Dataset Information

Rationale and protocol for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of nangibotide in patients with septic shock (ASTONISH) phase IIb randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Septic shock is the subgroup of patients with sepsis, which presents as vasopressor dependence, an elevated blood lactate concentration and is associated with a mortality of at least 30%. Expression of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (TREM-1) pathway, measured using a serum biomarker of pathway activation (soluble TREM-1, sTREM-1) has been associated with outcome in septic shock. Preclinical and early phase patient data suggest that therapeutic modulation of this pathway may improve survival.

Methods and analysis

Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Nangibotide in Patients with Septic Shock is a phase IIb randomised controlled trial that will take place in up to 50 centres in seven countries and recruit 450 patients with septic shock to receive either placebo or one of two doses of nangibotide, a novel regulator of the TREM-1 pathway. The primary outcome will be the impact of nangibotide therapy on the change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score from a baseline determined before initiation of study drug therapy. This will be assessed first in the patients with an elevated sTREM-1 level and then in the study population as a whole. In addition to safety, secondary outcomes of the study will include efficacy of nangibotide in relation to sTREM-1 levels in terms of organ function, mortality and long-term morbidity. This study will also facilitate the development of a novel platform for the measurement of sTREM-1 at the point of care.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by the responsible ethics committees/institutional review boards in all study countries: Belgium: Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen, France: CPP Ile de France II, Denmark: Region Hovedstaden, Spain: ethics committee from Valld'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Finland: Tukija, Ireland: St. James' Hospital (SJH) / Tallaght University Hospital (TUH) Joint Research Ethics Committee, USA: Lifespan, Providence TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT Number: 2018-004827-36 and NCT04055909.

SUBMITTER: Francois B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8264912 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with asthma uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids may benefit from umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist.MethodsThis Phase IIb, double-blind study included patients with reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled asthma for ≥6 months, receiving ≥100 mcg/day fluticasone propionate (or equivalent) for ≥12 weeks. Following a 2-week run-in on open-label fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 mcg, patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive UMEC 31.25 mcg, UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo on top of FF 100 mcg once-daily for 24 weeks. As-needed salbutamol was provided. Primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose, respectively, at Week 24. Other endpoints included change from baseline in home daily spirometry (trough FEV1, evening FEV1, morning [pre-dose] and evening peak expiratory flow) over 24 weeks. Safety was assessed throughout the study.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 421 patients (UMEC 31.25 mcg: n =139, UMEC 62.5 mcg: n =139, placebo: n =143). UMEC 31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at Week 24 (difference [95% CI]: 0.176 L [0.092, 0.260; p<0.001] and 0.184 L [0.101, 0.268; p<0.001], respectively), clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose at Week 24 (0.190 L [0.100, 0.279; p<0.001] and 0.198 L [0.109, 0.287; p<0.001], respectively) and mean change from baseline in daily home spirometry over 24 weeks versus placebo. No new safety signals were identified.ConclusionsUMEC is a highly effective bronchodilator that leads to improved lung function when administered as a single bronchodilator on top of FF in subjects with fully reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled moderate asthma. These data support a favourable benefit/risk profile for UMEC (31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg).Trial registrationGSK study ID: 205832; Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03012061.

Project description:PurposeInvestigate safety and tolerability of adrecizumab, a humanized monoclonal adrenomedullin antibody, in septic shock patients with high adrenomedullin.MethodsPhase-2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled biomarker-guided trial with a single infusion of adrecizumab (2 or 4 mg/kg b.w.) compared to placebo. Patients with adrenomedullin above 70 pg/mL, < 12 h of vasopressor start for septic shock were eligible. Randomization was 1:1:2. Primary safety (90-day mortality, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE)) and tolerability (drug interruption, hemodynamics) endpoints were recorded. Efficacy endpoints included the Sepsis Support Index (SSI, reflecting ventilator- and shock-free days alive), change in Sequential-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and 28-day mortality.Results301 patients were enrolled (median time of 8.5 h after vasopressor start). Adrecizumab was well tolerated (one interruption, no hemodynamic alteration) with no differences in frequency and severity in TEAEs between treatment arms (TEAE of grade 3 or higher: 70.5% in the adrecizumab group and 71.1% in the placebo group) nor in 90-day mortality. Difference in change in SSI between adrecizumab and placebo was 0.72 (CI -1.93-0.49, p = 0.24). Among various secondary endpoints, delta SOFA score (defined as maximum versus minimum SOFA) was more pronounced in the adrecizumab combined group compared to placebo [difference at 0.76 (95% CI 0.18-1.35); p = 0.007]. 28-day mortality in the adrecizumab group was 23.9% and 27.7% in placebo with a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.53-1.31, log-rank p = 0.44).ConclusionsOverall, we successfully completed a randomized trial evaluating selecting patients for enrolment who had a disease-related biomarker. There were no overt signals of harm with using two doses of the adrenomedullin antibody adrecizumab; however, further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm efficacy and safety of this agent in septic shock patients.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Supraventricular arrhythmias contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. A retrospective study generated the hypothesis that propafenone could be more effective than amiodarone in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm (SR). Certain echocardiographic parameters may predict a successful cardioversion and help in the decision on rhythm or rate control strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The trial includes septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia, but without severe impairment of the left ventricular ejection fraction. After baseline echocardiography, the patient is randomised to receive a bolus and maintenance dose of either amiodarone or propafenone. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients that have achieved rhythm control at 24 hours after the start of the infusion. The secondary outcomes are the percentages of patients that needed rescue treatments (DC cardioversion or unblinding and crossover of the antiarrhythmics), the recurrence of arrhythmias, intensive care unit mortality, 28-day and 1-year mortality. In the posthoc analysis, we separately assess subgroups of patients with pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. In the exploratory part of the study, we assess whether the presence of a transmitral diastolic A wave and its higher velocity-time integral is predictive for the sustainability of mechanical SR and whether the indexed left atrial endsystolic volume is predictive of recurrent arrhythmia. Considering that the restoration of SR within 24 hours occurred in 74% of the amiodarone-treated patients and in 89% of the patients treated with propafenone, we plan to include 200 patients to have an 80% chance to demonstrate the superiority of propafenone at p=0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The trial is recruiting patients according to its second protocol version approved by the University Hospital Ethical Board on the 6 October 2017 (No. 1691/16S-IV). The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03029169.

Project description:IntroductionSepsis remains a major health problem with an increasing incidence, high morbidity and high mortality. Apart from treatment with antibiotics and organ support, no approved specific adjunct therapies currently exist. Adrenomedullin (ADM) is a vasoactive peptide. High plasma concentrations of ADM correlate with worse outcome in sepsis patients. Preclinical work with the non-neutralising ADM-binding antibody adrecizumab showed promising effects in animal models of septic shock, including improved vascular barrier function, reduced vasopressor demand and organ dysfunction and increased survival. Therapeutic use of adrecizumab may therefore improve outcome in critically ill patients with septic shock and high ADM plasma concentrations. Phase I studies in healthy volunteers did not reveal any safety concerns. In this biomarker-guided trial, the safety and efficacy of adrecizumab will be investigated in patients with septic shock.Methods and analysisWe describe a phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, proof-of-concept and dose-finding clinical trial in patients with early septic shock and high concentration of circulating ADM. A total of 300 patients will be enrolled at approximately 30 sites within the European Union. Patients are randomised to receive active treatment (2 and 4 mg/kg adrecizumab) or placebo, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Patient selection is guided by clinical parameters, and biomarker-guided by measurement of circulating biologically active ADM concentration at admission. Primary endpoint is safety and tolerability of adrecizumab over a 90-day period. A key secondary endpoint is the Sepsis Severity Index over a 14-day period.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by relevant institutional review boards/independent ethics committees and is conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the European Medicines Agency guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and all other applicable regulations. Results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trial registration numberNCT03085758; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo prospectively assess the efficacy, general safety, and joint safety of fasinumab, an anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in osteoarthritis (OA) hip and/or knee pain.MethodsPatients with moderate-to-severe OA pain (knee or hip) and history of inadequate response or intolerance to analgesics were randomized to receive fasinumab (at 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, or 9 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks over 16 weeks and were followed up to week 36. Efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 16 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and patient global assessment (PGA) of OA. Joints were monitored at scheduled assessments (by plain film radiography and magnetic resonance imaging) during treatment and follow-up, and if prompted, at the time of active joint symptoms.ResultsOf the 421 patients randomized, 342 completed the 36-week study. All doses of fasinumab yielded statistically significant and clinically important reductions in pain compared to placebo (least squares mean difference in WOMAC pain subscale scores at week 16 ranging -0.78 to -1.40), without any clear dose dependence. Physical function and PGA scores improved in parallel. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 17% with fasinumab and 10% with placebo, and 4% and 1% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment. Arthropathies (25 in total, 7% of fasinumab-treated patients and 1% of placebo-treated patients) occurred in a dose-dependent manner, with 2 occurring in patients receiving the lowest dose of fasinumab and 10 in patients receiving the highest dose. Most of the arthropathies (16 of 25) were discovered with scheduled radiographs and not based on symptoms. Destructive arthropathy (in 1 of 337 treated patients) occurred in 1 patient who was receiving 6 mg fasimumab.ConclusionFasinumab provided improvements in OA pain and function, even in those benefitting little from previous analgesics. The observed benefit-to-risk relationship favors further clinical development to explore the lowest doses of fasinumab in patients with knee or hip OA.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have suggested that β1-receptor blockers benefit septic shock patients. This study aimed to determine whether β1-receptor blockers benefit tissue perfusion in sepsis and to identify parameters to reduce the risk of this drug in sepsis.MethodsConsecutive septic shock patients were recruited from the Intensive Care Unit of Peking Union Medical College Hospital within 48 h of diagnosis. All patients were hemodynamically stable and satisfactorily sedated with a heart rate (HR) ≥100 beats/min. Esmolol therapy achieved the target HR of 10-15% lower than the baseline HR. Clinical and physiological data of patients were collected prospectively within 1 h prior to esmolol therapy and 2 h after achieving the targeted HR.ResultsSixty-three patients were recruited. After esmolol therapy, blood pressure was unaltered, whereas stroke volume (SV) was increased compared with before esmolol therapy (43.6 ± 22.7 vs. 49.9 ± 23.7 ml, t = -2.3, P = 0.047). Tissue perfusion, including lactate levels (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 1.1 ± 0.6 mmol/L, t = 2.6, P = 0.015) and the central venous-to-arterial carbon dioxide difference (5.6 ± 3.3 vs. 4.3 ± 2.2 mmHg, t = 2.6 P = 0.016), was also significantly decreased after esmolol therapy. For patients with increased SV (n = 42), cardiac efficiency improved, and esmolol therapy had a lower risk for a decrease in cardiac output (CO). Therefore, pretreatment cardiac systolic and diastolic parameters with (n = 42)/without (n = 21) an increase in SV were compared. Mitral lateral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSElat) in patients with increased SV was significantly higher than that in those without increased SV (1.3 ± 0.3 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2 cm, t = 2.4, P = 0.034).ConclusionsSV of septic shock patients is increased following esmolol therapy. Although CO is also decreased with HR, tissue perfusion is not worse. MAPSElat can be used to predict an increase in SV before esmolol use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01920776; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01920776?term=NCT01920776&rank=1.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Observational evidence suggests physiological benefits and lower mortality with lower chloride solutions; however, 0.9% saline remains the most widely used fluid worldwide. Given uncertainty regarding the association of lower chloride on mortality, it is unlikely that practice will change without direct randomised clinical trial (RCT) evidence. This pilot RCT will investigate the feasibility of a large-scale trial directly comparing low chloride with high chloride fluids in patients with septic shock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a randomised, concealed, blinded parallel-group multicentre pilot trial. We will include adult critically ill patients with septic shock, defined as ongoing hypotension despite 1 L of fluid, or a serum lactate >4?mmol/L, who are within 6?hours of hospital presentation or rapid response team activation. We will exclude patients if they have an aetiology of shock other than sepsis, if they have acute burn injury, elevated intracranial pressure, intent to withdraw life support or previous enrolment in this or a competing trial. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to a low chloride fluid strategy or a high chloride fluid strategy for the duration of their ICU stay or until 30 days postrandomisation. Clinicians, patients, families and research staff will be blinded. The primary outcome for this trial will be feasibility, assessed by consent rate, recruitment success and protocol adherence. Patient-important clinical outcomes include mortality, receipt of renal replacement therapy, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay and surrogate outcomes of incidence of acidosis, hyperkalaemia and acute kidney injury. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This pilot trial will test the feasibility of conducting the main trial, which will examine the effect of high versus low chloride fluids in patients with septic shock on patient-important outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02748382, registered 8 April 2016. PROTOCOL DATE:1 July 2016.