Study Protocol: A Pilot Study to Determine the Safety and Efficacy of Induction-Therapy, De Novo MPA and Delayed mTOR-Inhibition in Liver Transplant Recipients with Impaired Renal Function. PATRON-Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients undergoing liver transplantation with preexisting renal dysfunction are prone to further renal impairment with the early postoperative use of Calcineurin-inhibitors. However, there is only little scientific evidence for the safety and efficacy of de novo CNI free "bottom-up" regimens in patients with impaired renal function undergoing liver transplantation. This is a single-center study pilot-study (<b>PATRON07</b>) investigating safety and efficacy of CNI-free, "bottom-up" immunosuppressive (IS) strategy in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with renal impairment prior to LT.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Patients older than 18 years with renal impairment at the time of liver transplantation eGFR < 50 ml/min and/or serum creatinine levels > 1.5 mg/dL will be included. Patients in will receive a CNI-free combination therapy (basiliximab, MMF, steroids and delayed Sirolimus). Primary endpoint is the incidence of steroid resistant acute rejection within the first 30 days after LT. The study is designed as prospective two-step trial requiring a maximum of 29 patients. In the first step, 9 patients will be included. If 8 or more patients show no signs of biopsy proven steroid resistant rejection, additional 20 patients will be included. If in the second step a total of 27 or more patients reach the primary endpoint the regimen is regarded to be safe and efficient.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If a CNI-free-"bottom-up" IS strategy is safe and effective, this may be an innovative concept in contrast to classic top-down strategies that could improve the patient short and long-time renal function as well as overall complications and survival after LT. The results of <b>PATRON07 </b>may be the basis for a large multicenter RCT investigating the new "bottom-up" immunosuppressive strategy in patients with poor renal function prior to LT.</p> <p><url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</url>-identifier: NCT00604357</p

The Potential Influence of Common Viral Infections Diagnosed during Hospitalization among Critically Ill Patients in the United States

Viruses are the most common source of infection among immunocompetent individuals, yet they are not considered a clinically meaningful risk factor among the critically ill. This work examines the association of viral infections diagnosed during the hospital stay or not documented as present on admission to the outcomes of ICU patients with no evidence of immunosuppression on admission. This is a population-based retrospective cohort study of University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) academic centers in the U.S. from the years 2006 to 2009. The UHC is an alliance of over 90% of the non-profit academic medical centers in the U.S. A total of 209,695 critically ill patients were used in this analysis. Eight hospital complications were examined. Patients were grouped into four cohorts: absence of infection, bacterial infection only, viral infection only, and bacterial and viral infection during same hospital admission. Viral infections diagnosed during hospitalization significantly increased the risk of all complications. There was also a seasonal pattern for viral infections. Specific viruses associated with poor outcomes included influenza, RSV, CMV, and HSV. Patients who had both viral and bacterial infections during the same hospitalization had the greatest risk of mortality RR 6.58, 95% CI (5.47, 7.91); multi-organ failure RR 8.25, 95% CI (7.50, 9.07); and septic shock RR 271.2, 95% CI (188.0, 391.3). Viral infections may play a significant yet unrecognized role in the outcomes of ICU patients. They may serve as biological markers or play an active role in the development of certain adverse complications by interacting with coincident bacterial infection

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705. opens in new tab.

Primary versus secondary source of data in observational studies and heterogeneity in meta-analyses of drug effects: a survey of major medical journals

The data from individual observational studies included in meta-analyses of drug effects are collected either from ad hoc methods (i.e. "primary data") or databases that were established for non-research purposes (i.e. "secondary data"). The use of secondary sources may be prone to measurement bias and confounding due to over-the-counter and out-of-pocket drug consumption, or non-adherence to treatment. In fact, it has been noted that failing to consider the origin of the data as a potential cause of heterogeneity may change the conclusions of a meta-analysis. We aimed to assess to what extent the origin of data is explored as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of observational studies.publishe

Secreted Human Amyloid Precursor Protein Binds Semaphorin 3a and Prevents Semaphorin-Induced Growth Cone Collapse

The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is well known for giving rise to the amyloid-β peptide and for its role in Alzheimer's disease. Much less is known, however, on the physiological roles of APP in the development and plasticity of the central nervous system. We have used phage display of a peptide library to identify high-affinity ligands of purified recombinant human sAPPα695 (the soluble, secreted ectodomain from the main neuronal APP isoform). Two peptides thus selected exhibited significant homologies with the conserved extracellular domain of several members of the semaphorin (Sema) family of axon guidance proteins. We show that sAPPα695 binds both purified recombinant Sema3A and Sema3A secreted by transfected HEK293 cells. Interestingly, sAPPα695 inhibited the collapse of embryonic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) dorsal root ganglia growth cones promoted by Sema3A (Kd≤8·10−9 M). Two Sema3A-derived peptides homologous to the peptides isolated by phage display blocked sAPPα binding and its inhibitory action on Sema3A function. These two peptides are comprised within a domain previously shown to be involved in binding of Sema3A to its cellular receptor, suggesting a competitive mechanism by which sAPPα modulates the biological action of semaphorins