Nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) in the treatment of viral exacerbations of COPD.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viral infections are major drivers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. Interferon-ß is naturally produced in response to viral infection, limiting replication. This exploratory study aimed to demonstrate proof-of-mechanism, and evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled recombinant interferon-ß1a (SNG001) in COPD. Part 1 assessed the effects of SNG001 on induced sputum antiviral interferon-stimulated gene expression, sputum differential cell count, and respiratory function. Part 2 compared SNG001 and placebo on clinical efficacy, sputum and serum biomarkers, and viral clearance. METHODS: In Part 1, patients (N = 13) with stable COPD were randomised 4:1 to SNG001 or placebo once-daily for three days. In Part 2, patients (N = 109) with worsening symptoms and a positive respiratory viral test were randomised 1:1 to SNG001 or placebo once-daily for 14 days in two Groups: A (no moderate exacerbation); B (moderate COPD exacerbation [i.e., acute worsening of respiratory symptoms treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids]). RESULTS: In Part 1, SNG001 upregulated sputum interferon gene expression. In Part 2, there were minimal SNG001-placebo differences in the efficacy endpoints; however, whereas gene expression was initially upregulated by viral infection, then declined on placebo, levels were maintained with SNG001. Furthermore, the proportion of patients with detectable rhinovirus (the most common virus) on Day 7 was lower with SNG001. In Group B, serum C-reactive protein and the proportion of patients with purulent sputum increased with placebo (suggesting bacterial infection), but not with SNG001. The overall adverse event incidence was similar with both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, SNG001 was well-tolerated in patients with COPD, and upregulated lung antiviral defences to accelerate viral clearance. These findings warrant further investigation in a larger study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU clinical trials register (2017-003679-75), 6 October 2017.

Nomenclature of allergic diseases and hypersensitivity reactions: Adapted to modern needs: An EAACI position paper.

The exponential growth of precision diagnostic tools, including omic technologies, molecular diagnostics, sophisticated genetic and epigenetic editing, imaging and nano-technologies and patient access to extensive health care, has resulted in vast amounts of unbiased data enabling in-depth disease characterization. New disease endotypes have been identified for various allergic diseases and triggered the gradual transition from a disease description focused on symptoms to identifying biomarkers and intricate pathogenetic and metabolic pathways. Consequently, the current disease taxonomy has to be revised for better categorization. This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Position Paper responds to this challenge and provides a modern nomenclature for allergic diseases, which respects the earlier classifications back to the early 20th century. Hypersensitivity reactions originally described by Gell and Coombs have been extended into nine different types comprising antibody- (I-III), cell-mediated (IVa-c), tissue-driven mechanisms (V-VI) and direct response to chemicals (VII). Types I-III are linked to classical and newly described clinical conditions. Type IVa-c are specified and detailed according to the current understanding of T1, T2 and T3 responses. Types V-VI involve epithelial barrier defects and metabolic-induced immune dysregulation, while direct cellular and inflammatory responses to chemicals are covered in type VII. It is notable that several combinations of mixed types may appear in the clinical setting. The clinical relevance of the current approach for allergy practice will be conferred in another article that will follow this year, aiming at showing the relevance in clinical practice where various endotypes can overlap and evolve over the lifetime.

Nebulised interferon-ß1a (SNG001) in hospitalised COVID-19: SPRINTER phase III study.

Background: Despite the availability of vaccines and therapies, patients are being hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Interferon (IFN)-ß is a naturally occurring protein that stimulates host immune responses against most viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. SNG001 is a recombinant IFN-ß1a formulation delivered to the lungs via nebuliser. SPRINTER assessed the efficacy and safety of SNG001 in adults hospitalised due to COVID-19 who required oxygen via nasal prongs or mask. Methods: Patients were randomised double-blind to SNG001 (n=309) or placebo (n=314) once daily for 14 days plus standard of care (SoC). The primary objective was to evaluate recovery after administration of SNG001 versus placebo, in terms of times to hospital discharge and recovery to no limitation of activity. Key secondary end-points were progression to severe disease or death, progression to intubation or death and death. Results: Median time to hospital discharge was 7.0 and 8.0 days with SNG001 and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06 (95% CI 0.89-1.27); p=0.51); time to recovery was 25.0 days in both groups (HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.81-1.28); p=0.89). There were no significant SNG001-placebo differences for the key secondary end-points, with a 25.7% relative risk reduction in progression to severe disease or death (10.7% and 14.4%, respectively; OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.44-1.15); p=0.161). Serious adverse events were reported by 12.6% and 18.2% patients with SNG001 and placebo, respectively. Conclusions: Although the primary objective of the study was not met, SNG001 had a favourable safety profile, and the key secondary end-points analysis suggested that SNG001 may have prevented progression to severe disease.

Accelerating the transition of clinical science to translational medicine.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has shown the importance of medical research in responding to the urgent prevention and health needs to combat the devastating disease, COVID-19, that this ß-coronavirus unleashed. Equally, it has demonstrated the importance of interdisciplinary working to translate scientific discovery into public and patient benefit. As we come to adjust to live with this new virus, it is important to look back and see what lessons we have learnt in the way scientific medical discoveries can be more effectively and rapidly moved into public benefit. Clinical Science has had a long and distinguished history with this Journal bearing the same name and being an important contributor to the rapidly increasing use of human pathobiological data to gain mechanistic understanding of disease mechanisms leading to new diagnostic tests and treatments. The recognition that many complex diseases engage multiple causal pathways that may vary from patient to patient, and at different times across the lifecourse, has led to the emergence of stratified or precision medicine in which the right treatment is given to the right patient at the right time and, in doing so, minimise 'non-responders' and off-target side effects. Applications of omics technologies, the digitalisation of biology and the applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) are accelerating disease insights at pace with translation of discoveries into new diagnostic tests and treatments. The future of clinical science, as it morphs into translational medicine, is now creating unique possibilities where even the most intractable diseases are now open to being conquered.

Reducing the hidden burden of severe asthma: recognition and referrals from primary practice.

Since their introduction many decades ago, systemic corticosteroids have become a mainstay treatment for asthma. Despite being a highly effective therapy, corticosteroids can cause significant adverse effects in patients. This results in a "double hit" for some patients as they suffer the burden of disease as well as the burden of treatment-induced morbidity.This article aims to raise awareness of the potential, harmful side effects of prolonged or repeated exposure to systemic corticosteroids in asthma. It also highlights the importance of referral of the appropriate patients with asthma from primary care for specialist assessment once other considerations such as adherence, inhaler technique and co-morbidity have been evaluated. We propose a simple decision step that may help busy primary care physicians and general practitioners to identify patients who could benefit from specialist assessment.Our decision step suggests that a patient with asthma should be reviewed at least once by an asthma specialist if he/she (i) has received ≥2 courses of oral corticosteroids in the previous year; asthma remains uncontrolled despite good adherence and inhaler technique; or (ii) has attended an emergency department or was hospitalized for asthma care.Such referral could facilitate wider access to diagnostic tools, in-depth assessment of confounding comorbidities, and non-corticosteroid-based therapies as needed, which may be unavailable in primary practice.

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection carries a substantial risk of severe and prolonged illness; treatment options are currently limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 pilot trial at nine UK sites. Adults aged 18 years or older and admitted to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms, with a positive RT-PCR or point-of-care test, or both, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive SNG001 (6 MIU) or placebo by inhalation via a mouthpiece daily for 14 days. The primary outcome was the change in clinical condition on the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI) during the dosing period in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study drug). The OSCI is a 9-point scale, where 0 corresponds to no infection and 8 corresponds to death. Multiple analyses were done to identify the most suitable statistical method for future clinical trials. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events for 28 days. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrialsregister.eu (2020-001023-14) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04385095); the pilot trial of inpatients with COVID-19 is now completed. FINDINGS: Between March 30 and May 30, 2020, 101 patients were randomly assigned to SNG001 (n=50) or placebo (n=51). 48 received SNG001 and 50 received placebo and were included in the intention-to-treat population. 66 (67%) patients required oxygen supplementation at baseline: 29 in the placebo group and 37 in the SNG001 group. Patients receiving SNG001 had greater odds of improvement on the OSCI scale (odds ratio 2·32 [95% CI 1·07-5·04]; p=0·033) on day 15 or 16 and were more likely than those receiving placebo to recover to an OSCI score of 1 (no limitation of activities) during treatment (hazard ratio 2·19 [95% CI 1·03-4·69]; p=0·043). SNG001 was well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event was headache (seven [15%] patients in the SNG001 group and five [10%] in the placebo group). There were three deaths in the placebo group and none in the SNG001 group. INTERPRETATION: Patients who received SNG001 had greater odds of improvement and recovered more rapidly from SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients who received placebo, providing a strong rationale for further trials. FUNDING: Synairgen Research.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10,' which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set,' which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10', which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set', which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Effect of omalizumab on lung function and eosinophil levels in adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab improves clinical outcomes in patients with asthma. Several studies have shown lung function improvements with omalizumab; however, this has not been examined exclusively in adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of omalizumab on lung function and eosinophil counts in adolescents with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, data from adolescents aged 12 to 17 years from 8 randomized trials of omalizumab were pooled (studies 008, 009, and 011, and SOLAR, INNOVATE, ALTO, ETOPA, and EXTRA). Changes from baseline to end of study in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and blood eosinophil counts were assessed by fitting an analysis of covariance model and calculating least squares mean (LSM) difference for omalizumab vs placebo. RESULTS: A total of 340 adolescents were identified (omalizumab, n = 203 [59.7%]; placebo, n = 137 [40.3%]). Omalizumab increased all baseline lung function variables more than placebo by end of study: LSM treatment differences (95% confidence interval) were 3.0% (0.2%-5.7%; P = .035), 120.9 mL (30.6-211.2 mL; P = .009), and 101.5 mL (8.3-194.6 mL; P = .033) for ppFEV1, absolute FEV1, and FVC, respectively. The LSM difference demonstrated a greater reduction in eosinophil counts for omalizumab vs placebo: -85.9 cells/µL (-137.1 to -34.6 cells/µL; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Omalizumab was associated with lung function improvements and circulating eosinophil counts reductions in adolescents with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. Findings emphasize the effect of omalizumab in young patients and the need to optimize treatment early in the disease course. https://clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00314574, NCT00046748, NCT00401596.