have shown promising results in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of multiple causes, including COVID-19. We conducted a randomised (1:1), placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of one bone marrow-derived MSC infusion in twenty patients with moderate to severe ARDS caused by COVID-19. The primary endpoint (increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio from baseline to day 7, MSC 83.3 versus placebo 57.6) was not statistically significant, although a clinical improvement at day 7 in the WHO scale was observed in MSC patients (5, 50% vs 0, 0%, p = 0.033). Median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was also shorter in the experimental arm (14 versus 23 days, p = 0.007), resulting in a shorter hospital stay (17.5 versus 28 days, p = 0.042). No significant differences were observed for other efficacy or safety secondary endpoints. No infusion or treatment-related serious adverse events occurred during the one-year follow-up. This study did not meet the primary endpoint of PaO2/FiO2 increase by day 7, although it suggests that MSC are safe in COVID-19 ARDS and may accelerate patients' clinical recovery and hospital discharge. Larger studies are warranted to elucidate their role in ARDS and other inflammatory lung disorders.Trial Registration: EudraCT Number: 2020-002193-27, registered on July 14th, 2020, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-002193-27/ES . NCT number: NCT04615429, registered on November 4th, 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04615429 .

Longer intervals between SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA-1273 doses improve the neutralization of different variants of concern.

The humoral immune response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern elicited by vaccination was evaluated in COVID-19 recovered individuals (Rec) separated 1-3 months (Rec2m) or 4-12 months (Rec9m) postinfection and compared to the response in naïve participants. Antibody-mediated immune responses were assessed in 66 participants by three commercial immunoassays and a SARS-CoV-2 lentiviral-based pseudovirus neutralization assay. Immunoglobulin (Ig) levels against SARS-CoV-2 spike were lower in naïve participants after two doses than in Rec after a single dose (p < 0.05). After two doses in Rec, levels of total Ig to receptor-binding domain were significantly increased in Rec9m compared to Rec2m (p < 0.001). The neutralizing potency observed in Rec9m was consistently higher than in Rec2m against variants of concern (VOCs) Alpha, Beta, Delta, and BA.1 sublineage of Omicron with 2.2-2.8-fold increases. Increasing the interval between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the vaccination with messenger RNA-based vaccines to more than 3 months generates a more efficient heterologous humoral immune response against VOCs by allowing enough time to mount a strong recall memory B cell response.

Nurses competence in the reporting of medication-related incidents: An intervention study.

OBJECTIVES: Less than 5% of all harmful medicine-related incidents (MIs) or adverse drug reactions received by the Spanish Pharmacovigilance system are notified by Registered Nurses (RNs). The main objective of this study was to determine the impact of a multifaceted institutional intervention (MII) in patient safety on the reporting competence of medication incidents of hospital RNs. DESIGN: One-group pre-test-posttest design. SETTING: Tertiary, public, teaching hospital in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 139 RNs responded to pre- and postintervention questionnaires constituting the paired sample subjected to analysis. INTERVENTION: A MII, consisting of educational activities and materials, change in MI reporting form from paper to electronic and appointment of reporting support services, was designed and directed to all hospital RNs and midwifes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall MIs reporting competence (OC) and its dimensions (attitudes, knowledge and skills) were measured through a synthetic variable (total OC value range: 34-170 points) by means of an electronic questionnaire. RESULTS: A statistically significant 7.96-point increase in OC from baseline to the final measurement was obtained (CI: 5.05-10.85). There was an increase of 7.38 points in the skills dimension (CI: 5.06-9.68). After the MII, 73.4% nurses improved their OC and 33.8% reported at least one no-harm MI postintervention compared to 4.4% pre-intervention (p < .001). A one-point increase in OC improved the probability of becoming reporter by 2.9% and a one-point increase in skills by 6.4%. CONCLUSION: MIs reporting competence among RNs increased after a multifaceted institutional intervention, due to an improvement in the skills dimension. The MII was also effective in raising both, the rate of RNs who become reporters and the number of no-harm MIs reported.

A multicenter randomized open-label clinical trial for convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUNDPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19. Evidence from controlled clinical trials is inconclusive.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial at 27 hospitals in Spain. Patients had to be admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia within 7 days from symptom onset and not on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with CP in addition to standard of care (SOC) or to the control arm receiving only SOC. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5 (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen), 6 (invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), or 7 (death) at 14 days. Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSBetween April 4, 2020, and February 5, 2021, 350 patients were randomly assigned to either CP (n = 179) or SOC (n = 171). At 14 days, proportion of patients in categories 5, 6, or 7 was 11.7% in the CP group versus 16.4% in the control group (P = 0.205). The difference was greater at 28 days, with 8.4% of patients in categories 5-7 in the CP group versus 17.0% in the control group (P = 0.021). The difference in overall survival did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14, log-rank P = 0.087).CONCLUSIONCP showed a significant benefit in preventing progression to noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO, or death at 28 days. The effect on the predefined primary endpoint at 14 days and the effect on overall survival were not statistically significant.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04345523.FUNDINGGovernment of Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Double-blind, randomized, controlled, trial to assess the efficacy of allogenic mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 (COVID-AT): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the efficacy of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSC) versus a control arm as described in the primary endpoint. 2. To evaluate the effects of MSC on the secondary efficacy endpoints. 3. To evaluate the safety and tolerability profiles of MSC. 4. To study soluble and cellular biomarkers that might be involved in the course of the disease and the response to the investigational product. TRIAL DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, controlled, trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MSC intravenous administration in patients with COVID-induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) compared to a control arm. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is being conducted at a third level hospital, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, in Majadahonda, Madrid (Spain). Inclusion criteria 1. Informed consent prior to performing study procedures (witnessed oral consent with written consent by representatives will be accepted to avoid paper handling). Written consent by patient or representatives will be obtained whenever possible. 2. Adult patients ≥18 years of age at the time of enrolment. 3. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection as determined by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), in oropharyngeal swabs or any other relevant specimen obtained during the course of the disease. Alternative tests (e.g., rapid antigen tests) are also acceptable as laboratory confirmation if their specificity has been accepted by the Sponsor. 4. Moderate to severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 ratio equal or less than 200 mmHg) for less than 96 hours at the time of randomization. 5. Patients requiring invasive ventilation are eligible within 72 hours from intubation. 6. Eligible for ICU admission, according to the clinical team. Exclusion criteria 1. Imminent and unavoidable progression to death within 24 hours, irrespective of the provision of treatments (in the opinion of the clinical team). 2. "Do Not Attempt Resuscitation" order in place. 3. Any end-stage organ disease or condition, which in the investigator's opinion, makes the patient an unsuitable candidate for treatment. 4. History of a moderate/severe lung disorder requiring home-based oxygen therapy. 5. Patient requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO), haemodialysis or hemofiltration at the time of treatment administration. 6. Current diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. 7. Active neoplasm, except carcinoma in situ or basalioma. 8. Known allergy to the products involved in the allogeneic MSC production process. 9. Current pregnancy or lactation (women with childbearing potential should have a negative pregnancy test result at the time of study enrolment). 10. Current participation in a clinical trial with an experimental treatment for COVID-19 (the use of any off-label medicine according to local treatment protocols is not an exclusion criteria). 11. Any circumstances that in the investigator's opinion compromises the patient's ability to participate in the clinical trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: - Experimental treatment arm: Allogeneic MSC (approximately 1 x 106 cells/kg). - Control arm: placebo solution (same composition as the experimental treatment, without the MSC). One single intravenous dose of the assigned treatment will be administered on Day 0 of the study. All trial participants will receive standard of care (SOC). In the context of the current worldwide pandemic, SOC can include medicines that are being used in clinical practice (e.g. lopinavir/ritonavir; hydroxy/chloroquine, tocilizumab, etc.), as well as those authorised for COVID (e.g., remdesivir). MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary endpoint: Change in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio from baseline to day 7 of treatment administration, or to the last available PaO2/FiO2 ratio if death occurs before day 7. Secondary endpoints: - All-cause mortality on days 7, 14, and 28 after treatment. - PaO2/FiO2 ratio at baseline and days 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 after treatment. - Oxygen saturation (by standardized measurement) at baseline, daily until day 14, and on day 28 after treatment. - Time to PaO2/FiO2 ratio greater than 200 mmHg. - Subjects' clinical status on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale at baseline, daily until day 14, and on day 28 after treatment. - Time to an improvement of one category from admission on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. - Percentage of patients that worsen at least one category on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. - Percentage of patients that improve at least one category (maintained 48h) on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. - Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scale at baseline and days 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 after treatment. - Duration of hospitalization (days). - Duration of ICU stay (days). - Oxygen therapy-free days in the first 28 days after treatment. - Duration of supplemental oxygen. - Incidence of and duration of non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in the first 28 days after treatment. - Mechanical ventilation-free days in the first 28 days after treatment. - Ventilation parameters. - Incidence of new onset pulmonary fibrosis at 3 and 12 months after treatment, based on CT scan and pulmonary function tests. - Survival at 3 and 12 months. - Cumulative incidence of Serious Adverse events (SAEs) and Grade 3 and 4 Adverse Events (AEs). - Cumulative incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) in the experimental treatment arm. - Cumulative incidence of AEs of special interest. - Levels of analytical markers (C-Reactive Protein, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts, lymphocyte subpopulations, LDH, ferritin, D-dimer, coagulation tests and cytokines...) at baseline and days 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 after treatment. - Other soluble and cellular biomarkers that might be involved in the course of the disease and the response to MSC. RANDOMISATION: The assignment to treatment will be carried out randomly and blinded, with a 1:1 allocation. Randomization will be done through a centralized system embedded in the electronic Case Report Form (CRF). BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure blinding, treatments will be prepared for administration at the Cell Production Unit and the administration of the treatment will be masked, not allowing the identification of the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP). NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 20 participants are planned to be randomized, 10 to each treatment group. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version: 1.2, dated October 14th, 2020 Start of recruitment: 01/10/2020 End of recruitment (estimated): December 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-002193-27 , registered on July 14th, 2020. NCT number: NCT04615429 , registered on November 4th, 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Evaluation of convalescent plasma versus standard of care for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: study protocol for a phase 2 randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. At the time this clinical trial was planned, there were no available vaccine or therapeutic agents with proven efficacy, but the severity of the condition prompted the use of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. It has long been hypothesized that the use of convalescent plasma (CP) from infected patients who have developed an effective immune response is likely to be an option for the treatment of patients with a variety of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) of viral etiology. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS/DESIGN: The ConPlas-19 study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label controlled trial. The study has been planned to include 278 adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 infection not requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Subjects are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (139 per treatment arm), stratified by center, to receive intravenously administered CP (single infusion) plus SOC or SOC alone, and are to be followed for 30 days. The primary endpoint of the study is the proportion of patients that progress to category 5, 6, or 7 (on the 7-point ordinal scale proposed by the WHO) at day 15. Interim analyses for efficacy and/or futility will be conducted once 20%, 40%, and 60% of the planned sample size are enrolled and complete D15 assessment. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma for the treatment of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The results of this study are expected to contribute to establishing the potential place of CP in the therapeutics for a new viral disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345523 . Registered on 30 March, 2020. First posted date: April 14, 2020.

EMA Review of Daratumumab (Darzalex) for the Treatment of Adult Patients Newly Diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma.

The use of daratumumab in combination with established regimens for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma has recently been authorized by the European Medicines Agency based on results from three separate phase III randomized, active controlled, open-label studies that have confirmed enhanced efficacy and tolerability in both transplant-ineligible (MMY3008 and MMY3007) and transplant-eligible (MMY3006) patients, without compromising transplant ability. Trial MMY3008 showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when daratumumab was added to lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone; the median PFS had not been reached in the daratumumab arm and was 31.9 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.73; p < .0001). Trial MMY3007 showed an improvement in PFS when daratumumab was added to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone compared with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone; PFS had not been reached in the daratumumab arm and was 18.1 months in the control arm (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.38-0.65; p < .0001). In trial MMY3006, daratumumab added to bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone was compared with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction and consolidation treatment prior to autologous stem cell transplant. The stringent complete response rate at day 100 after transplant in the daratumumab group was 29% compared with 20% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.60; 1.21-2.12 95% CI; p = .0010). Overall adverse events were manageable, with an increased rate of neutropenia and infections in the daratumumab arms. Regulatory assessment of efficacy and safety results from trials MMY3006, MMY3007, and MMY3008 confirmed a positive benefit-risk ratio leading to an approval of the extensions of indication. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A set of extensions of indication was recently approved for daratumumab (Darzalex) in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in combination with established regimens. Results of the MMY3006, MMY3007, and MMY3008 trials have shown enhanced efficacy and a favorable side effect profile of several daratumumab-based combinations in patients both ineligible and eligible for transplant, without compromising transplant ability. The combinations of daratumumab with either lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone were approved for transplant-ineligible patients. The combination of daratumumab with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone was approved for transplant-eligible patients. These combinations are expected to improve the survival outlook for patients with multiple myeloma, without an unacceptable risk of increase in adverse events, and updated information on progression-free survival and overall survival is expected from the above trials.

A Retrospective Controlled Cohort Study of the Impact of Glucocorticoid Treatment in SARS-CoV-2 Infection Mortality.

Evidence to support the use of steroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use for COVID-19 pneumonia on hospital mortality. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a university hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March of 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, and we adjusted with a propensity score for patients on steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using the log rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared and adjusted with a second propensity score. During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. The median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8 to 13 days). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.96]; P = 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to the mortality with no steroid treatment (relative risk reduction, 0.42 [95% confidence interval, 0.048 to 0.65]). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg of body weight/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86]; odds ratio [OR], 0.880 [95% confidence interval, 0.449 to 1.726]; P = 0.710). Our results show that the survival of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. Rates of in-hospital mortality were not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.

A Multicentric, Open-Label, Randomized, Comparative Clinical Trial of Two Different Doses of Expanded hBM-MSCs Plus Biomaterial versus Iliac Crest Autograft, for Bone Healing in Nonunions after Long Bone Fractures: Study Protocol.

ORTHOUNION is a multicentre, open, comparative, three-arm, randomized clinical trial (EudraCT number 2015-000431-32) to compare the efficacy, at one and two years, of autologous human bone marrow-derived expanded mesenchymal stromal cell (hBM-MSC) treatments versus iliac crest autograft (ICA) to enhance bone healing in patients with diaphyseal and/or metaphysodiaphyseal fracture (femur, tibia, and humerus) status of atrophic or oligotrophic nonunion (more than 9 months after the acute fracture, including recalcitrant cases after failed treatments). The primary objective is to determine if the treatment with hBM-MSCs combined with biomaterial is superior to ICA in obtaining bone healing. If confirmed, a secondary objective is set to determine if the dose of 100 × 106 hBM-MSCs is noninferior to that of 200 × 106 hBM-MSCs. The participants (n = 108) will be randomly assigned to either the experimental low dose (n = 36), the experimental high dose (n = 36), or the comparator arm (n = 36) using a central randomization service. The trial will be conducted in 20 clinical centres in Spain, France, Germany, and Italy under the same clinical protocol. The confirmation of superiority for the proposed ATMP in nonunions may foster the future of bone regenerative medicine in this indication. On the contrary, absence of superiority may underline its limitations in clinical use.

¿Son equivalentes los genéricos y las marcas en el tratamiento de la enfermedad de Alzheimer? / Are generics and brand name medicines equivalent in Alzheimer’s disease treatment?

Los genéricos son a veces objeto de dudas y malentendidos por parte del médico o del paciente. En el caso del paciente con enfermedad de Alzheimer, el «baile» de genéricos puede ser un motivo de preocupación y causar problemas en la identificación del tratamiento habitual. Sin embargo, la eficacia y la seguridad del medicamento genérico están perfectamente avaladas al haberse demostrado su bioequivalencia con el medicamento innovador o de referencia. La bioequivalencia tiene como base una metodología cuyo fundamento es garantizar no solo que el medicamento genérico tiene la misma cantidad de principio activo que el medicamento de referencia, sino también que se absorbe exactamente del mismo modo, lo que permite asumir que producirá los mismos efectos sistémicos. El menor precio del genérico está sujeto a diversos factores, pero no se debe a diferencias en calidad, ya que su fabricación cumple con idénticos estándares a los del medicamento de referencia. Algunos conceptos relevantes en este campo son los de «prescribilidad », intercambiabilidad y políticas de sustitución. Así, un medicamento genérico autorizado puede ser prescrito con las mismas garantías de calidad, eficacia y seguridad que el medicamento de referencia y se debe considerar intercambiable, si bien es preferible evitar sustituciones innecesarias en los pacientes (AU)

The use of generic drugs is often surrounded by misunderstandings and questions, from patients and physicians. The switch between generic drugs is frequently a concern because it can difficult the ability of Alzheimer’s patients to recognize their daily medication. The efficacy and safety of a generic drug is fully endorsed by demonstrating its bioequivalence with the reference drug. The demonstration of bioequivalence guarantees not only that the generic drug contains the same active substance quantity, but it is also absorbed in the same manner than the reference drug. This methodology allows us to conclude that both drugs produce the same systemic effects. The lower price of a generic drug is due to several different factors, but none of them incur in differences in quality, since the manufacture of a generic drug follows identical requirements to those followed by the reference drug. "Prescribility", "interchangeability" and "drug substitution" policies are relevant concepts to discuss in the context of generic drugs use. In that sense, an approved generic drug can be prescribed with the same quality, efficacy and safety guaranties that those of the reference drug and both of them can be considered exchangeable. However, it is preferred to avoid any unnecessary drug substitutions in a patient chronic treatment (AU)

Use of non-specific intravenous human immunoglobulins in Spanish hospitals; need for a hospital protocol.

UNLABELLED: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) use in non-approved indications, the increase in consumption and its high cost recommend rationalisation in its utilisation. AIMS: To assess the use of IVIG in Spanish hospitals. METHODS: An observational, prospective and multicentre drug utilisation study was conducted in 13 tertiary Spanish hospitals. Data were collected for 3 months in patients receiving any IVIG. Patient demographics, indication for IVIG use, dosage regimen and cost of treatment were collected. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty-four patients (mean age of 52 years) were included in the study. A total of 1,287 prescriptions were administered, and the average number of prescriptions per patient was 2.3. The mean daily dose was 24 g (range 0.6-90 g). Overall, IVIG was prescribed for authorised indications in 335 patients (60%) with 953 prescriptions (74%), for non-authorised indications with scientific evidentiary support in 86 patients (16%) with 137 prescriptions (11%), and non-authorised and non-accepted indications in 133 patients (24%) with 197 prescriptions (15%). The most frequent authorised indications were primary and secondary immunodeficiencies, and the most frequent non-authorised and non-accepted indications were multiple sclerosis and bullous dermatosis. The mean cost of IVIG per patient for authorised indications was 2,636.2 , non-authorised indications with scientific support 5,262.1 and non-accepted indications 3,555.8 . CONCLUSIONS: IVIG is prescribed for a significant number of non-authorised and non-accepted indications with a notable cost. There is an important variability in IVIG prescriptions between hospitals, indicating room for improvement in IVIG use and the need for a consensus of protocol use.