Excretion of ultraviolet-absorbing material by leaky and non-leaky strains of Escherichia coli exposed to streptomycin.

C. Hurwitz,C. Rosano,R. A. Peabody

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6550(63)90311-6

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of vilobelimab in COVID-19: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Rombout B E van Amstel,Marleen A Slim,Endry H T Lim,Simon Rückinger,Christopher W Seymour,Bruce P Burnett,Lieuwe D J Bos,Lonneke A van Vught,Niels C Riedemann,Diederik van de Beek,Alexander P J Vlaar,PANAMO Study Group,Martin Witzenrath,Pieter van Paassen,Leo M A Heunks,Bruno Mourvillier,Sanne de Bruin,Matthijs C Brouwer,Pieter R Tuinman,José Francisco K Saraiva,Gernot Marx,Suzana M Lobo,Rodrigo Boldo,Jesus A Simon-Campos,Alexander D Cornet,Anastasia Grebenyuk,Johannes M Engelbrecht,Murimisi Mukansi,Philippe G Jorens,Robert Zerbib,Korinna Pilz,Renfeng Guo,Pierre Bulpa,Fabio S Taccone,Greet Hermans,Marc Diltoer,Michael Piagnerelli,Nikolaas De Neve,Antonio T Freire,Felipe D Pizzol,Anna Karolina Marinho,Victor H Sato,Clovis Arns da Cunha,Mathilde Neuville,Jean Dellamonica,Djillali Annane,Antoine Roquilly,Jean Luc Diehl,Francis Schneider,Jean Paul Mira,Jean Baptiste Lascarrou,Luc Desmedt,Claire Dupuis,Carole Schwebel,Guillaume Thiéry,Matthias Gründling,Marc Berger,Tobias Welte,Michael Bauer,Ulrich Jaschinski,Klaus Matschke,Roberto Mercado-Longoria,Belinda Gomez Quintana,Jorge Alberto Zamudio-Lerma,Juan Moreno Hoyos Abril,Angel Aleman Marquez,Peter Pickkers,Luuk Otterspoor,Luis Hercilla Vásquez,Carlos Rafael Seas Ramos,Alejandro Peña Villalobos,Gonzalo Gianella Malca,Victoria Chávez,Victor Filimonov,Vladimir Kulabukhov,Pinak Acharya,Sjoerd A M E G Timmermans,Matthias H Busch,Floor L F van Baarle,Rutger Koning,Liora Ter Horst,Nora Chekrouni,Thijs M van Soest,Sabine E Olie,Ingeborg E van Zeggeren,Marcel C G van de Poll,Claus Thielert,Dorothee Neukirchen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05004-z

2024-06-28

Abstract:In a phase 3 trial (PANAMO, NCT04333420), vilobelimab, a complement 5a (C5a) inhibitor, reduced 28-day mortality in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. This post hoc analysis of 368 patients aimed to explore treatment heterogeneity through unsupervised learning. All available clinical variables at baseline were used as input. Treatment heterogeneity was assessed using latent class analysis (LCA), Ward's hierarchical clustering (HC) and the adjudication to previously described clinical sepsis phenotypes. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. For LCA, a 2-class latent model was deemed most suitable. In the LCA model, 82 (22%) patients were assigned to class 1 and 286 (78%) to class 2. Class 1 was defined by more severely ill patients with significantly higher mortality. In an adjusted logistic regression, no heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) between classes was observed (p = 0.998). For HC, no significant classes were found (p = 0.669). Using the previously described clinical sepsis subtypes, 41 patients (11%) were adjudicated subtype alpha (α), 17 (5%) beta (β), 112 (30%) delta (δ) and 198 (54%) gamma (γ). HTE was observed between clinical subtypes (p = 0.001) with improved 28-day mortality after treatment with vilobelimab for the δ subtype (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.07-0.40, p < 0.001). No signal for harm of treatment with vilobelimab was observed in any class or clinical subtype. Overall, treatment effect with vilobelimab was consistent across different classes and subtypes, except for the δ subtype, suggesting potential additional benefit for the most severely ill patients.
Lenzilumab in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (LIVE-AIR): a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Zelalem Temesgen,Charles D Burger,Jason Baker,Christopher Polk,Claudia R Libertin,Colleen F Kelley,Vincent C Marconi,Robert Orenstein,Victoria M Catterson,William S Aronstein,Cameron Durrant,Dale Chappell,Omar Ahmed,Gabrielle Chappell,Andrew D Badley,LIVE-AIR Study Group,Meghan Lewis,Linda Sher,Michael Bowdish,Noah Wald-Dickler,Subarna Biswas,Lydia Lam,Khang Vo,Roy Poblete,May M Lee,Douglass Hutcheon,Roberto Patron,John Gharbin,Caitlin Moran,Sheetal Kandiah,Valeria Cantos,Paulina Rebolledo,Carlos Del Rio,Jeffrey Lennox,Carmen Polito,Anandi Sheth,Anup Patel,Homero Paniagua,Seife Yohannes,Alpesh Amin,Richard Lee,Miki Watanabe,Lanny Hsieh,Martin Cearras,Amay Parikh,Jason Sniffen,Wilfred Onyia,Michael Boger,Lisa Davidson,Kiran Gajurel,Michael Leonard,Lewis McCurdy,Nestor Quezada,Mindy Sampson,Zainab Shahid,Stephanie Strollo,David Weinrib,Sara Zulfigar,Cheryl McDonald,John Hollingsworth,John Burk,Joshua Berg,Daniel Barbaro,Andrew Miller,Lakshmi Sambathkumar,Stuart McDonald,Obinna Okoye,Juan Pulido,Jennifer Fulton,William Gill,Richard Zuckerman,Lionel Lewis,Chaitanya Mandapakala,Matthew Robinson,Brian Metzger,Maqsood Alam,Chrisoula Politis,Anne Frosch,Linh Ngo,Fernando Carvalho Neuenschwander,EstevÃo Figueiredo,Gualter CanÇado,Gustavo Araujo,Lucas GuimarÃes,Ricardo Diaz,Natalia Bacellar,Celso Silva,Paulo Ferreira,Marina Andrade Lima,Caroline Uber Ghisi,Camila Anton,Ricardo Albaneze,Daniel Wagner de Castro Lima Santos,Ana Caroline Iglessias,Marianna Lago,Paula Pietrobom,Maysa Alves,Juvencio José Duailibe Furtado,Leopoldo Trevelin,Valeria Telles,Francini Correa,Fabiano Ramos,Marina de A R Da Silva,Rebeca C Lacerda Garcia,Ana Elizabeth G Maldonado,Ana Carolina M Beheregaray,Ana Maria T Ortiz,Kleber Luz,Eveline Pipolo Milan,Janine Soares de Castro,Matheus José Barbosa Moreira,Renata Bezerra Onofre,TÁcito do Nascimento JÁcome,Victor Barreto Garcia,Victor Matheus Rolim de Souzafrom,Felipe Dal Pizzol,Cristiane Ritter,Marcelo B Vinhas,Adilson Joaquim Westheimer Cavalcante,Julia Minghini,Loni Dorigo,Marina Salgado Miranda,Martti Anton Antila,Rebeca Brugnolli,Henrikki Antila

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00494-X

Abstract:Background: The pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments. Methods: In LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04351152, and is completed. Findings: Patients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41-137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79-89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72-83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02-2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death. Interpretation: Lenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The added value of lenzilumab beyond other immunomodulators used to treat COVID-19 alongside steroids remains unknown. Funding: Humanigen.
Giants in Chest Medicine: Claude Lenfant, MD.

E. Roccella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.09.048

IF: 9.6

Chest

Abstract:
Intravenous ravulizumab in mechanically ventilated patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19: a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Djillali Annane,Sean J Pittock,Hrishikesh S Kulkarni,Brian W Pickering,Matt R Khoshnevis,Jason L Siegel,Charles A Powell,Pedro Castro,Tomoko Fujii,Derek Dunn,Keisha Smith,Sanjay Mitter,Shamsah Kazani,Austin Kulasekararaj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00082-6

Abstract:Background: The complement pathway is a potential target for the treatment of severe COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ravulizumab, a terminal complement C5 inhibitor, in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: This phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (ALXN1210-COV-305) enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 31 hospitals in France, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 that required hospitalisation and either invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, with severe pneumonia, acute lung injury, or acute respiratory distress syndrome confirmed by CT scan or x-ray. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) to receive intravenous ravulizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone using a web-based interactive response system. Randomisation was in permuted blocks of six with stratification by intubation status. Bodyweight-based intravenous doses of ravulizumab were administered on days 1, 5, 10, and 15. The primary efficacy endpoint was survival based on all-cause mortality at day 29 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group who received at least one dose of ravulizumab, and in all randomly assigned patients in the BSC group. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04369469, and was terminated at interim analysis due to futility. Findings: Between May 10, 2020, and Jan 13, 2021, 202 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to ravulizumab plus BSC or BSC. 201 patients were included in the ITT population (135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 66 in the BSC group). The ravulizumab plus BSC group comprised 96 (71%) men and 39 (29%) women with a mean age of 63·2 years (SD 13·23); the BSC group comprised 43 (65%) men and 23 (35%) women with a mean age of 63·5 years (12·40). Most patients (113 [84%] of 135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 53 [80%] of 66 in the BSC group) were on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline. Overall survival estimates based on multiple imputation were 58% for patients receiving ravulizumab plus BSC and 60% for patients receiving BSC (Mantel-Haenszel analysis: risk difference -0·0205; 95% CI -0·1703 to 0·1293; one-sided p=0·61). In the safety population, 113 (89%) of 127 patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 56 (84%) of 67 in the BSC group had a treatment-emergent adverse event. Of these events, infections and infestations (73 [57%] vs 24 [36%] patients) and vascular disorders (39 [31%] vs 12 [18%]) were observed more frequently in the ravulizumab plus BSC group than in the BSC group. Five patients had serious adverse events considered to be related to ravulizumab. These events were bacteraemia, thrombocytopenia, oesophageal haemorrhage, cryptococcal pneumonia, and pyrexia (in one patient each). Interpretation: Addition of ravulizumab to BSC did not improve survival or other secondary outcomes. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ravulizumab in its approved indications. Despite the lack of efficacy, the study adds value for future research into complement therapeutics in critical illnesses by showing that C5 inhibition can be accomplished in severely ill patients. Funding: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease.
Bebtelovimab, alone or together with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, as a broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for mild to moderate, ambulatory COVID-19

Michael Dougan,Masoud Azizad,Peter Chen,Barry Feldman,Matthew Frieman,Awawu Igbinadolor,Princy Kumar,Jason Morris,Jeffrey Potts,Lauren Baracco,Lisa Macpherson,Nicole L. Kallewaard,Dipak R. Patel,Matthew M. Hufford,Linda Wietecha,Emmanuel Chigutsa,Sarah L. Demmon,Bryan E. Jones,Ajay Nirula,Daniel M. Skovronsky,Mark Williams,Robert L. Gottlieb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.10.22272100

2022-03-12

Abstract:BACKGROUND Bebtelovimab is a potent, fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2, with broad neutralizing activity to all currently known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including omicron variant lineages. Specialized developmental approaches accelerated the initiation of a clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bebtelovimab alone (BEB) or together with bamlanivimab (BAM) and etesevimab (ETE) delivered via slow intravenous push for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS This portion of the phase 2, BLAZE-4 trial (J2X-MC-PYAH; NCT04634409 ) enrolled 714 patients (between May and July 2021) with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 within 3 days (≤3 days) of laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at low risk for severe COVID-19 were randomized 1:1:1 (double-blinded) to placebo, BEB 175 mg, or BEB 175 mg+BAM 700 mg+ETE 1400 mg (BEB+BAM+ETE). Patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 were randomized 2:1 (open-label) to BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE, and a subsequent treatment arm enrolled patients to BEB+BAM+ETE using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated criteria for High-risk. All treatments were administered intravenously over ≥30 seconds (open-label BEB) or ≥6.5 minutes (all other treatment arms). For the placebo-controlled patients (termed Low-risk), the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with persistently high viral load (PHVL) (log viral load >5.27) on Day 7. For the open-label patients (termed High-risk), the primary endpoint was safety. In nonclinical studies, SARS-CoV-2 isolates were tested using an endpoint neutralization assay to measure BEB’s inhibitory concentration greater than 99% (IC 99 ). RESULTS Baseline viral sequencing data were available from 611 patients; 90.2% (n=551) aligned with a variant of interest or concern (WHO designation), with the majority infected with delta (49.8%) or alpha (28.6%) variants. Among the Low-risk patients, PHVL occurred in 19.8% of patients treated with placebo, as compared to 12.7% (p=0.132) of patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE and 12.0% (p=0.097) of patients treated with BEB, a 36% and 40% relative risk reduction, respectively. Viral load-area under the curve analysis from baseline to Day 11 showed statistically signficant reductions for patients treated with BEB (p=0.006) and BEB+BAM+ETE (p=0.043) compared to patients who received placebo. Time to sustained symptom resolution was reduced by a median of 2 days for patients treated with BEB (6 days; p=0.003) and 1 day for patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE (7 days; p=0.289) compared to placebo (8 days). The incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause deaths by day 29 were similar across treatment arms, as expected given the patients’ risk status (the Low risk cohorts had a Low risk of hospitalization, and High risk cohorts received only active therapy without placebo). Overall, safety results were consistent with previous studies investigating mAbs targeting SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were 9.7% in Low-risk (n=37/380) and 14.7% in High-risk (n=48/326) patients treated with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE; majority of AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity. Serious AEs were reported in 2.1% of High-risk patients (n=7/326), including one death (a cerebrovascular accident); 1 serious AE was reported among Low-risk patients. In an in vitro neutralization assay, BEB neutralized the omicron isolate (BA.1) with <2.44ng/ml estimated IC 99 . CONCLUSIONS In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, treatment with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE was associated with greater viral clearance, a reduction in time to sustained symptom resolution, and safety results consistent with mAbs that target SARS-CoV-2. Integration of clinical findings with in vitro neutralization of emerging viral variants offered a pragmatic framework for investigating the efficacy of a new antiviral mAb agent, as demonstrated by bebtelovimab.
COVID-19 Immunologic Antiviral therapy with Omalizumab (CIAO) – A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial

Michelle Le,Lauren Khoury,Yang Lu,Connor Prosty,Maxime Cormier,Mathew P Cheng,Robert Fowler,Srinivas Murthy,Jennifer L Y Tsang,Moshe Ben-Shoshan,Elham Rahme,Shirin Golchi,Nandini Dendukuri,Todd C Lee,Elena Netchiporouk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae102

2024-02-23

Open Forum Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Abstract Background Omalizumab is an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody used to treat moderate to severe chronic idiopathic urticaria, asthma and nasal polyps. Recent research suggested that omalizumab may enhance the innate antiviral response and have anti-inflammatory properties. Objective We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods This was a phase II randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing omalizumab versus placebo (in addition to standard of care) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of mechanical ventilation and/or death at day 14. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality at day 28, time to clinical improvement, and duration of hospitalization. Results Of 41 patients recruited, 40 were randomized (20 received the study drug and 20 placebo). The median age of the patients was 74 years and 55.0% were male. Omalizumab was associated with a 92.6% posterior probability of a reduction in mechanical ventilation and death on day 14 with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.11 (95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.002-2.05). Omalizumab was also associated with a 79.4% posterior probability of reduced all-cause mortality on day 28 with an aOR of 0.45 (95% CrI 0.06-3.12). No statistically significant differences were found for the time to clinical improvement and duration of hospitalization. Numerically fewer adverse events were reported in the omalizumab group and there were no drug-related serious adverse events. Conclusion These results suggest that omalizumab could prove protective against death and mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study could also support the development of a phase III trial program investigating the antiviral and anti-inflammatory effect of omalizumab for severe respiratory viral illnesses requiring hospital admission.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
A randomised trial of anti-GM-CSF otilimab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (OSCAR)

Jatin Patel,Damon Bass,Albertus Beishuizen,Xavier Bocca Ruiz,Hatem Boughanmi,Anthony Cahn,Hugo Colombo,Gerard J. Criner,Katherine Davy,Javier de-Miguel-Díez,Pablo A. Doreski,Sofia Fernandes,Bruno François,Anubha Gupta,Kate Hanrott,Timothy Hatlen,Dave Inman,John D. Isaacs,Emily Jarvis,Natalia Kostina,Tatiana Kropotina,Jean-Claude Lacherade,Divya Lakshminarayanan,Pedro Martinez-Ayala,Charlene McEvoy,Ferhat Meziani,Mehran Monchi,Sumanta Mukherjee,Rosana Muñoz-Bermúdez,Jessica Neisen,Ciara O'Shea,Gaëtan Plantefeve,Lorrie Schifano,Lee E. Schwab,Zainab Shahid,Michinori Shirano,Julia E. Smith,Eduardo Sprinz,Charlotte Summers,Nicolas Terzi,Mark A. Tidswell,Yuliya Trefilova,Russell Williamson,Duncan Wyncoll,Mark Layton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01870-2021

2023-02-02

ERS Monograph

Abstract:Background Granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18–79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. Results In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI –0.8–11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2–33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70–79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI –9.3–11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19. Conclusions There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile.
Magnetic monitoring of the disproportionation behavior in Sm-Fe-based materials

K. Rožman,P. Mcguiness,B. Podmiljšak,M. Rajić,S. Kobe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2004.830155

IF: 1.848

2004-08-24

IEEE Transactions on Magnetics

Abstract:Two Sm-Fe-based alloys, with compositions Sm/sub 13.7/--Fe/sub 86.3/ and Sm/sub 13.8/--Fe/sub 82.2/--Ta/sub 4.0/, were investigated in order to determine their disproportionation reaction kinetics. The alloys were first heated in hydrogen at a rate of 4/spl deg/C/min to a temperature where the disproportionation reaction starts. At this onset temperature, which is different for the individual material, the alloy begins to decompose into a rare-earth hydride and /spl alpha/Fe. The disproportionation behavior of the systems can be explained in terms of the Johnson-Mehl-Avrami (JMA) theory of phase transformations. The ternary alloy with Ta satisfies the JMA conditions and has Avrami constants of /spl les/0.5, which implies diffusion-controlled one-dimensional growth, i.e., the thickening of particles with an appreciable initial volume. On the other hand, the growth of a newly formed iron phase in the binary alloy can only be explained in terms of mixed-transformation process involving one-dimensional and two-dimensional growth.
Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

Viviane C Veiga,João A G G Prats,Danielle L C Farias,Regis G Rosa,Leticia K Dourado,Fernando G Zampieri,Flávia R Machado,Renato D Lopes,Otavio Berwanger,Luciano C P Azevedo,Álvaro Avezum,Thiago C Lisboa,Salomón S O Rojas,Juliana C Coelho,Rodrigo T Leite,Júlio C Carvalho,Luis E C Andrade,Alex F Sandes,Maria C T Pintão,Claudio G Castro,Sueli V Santos,Thiago M L de Almeida,André N Costa,Otávio C E Gebara,Flávio G Rezende de Freitas,Eduardo S Pacheco,David J B Machado,Josiane Martin,Fábio G Conceição,Suellen R R Siqueira,Lucas P Damiani,Luciana M Ishihara,Daniel Schneider,Denise de Souza,Alexandre B Cavalcanti,Phillip Scheinberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n84

2021-01-20

BMJ

Abstract:Abstract Objective To determine whether tocilizumab improves clinical outcomes for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Randomised, open label trial. Setting Nine hospitals in Brazil, 8 May to 17 July 2020. Participants Adults with confirmed covid-19 who were receiving supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and had abnormal levels of at least two serum biomarkers (C reactive protein, D dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, or ferritin). The data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early, after 129 patients had been enrolled, because of an increased number of deaths at 15 days in the tocilizumab group. Interventions Tocilizumab (single intravenous infusion of 8 mg/kg) plus standard care (n=65) versus standard care alone (n=64). Main outcome measure The primary outcome, clinical status measured at 15 days using a seven level ordinal scale, was analysed as a composite of death or mechanical ventilation because the assumption of odds proportionality was not met. Results A total of 129 patients were enrolled (mean age 57 (SD 14) years; 68% men) and all completed follow-up. All patients in the tocilizumab group and two in the standard care group received tocilizumab. 18 of 65 (28%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 of 64 (20%) in the standard care group were receiving mechanical ventilation or died at day 15 (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.66; P=0.32). Death at 15 days occurred in 11 (17%) patients in the tocilizumab group compared with 2 (3%) in the standard care group (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 43.2). Adverse events were reported in 29 of 67 (43%) patients who received tocilizumab and 21 of 62 (34%) who did not receive tocilizumab. Conclusions In patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab plus standard care was not superior to standard care alone in improving clinical outcomes at 15 days, and it might increase mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04403685 .
Metal-enhanced intrinsic fluorescence of nucleic acids using platinum nanostructured substrates.

N. Akbay,Farhad Mahdavi,J. Lakowicz,K. Ray

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPLETT.2012.08.020

IF: 2.719

2012-10-01

Chemical Physics Letters

Abstract:
Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Teresa H. Evering,Kara W. Chew,Mark J. Giganti,Carlee Moser,Mauricio Pinilla,David Alain Wohl,Judith S. Currier,Joseph J. Eron,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,David Margolis,Qing Zhu,Ji Ma,Lijie Zhong,Li Yan,Ulises D’Andrea Nores,Keila Hoover,Bharat Mocherla,Manish C. Choudhary,Rinki Deo,Justin Ritz,William A. Fischer,Courtney V. Fletcher,Jonathan Z. Li,Michael D. Hughes,Davey Smith,Eric S. Daar,Teresa H. Evering,Kara W. Chew,Mark J. Giganti,Carlee Moser,David Alain Wohl,Judith S. Currier,Joseph J. Eron,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,David Margolis,Ulises D’Andrea Nores,Keila Hoover,Bharat Mocherla,Manish C. Choudhary,Justin Ritz,William A. Fischer,Courtney V. Fletcher,Jonathan Z. Li,Michael D. Hughes,Davey Smith,Eric S. Daar,Rachel Bender-Ignacio,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/m22-3428

IF: 39.2

2023-04-18

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life.OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab.DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410).SETTING: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines.PATIENTS: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression.INTERVENTION: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo.MEASUREMENTS: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death.RESULTS: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (<i>P</i> < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (<i>P</i> < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events.LIMITATION: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants.CONCLUSION: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease.PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

medicine, general & internal
Mechanism of hydrogen transfer to imines from a hydroxycyclopentadienyl ruthenium hydride. Support for a stepwise mechanism.

Joseph S. M. Samec,A. Éll,J. Bäckvall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/B410698A

IF: 4.9

2004-11-26

Chemical Communications

Abstract:The negligible double kinetic deuterium isotope effect (k(HH)/k(DD)= 1.05) in the reaction where [2,3,4,5-Ph4(eta5-C4COH)Ru(CO)2H (2) transfers a hydride and a proton to N-phenyl-[1-(4-methoxyphenyl)ethylidene]amine (4) indicates that no bond to hydrogen is broken or formed in the rate-determining step.
Dihydrocodeine narcosis in renal failure.

J. Barnes,F. Goodwin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.286.6363.438-a

1983-02-05

British Medical Journal

Abstract:A 22 year old woman was referred with an 11-year history of headaches. These had occurred every day apart from during two periods, one when she was 13 and one when she was 16, when she had been free of headaches for three and six months respectively. During the first five years the headaches had lasted for only 15 minutes and had rarely occurred more than once a day, but they had progressively become longer and more frequent. At presentation they were lasting one to two hours each day, during which time she had several attacks of excruciating pain that lasted for five to 10 minutes, with a duller pain between each exacerbation. She therefore had 15-20 attacks each day, a large proportion of which occurred at night. The pattern of the headache was constant. It began as a severe sharp stabbing pain above the left ear and in a few seconds spread to the whole of the left side of the face, left anterior scalp, and occasionally around the left common carotid artery. It occurred at any time and woke her from sleep three or four times each week. It was associated with lacrimation of the left eye, blockage of the left nostril, and left ptosis. It could be precipitated by movements of the neck. There were no abnormal signs on examination apart from bruising of both upper arms where she gripped herself during attacks. When observed during an attack, precipitated by neck flexion, she developed appreciable bradycardia (40 beats/minute, regular) despite being in severe pain. Left ptosis and oedema of the upper eyelid and ipsilateral pupillary constriction developed within two minutes of the start of this pain. She was fully investigated on several occasions. A computed tomogram, skull and sinus x-ray films, and an electroencephalogram were all normal. No dental abnormality had been found, although impacted wisdom teeth had been extracted in 1978 with no change in the frequency or severity of the headaches, which did not respond to any analgesics. She had been treated with many drugs without success. Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania was diagnosed and indomethacin 25 mg thrice daily prescribed. The headaches immediately became much milder and stopped totally after five days. They returned briefly three months later during an episode of severe gastroenteritis,'when presumably the indomethacin was not being absorbed, but were relieved as soon as she recovered. She remained symptom free at follow-up after nine months.
Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory NSMRL Report 1160 16 Apr 1990 TARGET DETECTION ON A WATERFALL DISPLAY WITH THE TARGET BEARING DELINEATED WITH A STRAIGHT EDGE by

J. diVita,M. Shim

Abstract:Simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented procedures can sometimes significantly improve performance. DiVita and Hanna (1987) have pointed out that target detection on the waterfall display suffers, because the observer has difficulty in keeping the relevant bearing isolated. Performance is improved if the target bearing is simply highlighted, so that there is no question in the observer's mind as to where he is supposed to be looking. DiVita's procedure requires the Computer to be programmed to highlight the bearing of interest. This may be simple enough to do with a vertical bearing. In practice, however, a target track on a waterfall display may occur at any angle. This greatly increases the programming difficulties. The question arises as to whether or not a simple mechanical method of delineating a given bearing would also improve performance. In this study, we simply placed a straight-edge along the target bearing and compared target detection under that condition with performance without the straight-edge. Although the straight-edge presumably makes it easier for the operator to isolate the target bearing, target detection did not improve.
Pooled analysis of the MANTICO2 and MONET randomized controlled trials comparing drug efficacy for early treatment of COVID-19 during Omicron waves

Valentina Mazzotta,Fulvia Mazzaferri,Simone Lanini,Massimo Mirandola,Alessandro Cozzi Lepri,Alessandra Vergori,Alessia Savoldi,Andrea Santoro,Gaia Maccarrone,Ilaria Mastrorosa,Omar Simonetti,Federico De Zottis,Emanuele Nicastri,Giulia Rosini,Laura Rovigo,Lorenzo Tavernaro,Loredana Sarmati,Carlo Tascini,Enrico Girardi,Anna Maria Cattelan,Andrea Antinori,Evelina Tacconelli,MANTICO2/MONET study group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106294

Abstract:Background: The clinical effectiveness of early therapies for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, comparing antivirals and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) during the Omicron era, has not been conclusively assessed through a post-approval comparative trial. We present a pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials conducted during Omicron waves. Methods: The MANTICO2/MONET trial is a pooled analysis of two multicentric, independent, phase-4, three-arm, superiority, randomized, open-label trials. Nonhospitalized patients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (≤5 days after symptoms' onset) and at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 500 mg of intravenous sotrovimab (SOT) or 600 mg of intramuscular tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) or oral 5-days course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) 300/100 mg BID. Primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization or death within 29 days after randomization. Fisher's exact test for pooled data and incidence of failure was reported as overall and by arm with respective 95% CI. Pairwise comparisons across the arms were conducted using unadjusted exact logistic regression. An analysis by means of a doubly robust marginal model using augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) was also conducted to estimate the potential outcomes (Pom) in each treatment group and their difference by the average treatment effect (ATE). Analysis of symptom persistence within 30 days after randomization was performed using a 2-level hierarchical mixed-effects logistic model with a random intercept at the patient's level. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals were adjusted for age and sex and calculated using ANOVA-like methods for the mixed effects logistic model. These trials are registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2021-002612-31 (MANTICO2) and EudraCT2021-004188-28 (MONET) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05321394 (MANTICO2). Findings: Between March 2022 and February 2023, 991 patients (SOT = 332, TGM/CGM = 327, NMV/r = 332) were enrolled in 15 Italian centers. The overall mean age was 66 years; 482 participants (48.80%) were male, and 856 were vaccinated with at least a primary course (86%). Among the 8/991 hospitalizations observed, one resulted in death. The overall estimate of failure was 0.81% (95%CI; 0.35-1.58%). The odds ratio (OR) for the primary outcome in the NMV/r arm compared to the TGM/CGM and SOT arms was 8.41 (95% CI 1.21 to infinity; p = 0.015) and 2.42 (95% CI 0.19 to infinity; p = 0.499), respectively. No significant difference was observed between SOT and TGM/CGM (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.032-1.83; p = 0.174). Results were similar when we applied the marginal weighted model accounting for potential residual confounding bias. There was no evidence for a difference in the prevalence of symptoms between treatment groups, except for cough, which was higher in the SOT group compared to the other two groups at the 21-day follow-up (P = 0.039) and a higher prevalence of nausea at the 7-day follow-up in the NMV/r group compared to the mAbs group (p = 0.036). Interpretation: NMV/r was superior to TGM/CGM in reducing hospital admission or death in clinically vulnerable patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated within 5 days of symptoms' onset. No significant difference in symptom prevalence over time across the arms was found.
Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial

Florence Ader,Maude Bouscambert-Duchamp,Maya Hites,Nathan Peiffer-Smadja,Julien Poissy,Drifa Belhadi,Alpha Diallo,Minh-Patrick Lê,Gilles Peytavin,Thérèse Staub,Richard Greil,Jérémie Guedj,Jose-Artur Paiva,Dominique Costagliola,Yazdan Yazdanpanah,Charles Burdet,France Mentré,DisCoVeRy Study Group,Alexander Egle,Michael Joannidis,Bernd Lamprecht,Antoine Altdorfer,Leila Belkhir,Vincent Fraipont,Gil Verschelden,Jérôme Aboab,Hafid Ait-Oufella,Claire Andrejak,Pascal Andreu,Laurent Argaud,Firouzé Bani-Sadr,François Benezit,Mathieu Blot,Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers,Lila Bouadma,Olivier Bouchaud,David Bougon,Kevin Bouiller,Fanny Bounes-Vardon,David Boutoille,Alexandre Boyer,Cédric Bruel,André Cabié,Emmanuel Canet,Charles Cazanave,Cyrille Chabartier,Catherine Chirouze,Raphaël Clere-Jehl,Johan Courjon,Flora Crockett,François Danion,Agathe Delbove,Jean Dellamonica,Félix Djossou,Clément Dubost,Alexandre Duvignaud,Olivier Epaulard,Loïc Epelboin,Murielle Fartoukh,Karine Faure,Emmanuel Faure,Tristan Ferry,Cécile Ficko,Samy Figueiredo,Benjamin Gaborit,Rostane Gaci,Amandine Gagneux-Brunon,Sébastien Gallien,Denis Garot,Guillaume Geri,Sébastien Gibot,François Goehringer,Marie Gousseff,Didier Gruson,Yves Hansmann,Olivier Hinschberger,Stéphane Jaureguiberry,Vanessa Jeanmichel,Solen Kerneis,Antoine Kimmoun,Kada Klouche,Marie Lachâtre,Karine Lacombe,Fabrice Laine,Jean-Philippe Lanoix,Odile Launay,Bruno Laviolle,Vincent Le Moing,Jérôme Le Pavec,Yves Le Tulzo,Paul Le Turnier,David Lebeaux,Benjamin Lefevre,Sylvie Leroy,François-Xavier Lescure,Henry Lessire,Benjamin Leveau,Paul Loubet,Alain Makinson,Denis Malvy,Charles-Hugo Marquette,Guillaume Martin-Blondel,Martin Martinot,Julien Mayaux,Armand Mekontso-Dessap,Ferhat Meziani,Jean-Paul Mira,Jean-Michel Molina,Xavier Monnet,Joy Mootien,Bruno Mourvillier,Marlène Murris-Espin,Jean-Christophe Navellou,Saad Nseir,Walid Oulehri,Thomas Perpoint,Gilles Pialoux,Benoît Pilmis,Vincent Piriou,Lionel Piroth,Valérie Pourcher,Jean-Pierre Quenot,François Raffi,Jean Reignier,Matthieu Revest,Jean-Christophe Richard,Béatrice Riu-Poulenc,Céline Robert,Pierre-Alexandre Roger,Claire Roger,Elisabeth Rouveix-Nordon,Yvon Ruch,Nadia Saidani,Naomi Sayre,Eric Senneville,Albert Sotto,Francois Stefan,Charles Tacquard,Nicolas Terzi,Julien Textoris,Guillaume Thiery,Jean-François Timsit,Violaine Tolsma,Jean-Marie Turmel,Florent Valour,Florent Wallet,Guilhem Wattecamps,Yoann Zerbib,Marc Berna,Jean Reuter,Sandra Braz,Joao-Miguel Ferreira Ribeiro,José-Artur Paiva,Roberto Roncon-Albuquerque,Alexandre Gaymard,Bruno Lina,Sarah Tubiana,Sandrine Couffin-Cadièrgues,Hélène Esperou,Aline Dechanet,Christelle Delmas,Claire Fougerou,Noémie Mercier,Marion Noret,Juliette Saillard,Priyanka Velou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00485-0

Abstract:Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. Methods: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. Findings: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). Interpretation: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Jurjan Aman,Erik Duijvelaar,Liza Botros,Azar Kianzad,Job R Schippers,Patrick J Smeele,Sara Azhang,Imke H Bartelink,Ahmed A Bayoumy,Pierre M Bet,Wim Boersma,Peter I Bonta,Karin A T Boomars,Lieuwe D J Bos,Job J M H van Bragt,Gert-Jan Braunstahl,Lucas R Celant,Katrien A B Eger,J J Miranda Geelhoed,Yurika L E van Glabbeek,Hans P Grotjohan,Laura A Hagens,Chris M Happe,Boaz D Hazes,Leo M A Heunks,Michel van den Heuvel,Wouter Hoefsloot,Rianne J A Hoek,Romke Hoekstra,Herman M A Hofstee,Nicole P Juffermans,E Marleen Kemper,Renate Kos,Peter W A Kunst,Ariana Lammers,Ivo van der Lee,E Laurien van der Lee,Anke-Hilse Maitland-van der Zee,Pearl F M Mau Asam,Adinda Mieras,Mirte Muller,Elisabeth C W Neefjes,Esther J Nossent,Laurien M A Oswald,Maria J Overbeek,Carolina C Pamplona,Nienke Paternotte,Niels Pronk,Michiel A de Raaf,Bas F M van Raaij,Merlijn Reijrink,Marcus J Schultz,Ary Serpa Neto,Elise M A Slob,Frank W J M Smeenk,Marry R Smit,A Josien Smits,Janneke E Stalenhoef,Pieter R Tuinman,Arthur L E M Vanhove,Jeroen N Wessels,Jessie C C van Wezenbeek,Anton Vonk Noordegraaf,Frances S de Man,Harm J Bogaard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00237-X

Abstract:Background: The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak. Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10). Findings: Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·76-1·20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0·51 [0·27-0·95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0·52 (95% CI 0·26-1·05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1·07 (0·63-1·80; p=0·81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0·0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events. Interpretation: The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. Funding: Amsterdam Medical Center Foundation, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek/ZonMW, and the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative 2.
Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Kara W Chew,Babafemi O Taiwo,Carlee Moser,Eric S Daar,David Alain Wohl,Justin Ritz,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,Jonathan Z Li,William Fischer,Alexander L Greninger,Christoph Bausch,Thomas Luke,Robert Call,Gene Neytman,Mark J Giganti,Courtney V Fletcher,Michael D Hughes,Joseph J Eron,Judith S Currier,Davey M Smith,Kara Chew,David (Davey) Smith,Eric Daar,David Wohl,Judith Currier,Joseph Eron,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,Michael Hughes,Carlee Moser,Mark Giganti,Justin Ritz,Lara Hosey,Jhoanna Roa,Nilam Patel,Kelly Colsh,Irene Rwakazina,Justine Beck,Scott Sieg,Jonathan Li,Courtney Fletcher,William Fischer,Teresa Evering,Rachel Bender Ignacio,Sandra Cardoso,Katya Corado,Prasanna Jagannathan,Nikolaus Jilg,Alan Perelson,Sandy Pillay,Cynthia Riviere,Upinder Singh,Babafemi Taiwo,Joan Gottesman,Matthew Newell,Susan Pedersen,Joan Dragavon,Cheryl Jennings,Brian Greenfelder,William Murtaugh,Jan Kosmyna,Morgan Gapara,Akbar Shahkolahi,For the ACTIV-2/A5401 Study Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae369

2024-07-20

The Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Background To address the need for novel COVID-19 therapies, we evaluated the fully-human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 clinical trial. Methods Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3,840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Non-inferiority comparison was undertaken for the pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to sustained symptom improvement and resolution. Results Enrollment was terminated early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence. 733 adults were randomized, 255 included in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron analysis populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms, respectively (absolute difference [95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]), inconclusive for non-inferiority; and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%]) for Omicron. Risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 0.94 [0.52, 1.71] (pre-Omicron) and 1.71 [0.96, 3.07] (Omicron). Time to symptom improvement and resolution were shorter for SAB-185, median 11 vs 14 (pre-Omicron) and 11 vs 13 days (Omicron) (symptom improvement), and 16 vs 24 days and 18 vs >25 days (symptom resolution), p<0.05 for symptom resolution for Omicron only. Conclusions SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Additional studies are needed to characterize its efficacy for COVID-19.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
The UPMC OPTIMISE-C19 (OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS through Evaluation for COVID-19) trial: a structured summary of a study protocol for an open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization

David T. Huang,Erin K. McCreary,J. Ryan Bariola,Richard J. Wadas,Kevin E. Kip,Oscar C. Marroquin,Stephen Koscumb,Kevin Collins,Judith A. Shovel,Mark Schmidhofer,Mary Kay Wisniewski,Colleen Sullivan,Donald M. Yealy,Meredith Axe,David A. Nace,Ghady Haidar,Tina Khadem,Kelsey Linstrum,Graham M. Snyder,Christopher W. Seymour,Stephanie K. Montgomery,Bryan J. McVerry,Lindsay Berry,Scott Berry,Russell Meyers,Alexandra Weissman,Octavia M. Peck-Palmer,Alan Wells,Robert Bart,Debbie L. Albin,Tami Minnier,Derek C. Angus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05316-3

IF: 2.728

2021-05-25

Trials

Abstract:Abstract Objectives The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs. Trial design Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization Participants We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, < 10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls. Intervention and comparator The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other. When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab). Main outcomes The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration, calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable – e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome. Randomisation We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size. When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation. Blinding (masking) This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. Trial Status Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021. Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786 . Registered March 10, 2021 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.

medicine, research & experimental
Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Selin Somersan-Karakaya,Eleftherios Mylonakis,Vidya P Menon,Jason C Wells,Shazia Ali,Sumathi Sivapalasingam,Yiping Sun,Rafia Bhore,Jingning Mei,Jutta Miller,Lisa Cupelli,Eduardo Forleo-Neto,Andrea T Hooper,Jennifer D Hamilton,Cynthia Pan,Viet Pham,Yuming Zhao,Romana Hosain,Adnan Mahmood,John D Davis,Kenneth C Turner,Yunji Kim,Amanda Cook,Bari Kowal,Yuhwen Soo,A Thomas DiCioccio,Gregory P Geba,Neil Stahl,Leah Lipsich,Ned Braunstein,Gary A Herman,George D Yancopoulos,David M Weinreich,COVID-19 Phase 2/3 Hospitalized Trial Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiac320

2022-12-28

Abstract:Background: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD). Methods: In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Results: In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to -.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%-74.0%). No safety concerns were noted. Conclusions: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients. Clinical trials registration: NCT04426695.

Excretion of ultraviolet-absorbing material by leaky and non-leaky strains of Escherichia coli exposed to streptomycin.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of vilobelimab in COVID-19: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Lenzilumab in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (LIVE-AIR): a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Giants in Chest Medicine: Claude Lenfant, MD.

Intravenous ravulizumab in mechanically ventilated patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19: a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Bebtelovimab, alone or together with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, as a broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for mild to moderate, ambulatory COVID-19

COVID-19 Immunologic Antiviral therapy with Omalizumab (CIAO) – A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial

A randomised trial of anti-GM-CSF otilimab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (OSCAR)

Magnetic monitoring of the disproportionation behavior in Sm-Fe-based materials

Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

Metal-enhanced intrinsic fluorescence of nucleic acids using platinum nanostructured substrates.

Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Mechanism of hydrogen transfer to imines from a hydroxycyclopentadienyl ruthenium hydride. Support for a stepwise mechanism.

Dihydrocodeine narcosis in renal failure.

Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory NSMRL Report 1160 16 Apr 1990 TARGET DETECTION ON A WATERFALL DISPLAY WITH THE TARGET BEARING DELINEATED WITH A STRAIGHT EDGE by

Pooled analysis of the MANTICO2 and MONET randomized controlled trials comparing drug efficacy for early treatment of COVID-19 during Omicron waves

Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The UPMC OPTIMISE-C19 (OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS through Evaluation for COVID-19) trial: a structured summary of a study protocol for an open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization

Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19