Efficacy and safety of Vilobelimab (IFX-1), a novel monoclonal anti-C5a antibody, in patients with early severe sepsis or septic shock — a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter, phase IIa Trial (SCIENS Study)

IMPORTANCE:. Anaphylatoxin C5a, a proinflammatory complement split product, plays a central role in mediating organ dysfunction. OBJECTIVES:. This phase II clinical trial was conducted to study safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of vilobelimab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody against C5a, in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. DESIGN:. Multicenter, randomized, and placebo-controlled study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:. Eleven multidisciplinary ICUs across Germany. Adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and with early onset of infection-associated organ dysfunction. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:. Patients were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:1 to three subsequent dosing cohorts for IV vilobelimab or placebo receiving either 2 × 2 mg/kg (0 and 12 hr), 2 × 4 mg/kg (0 and 24 hr), and 3 × 4 mg/kg (0, 24, and 72 hr). Co-primary endpoints were pharmacodynamics (assessed by C5a concentrations), pharmacokinetics (assessed by vilobelimab concentrations), and safety of vilobelimab. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated by secondary objectives. RESULTS:. Seventy-two patients were randomized (16 patients for each vilobelimab dosing cohort and eight patients for each placebo dosing cohort). Vilobelimab application was associated with dosing dependent decrease in C5a compared with baseline (p < 0.001). Duration of C5a decrease increased with more frequent dosing. Membrane attack complex lysis capacity measured by 50% hemolytic complement was not affected. Vilobelimab was well tolerated with similar safety findings in all dose cohorts. No vilobelimab-specific adverse events emerged. For vilobelimab-treated patients, investigators attributed less treatment-emergent adverse events as related compared with placebo. Dosing cohorts 2 and 3 had the highest ICU-free and ventilator-free days. There was no difference in mortality, vasopressor-free days, or renal replacement therapy-free days between the groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:. Administration of vilobelimab in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock selectively neutralizes C5a in a dose-dependent manner without blocking formation of the membrane attack complex and without resulting in detected safety issues. The data warrant further investigation of C5a inhibition in sepsis

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal