2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety and preliminary efficacy of sequential multiple ascending doses of solnatide to treat pulmonary permeability edema in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial: preliminary evaluation of safety and feasibility in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In May 2018, the first patient was enrolled in the phase-IIb clinical trial “Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Sequential Multiple Ascending Doses of Solnatide to Treat Pulmonary Permeability Edema in Patients with Moderate to Severe ARDS.” With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the continuation and successful execution of this clinical study was in danger. Therefore, before the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) allowed proceeding with the study and enrollment of further COVID-19 ARDS patients into it, additional assessment on possible study bias was considered mandatory.

          Methods

          We conducted an ad hoc interim analysis of 16 patients (5 COVID-19- ARDS patients and 11 with ARDS from different causes) from the phase-IIB clinical trial. We assessed possible differences in clinical characteristics of the ARDS patients and the impact of the pandemic on study execution.

          Results

          COVID-19 patients seemed to be less sick at baseline, which also showed in higher survival rates over the 28-day observation period. Trial specific outcomes regarding pulmonary edema and ventilation parameters did not differ between the groups, nor did more general indicators of (pulmonary) sepsis like oxygenation ratio and required noradrenaline doses.

          Conclusion

          The DSMB and the investigators did not find any evidence that patients suffering from ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 may be at higher (or generally altered) risk when included in the trial, nor were there indications that those patients might influence the integrity of the study data altogether. For this reason, a continuation of the phase IIB clinical study activities can be justified. Researchers continuing clinical trials during the pandemic should always be aware that the exceptional circumstances may alter study results and therefore adaptations of the study design might be necessary.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Global guidance for surgical care during the COVID ‐19 pandemic

          Background Surgeons urgently need guidance on how to deliver surgical services safely and effectively during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The aim was to identify the key domains that should be considered when developing pandemic preparedness plans for surgical services. Methods A scoping search was conducted to identify published articles relating to management of surgical patients during pandemics. Key informant interviews were conducted with surgeons and anaesthetists with direct experience of working during infectious disease outbreaks, in order to identify key challenges and solutions to delivering effective surgical services during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Results Thirteen articles were identified from the scoping search, and surgeons and anaesthetists representing 11 territories were interviewed. To mount an effective response to COVID‐19, a pandemic response plan for surgical services should be developed in advance. Key domains that should be included are: provision of staff training (such as patient transfers, donning and doffing personal protection equipment, recognizing and managing COVID‐19 infection); support for the overall hospital response to COVID‐19 (reduction in non‐urgent activities such as clinics, endoscopy, non‐urgent elective surgery); establishment of a team‐based approach for running emergency services; and recognition and management of COVID‐19 infection in patients treated as an emergency and those who have had surgery. A backlog of procedures after the end of the COVID‐19 pandemic is inevitable, and hospitals should plan how to address this effectively to ensure that patients having elective treatment have the best possible outcomes. Conclusion Hospitals should prepare detailed context‐specific pandemic preparedness plans addressing the identified domains. Specific guidance should be updated continuously to reflect emerging evidence during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Virus–virus interactions impact the population dynamics of influenza and the common cold

            Significance When multiple pathogens cocirculate this can lead to competitive or cooperative forms of pathogen–pathogen interactions. It is believed that such interactions occur among cold and flu viruses, perhaps through broad-acting immunity, resulting in interlinked epidemiological patterns of infection. However, to date, quantitative evidence has been limited. We analyzed a large collection of diagnostic reports collected over multiple years for 11 respiratory viruses. Our analyses provide strong statistical support for the existence of interactions among respiratory viruses. Using computer simulations, we found that very short-lived interferences may explain why common cold infections are less frequent during flu seasons. Improved understanding of how the epidemiology of viral infections is interlinked can help improve disease forecasting and evaluation of disease control interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study

              Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kranke_p@ukw.de
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                4 April 2022
                4 April 2022
                2022
                : 23
                : 252
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.411760.5, ISNI 0000 0001 1378 7891, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, , Wuerzburg University Hospital, ; Wuerzburg, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.410427.4, ISNI 0000 0001 2284 9329, Vascular Biology Center, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology and Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, , Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, ; Augusta, GA 30912 USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.5252.0, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 973X, Department of Anesthesiology, , Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, ; Munich, Germany
                [4 ]GRID grid.452624.3, Comprehensive Pulmonary Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), ; Munich, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5324-981X
                Article
                6182
                10.1186/s13063-022-06182-3
                8978157
                35379296
                402f0b2f-c85c-4086-98a7-f9df3c3dbc66
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 24 February 2022
                : 12 March 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007601, Horizon 2020;
                Award ID: 101003595
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004955, Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft;
                Award ID: 880862
                Categories
                Letter
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article