Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in childhood encephalitis (IgNiTE): a randomised controlled trial

Objective: To investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) improves neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness. // Design: Phase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. // Setting: Twenty-one hospitals in the UK. // Participants: Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or subacute encephalitis, with a planned sample size of 308. // Intervention: Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment. // Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was a ‘good recovery’ at 12 months after randomisation, defined as a score of≤2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended. // Secondary outcome measures: The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and IVIG safety data. // Results: 18 participants were recruited from 12 hospitals and randomised to receive either IVIG (n=10) or placebo (n=8) between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. The study was terminated early following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment, and therefore did not reach the predetermined sample size required to achieve the primary study objective; thus, the results are descriptive. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 of the 18 participants (IVIG n=5/10 (50%), placebo n=4/8 (50%)) made a good recovery and 5 participants (IVIG n=3/10 (30%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) made a poor recovery. Three participants (IVIG n=1/10 (10%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Two participants were found to have specific autoantibodies associated with autoimmune encephalitis. No serious adverse events were reported in participants receiving IVIG. // Conclusions: The IgNiTE (ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis) study findings support existing evidence of poor neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis. However, the study was halted prematurely and was therefore underpowered to evaluate the effect of early IVIG treatment compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis. // Trial registration number: Clinical Trials.gov NCT02308982; ICRCTN registry ISRCTN15791925

Studienprotokoll: Register zur Prognose akut-symptomatischer Anfälle (PROSA-Register) – eine prospektive multizentrische Beobachtungsstudie

Background: Acute symptomatic epileptic seizures occur in close temporal relation to an acute disturbance of brain function. They are associated with a low risk of subsequent unprovoked seizures; thus, current guidelines recommend not to administer a long-term antiseizure medication; however, in clinical practice long-term secondary seizure prophylaxis is frequently initiated. The seizure prognosis after guideline-conform untreated or only briefly treated acute symptomatic seizures, is so far unknown. Hypothesis: Following an acute symptomatic first epileptic seizure of structural etiology, the 1-year risk of subsequent unprovoked seizures is not higher than 25%, even if antiseizure medication was not applied or for a short period only. Methods: The PROSE register is a single-arm, open, prospective, multicenter observational study. A total of 115 subjects aged 18 years or older with an acute symptomatic first epileptic seizure of structural etiology will be included if the seizure was not a status epilepticus. Intrahospital follow-up will be based on the hospital records. Telephone follow-up interviews will be conducted 3, 6, and 12 months after the acute symptomatic seizure. Discussion: The PROSE register will shed light on current treatment practice of acute symptomatic seizures and the actual seizure outcome within 1 year. The results are assumed to support the current evidence that giving antiseizure medication for a longer period of time exceeding the acute phase of the underlying condition is unnecessary

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for encephalitis in children aged 6 months to 16 years: the IgNiTE RCT

Background: There are data suggesting that intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has some benefit for certain forms of encephalitis but robust evidence from large randomised controlled trials in children with all-cause encephalitis is lacking. / Objective: To evaluate whether intravenous immunoglobulin treatment improves neurological outcomes in childhood encephalitis when given early in the illness. / Design: Phase 3b, investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of encephalitis in children. / Setting: Twenty-one NHS Hospitals in the UK. / Participants: Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or sub-acute encephalitis. / Intervention: Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either intravenous immunoglobulin or matching placebo, given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment. / Main outcome measure: Participants were followed up for 12 months (+/– 4 weeks) after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was a ‘good recovery’ defined as a score of ≤ 2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended at 12 months after randomisation. / Secondary outcomes: The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and intravenous immunoglobulin safety data. / Results: We planned to recruit 308 children over a 42-month period. After enrolment of 18 participants (8 male; 44%) over 21 months (from December 2015 to September 2017), funding was withdrawn due to slow recruitment and the study was terminated. Ten participants were randomised to the intravenous immunoglobulin group, and eight to the placebo group, and all 18 participants were included in the analysis. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 participants [50%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 4 (50%)] made good recovery and 5 participants [28%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made a poor recovery. Three participants in the placebo group (43%) experienced a total of 10 serious adverse events compared with none in the intravenous immunoglobulin group but none of the adverse events were judged to be related to the study treatment. No deaths occurred during the study period. / Conclusion: ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis (IgNiTE) was halted prematurely due to slow recruitment. Given the small sample size, the study was underpowered to evaluate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin when compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis. The study findings, albeit from a small sample size, support existing evidence that encephalitis results in poor neurological outcomes for many children. Lessons learned from the ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis trial would be valuable for the success of future trials set up to address the efficacy of early treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin in all-cause encephalitis in children. / Study limitations and future work: The study was underpowered to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of childhood encephalitis due to the small sample size achieved. Future trials should seek to address this important question. / Trial registration: This trial is registered as Clinical Trials.gov (NCT02308982) and ISRCTN15791925. / Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/212/15) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for encephalitis in children aged 6 months to 16 years: the IgNiTE RCT

Background: There are data suggesting that intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has some benefit for certain forms of encephalitis but robust evidence from large randomised controlled trials in children with all-cause encephalitis is lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether intravenous immunoglobulin treatment improves neurological outcomes in childhood encephalitis when given early in the illness. Design: Phase 3b, investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of encephalitis in children. Setting: Twenty-one NHS Hospitals in the UK. Participants: Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or sub-acute encephalitis. Intervention: Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either intravenous immunoglobulin or matching placebo, given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment. Main outcome measure: Participants were followed up for 12 months (+/– 4 weeks) after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was a ‘good recovery’ defined as a score of ≤ 2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes: The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and intravenous immunoglobulin safety data. Results: We planned to recruit 308 children over a 42-month period. After enrolment of 18 participants (8 male; 44%) over 21 months (from December 2015 to September 2017), funding was withdrawn due to slow recruitment and the study was terminated. Ten participants were randomised to the intravenous immunoglobulin group, and eight to the placebo group, and all 18 participants were included in the analysis. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 participants [50%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 4 (50%)] made good recovery and 5 participants [28%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made a poor recovery. Three participants in the placebo group (43%) experienced a total of 10 serious adverse events compared with none in the intravenous immunoglobulin group but none of the adverse events were judged to be related to the study treatment. No deaths occurred during the study period. Conclusion: ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis (IgNiTE) was halted prematurely due to slow recruitment. Given the small sample size, the study was underpowered to evaluate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin when compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis. The study findings, albeit from a small sample size, support existing evidence that encephalitis results in poor neurological outcomes for many children. Lessons learned from the ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis trial would be valuable for the success of future trials set up to address the efficacy of early treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin in all-cause encephalitis in children. Study limitations and future work: The study was underpowered to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of childhood encephalitis due to the small sample size achieved. Future trials should seek to address this important question. Trial registration: This trial is registered as Clinical Trials.gov (NCT02308982) and ISRCTN15791925. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/212/15) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Evaluation of Potential Racial Disparities in CYP2C19‐Guided P2Y12 Inhibitor Prescribing After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Black patients suffer worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than White patients. Inequities in antiplatelet prescribing may contribute to this health disparity. We compared P2Y12 inhibitor prescribing by race following CYP2C19 genotyping to guide antiplatelet therapy selection after PCI. Patients from 9 sites that performed clinical CYP2C19 genotyping after PCI were included. Alternative therapy (e.g., prasugrel or ticagrelor) was recommended for CYP2C19 no-function allele carriers, in whom clopidogrel is predicted to be less effective. The primary outcome was choice of P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel vs. alternative therapy) based on genotype. Of 3,342 patients included, 2,448 (73%) were White, and 659 (20%) were Black. More Black than White patients had a no-function allele (34.3% vs. 29.7%, P = 0.024). At hospital discharge following PCI, 44.2% of Black and 44.0% of White no-function allele carriers were prescribed alternative therapy. At the time of the last follow-up within 12 months, numerically fewer Black (51.8%) than White (56.7%) no-function allele carriers were prescribed alternative therapy (P = 0.190). However, the difference was not significant after accounting for other factors associated with P2Y12 inhibitor selection (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.08). Alternative therapy use did not differ between Black (14.3%) and White (16.7%) patients without a no-function allele (P = 0.232). Among real-world patients who received CYP2C19 testing after PCI, P2Y12 inhibitor prescribing rates did not differ between Black and White patients. Our data suggest an absence of racial disparity in genotype-guided antiplatelet prescribing among patients receiving CYP2C19 testing

COVID-19 and Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Case Series, Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) profoundly impacts hemostasis and microvasculature. In the light of the dilemma between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, in the present paper, we systematically investigate the prevalence, mortality, radiological subtypes, and clinical characteristics of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review of the literature by screening the PubMed database and included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and concomitant ICH. We performed a pooled analysis, including a prospectively collected cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients with ICH, as part of the PANDEMIC registry (Pooled Analysis of Neurologic Disorders Manifesting in Intensive Care of COVID-19). Results: Our literature review revealed a total of 217 citations. After the selection process, 79 studies and a total of 477 patients were included. The median age was 58.8 years. A total of 23.3% of patients experienced the critical stage of COVID-19, 62.7% of patients were on anticoagulation and 27.5% of the patients received ECMO. The prevalence of ICH was at 0.85% and the mortality at 52.18%, respectively. Conclusion: ICH in COVID-19 patients is rare, but it has a very poor prognosis. Different subtypes of ICH seen in COVID-19, support the assumption of heterogeneous and multifaceted pathomechanisms contributing to ICH in COVID-19. Further clinical and pathophysiological investigations are warranted to resolve the conflict between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in the future

Multi-site investigation of strategies for the implementation of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy

CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention is increasingly implemented in clinical practice. However, challenges such as selecting a testing platform, communicating test results, building clinical decision support processes, providing patient and provider education, and integrating methods to support the translation of emerging evidence to clinical practice are barriers to broad adoption. In this report, we compare and contrast implementation strategies of 12 early adopters, describing solutions to common problems and initial performance metrics for each program. Key differences between programs included the test result turnaround time and timing of therapy changes which are both related to CYP2C19 testing model and platform used. Sites reported the need for new informatics infrastructure, expert clinicians such as pharmacists to interpret results, physician champions, and ongoing education. Consensus lessons learned are presented to provide a path forward for those seeking to implement similar clinical pharmacogenomics programs within their institutions. This article is protected by copyright

Real-life biomarker response to anti-IL5 and anti-IgE therapies in severe asthma patients

Funding: This study was conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and was partially funded by Optimum Patient Care Global and AstraZeneca Ltd. No funding was received by OPRI for its contribution.Peer reviewedPostprin

Establishing the value of genomics in medicine: the IGNITE Pragmatic Trials Network.

PURPOSE: A critical gap in the adoption of genomic medicine into medical practice is the need for the rigorous evaluation of the utility of genomic medicine interventions. METHODS: The Implementing Genomics in Practice Pragmatic Trials Network (IGNITE PTN) was formed in 2018 to measure the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of genomic medicine interventions, to assess approaches for real-world application of genomic medicine in diverse clinical settings, and to produce generalizable knowledge on clinical trials using genomic interventions. Five clinical sites and a coordinating center evaluated trial proposals and developed working groups to enable their implementation. RESULTS: Two pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have been initiated, one evaluating genetic risk APOL1 variants in African Americans in the management of their hypertension, and the other to evaluate the use of pharmacogenetic testing for medications to manage acute and chronic pain as well as depression. CONCLUSION: IGNITE PTN is a network that carries out PCTs in genomic medicine; it is focused on diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority trial participants; it uses electronic health records and clinical decision support to deliver the interventions. IGNITE PTN will develop the evidence to support (or oppose) the adoption of genomic medicine interventions by patients, providers, and payers