Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of multipotent adult progenitor cells in acute respiratory distress syndrome (MUST-ARDS): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Bone marrow-derived, allogeneic, multipotent adult progenitor cells demonstrated safety and efficacy in preclinical models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

This phase 1/2 trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of intravenous multipotent adult progenitor cells in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS in 12 UK and USA centres. Cohorts 1 and 2 were open-label, evaluating acute safety in three subjects receiving 300 or 900 million cells, respectively. Cohort 3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial infusing 900 million cells (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10) within 96 h of ARDS diagnosis. Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL) and plasma biomarkers.

Results

No allergic or serious adverse reactions were associated with cell therapy in any cohort. At baseline, the cohort 3 cell group had less severe hypoxia. For cohort 3, 28-day mortality was 25% for cell vs. 45% for placebo recipients. Median 28-day free from intensive care unit (ICU) and ventilator-free days in the cell vs. placebo group were 12.5 (IQR 0,18.5) vs. 4.5 (IQR 0,16.8) and 18.5 (IQR 0,22) vs. 6.5 (IQR 0,18.3), respectively. A prospectively defined severe ARDS subpopulation (PaO₂/FiO₂ < 150 mmHg (20 kPa); n = 16) showed similar trends in mortality, ICU-free days and ventilator-free days favouring cell therapy. Cell recipients showed greater recovery of QoL through Day 365.

Conclusions

Multipotent adult progenitor cells were safe and well tolerated in ARDS. The clinical outcomes warrant larger trials to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and optimal patient population.

SUBMITTER: Bellingan G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8608557 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580.FindingsBetween April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089).InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials.FundingProgramme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundImmune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is an autoimmune myopathy characterised by proximal muscle weakness, high creatine kinase (CK) values, and autoantibodies recognizing 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR) or the signal recognition particle (SRP). There are currently no approved therapies for IMNM and many patients experience active disease despite off-label treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, glucocorticoids, and immunosuppressants. Detection of complement-activating anti-HMGCR and anti-SRP autoantibodies and the presence of complement deposition on the sarcolemma of non-necrotic myofibers led to the hypothesis that complement activation may be pathogenic in IMNM, therefore zilucoplan, a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor, could be a potential therapy.MethodsIMNM01, a phase 2, multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT04025632) at 15 sites (four countries) evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zilucoplan in adult participants with anti-HMGCR or anti-SRP autoantibody-positive IMNM. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive daily subcutaneous zilucoplan (0·3mg/kg) or placebo for eight weeks; with optional enrolment in the study open-label extension. Primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline to Week 8 in CK levels. Secondary endpoints included safety.FindingsBetween 07 November 2019 and 07 January 2021, 27 participants (13 female and 14 male) received zilucoplan (n=12) or placebo (n=15) and completed the 8-week main study. At Week 8 there were no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences, despite target engagement based on mode of action, between treatment arms in mean percent change (standard deviation) of CK levels versus baseline (-9·86% [26·06] versus -20·72% [31·22] in zilucoplan [n=10] and placebo arms [n=14], p=0·46, respectively) and no clinically relevant improvement over time within the treatment arm. There were no unexpected adverse safety or tolerability findings. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs were reported in n=9 (75·0%) vs n=13 (86·7%) and n=0 (0%) and n=3 (20·0%) participants, respectively. The most frequent TEAEs were headache (n=4 in both groups [33·3% and 26·7%, respectively]) and nausea (n=3 in both groups [25·0% and 20·0%, respectively]).InterpretationC5 inhibition does not appear to be an effective treatment modality for IMNM. Rather than driving myofiber necrosis, complement activation may be secondary to muscle injury.FundingStudy funded by Ra Pharmaceuticals (now part of UCB Pharma).