Study protocol: exploring the efficacy of cyclophosphamide added to corticosteroids for treating acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center phase III trial (EXAFIP)

International audienceBACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a fatal lung disease, with a median survival of 2-3 years and variable natural history, characterized by gradual and progressive deterioration. Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) is a severe complication, associated with poor survival and a mortality > 50%. To date, no treatment has proven effective in AE-IPF, with cyclophosphamide (CYC) the only therapy suggested to be effective on survival, primarily based on retrospective series. Considering the high fatality rates of AE-IPF, evaluating the efficacy of immunosuppressive agents in a randomized controlled trial proves crucial, as the results could significantly impact treatment and prognosis of AE-IPF.METHODS: The EXAFIP study is a French national multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial. Its primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of CYC compared to placebo on early survival in patients treated with corticosteroids. We hypothesize that adding CYC to high-dose corticosteroids would reduce 3-month mortality in AE-IPF patients. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality rate at Month 3; secondary objectives are to evaluate the efficacy of CYC compared to placebo on overall survival at Months 6 and 12, respiratory disease-specific mortality, respiratory morbidity, and chest high-resolution computed tomography features, and to determine prognostic factors in AE-IPF and compare the safety of the two treatment arms during 6 months' follow-up.DISCUSSION: There is an urgent unmet clinical need for effective AE-IPF treatment. The EXAFIP study is the first large Phase III placebo-controlled randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of CYC added to corticosteroids in treating AE-IPF. The results of this study could significantly impact treatment strategy and prognosis of AE-IPF

Albumin versus saline infusion for sepsis-related peripheral tissue hypoperfusion: a proof-of-concept prospective study

International audienceBackground: Albumin has potential endothelial protective effects through antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. However, the effect of albumin on peripheral tissue perfusion in human sepsis remains poorly known. Methods: Bi-centric prospective study included patients with sepsis with or without shock and prolonged CRT > 3 s despite initial resuscitation. Clinicians in charge of the patients were free to infuse either saline 500 mL or human serum albumin 20% 100 mL over 15 min. Global hemodynamic parameters as well as peripheral tissue perfusion were analyzed after 1 (H1) and 4 h (H4). The primary endpoint was CRT normalization (Results: 62 patients were screened, and 50 patients (13 sepsis and 37 septic shock) were included, 21 in the saline group and 29 in the albumin group. SOFA score was 8 [5–11], and SAPS II was 53 [45–70]. Median age was 68 [60–76] years with a higher proportion of men (74%). The primary sources of infection were respiratory (54%) and abdominal (24%). At baseline, comorbidities, clinical and biological characteristics were similar between groups . At H1, CRT normalization (Conclusion: In patients with resuscitated sepsis, albumin infusion might lead to greater improvement of tissue hypoperfusion compared to saline. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05094856.gov Identifier: NCT05094856

Additional file 1 of Albumin versus saline infusion for sepsis-related peripheral tissue hypoperfusion: a proof-of-concept prospective study

Additional file 1. Flow chart

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous and homologous mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccination: A multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial

International audienceBACKGROUND: Although effective mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been deployed worldwide, their interchangeability could facilitate the scale-up of vaccination programs. The objective of the trial was to assess whether the immune response induced by a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 mRNA primo vaccination is non-inferior to that of a homologous mRNA vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in adults 18 years of age and older who received a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a second dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, 28 to 49 days after the first dose. Randomization was stratified on the vaccine received at the first vaccination. The primary endpoint was the anti-spike IgG antibodies titer measured 28 days after the second vaccine dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial, NCT04900467. FINDINGS: Of the 414 randomized participants recruited from May 28 to July 2, 2021, 390 were included in the per protocol analysis: 94 participants in group 1 (BNT162b2/BNT162b2), 96 in group 2 (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), 97 in group 3 (mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273), and 103 in group 4 (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2). The geometric mean titers ratios of anti-spike IgG antibodies for each heterologous regimen relative to the corresponding homologous regimen were 1·37 (two-sided 95% CI, 1·10 to 1·72) in the groups 1 and 2 and 0·67 (two-sided 95% CI, 0·55 to 0·82) in the groups 3 and 4. Levels of neutralizing antibodies to the main circulating SARS-Cov-2 viral strains were higher with the vaccine regimen containing mRNA-1273. Participants who received mRNA-1273 as a second dose experienced a higher rate of local adverse reactions and general symptoms than those who received BNT162b2 (p < 0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines could be used with flexibility for the second dose of COVID-19 primo vaccination. Tolerance remains good regardless of vaccine sequence although mRNA-1273 was more reactogenic. FUNDING: French Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research. BNT162b2 was provided by Pfizer/BioNTech. mRNA-1273 was provided by Moderna