Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications.InterpretationSurgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management

Estimands: discussion points from the PSI estimands and sensitivity expert group.

ICH E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials was issued in 1998. In October 2014, an addendum to ICH E9 was proposed relating to estimands and sensitivity analyses. In preparation for the release of the addendum, Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry held a 1-day expert group meeting in February 2015. Topics debated included definition, development, implementation, education and communication challenges associated with estimands and sensitivity analyses. The topic of estimands is an important and relatively new one in clinical development. A clear message from the meeting was that estimands bridge the gap between study objectives and statistical methods. When defining estimands, an iterative process linking trial objectives, estimands, trial design, statistical and sensitivity analysis needs to be established. Each objective should have at least one distinct estimand, supported by sensitivity analyses. Because clinical trials are multi-faceted and expensive, it is unrealistic to restrict a study to a single objective and associated estimand. The actual set of estimands and sensitivity analyses for a study will depend on the study objectives, the disease setting and the needs of the various stakeholders. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Increase in the use of inhaled nitric oxide in neonatal intensive care units in England: a retrospective population study

Objective To describe temporal changes in inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use in English neonatal units between 2010 and 2015.Design Retrospective analysis using data extracted from the National Neonatal Research Database.Setting All National Health Service neonatal units in England.Patients Infants of all gestational ages born 2010–2015 admitted to a neonatal unit and received intensive care.Main outcome measures Proportion of infants who received iNO; age at initiation and duration of iNO use.Results 4.9% (6346/129 883) of infants received iNO; 31% (1959/6346) were born <29 weeks, 18% (1152/6346) 29–33 weeks and 51% (3235/6346)>34 weeks of gestation. Between epoch 1 (2010–2011) and epoch 3 (2014–2015), there was (1) an increase in the proportion of infants receiving iNO: <29 weeks (4.9% vs 15.9%); 29–33 weeks (1.1% vs 4.8%); >34 weeks (4.5% vs 5.0%), (2) increase in postnatal age at iNO initiation: <29 weeks 10 days vs 18 days; 29–33 weeks 2 days vs 10 days, (iii) reduction in iNO duration: <29 weeks (3 days vs 2 days); 29–33 weeks (2 days vs 1 day).Conclusions Between 2010 and 2015, there was an increase in the use of iNO among infants admitted to English neonatal units. This was most notable among the most premature infants with an almost fourfold increase. Given the cost of iNO therapy, limited evidence of efficacy in preterm infants and potential for harm, we suggest that exposure to iNO should be limited, ideally to infants included in research studies (either observational or randomised placebo-controlled trial) or within a protocolised pathway. Development of consensus guidelines may also help standardise practice