Search

Background: It is unclear whether the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) improves outcomes in ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and whether SDD is associated with the development of antibiotic resistance. Objective: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Intensive Care Unit Patients (SuDDICU) trial. Design, setting, participants and intervention: SuDDICU is an international, crossover, cluster randomised controlled trial of mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs using two 12-month trial periods. For each period, participating ICUs will implement SDD plus standard care or standard care alone. The SuDDICU drug intervention is an oral paste and gastric suspension of three antibiotics combined with a 4-day course of intravenous antibiotics. Observational ecological assessments will be conducted during five surveillance periods. The trial will be conducted in 19 ICUs in Australia and ten ICUs in Canada and the United Kingdom, and will recruit 15 000–17 000 patients. Recruitment commenced in Australia in 2017. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is all-cause hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include: duration of ventilation, ICU stay and hospital stay; incidence of new antibiotic-resistant organisms during the index ICU admission; changes in antibiotic-resistant organism rates; incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infections; and total use of antibiotics. Results and conclusions: SuDDICU will determine whether the use of SDD plus standard care is associated with a reduction in hospital mortality in ventilated ICU patients compared with standard care alone. It will also quantify the impact of the use of SDD on the development of antibiotic resistance. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000411549) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02389036).

RationaleHeterogeneity of sepsis limits discovery and targeting of treatments. Clustering approaches in critical illness have identified patient groups who may respond differently to therapies. These include in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) two inflammatory sub-phenotypes, using latent class analysis (LCA), and in sepsis two Sepsis Response Signatures (SRS), based on transcriptome profiling. It is unknown if inflammatory sub-phenotypes such as those identified in ARDS are present in sepsis and how sub-phenotypes defined with different techniques compare.ObjectivesTo identify inflammatory sub-phenotypes in sepsis using LCA and assess if these show differential treatment responses. These sub-phenotypes were compared to hierarchical clusters based on inflammatory mediators and to SRS sub-phenotypes.MethodsLCA was applied to clinical and biomarker data from two septic shock randomized trials. VANISH compared norepinephrine to vasopressin and hydrocortisone to placebo and LeoPARDS compared levosimendan to placebo. Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was applied to 65, 21 and 11 inflammatory mediators measured in patients from the GAinS (n=124), VANISH (n=155) and LeoPARDS (n=484) studies.Measurements and Main ResultsLCA and HCA identified a sub-phenotype of patients with high cytokine levels and worse organ dysfunction and survival, with no interaction between LCA classes and trial treatment responses. Comparison of inflammatory and transcriptomic sub-phenotypes revealed some similarities but without sufficient overlap that they are interchangeable.ConclusionsA sub-phenotype with high levels of inflammation and increased disease severity is consistently identifiable in sepsis, with similarities to that described in ARDS. There was limited overlap with the transcriptomic sub-phenotypes.

BackgroundConvalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibody to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. We report diverse virological characteristics of UK intensive care patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial that potentially influence treatment outcomes.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs collected pretreatment was quantified by PCR. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains using allele-specific probes or restriction site polymorphism (SfcI) targeting D1118H.ResultsOf 1274 subjects, 90% were PCR positive with viral loads 118–1.7 × 1011IU/mL. Median viral loads were 40-fold higher in those IgG seronegative (n = 354; 28%) compared to seropositives (n = 939; 72%). Frequencies of B.1.1.7 increased from ConclusionsHigh viral loads in seropositive B.1.1.7-infected subjects and resistance to seroconversion indicate less effective clearance by innate and adaptive immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 strain, viral loads, and antibody status define subgroups for analysis of treatment efficacy.

Purpose To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5.

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled “a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform.” The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

This collaborative meta-analysis was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (grant supporting the post-doctoral fellowship at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University). The funders had no role in the design of this collaborative meta-analysis; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the report writing., We would like to express our warm gratitude to all participating patients and convalescent plasma donors. We thank Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, University of Basel, for their administrative assistance. For their helpful contribution to individual trials, we thank Erica Wood, Iain Gosbell, Richard Charlewood, Thomas Hills, Veronica Hoad, Kristina Kairaitis, Aikaj Jindal, John Gerrard, Hong Foo, Adam Stewart, and Nanette Trask (ASCOT trial); Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, Ral Carrillo-Esper, Karla Maldonado-Silva, Catalina Casillas-Suárez, Orlando Carrillo-Torres, Sandra Murrieta, Elizabeth Diaz-Padilla, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Yadira Bejar-Ramirez, and Evelyn Cortina-de la Rosa (CPC-SARS trial); Sheri Renaud, Roel Rolando-Almario, and Jacqueline Day (NCT04385199 trial); Sandra Tingsgrd, MD, Karen Brorup Heje Pedersen, MD, Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Louise Thorlacius-Ussing, MD, Clara Lundetoft Clausen, MD, Nichlas Hovmand, MD, Simone Bastrup Israelsen, MD, Cecilie Leding, MD, Katrine Iversen, MD, Maria Engel Miller, MD, Hkon Sandholdt, MSc biostatistician (CCAP-2 trial). On behalf of the IRCT20200310046736N1 trial, we thank the Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization for specialized assistance in the preparation and maintenance of plasma samples. On behalf of the NCT04332835 trial, we thank all the members of the "PC-COVID-19 Group" at the Clinica del Occidente and Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi in Bogota, and Clinica CES in Medellin. On behalf of the NCT04403477 trial, we thank Miles Carroll for his support regarding the antibody testing in Bangladesh. The Co-CLARITY team would like to extend their gratitude to the Department of Science and Technology Philippine Council for Health Research and Development and the UP-Philippine General Hospital for all their support in the setting up and conduct of the trial. For helpfully communicating details of their trial, we thank members of the PlasmAr trial, NCT04359810 trial (Max O´Donnell), NCT04468009 trial, and CTRI/2020/05/025299 trial. Support for title page creation and format was provided by AuthorArranger, a tool developed at the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/)., During the conduct of the study, the following is reported: Dr. Berry reports being employee with ownership role at Berry Consultants (receives payments for statistical modeling and design of REMAP-CAP). Dr. Castillo reports grants from DOST PCHRD. Dr. Daly reports grants from Medical Research Future Fund (Australian Govt) and RBWH. Dr. Denkinger reports grants from German Ministry for Education and Research. Dr. Dumagay reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Dunachie reports grants from UK Department of Health and Social Care, grants from UK National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Gauiran reports grants from Department of Science and Technology—Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Gordon reports grants from NIHR, grants from NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2015-06-18), and non-financial support from NIHR Clinical Research Network. Dr. Higgins reports grants from NHMRC and from the Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Hills reports grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Holm reports grants from Swedish Government Funds for Clinical Research (ALF). Dr. Janssen and Dr. Müller-Tidow report grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) to the RECOVER clinical trial. Dr. Krapp reports grants from Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, grants from Fundación Telefónica del Perú. Dr. J. Lim reports grants from the Department of Science and Technology, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Lucero reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr Manrique reports economic support from Grupo ISA Intercolombia for the project development of trial NCT04332835. Drs. McQuilten and Wood report grants from Medical Research Future Fund. Dr. McVerry reports grants from The Pittsburgh Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, and from UPMC Learning While Doing Program. Mr. Mouncey reports grants from National Institute for Health Research and from the European Union FP7: PREPARE. Dr. Najdovski reports payment from KUL Leuven to Belgian Red Cross for supply of convalescent plasma. Dr. Nichol reports grants from Health Research Board of Ireland. Dr. D. Roberts reports grants from the National Institute for Health (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call—Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS) and the European Commission (SUPPORT-E #101015756). Dr. Rowan reports grants from the European Commission and from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Shankar-Hari reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, grants from UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK. Dr. Turgeon reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Venkatesh reports grants from Baxter. Dr. Webb reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Zacharowski reports grants from EU Horizon 2020. The ASCOT trial team (Drs Bowen, Daly, Davis, Denholm, Hammond, Jha, L. Lim, McQuilten, Molton, Morpeth, O’Sullivan, Paterson, Perry, Price, Rees, Roberts, Rogers, Sasadeusz, Snelling, Tong, Venkatesh, Wood) is funded by grants from from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Pratt Foundation, Minderoo Foundation, BHP Foundation, Hospital Research Foundation, Macquarie Group Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE), and the collection and supply of convalescent plasma was conducted within Lifeblood’s funding arrangements. The CONFIDENT trial is funded by the Belgian KCE (blood establishments received payment for the convalescent plasma supplied in the clinical trial). REMAP-CAP was supported in part by funding from UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call (Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS). Collection of convalescent plasma for REMAP-CAP was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The IRCT20200310046736N1 trial was supported by the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. R.AJUMS.REC.1399.003, Dr. Pouladzadeh). The PC-COVID-19 Group is supported by the Universidad del Rosario, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana (Colombia). Outside the submitted work, the following is reported: Dr. Axfors reports postdoctoral grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Uppsala University, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Sweden-America Foundation. Dr. Aomar reports personal fees from SOBI, GEDEON RICHTER, and GSK. Dr. Benfield reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Simonsen Foundation, Lundbeck Foundation, Kai Hansen Foundation, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund; grants and personal fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Pentabase ApS. Dr. Estcourt reports being an investigator on the RECOVERY trial. Dr. Gordon reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and 30 Respiratory. Dr. Jha reports grants and personal fees from Baxter Healthcare, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants from NephroPlus. Dr. Laterre reports personal fees from Adrenomed. Dr. McVerry reports grants from NIH/NHLBI and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Mondragon reports financial activities outside the submitted work (employment at Johnson & Johnson). Dr. Perry reports partner being employed at CSL and owning shares in CSL. Dr. Paterson reports involvement with ALLIANCE trial of COVID-19 treatments. Dr. J. Roberts reports other COVID-19 related trials (in different patient groups): tocilizumab in ICU patients; hydroxychloroquine dosing in ICU patients; planned study of remdesivir pharmacokinetics in patients during expanded access program; and in silico evaluation of ivermectin dosing. Dr Sasadeusz reports grants from various Pharma companies including Gilead Sciences, Abvvie, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Zacharowski reports personal fees from Biotest AG, CSL Behring, GE Heathcare, and is President of the ESAIC., Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care., Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, BHP Foundation, Blanceflor Foundation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund, Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany, Fundación Telefónica del Perú, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana, Kai Hansen Foundation, Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization, Macquarie Group Foundation, Medical Research Future Fund, NephroPlus, RBWH, Roel Rolando-Almario NCT04385199, Royal Brisbane, Sheri Renaud, Simonsen Foundation, UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK, UKRIDHSC COV19-RECPLAS, UP-Philippine General Hospital CTRI/2020/05/025299, NCT04359810, NCT04468009, Women’s Hospital Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Pittsburgh Foundation, Pfizer, Baxter International, Stanford University, Gilead Sciences, National Institute on Handicapped Research RP-2015-06-18, Meso Scale Diagnostics, Universität Basel, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Health Research Board, Pratt Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health and Social Care, European Commission 101015756, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Sweden-America Foundation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Lundbeckfonden, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse, Seventh Framework Programme, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Uppsala Universitet, Horizon 2020, Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Universidad del Rosario, Pharmaceuticals Bayer, Novo Nordisk Fonden, Department of Science and Technology, Philippines, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, Minderoo Foundation

IntroductionTools to detect SARS-Coronavirus-2 variants of concern and track the ongoing evolution of the virus are necessary to support public health efforts and the design and evaluation of novel COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been adopted as the gold standard method for discriminating SARS-CoV-2 lineages, alternative methods may be required when processing samples with low viral loads or low RNA quality.MethodsAn allele-specific probe polymerase chain reaction (ASP-PCR) targeting lineage-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was developed and used to screen 1,082 samples from two clinical trials in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Probit regression models were developed to compare ASP-PCR performance against 1,771 NGS results for the same cohorts.ResultsIndividual SNPs were shown to readily identify specific variants of concern. ASP-PCR was shown to discriminate SARS-CoV-2 lineages with a higher likelihood than NGS over a wide range of viral loads. Comparative advantage for ASP-PCR over NGS was most pronounced in samples with Ct values between 26-30 and in samples that showed evidence of degradation. Results for samples screened by ASP-PCR and NGS showed 99% concordant results.DiscussionASP-PCR is well-suited to augment but not replace NGS. The method can differentiate SARS-COV-2 lineages with high accuracy and would be best deployed to screen samples with lower viral loads or that may suffer from degradation. Future work should investigate further destabilization from primer:target base mismatch through altered oligonucleotide chemistry or chemical additives.

Rationale: There remains uncertainty about the role of corticosteroids in sepsis with clear beneficial effects on shock duration, but conflicting survival effects. Two transcriptomic sepsis response signatures (SRSs) have been identified. SRS1 is relatively immunosuppressed, whereas SRS2 is relatively immunocompetent. Objectives: We aimed to categorize patients based on SRS endotypes to determine if these profiles influenced response to either norepinephrine or vasopressin, or to corticosteroids in septic shock. Methods: A post hoc analysis was performed of a double-blind, randomized clinical trial in septic shock (VANISH [Vasopressin vs. Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock]). Patients were included within 6 hours of onset of shock and were randomized to receive norepinephrine or vasopressin followed by hydrocortisone or placebo. Genome-wide gene expression profiling was performed and SRS endotype was determined by a previously established model using seven discriminant genes. Measurements and Main Results: Samples were available from 176 patients: 83 SRS1 and 93 SRS2. There was no significant interaction between SRS group and vasopressor assignment (P = 0.50). However, there was an interaction between assignment to hydrocortisone or placebo, and SRS endotype (P = 0.02). Hydrocortisone use was associated with increased mortality in those with an SRS2 phenotype (odds ratio = 7.9; 95% confidence interval = 1.6–39.9). Conclusions: Transcriptomic profile at onset of septic shock was associated with response to corticosteroids. Those with the immunocompetent SRS2 endotype had significantly higher mortality when given corticosteroids compared with placebo. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (ISRCTN 20769191).

BackgroundTreatment of COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma containing neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 is under investigation as a means of reducing viral loads, ameliorating disease outcomes, and reducing mortality. However, its efficacy might be reduced in those infected with the emerging B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant. Here, we report the diverse virological characteristics of UK patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomised controlled trial.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected and quantified by real-time PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs obtained from study subjects within 48 hours of admission to intensive care unit. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 strain was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains by two novel typing methods detecting the B.1.1.7-associated D1118H mutation with allele-specific probes and by restriction site polymorphism (SfcI).FindingsOf 1260 subjects, 90% were PCR-positive with viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs ranging from 72 international units [IUs]/ml to 1.7×1011IU/ml. Median viral loads were 45-fold higher in those who were seronegative for IgG antibodies (n=314; 28%) compared to seropositives (n=804; 72%), reflecting in part the latter group’s possible later disease stage on enrolment. Frequencies of B.1.1.7 infection increased from early November (60%). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 seronegative individuals infected with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 had significantly higher viral loads than seropositives (medians of 1.2×106and 3.4 ×104IU/ml respectively; p=2×10−9). However, viral load distributions were elevated in both seropositive and seronegative subjects infected with B.1.1.7 (13.4×106and 7.6×106IU/ml; p=0.18).InterpretationHigh viral loads in seropositive B.1.1.7-infected subjects are consistent with increased replication capacity and/or less effective clearance by innate or adaptive immune response of B.1.1.7 strain than wild-type. As viral genotype was associated with diverse virological and immunological phenotypes, metrics of viral load, antibody status and infecting strain should be used to define subgroups for analysis of treatment efficacy.

Purpose\ud Myocardial dysfunction is common in sepsis but optimal treatment strategies are unclear. The inodilator, levosimendan was suggested as a possible therapy; however, the levosimendan to prevent acute organ dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial found it to have no benefit in reducing organ dysfunction in septic shock. In this study we evaluated the effects of levosimendan in patients with and without biochemical cardiac dysfunction and examined its non-inotropic effects.\ud \ud Methods\ud Two cardiac biomarkers, troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and five inflammatory mediators were measured in plasma from patients recruited to the LeoPARDS trial at baseline and over the first 6 days. Mean total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and 28-day mortality were compared between patients with normal and raised cTnI and NT-proBNP values, and between patients above and below median values.\ud \ud Results\ud Levosimendan produced no benefit in SOFA score or 28-day mortality in patients with cardiac dysfunction. There was a statistically significant treatment by subgroup interaction (p = 0.04) in patients with NT-proBNP above or below the median value. Those with NT-proBNP values above the median receiving levosimendan had higher SOFA scores than those receiving placebo (mean daily total SOFA score 7.64 (4.41) vs 6.09 (3.88), mean difference 1.55, 95% CI 0.43–2.68). Levosimendan had no effect on the rate of decline of inflammatory biomarkers.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud Adding levosimendan to standard care in septic shock was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction nor lower mortality in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction.

BackgroundIn septic shock, cardiovascular resuscitation using catecholamine vasopressors and inotropes is standard therapy, but catecholamines have important side effects. Levosimendan (Simdax®; Orion Pharma, Newbury, UK) is a calcium-sensitising drug with inotropic and other properties that may have a role in sepsis.ObjectivesTo determine, in adult septic shock, whether or not levosimendan reduces the incidence and severity of acute organ dysfunction, the effect of levosimendan on individual organ function and the safety profile of levosimendan.DesignMulticentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study.SettingUK intensive care units.ParticipantsAdult patients with sepsis and cardiovascular failure requiring vasopressors to maintain blood pressure despite adequate fluid resuscitation.InterventionLevosimendan, at a dosage of 0.05–0.2 µg/kg/minute, compared with placebo for 24 hours, in addition to standard care, within 24 hours of meeting inclusion criteria.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome was mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on the intensive care unit after randomisation to a maximum of 28 days. Secondary outcomes were time to extubation, survival up to 6 months and serious adverse events.ResultsIn total, 2382 patients were screened at 34 centres, of whom 516 were randomised to treatment, 259 to levosimendan and 257 to placebo. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms. There was no significant difference in mean ± standard deviation (SD) SOFA score between the levosimendan group (6.7, SD 4.0) and the placebo group (6.1, SD 3.9) [mean difference 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.07 to 1.29]. The 28-day mortality rate was 34.5% and 30.9% in the levosimendan and placebo groups, respectively (absolute difference 3.6%, 95% CI –4.5% to 11.7%). Patients in the levosimendan group were less likely to be successfully extubated over 28 days than patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97). More patients in the levosimendan group had supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference 2.7%, 95% CI 0.1% to 5.3%), but there was no overall difference in serious adverse events.ConclusionsIn the population of septic shock patients randomised to treatment in this study, the addition of levosimendan to standard medical care did not reduce organ dysfunction or mortality. Levosimendan was associated with a reduced likelihood of successful extubation and an increased risk of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias.LimitationsThis was a trial of levosimendan added to standard care rather than a comparison against an alternative inotrope such as dobutamine. No echocardiographic analyses were performed to provide detailed information about changes in myocardial function; therefore, this trial cannot provide guidance as to which inotrope (if any) is best to use in the management of sepsis if a very low cardiac index is present.Future workLevosimendan could be compared against dobutamine and placebo in patients with a very low cardiac output in sepsis to test which, if any, inotrope should be used in this select group.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12776039.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. Study drugs were provided by Orion Pharma and additional research funds were provided by Tenax Therapeutics. The study was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College, London, and the UK Intensive Care Foundation.

Cardiac progenitor/stem cells in adult hearts represent an attractive therapeutic target for heart regeneration, though (inter)-relationships among reported cells remain obscure. Using single-cell qRT–PCR and clonal analyses, here we define four subpopulations of cardiac progenitor/stem cells in adult mouse myocardium all sharing stem cell antigen-1 (Sca1), based on side population (SP) phenotype, PECAM-1 (CD31) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα) expression. SP status predicts clonogenicity and cardiogenic gene expression (Gata4/6, Hand2 and Tbx5/20), properties segregating more specifically to PDGFRα+ cells. Clonal progeny of single Sca1+ SP cells show cardiomyocyte, endothelial and smooth muscle lineage potential after cardiac grafting, augmenting cardiac function although durable engraftment is rare. PDGFRα− cells are characterized by Kdr/Flk1, Cdh5, CD31 and lack of clonogenicity. PDGFRα+/CD31− cells derive from cells formerly expressing Mesp1, Nkx2-5, Isl1, Gata5 and Wt1, distinct from PDGFRα−/CD31+ cells (Gata5 low; Flk1 and Tie2 high). Thus, PDGFRα demarcates the clonogenic cardiogenic Sca1+ stem/progenitor cell., Adult cardiac progenitor/stem cells (CPSCs) possess valuable potential for heart repair that is limited by the elusiveness of these cells. Here Noseda et al. refine the definition of murine CPSCs producing stem cell antigen 1 (Sca1), mapping the cardiogenic signature and clonogenicity to the subgroup of Sca1+ cells expressing PDGFRα.

CD44 is a polymorphic transmembrane glycoprotein that binds hyaluronan and growth factors. Multiple isoforms of the protein can be generated by alternative splicing but little is known about the expression and function of these isoforms in normal development and differentiation. We have investigated the expression of CD44 during normal prostate epithelial cell differentiation. A conditionally immortalized prostate epithelial cell line, Pre2.8, was used as a model system. These cells proliferate at 33C but at 39C stop dividing and undergo changes consistent with early stages of cell differentiation. During the differentiation of these cells, the expression of the CD44 isoform v3-v10 was upregulated. Two layers of epithelial cells can clearly be distinguished in the human prostate, a basal layer expressing keratins 5/14 and a luminal layer expressing keratins 8/18. In prostate tissue the v3-v10 isoform was found predominantly in basal cells but also in keratin 14-negative, keratin 19-positive cells intermediate between the two layers. CD44 v3-v10 was also expressed in other keratin 14-negative prostate tissues, the ejaculatory ducts and prostatic urethra. Therefore, CD44 v3-v10 may be important as a cell surface marker for differentiating cells in the prostate epithelium.

Ligand-induced gene activation by nuclear receptors involves the recruitment of coactivators to hormone bound receptors. Recent results have shown that RAP250, also termed as ASC-2/PRIP/TRBP/NRC/AIB3, plays a critical role as a coactivator of nuclear receptors. In this study, we have determined the genomic organization of the human RAP250 gene in order to identify the promoter region. By searching the GenBank database for EST sequences, we could identify two previously unknown exons in the 5'-end of the gene. Our results show that the RAP250 gene consists of 15 exons spanning 111 kb. All sequences of the splice donor and acceptor sites fit the GT-AG role for splicing. We also show using linkage analysis that the mouse Rap250 gene is located on chromosome 2 close to the agouti gene. The RAP250 promoter is GC-rich and TATA-less, and contains multiple Sp1 binding sites and a MYC binding site. A reporter plasmid containing the 5' flanking region of the RAP250 gene showed significant activity compared to pGL3-basic and minimal thymidine kinase (TK) reporter plasmids in transfection experiments using luciferase reporter genes. Our data show that the RAP250 has a complex genomic structure with a promoter that is regulated by multiple transcription factors for its basal expression.

Importance Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was organ support–free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned –1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support–free days were 0 (IQR, –1 to 15), 0 (IQR, –1 to 13), and 0 (–1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support–free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support–free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.