SummaryBackgroundInfluenza causes significant morbidity and mortality despite currently available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest plasma with high antibody titers towards influenza may be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial at 29 academic medical centers in the United States to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titers of ≥ 1:80 to the infecting strain. Hospitalized children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as hypoxia or tachypnea) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 units (or pediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care (P+S), versus standard care alone (S), and were followed for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalization of patients’ respiratory status (respiratory rate of ≤ 20 for adults or age defined thresholds of 20–38 for children), and a room air saturation of oxygen ≥ 93%. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01052480FindingsBetween January 13, 2011 and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened, and 98 were randomized. Of the participants with confirmed influenza, 28 of 42 (67%) of P+S participants normalized their respiratory status by Day 28, as compared to 24 of 45 (53%) of S participants (p=0·069). The estimated hazard ratio comparing P+S to S was 1·71 (95% CI: 0·96 to 3·06). Six participants died, 1 (2%) and 5 (10%) from the P+S and S arms respectively (p=0·093). P+S participants had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 vs. 11 days, p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 vs. 3 days, p=0·14), and significantly improved clinical status at Day 7 (p=0·020). Fewer P+S participants experienced SAEs compared to S recipients (20% vs. 38%, p= 0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]) and stroke (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]).InterpretationResults from this Phase II randomized trial of immune plasma for the treatment of severe influenza provides support for a possible benefit of immunotherapy across the primary and secondary endpoints. A Phase III randomized trial is now underway to further evaluate this intervention.
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) encompasses a number of diseases responsible for a specific set of hemodynamic findings during right heart catheterization. During initial workup, pulmonary vasodilator testing is performed. A positive acute pulmonary vasodilator test predicts better survival and response to calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy. There is lack of consensus on the preferred agent for determining acute pulmonary vasoreactivity. The ACCP guidelines and the 4(th) World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension support the use of intravenous epoprostenol or nitric oxide (NO) as the preferred agents for pulmonary vasodilator testing. A decrease in the mean pulmonary artery pressure by at least 10 mmHg to reach an absolute value of 40 mmHg or less without a decrease in cardiac output is currently considered a positive pulmonary vasodilator test. A positive test by the current recommended criteria is observed in about 10-15% of patients with idiopathic PAH. Approximately half of these patients will experience long-term benefits with CCBs. A positive test may select patients with an earlier or less aggressive form of disease, which may carry a better prognosis. A positive vasodilator test is observed very infrequently in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension other than idiopathic PAH or anorexigen associated PAH. This article reviews the literature regarding pulmonary vasodilator testing and use of CCB therapy in patients with PAH, while identifying the gaps in knowledge concerning this diagnostic procedure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.