1.
Coronavirus disease 2019 subphenotypes and differential treatment response to convalescent plasma in critically ill adults: secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial
Fish M, Rynne J, Jennings A, Lam C, Lamikanra AA, Ratcliff J, Cellone-Trevelin S, Timms E, Jiriha J, Tosi I, et al
Intensive care medicine. 2022;:1-14
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
PURPOSE Benefit from convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been inconsistent in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving critically ill patients. As COVID-19 patients are immunologically heterogeneous, we hypothesized that immunologically similar COVID-19 subphenotypes may differ in their treatment responses to convalescent plasma and explain inconsistent findings between RCTs . METHODS We tested this hypothesis in a substudy involving 1239 patients, by measuring 26 biomarkers (cytokines, chemokines, endothelial biomarkers) within the randomized, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial for community-acquired pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) that assigned 2097 critically ill COVID-19 patients to either high-titer convalescent plasma or usual care. Primary outcome was organ support free days at 21 days (OSFD-21) . RESULTS Unsupervised analyses identified three subphenotypes/endotypes. In contrast to the more homogeneous subphenotype-2 (N = 128 patients, 10.3%; with elevated type i and type ii effector immune responses) and subphenotype-3 (N = 241, 19.5%; with exaggerated inflammation), the subphenotype-1 had variable biomarker patterns (N = 870 patients, 70.2%). Subphenotypes-2, and -3 had worse outcomes, and subphenotype-1 had better outcomes with convalescent plasma therapy compared with usual care (median (IQR). OSFD-21 in convalescent plasma vs usual care was 0 (- 1, 21) vs 10 (- 1, to 21) in subphenotype-2; 1.5 (- 1, 21) vs 12 (- 1, to 21) in suphenotype-3, and 0 (- 1, 21) vs 0 (- 1, to 21) in subphenotype-1 (test for between-subphenotype differences in treatment effects p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS We reported three COVID-19 subphenotypes, among critically ill adults, with differential treatment effects to ABO-compatible convalescent plasma therapy. Differences in subphenotype prevalence between RCT populations probably explain inconsistent results with COVID-19 immunotherapies.
PICO Summary
Population
Critically ill COVID-19 patients enrolled in the REMAP-CAP trial (n= 1,239).
Intervention
High-titer convalescent plasma.
Comparison
Usual care.
Outcome
Unsupervised analyses identified three subphenotypes/endotypes. In contrast to the more homogeneous subphenotype-2 (N= 128 patients, 10.3%; with elevated type i and type ii effector immune responses) and subphenotype-3 (N= 241, 19.5%; with exaggerated inflammation), the subphenotype-1 had variable biomarker patterns (N= 870 patients, 70.2%). Subphenotypes-2, and -3 had worse outcomes, and subphenotype-1 had better outcomes with convalescent plasma therapy compared with usual care (median (IQR)). Organ support free days at 21 days (OSFD-21) in convalescent plasma vs. usual care was 0 (- 1, 21) vs. 10 (- 1, to 21) in subphenotype-2; 1.5 (- 1, 21) vs. 12 (- 1, to 21) in suphenotype-3, and 0 (- 1, 21) vs. 0 (- 1, to 21) in subphenotype-1.
2.
Tranexamic acid to reduce head injury death in people with traumatic brain injury: the CRASH-3 international RCT
Roberts I, Shakur-Still H, Aeron-Thomas A, Beaumont D, Belli A, Brenner A, Cargill M, Chaudhri R, Douglas N, Frimley L, et al
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2021;25(26):1-76
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tranexamic acid safely reduces mortality in traumatic extracranial bleeding. Intracranial bleeding is common after traumatic brain injury and can cause brain herniation and death. We assessed the effects of tranexamic acid in traumatic brain injury patients. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of tranexamic acid on death, disability and vascular occlusive events in traumatic brain injury patients. We also assessed cost-effectiveness. DESIGN Randomised trial and economic evaluation. Patients were assigned by selecting a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. All analyses were by intention to treat. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid versus no treatment from a UK NHS perspective using the trial results and a Markov model. SETTING 175 hospitals in 29 countries. PARTICIPANTS Adults with traumatic brain injury within 3 hours of injury with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤ 12 or any intracranial bleeding on computerised tomography scan, and no major extracranial bleeding, were eligible. INTERVENTION Tranexamic acid (loading dose 1 g over 10 minutes then infusion of 1 g over 8 hours) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Head injury death in hospital within 28 days of injury in patients treated within 3 hours of injury. Secondary outcomes were early head injury deaths, all-cause and cause-specific mortality, disability, vascular occlusive events, seizures, complications and adverse events. RESULTS Among patients treated within 3 hours of injury (n = 9127), the risk of head injury death was 18.5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 19.8% in the placebo group (855/4613 vs. 892/4514; risk ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.02). In a prespecified analysis excluding patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 or bilateral unreactive pupils at baseline, the results were 12.5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 14.0% in the placebo group (485/3880 vs. 525/3757; risk ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.00). There was a reduction in the risk of head injury death with tranexamic acid in those with mild to moderate head injury (166/2846 vs. 207/2769; risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.95), but in those with severe head injury (689/1739 vs. 685/1710; risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.07) there was no apparent reduction (p-value for heterogeneity = 0.030). Early treatment was more effective in mild and moderate head injury (p = 0.005), but there was no obvious impact of time to treatment in cases of severe head injury (p = 0.73). The risk of disability, vascular occlusive events and seizures was similar in both groups. Tranexamic acid is highly cost-effective for mild and moderate traumatic brain injury (base case of £4288 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). CONCLUSION Early tranexamic acid treatment reduces head injury deaths. Treatment is cost-effective for patients with mild or moderate traumatic brain injury, or those with both pupils reactive. FUTURE WORK Further trials should examine early tranexamic acid treatment in mild head injury. Research on alternative routes of administration is needed. LIMITATIONS Time to treatment may have been underestimated. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15088122, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402882, EudraCT 2011-003669-14, Pan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR20121000441277. FUNDING The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. In addition, funding was provided by JP Moulton Charitable Trust, Joint Global Health Trials (Medical Research Council, Department for International Development and the Wellcome Trust). This project was funded by the NIHR Global Health Trials programme.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults with traumatic brain injury enrolled in the CRASH-3 trial (n=9127).
Intervention
Tranexamic acid (TXA), (n= 4613).
Comparison
Matching placebo (n= 4514).
Outcome
The risk of head injury death was 18.5% in the TXA group versus 19.8% in the placebo group. In a pre-specified analysis excluding patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 or bilateral unreactive pupils at baseline, the results were 12.5% in the TXA group versus 14.0% in the placebo group. There was a reduction in the risk of head injury death with tranexamic acid in those with mild to moderate head injury, but in those with severe head injury there was no apparent reduction. Early treatment was more effective in mild and moderate head injury, but there was no obvious impact of time to treatment in cases of severe head injury. The risk of disability, vascular occlusive events and seizures was similar in both groups.