Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Who Received Compassionate-Use Leronlimab.

BACKGROUND: Leronlimab, a monoclonal antibody blocker of C-C chemokine receptor type 5 originally developed to treat human immunodeficiency virus infection, was administered as an open-label compassionate-use therapeutic for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Twenty-three hospitalized severe/critical COVID-19 patients received 700 mg leronlimab subcutaneously, repeated after 7 days in 17 of 23 patients still hospitalized. Eighteen of 23 received other experimental treatments, including convalescent plasma, hydroxychloroquine, steroids, and/or tocilizumab. Five of 23 received leronlimab after blinded, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir, sarilumab, selinexor, or tocilizumab. Outcomes and results were extracted from medical records. RESULTS: Mean age was 69.5 ±â€…14.9 years; 20 had significant comorbidities. At baseline, 22 were receiving supplemental oxygen (3 high flow, 7 mechanical ventilation). Blood showed markedly elevated inflammatory markers (ferritin, D-dimer, C-reactive protein) and an elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. By day 30 after initial dosing, 17 were recovered, 2 were still hospitalized, and 4 had died. Of the 7 intubated at baseline, 4 were fully recovered off oxygen, 2 were still hospitalized, and 1 had died. CONCLUSIONS: Leronlimab appeared safe and well tolerated. The high recovery rate suggested benefit, and those with lower inflammatory markers had better outcomes. Some, but not all, patients appeared to have dramatic clinical responses, indicating that unknown factors may determine responsiveness to leronlimab. Routine inflammatory and cell prognostic markers did not markedly change immediately after treatment, although interleukin-6 tended to fall. In some persons, C-reactive protein clearly dropped only after the second leronlimab dose, suggesting that a higher loading dose might be more effective. Future controlled trials will be informative.

Role of CTSA institutes and academic medical centers in facilitating preapproval access to investigational agents and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: With no approved treatments for COVID-19 initially available, the Food and Drug Administration utilized multiple preapproval pathways to provide access to investigational agents and/or medical devices: Expanded Access, Emergency Use Authorizations, and Clinical Trials. Regulatory units within an Academic Medical Center (AMC), including those part of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium, have provided support for clinicians in navigating these options prior to the pandemic. As such, they were positioned to be a resource for accessing therapies during the COVID-19 public health emergency. METHODS: A small survey and a follow-on poll of the national Investigational New Drug (IND)/Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Workgroup were conducted in October and December 2020 to determine whether CTSA regulatory units assisted in facilitating access to COVID-19 therapies and the extent of pandemic-related challenges these units faced. RESULTS: Fifteen survey and 21 poll responses were received, which provided insights into the demands placed on these regulatory support units due to the pandemic and the changes required to provide critical support during this and future crises. Key changes and lessons learned included the importance of regulatory knowledge to support the institutional response, the critical need for electronic submission capacity for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents, and the nimble reallocation of regulatory and legal resources to support patient access to investigational agents and/or medical devices during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: AMC- and CTSA-based regulatory units played a meaningful role in the COVID-19 pandemic but further unit modifications are needed for enabling more robust regulatory support in the future.

Relief of post-herpetic neuralgia by surgical removal of painful skin.

We present a case of longstanding PHN treated by skin excision of the area of greatest pain (11.3 x 26.0 cm(2)). The operation reduced pain, eliminated tactile allodynia, and facilitated greatly reduced medication use over a 1-year follow-up period. Fourteen punch biopsies and 10 strips of skin (each 10 mm long) from the excised painful PHN skin were qualitatively assessed by double-label immunofluorescence using antibodies against protein-gene-product 9.5 (PGP9.5), 200 kDa neurofilament protein (NF), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and vanilloid receptor-1 (VR-1). Compared with a punch biopsy from mirror image skin, the pattern of cutaneous innervation in PHN skin was consistently and substantially different. The results may explain the anatomical basis of the capsaicin-response test and have implications for our understanding of clinical mechanisms underlying PHN pain.

A roadmap for academic health centers to establish good laboratory practice-compliant infrastructure.

Prior to human clinical trials, nonclinical safety and toxicology studies are required to demonstrate that a new product appears safe for human testing; these nonclinical studies are governed by good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations. As academic health centers (AHCs) embrace the charge to increase the translation of basic science research into clinical discoveries, researchers at these institutions increasingly will be conducting GLP-regulated nonclinical studies. Because the consequences for noncompliance are severe and many AHC researchers are unfamiliar with Food and Drug Administration regulations, the authors describe the regulatory requirements for conducting GLP research, including the strict documentation requirements, the necessary personnel training, the importance of study monitoring, and the critical role that compliance oversight plays in the process. They then explain the process that AHCs interested in conducting GLP studies should take before the start of their research program, including conducting a needs assessment and a gap analysis and selecting a model for GLP compliance. Finally, the authors identify and analyze several critical barriers to developing and implementing a GLP-compliant infrastructure at an AHC. Despite these challenges, the capacity to perform such research will help AHCs to build and maintain competitive research programs and to facilitate the successful translation of faculty-initiated research from nonclinical studies to first-in-human clinical trials.

Support for investigator-initiated clinical research involving investigational drugs or devices: the Clinical and Translational Science Award experience.

PURPOSE: Investigator-initiated research involving investigational drugs and devices is key to improving health. However, this requires the investigator to serve as a "sponsor-investigator," which can be complex and overwhelming. The Investigational New Drug/Investigational Device Exemption (IND/IDE) Taskforce of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium carried out a survey to examine how academic health centers (AHCs) assist sponsor-investigators with regulatory responsibilities. METHOD: The 24 CTSA centers existing in 2008 were surveyed regarding regulatory oversight and support for sponsor-investigators. Responses were analyzed by descriptive statistics. The evaluation of survey responses yielded three models of institutional support/oversight. RESULTS: Nineteen centers and one affiliate responded. Eleven (55%) reported having an IND/IDE support office, increased from five (25%) prior to their CTSA award. The volume of investigator-initiated IND/IDE research was highly variable (measured by numbers of investigators, IND/IDE applications, and studies). Oversight, if done, was provided by either the IND/IDE office or elsewhere in the institution. Most IND/IDE offices assisted with IND/IDE submissions and preparation for external audits. Half reported advanced training for sponsor-investigators. Almost all reported a goal to increase IND/IDE research. Important issues include the need for robust training of investigator/staff, appropriate determination of IND-exempt research, and sufficient support for preparing IND/IDE applications. CONCLUSIONS: Investigator-initiated research involving IND/IDEs is essential, but complex. AHCs should examine how they support sponsor-investigators in meeting the complex requirements. A model of either expert consultation/support or full service will minimize risks to participants and institutions, and regulatory noncompliance.

Natural history of pain following herpes zoster.

In a longitudinal observational study of 94 patients (39 M:55 F, mean age 69) at elevated risk for developing post herpetic neuralgia (PHN), the natural history of pain during the first 6 months after herpes zoster (HZ) rash onset was determined. Pain severity and impact were rated using pain-VAS, SF-MPQ, and MPI. Applying a definition of PHN of average daily pain >0/100 on the pain VAS during the last 48 h, 30 subjects had PHN at 6 months. These 30 subjects reported more pain and a higher SF-MPQ score (p<0.01) at study inclusion than the 64 subjects whose pain completely resolved by 6 months. At 6 months, mean daily pain in the PHN group was 11/100 (95% CI 5,16) and only nine of these subjects were still taking prescription medication for HZ pain. The rate of recovery (pain severity over time) was the same in the PHN and no-pain groups. At study inclusion, the SF-MPQ and MPI scores in our PHN group were similar to historical controls with chronic severe PHN enrolled in clinical trials, but by 6 months the scores in our PHN subjects were significantly lower than historic controls. Only two subjects met the more stringent criteria for 'clinically meaningful' PHN at 6 months (> or = 30/100 on the pain VAS). Defining PHN as average daily pain >0/100 at 6 months after rash onset appears to substantially overestimate the number of HZ patients negatively impacted by ongoing pain and disability.