Patterns of use of adjunctive therapies in patients with early moderate- severe Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome: Insights from the LUNG SAFE Study

Background: Adjunctive strategies are an important part of the management of ARDS. However, their application in clinical practice remains inconsistent. Research Question: We wished to determine the frequency and patterns of use of adjunctive strategies in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (PaO2/FIO2 [P/F ratio] < 150) enrolled into the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Study Design and Methods: The LUNG SAFE study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted in 2014 in 459 ICUs from 50 countries. The primary objective of this substudy was to determine the frequency of use of widely available (neuromuscular blockade, prone position) adjuncts vs adjuncts requiring specialized equipment (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, inhaled vasodilators, high-frequency ventilation) in patients in the first 48 h of moderate to severe ARDS (P/F ratio < 150). Results: Of 1,146 patients on invasive ventilation with moderate to severe ARDS, 811 patients (71%) received no adjunct within 48 h of ARDS onset. Of 335 (29%) that received adjunctive strategies, 252 (75%) received a single strategy, and 83 (25%) receiving more than one adjunct. Of ARDS nonsurvivors, 67% did not receive any adjunctive strategy in the first 48 h. Most patients (67%) receiving specialized adjuncts did not receive prone positioning or neuromuscular blockade. Patients that received adjuncts were more likely to have their ARDS recognized, be younger and sicker, have pneumonia, be more difficult to ventilate, and be in a European high-income country than those that did not receive adjuncts. Interpretation: Three in 10 patients with moderate to severe ARDS, and only one-third of nonsurvivors, received adjunctive strategies over the first 48 h of ARDS. A more consistent and evidence-driven approach to adjunct use may reduce costs and improve outcomes in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02010073; URL: www.clinicaltrials.go

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Double-edged sword: a p53 regulator mediates both harmful and beneficial effects in experimental acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury triggers activation of innate immune responses and of proapoptotic programs such as the p53 pathway. Mulay et al. examine the effects of blocking murine double minute-2 (mdm2), a negative regulator of p53, using a novel chemotherapeutic agent, nutlin-3a, in mouse ischemia-reperfusion injury. Their results indicate that mdm2 promotes renal regeneration by limiting p53-mediated apoptosis but also enhances early inflammation by facilitating DNA binding of nuclear factor-kappa B independently of p53

Double-edged sword: a p53 regulator mediates both harmful and beneficial effects in experimental acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury triggers activation of innate immune responses and of proapoptotic programs such as the p53 pathway. Mulay et al. examine the effects of blocking murine double minute-2 (mdm2), a negative regulator of p53, using a novel chemotherapeutic agent, nutlin-3a, in mouse ischemia-reperfusion injury. Their results indicate that mdm2 promotes renal regeneration by limiting p53-mediated apoptosis but also enhances early inflammation by facilitating DNA binding of nuclear factor-kappa B independently of p53

Double-edged sword: a p53 regulator mediates both harmful and beneficial effects in experimental acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury triggers activation of innate immune responses and of proapoptotic programs such as the p53 pathway. Mulay et al. examine the effects of blocking murine double minute-2 (mdm2), a negative regulator of p53, using a novel chemotherapeutic agent, nutlin-3a, in mouse ischemia-reperfusion injury. Their results indicate that mdm2 promotes renal regeneration by limiting p53-mediated apoptosis but also enhances early inflammation by facilitating DNA binding of nuclear factor-kappa B independently of p53

Progress toward the clinical application of mesenchymal stromal cells and other disease-modulating regenerative therapies

Drawing from basic knowledge of stem cell biology, embryonic development, wound healing and aging, regenerative medicine seeks to develop therapeutic strategies that complement or replace conventional treatments by actively repairing diseased tissue or generating new organs and tissues. Among the various clinical translational strategies within the field of regenerative medicine, several can be broadly described as promoting disease resolution indirectly through local or systemic interactions with a patient s cells without permanently integrating or directly forming new primary tissue. In this review, we focus on such therapies, which we term disease modulating regenerative therapies (DMRT), and on the extent to which they have been translated into the clinical arena in four distinct areas of nephrology: renovascular disease (RVD), sepsis-associate acute kidney injury (SA-AKI), diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and kidney transplantation (KTx). As we describe, the DMRT that has most consistently progressed to human clinical trials for these indications is mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs), which potently modulate ischemic, inflammatory, pro-fibrotic and immune-mediated tissue injury through diverse paracrine mechanisms. In KTx, several early-phase clinical trials have also tested the potential for ex vivo-expanded regulatory immune cell therapies to promote donor-specific tolerance and prevent or resolve allograft injury. Other promising DMRT, including adult stem/progenitor cells, stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles and implantable hydrogels/biomaterials remain at varying pre-clinical stages of translation for these renal conditions. To date (2021), no DMRT has gained market approval for use in patients with RVD, SA-AKI, DKD or KTx and clinical trials demonstrating definitive, cost-effective patient benefits are needed. Nonetheless, exciting progress in understanding the disease-specific mechanisms of action of MSCs and other DMRT, coupled with increasing knowledge of the pathophysiological basis for renal tissue injury and the experience gained from pioneering early-phase clinical trials provide optimism that impactful, regenerative treatments for diverse kidney diseases will emerge in the years ahead.LJH is supported by grants from Regenerative Medicine Minnesota (grant number RMM 091718), the National Institute of Health (NIH) (grant numbers DK109134 and DK123492), and NIDDK Diabetic Complications Consortium (RRID:SCR_001415, www.diacomp.org; grant numbers DK076169 and DK115255). SMH is supported by the NIH (grant number DK118120) and by a Mary Kathryn and Michael B. Panitch Career Development Award. MDG is supported by grants from the European Commission [Horizon 2020 Collaborative Health Project NEPHSTROM (grant number 634086) and FP7 Collaborative Health Project VISICORT (grant number 602470)], from Science Foundation Ireland [REMEDI Strategic Research Cluster (grant number 09/SRC-B1794; MDG) and CÚRAM Research Centre (grant number 13/RC/2073; MDG)] and the European Regional Development Fund