Exercise-induced alterations in phospholipid hydrolysis, airway surfactant, and eicosanoids and their role in airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma

The mechanisms responsible for driving endogenous airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in the form of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) are not fully understood. We examined alterations in airway phospholipid hydrolysis, surfactant degradation, and lipid mediator release in relation to AHR severity and changes induced by exercise challenge. Paired induced sputum

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed

Bronchopulmonary segmental lavage with Surfaxin (KL(4)-surfactant) for acute respiratory distress syndrome

We performed a trial to assess the safety and tolerability of sequential bronchopulmonary segmental lavage with a dilute synthetic surfactant (Surfaxin) in 12 adults with ARDS. Patients received one of three dosing regimens in which aliquots of Surfaxin were administered via a wedged bronchoscope to each of the 19 bronchopulmonary segments. Suctioning was performed 10-30 s after instillation of individual aliquots. Group 1 patients (n = 3) received one 30-ml aliquot of a 2.5-mg/ml concentration of Surfaxin in each segment, followed by a second 30-ml aliquot with a 10-mg/ml concentration. Group 2 patients (n = 4) received two 30-ml aliquots of the 2.5-mg/ml concentration followed by a third lavage with the 10-mg/ml concentration. Group 3 patients (n = 5) received therapy identical to that received by patients in Group 2 and were eligible for repeat dosing 6 to 24 h later. All patients tolerated the procedure. There were no serious adverse experiences ascribed to either the procedure or the surfactant. In the 96 h after treatment initiation, FI(O(2)) decreased from 0.80 to 0.52 and PEEP decreased from 10.3 to 7.6 cm H(2)O. Bronchoscopic cleansing of the lungs with dilute Surfaxin may offer a safe and feasible approach to improving outcomes in patients with ARDS. Wiswell TE, Smith RM, Katz LB, Mastroianni L, Wong DY, Willms D, Heard S, Wilson M, Hite RD, Anzueto A, Revak SD, Cochrane CG. Bronchopulmonary segmental lavage with Surfaxin (KL(4)-surfactant) for acute respiratory distress syndrome

Biological effects of intravenous vitamin C on neutrophil extracellular traps and the endothelial glycocalyx in patients with sepsis-induced ARDS

(1) Background: The disease-modifying mechanisms of high-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) in sepsis induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. (2) Methods: We performed a post hoc study of plasma biomarkers from subjects enrolled in the randomized placebo-controlled trial CITRIS-ALI. We explored the effects of HDIVC on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and syndecan-1, surrogates for neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation and degradation of the endothelial glycocalyx, respectively. (3) Results: In 167 study subjects, baseline cfDNA levels in HDIVC (84 subjects) and placebo (83 subjects) were 2.18 ng/µL (SD 4.20 ng/µL) and 2.65 ng/µL (SD 3.87 ng/µL), respectively, = 0.45. At 48-h, the cfDNA reduction was 1.02 ng/µL greater in HDIVC than placebo, = 0.05. Mean baseline syndecan-1 levels in HDIVC and placebo were 9.49 ng/mL (SD 5.57 ng/mL) and 10.83 ng/mL (SD 5.95 ng/mL), respectively, = 0.14. At 48 h, placebo subjects exhibited a 1.53 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.96 to 2.11) increase in syndecan-1 vs. 0.75 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.29, = 0.05), in HDIVC subjects. (4) Conclusions: HDIVC infusion attenuated cell-free DNA and syndecan-1, biomarkers associated with sepsis-induced ARDS. Improvement of these biomarkers suggests amelioration of NETosis and shedding of the vascular endothelial glycocalyx, respectively

Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness.

BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsIn a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation.ResultsWritten informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms.ConclusionsThe use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .)

Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness.

BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsIn a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation.ResultsWritten informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms.ConclusionsThe use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .)