1,395 research outputs found

    Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2‚ÄČ√ó‚ÄČ2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2‚ÄČ√ó‚ÄČ2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2‚ÄČx‚ÄČ2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1¬∑11 (95% CI 0¬∑80-1¬∑55; p=0¬∑54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1¬∑04, 95% CI 0¬∑77-1¬∑41; p=0¬∑78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1¬∑40, 95% CI 0¬∑94-2¬∑08; p=0¬∑10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

    Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2‚ÄČ√ó‚ÄČ2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2‚ÄČ√ó‚ÄČ2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2‚ÄČx‚ÄČ2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1¬∑11 (95% CI 0¬∑80-1¬∑55; p=0¬∑54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1¬∑04, 95% CI 0¬∑77-1¬∑41; p=0¬∑78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1¬∑40, 95% CI 0¬∑94-2¬∑08; p=0¬∑10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

    Palliative care to support the needs of adults with neurological disease.

    No full text
    Neurological diseases cause physical, psychosocial, and spiritual or existential suffering from the time of their diagnosis. Palliative care focuses on improving quality of life for people with serious illness and their families by addressing this multidimensional suffering. Evidence from clinical trials supports the ability of palliative care to improve patient and caregiver outcomes by the use of outpatient or home-based palliative care interventions for people with motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson's disease; inpatient palliative care consultations for people with advanced dementia; telephone-based case management for people with dementia in the community; and nurse-led discussions with decision aids for people with advanced dementia in long-term care. Unfortunately, most people with neurological diseases do not get the support that they need for their palliative care under current standards of healthcare. Improving this situation requires the deployment of routine screening to identify individual palliative care needs, the integration of palliative care approaches into routine neurological care, and collaboration between neurologists and palliative care specialists. Research, education, and advocacy are also needed to raise standards of care. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

    Symptomatic benefits of testosterone treatment in patient subgroups : a systematic review, individual participant data meta-analysis, and aggregate data meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    Acknowledgments This work was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)'s Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 17/68/01). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The Health Services Research Unit at the University of Aberdeen is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The Section of Endocrinology and Investigative Medicine at Imperial College London is funded by grants from the Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, NIHR, an Integrative Mammalian Biology Capacity Building Award, and an FP7-HEALTH-2009-241592 EuroCHIP grant, and is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Funding Scheme. WSD is funded by an NIHR Research Professorship. CNJ is funded by an NIHR Post-Doctoral Fellowship. ShB receives NIH research grant funding. The authors are grateful to the clinical and methodological experts and patient partners who contributed to the advisory group for this study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

    A second update on mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19

    Get PDF

    Evolutionary Processes Shaping Postglacial Gene Pools of High-Altitude Forests: Evidence from the Endemic Eucalypts of Tasmania

    No full text
    Climatic changes during the Pleistocene were responsible for dramatic redistributions of plant species worldwide. On the rugged southern hemisphere island of Tasmania, temperature increases following the last glaciation saw upslope migration of climatically suitable species from lowland refugia and the expansion of eucalypt-dominated forests and woodlands in the Central Highlands. We integrate multiple lines of evidence (chloroplast and nuclear DNA markers, seedling morphology, and survival in common garden experiments) from a group of closely related endemic eucalypts (the alpine white gums) to argue that (i) the Central Highlands of the island were colonised by multiple glacial refugia with hybridisation among species and previously separated populations, and (ii) natural selection has filtered the admixed populations, resulting in local adaptation to the harsh sub-alpine environment. Chloroplast haplotype diversity decreased and nuclear microsatellite diversity increased with altitude, chloroplast sharing among taxa was common, and nuclear DNA differentiation of morphologically distinct taxa was lower in the Central Highlands compared with lowland regions. Local adaptation in the highlands was signalled by evidence from (i) a glasshouse trial in which directional selection (QST > FST) had shaped seedling morphological trait variation and (ii) population survival differences in 35-year-old reciprocal plantings along the major environmental gradients. We conclude that the evolutionary response of these island endemic trees to past climate change has involved the interplay of both hybridisation and natural selection, highlighting the importance of maintaining species interactions under future climate change