Exercise Interventions With Trained Home Helpers for Preventing Loss of Autonomy and Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Receiving Home Heath Physical Therapy T4H: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

International audienc

Efficacy, safety and immunological profile of combining rituximab with belimumab for adults with persistent or chronic immune thrombocytopenia: results from a prospective phase 2b trial

International audienceB-cell activating factor may be involved in the failure of B-cell depleting therapy with rituximab in immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) by promoting the emergence of splenic long-lived plasma cells. From results obtained in mouse models, we hypothesized that combining rituximab with sequential injections of belimumab could increase the rate of response at one year in patients with persistent or chronic ITP by preventing the emergence of these long-lived plasma cells. The study was a single-center, single arm, prospective phase 2b trial (RITUX-PLUS, NCT03154385) investigating the safety and efficacy of rituximab given at a fixed dose of 1,000 mg, two weeks apart, combined with five infusions of belimumab, 10 mg/kg at week 0 (W0)+2 days, W2+2 days, W4, W8 and W12 for adults with primary persistent or chronic ITP. The primary endpoint was the total number of patients achieving an overall response (complete response + response) at W52 according to a standard definition. In total, 15 non-splenectomized adults, nine (60%) with persistent IPT and six (40%) with chronic ITP, were included. No severe adverse event, infection, or severe hypogammaglobulinemia was observed. Thirteen patients achieved an initial overall response. At W52, 12 (80%) patients achieved an overall response, including ten (66.7%) with complete response. When compared with a cohort of patients receiving rituximab alone, the kinetics of B-cell repopulation appeared similar, but the number of circulating T follicular helper cells was significantly decreased with belimumab combination therapy. Combining rituximab and belimumab seems a promising strategy in ITP, with high efficacy and acceptable safety

Maturation and persistence of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory B cell response

International audienceMemory B cells play a fundamental role in host defenses against viruses, but to date, their role has been relatively unsettled in the context of SARS-CoV-2. We report here a longitudinal single-cell and repertoire profiling of the B cell response up to 6 months in mild and severe COVID-19 patients. Distinct SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific activated B cell clones fueled an early antibody-secreting cell burst as well as a durable synchronous germinal center response. While highly mutated memory B cells, including pre-existing cross-reactive seasonal Betacoronavirus-specific clones, were recruited early in the response, neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific clones accumulated with time and largely contributed to the late, remarkably stable, memory B cell pool. Highlighting germinal center maturation, these cells displayed clear accumulation of somatic mutations in their variable region genes over time. Overall, these findings demonstrate that an antigen-driven activation persisted and matured up to 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection and may provide long-term protection

Comparison of standard prophylactic, intermediate prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: protocol for the ANTICOVID multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial

International audienceIntroduction COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. Methods and analysis This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04808882

Comparison of standard prophylactic, intermediate prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: protocol for the ANTICOVID multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial

International audienceINTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04808882

An open-label randomized controlled trial of low-dose corticosteroid plus enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium versus standard corticosteroid treatment for minimal change nephrotic syndrome in adults (MSN Study).

International audienceFirst-line therapy of minimal change nephrotic syndrome (MCNS) in adults is extrapolated largely from pediatric studies and consists of high-dose oral corticosteroids. We assessed whether a low corticosteroid dose combined with mycophenolate sodium was superior to a standard oral corticosteroid regimen. We enrolled 116 adults with MCNS in an open-label randomized controlled trial involving 32 French centers. Participants randomly assigned to the test group (n=58) received low-dose prednisone (0.5 mg/kg/day, maximum 40 mg/day) plus enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium 720 mg twice daily for 24 weeks; those who did not achieve complete remission after week 8 were eligible for a second-line regimen (increase in the prednisone dose to 1 mg/kg/day with or without Cyclosporine). Participants randomly assigned to the control group (n=58) received conventional high-dose prednisone (1 mg/kg/day, maximum 80 mg/day) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of complete remission after four weeks of treatment was ascertained in 109 participants, with no significant difference between the test and control groups. Secondary outcomes, including remission after 8 and 24 weeks of treatment, did not differ between the two groups. During 52 weeks of follow-up, MCNS relapsed in 15 participants (23.1%) who had achieved the primary outcome. Median time to relapse was similar in the test and control groups (7.1 and 5.1 months, respectively), as was the incidence of serious adverse events. Five participants died from hemorrhage (n=2) or septic shock (n=3), including 2 participants in the test group and 3 in the control group. Thus, in adult patients, treatment with low-dose prednisone plus enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium was not superior to a standard high-dose prednisone regimen to induce complete remission of MCNS

Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial

International audienceIMPORTANCE Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. OBJECTIVES To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). RESULTS Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95%CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7%[95%CI, 45.2%to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95%CI, 43.4%to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95%CI, 41.7%to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5%[95%CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95%CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2%thrombosis, 2.6%bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5%thrombosis, 3.6%bleeding, 11.8%death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7%death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95%CI -2.6 to -24.3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PAnor TAuse improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemicCOVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis