Search

Importance: Fostamatinib, a spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been reported to improve outcomes of COVID-19., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fostamatinib in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and hypoxemia., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, phase 3, placebo-controlled, double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at 41 US sites and 21 international sites between November 17, 2021, and September 27, 2023; the last follow-up visit was December 31, 2023. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and hypoxemia. Data were analyzed between January 10 and March 8, 2024., Interventions: Fostamatinib, 150 mg orally twice daily for 14 days, or placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome classifying a participant's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use. An adjusted odds ratio (AOR) greater than 1.0 was considered to indicate superiority of fostamatinib over placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included elevated transaminase values, neutropenia, and hypertension., Results: Of the 400 participants randomized (median age, 67 years [IQR, 58-76 years]; 210 [52.5%] men), 199 received fostamatinib and 201 received placebo. The mean (SD) number of oxygen-free days was 13.4 (12.4) in the fostamatinib group and 14.2 (12.1) in the placebo group (unadjusted mean difference, -1.26 days [95% CI, -3.52 to 1.00 days]; AOR, 0.82 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.58-1.17]). Mortality at 28 days occurred in 22 of 195 patients (11.3%) in the fostamatinib group and 16 of 197 (8.1%) in the placebo group (AOR, 1.44; 95% CrI, 0.72-2.90). Aspartate aminotransferase elevation occurred more commonly in the fostamatinib group (23 [11.6%]) than in the placebo group (11 [5.5%]; AOR, 2.28; 95% CrI, 1.07-4.84). Other safety outcomes were similar between groups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and hypoxemia, fostamatinib did not increase the number of oxygen-free days compared with placebo. These results do not support the hypothesis that fostamatinib improves outcomes among adults hospitalized with hypoxemia during the Omicron era., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.

Importance: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypoxemia often have mixed or uncertain causes of respiratory failure. The optimal treatment for such patients is unclear. Both high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used., Objectives: We sought to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with HFNC versus NIV for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure., Design Setting and Participants: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNC or NIV within 24 hours of arrival to the University of Michigan adult ED from January 2018 to December 2022. We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving NIV., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-d mortality, ventilator-free days, noninvasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a win ratio., Results: A total of 1154 patients were included. Seven hundred twenty-six (62.9%) received HFNC and 428 (37.1%) received NIV. We propensity score matched 668 of 1154 (57.9%) patients. Patients on NIV versus HFNC had lower 28-day mortality (16.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.033) and required noninvasive treatment for fewer hours (median 7.5 vs. 13.5, p < 0.001), but had no difference in ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range]: 28 [26, 28] vs. 28 [10.5, 28], p = 0.199). Win ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored NIV (1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.65; p < 0.001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with NIV compared with HFNC was associated with lower mortality and fewer composite major pulmonary adverse events calculated using a win ratio. These findings underscore the need for randomized controlled trials to further understand the impact of noninvasive respiratory support strategies., Competing Interests: Dr. Munroe was supported by grant number T32 HL 007749 (Multidisciplinary Training Program in Lung Disease), grant number F32 HL 172463 and grant number L30 HL 170379 (Loan Repayment Award) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). This work was also supported in part by a grant from NIH (NINDS and NHLBI) for infrastructure for the Clinical Coordinating Center for the Strategies to Innovate EmeRgENcy Care Clinical Trials Network—2U24NS100659. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. This article does not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government. Dr. Mosier has received travel support from Fisher & Paykel. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Rationale: The optimal treatment for early hypoxemic respiratory failure is unclear, and both high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation are used. Determining clinically relevant outcomes for evaluating non-invasive respiratory support modalities remains a challenge., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation within 24 hours of Emergency Department arrival (1/2018-12/2022). We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving non-invasive ventilation. The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, non-invasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a Win Ratio., Measurements and Main Results: 1,265 patients met inclusion criteria. 795 (62.8%) received high-flow oxygen and 470 (37.2%) received non-invasive ventilation. We propensity score matched 736/1,265 (58.2%) patients. There was no difference between non-invasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal cannula in 28-day mortality (17.7% vs 23.1%, p=0.08) or ventilator-free days (median [Interquartile Range]: 28 [25, 28] vs 28 [13, 28], p=0.50), but patients on non-invasive ventilation required treatment for fewer hours (median 7 vs 13, p< 0.001). Win Ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored non-invasive ventilation (1.26, 95%CI 1.06-1.49, p< 0.001)., Conclusions: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with non-invasive ventilation was superior to high-flow nasal cannula for major pulmonary adverse events. Evaluation of composite outcomes is important in the assessment of respiratory support modalities., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: JMM has received travel support from Fisher & Paykel.

Background: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19., Methods: In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28., Results: In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J. Patel, D. Bass, A. Cahn, K. Davy, S. Fernandes, A. Gupta, K. Hanrott, D. Inman, E. Jarvis, D. Lakshminarayanan, S. Mukherjee, C. O'Shea, L. Schifano, J.E. Smith, R. Williamson and M. Layton are shareholders and/or employees of GSK. A. Beishuizen, X. Bocca Ruiz, H. Boughanmi, H. Colombo, G.J. Criner, J. de-Miguel-Díez, P.A. Doreski, B. François, T. Hatlen, J.D. Isaacs, N. Kostina, T. Kropotina, J-C. Lacherade, P. Martinez-Ayala, C. McEvoy, F. Meziani, M. Monchi, R. Muñoz-Bermúdez, G. Plantefeve, L.E. Schwab, Z. Shahid, M. Shirano, E. Sprinz, C. Summers, N. Terzi and Y. Trefilova were investigators in the OSCAR trial, which was funded by GSK. X. Bocca Ruiz has served as a clinical trial investigator for AstraZeneca and Zambon. B. François reports consultancy fees with GSK, Enlivex, Inotrem, Takeda, Aridis, Transgene, AM-Pharma, Asahi-Kasai and Biomérieux within the past 36 months. R. Muñoz-Bermúdez has participated on an advisory board for GSK. J.D. Isaacs has received research funding from GSK, Janssen and Pfizer, and personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Roche and UCB, all outside the submitted work, as well as support for event attendance from Eli Lilly and Gilead. A. Beishuizen has received consultancy fees from GSK. C. McEvoy has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, US Department of Defense, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GSK and AstraZeneca. C. Summers’ institution has received research funding from GSK, AstraZeneca, the Wellcome Trust, The Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research to support her work outside the area of the submitted manuscript. C. Summers has received personal fees from AbbVie, Roche and GSK. G.J. Criner has received research grants from ALung Technologies Inc., American College of Radiology, American Lung Associations, AstraZeneca, BioScale Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, BREATH Therapeutics Inc., COPD Foundation, Coridea/ZIDAN, Corvus, Dr Karen Burns of St Michael's Hospital, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd, Galapagos NV, GSK, Kinevent, Lungpacer Medical Inc., National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, Nurvaira Inc., Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, PulmonX, Respironics Inc., Respivant Sciences, Spiration Inc., Steward St Elizabeth's Medical Center of Boston Inc. and Veracyte Inc.; and received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Broncus Medical, CSA Medical, EOLO Medical, Gala Therapeutics, GSK, Helios Medical, Ion, Merck, Medtronic, Mereo BioPharma, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Olympus, PulmonX, Respironics Inc., Respivant Sciences, The Implementation Group and Verona Pharma. J. Neisen is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca, and a shareholder and former employee of GSK. L.E. Schwab reports holding shares in Johnson & Johnson and BMS, and participated on the Holy Cross Health Institutional Review Board. Z. Shahid has received research funding from Karyopharm. M. Shirano is an investigator in separate trials funded by Roche and AstraZeneca, and has received payment for lectures from Gilead Sciences. E. Sprinz participates on a data safety monitoring board/advisory board for, and has received consulting fees and honoraria from, GSK, Janssen and Gilead. M.A. Tidswell received a fee for serving on the independent data monitoring committee for this study, as well as for serving on a data safety monitoring board/advisory board for Spectral Diagnostics Inc., ReAlta Life Sciences Inc., Celltrion Inc., AstraZeneca and Molecular Partners AG. Additionally, M.A. Tidswell has held a research contract with Edesa Biotech Research Inc., RevImmune SAS, Spectral Diagnostics, Beyond Air Inc., National Institutes of Health and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. D. Wyncoll received a fee for serving on the independent data monitoring committee for this study, has served as a study adjudicator for AstraZeneca, and reports consulting fees and/or honoraria from Gilead and Shionogi. J. de-Miguel-Díez, H. Boughanmi, J-C. Lacherade, P. Martinez-Ayala, T. Hatlen, G. Plantefeve, N. Terzi, M. Shirano, N. Kostina, T. Kropotina, Y. Trefilova and M. Monchi have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

As evidence emerged supporting noninvasive strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory distress, we implemented a noninvasive COVID-19 respiratory protocol (NCRP) that encouraged high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and self-proning across our healthcare system. To assess safety, we conducted a retrospective chart review evaluating mortality and other patient safety outcomes after implementation of the NCRP protocol (April 3, 2020, to April 15, 2020) for adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with preimplementation outcomes (March 15, 2020, to April 2, 2020). During the study, there were 469 COVID-19 admissions. Fewer patients underwent intubation after implementation (10.7% [23 of 215]), compared with before implementation (25.2% [64 of 254]) (P < .01). Overall, 26.2% of patients died (24% before implementation vs 28.8% after implementation; P = .14). In patients without a do not resuscitate/do not intubate order prior to admission, mortality was 21.8% before implementation vs 21.9% after implementation. Overall, we found no significant increase in mortality following implementation of a noninvasive respiratory protocol that decreased intubations in patients with COVID-19.

During a 1-year period, the authors examined clinical experience with drotrecogin alfa, activated for sepsis in a 24-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit. Drotrecogin alfa, activated was administered 46 times to 44 patients (3% of all intensive care unit admissions). Eighty-six percent of patients were on vasopressors; 95% were mechanically ventilated. Mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 22.0 at admission and 21.9 during the 24 hours before drug administration. The 28-day all-cause mortality was 36.4% and hospital mortality was 43.2%, trending higher (P = .10) than in the PROWESS study, which can be attributed to clinical use in patients who would not have met PROWESS study inclusion criteria. Failure to complete a 96-hour infusion of drotrecogin alfa, activated and transfer from another hospital or nursing home before treatment were associated with poor outcome. Total cost of hospital care, including mean drotrecogin alfa, activated drug cost of 7,312 US dollars, exceeded reimbursement by a mean of 18,227 US dollars.