Sargramostim to treat patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 (SARPAC) : a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesThe hypothesis of the proposed intervention is that Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) has profound effects on antiviral immunity, and can provide the stimulus to restore immune homeostasis in the lung with acute lung injury post COVID-19, and can promote lung repair mechanisms, that lead to a 25% improvement in lung oxygenation parameters. Sargramostim is a man-made form of the naturally-occurring protein GM-CSF.Trial designA phase 4 academic, prospective, 2 arm (1:1 ratio), randomized, open-label, controlled trial.ParticipantsPatients aged 18-80 years admitted to specialized COVID-19 wards in 5 Belgian hospitals with recent ( 20 mg methylprednisolone or equivalent), (6) enrolment in another investigational study, (7) pregnant or breastfeeding or (8) ferritin levels > 2000 mu g/mL.Intervention and comparatorInhaled sargramostim 125 mu g twice daily for 5 days in addition to standard care. Upon progression of disease requiring mechanical ventilation or to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and initiation of mechanical ventilator support within the 5 day period, inhaled sargramostim will be replaced by intravenous sargramostim 125 mu g/m(2) body surface area once daily until the 5 day period is reached. From day 6 onwards, progressive patients in the active group will have the option to receive an additional 5 days of IV sargramostim, based on the treating physician's assessment. Intervention will be compared to standard of care. Subjects progressing to ARDS and requiring invasive mechanical ventilatory support, from day 6 onwards in the standard of care group will have the option (clinician's decision) to initiate IV sargramostim 125m mu g/m(2) body surface area once daily for 5 days.Main outcomesThe primary endpoint of this intervention is measuring oxygenation after 5 days of inhaled (and intravenous) treatment through assessment of a change in pretreatment and post-treatment ratio of PaO2/FiO(2) and through measurement of the P(A-a)O-2 gradient (PAO(2)= Partial alveolar pressure of oxygen, PaO2=Partial arterial pressure of oxygen; FiO(2)= Fraction of inspired oxygen).RandomisationPatients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization will be done using REDCap (electronic IWRS system).Blinding (masking)In this open-label trial neither participants, caregivers, nor those assessing the outcomes will be blinded to group assignment.Numbers to be randomised (sample size)A total of 80 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxic respiratory failure will be enrolled, 40 in the active and 40 in the control group.Trial StatusSARPAC protocol Version 2.0 (April 15 2020). Participant recruitment is ongoing in 5 Belgian Hospitals (i.e. University Hospital Ghent, AZ Sint-Jan Bruges, AZ Delta Roeselare, University Hospital Brussels and ZNA Middelheim Antwerp). Participant recruitment started on March 26(th) 2020. Given the current decline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, it is difficult to anticipate the rate of participant recruitment.Trial registrationThe trial was registered on Clinical Trials.gov on March 30(th), 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04326920) - retrospectively registered; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04326920?term=sarpac&recrs=ab&draw=2&rank=1 and on EudraCT on March 24th, 2020 (Identifier: 2020-001254-22).Full protocolThe 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

Treatment of severely ill COVID-19 patients with anti-interleukin drugs (COV-AID) : a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to test the safety and effectiveness of individually or simultaneously blocking IL-6, IL-6 receptor and IL-1 versus standard of care on blood oxygenation and systemic cytokine release syndrome in patients with COVID-19 coronavirus infection and acute hypoxic respiratory failure and systemic cytokine release syndrome.Trial designA phase 3 prospective, multi-center, interventional, open label, 6-arm 2x2 factorial design study.ParticipantsSubjects will be recruited at the specialized COVID-19 wards and/or ICUs at 16 Belgian participating hospitals. Only adult (>= 18y old) patients will be recruited with recent (<= 16 days) COVID-19 infection and acute hypoxia (defined as PaO2/FiO2 below 350mmHg or PaO2/FiO2 below 280 on supplemental oxygen and immediately requiring high flow oxygen device or mechanical ventilation) and signs of systemic cytokine release syndrome characterized by high serum ferritin, or high D-dimers, or high LDH or deep lymphopenia or a combination of those, who have not been on mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours before randomisation. Patients should have had a chest X-ray and/or CT scan showing bilateral infiltrates within the last 2 days before randomisation. Patients with active bacterial or fungal infection will be excluded.Intervention and comparatorPatients will be randomized to 1 of 5 experimental arms versus usual care. The experimental arms consist of Anakinra alone (anti-IL-1 binding the IL-1 receptor), Siltuximab alone (anti-IL-6 chimeric antibody), a combination of Siltuximab and Anakinra, Tocilizumab alone (humanised anti-IL-6 receptor antibody) or a combination of Anakinra with Tocilizumab in addition to standard care. Patients treated with Anakinra will receive a daily subcutaneous injection of 100mg for a maximum of 28 days or until hospital discharge, whichever comes first. Siltuximab (11mg/kg) or Tocilizumab (8mg/kg, with a maximum dose of 800mg) are administered as a single intravenous injection immediately after randomization.Main outcomesThe primary end point is the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a six-category ordinal scale measured daily till day 28 or discharge from the hospital or death. This ordinal scale is composed of (1) Death; (2) Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO; (3) Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; (4) Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; (5) Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; (6) Not hospitalized.RandomisationPatients will be randomized using an Interactive Web Response System (REDCap). A 2x2 factorial design was selected with a 2:1 randomization regarding the IL-1 blockade (Anakinra) and a 1:2 randomization regarding the IL-6 blockade (Siltuximab and Tocilizumab).Blinding (masking)In this open-label trial neither participants, caregivers, nor those assessing the outcomes are blinded to group assignment.Numbers to be randomised (sample size)A total of 342 participants will be enrolled: 76 patients will receive usual care, 76 patients will receive Siltuximab alone, 76 patients will receive Tocilizumab alone, 38 will receive Anakinra alone, 38 patients will receive Anakinra and Siltuximab and 38 patients will receive Anakinra and Tocilizumab.Trial StatusCOV-AID protocol version 3.0 (15 Apr 2020). Participant recruitment is ongoing and started on April 4(th) 2020. Given the current decline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, it is difficult to anticipate the rate of participant recruitment.Trial registrationThe trial was registered on Clinical Trials.gov on April 1st, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04330638) and on EudraCT on April 3rd 2020 (Identifier: 2020-001500-41).Full protocolThe 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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present