COVID-19 and islet transplantation: Different twins

The effect of reparixin on survival in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Introduction

A great number of anti-inflammatory drugs have been suggested in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reparixin, a non-competitive allosteric inhibitor of the CXCL8 (IL-8) receptors C-X-C chemokine receptor type 1 (CXCR1) and C-X-C chemokine receptor type 2 (CXCR2), has already been tried out as a treatment in different critical settings. Due to the contrasting existing literature, we decided to perform the present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the effect of the use of reparixin on survival in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality.

Methods

We created a search strategy to include any human RCTs performed with reparixin utilization in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality, excluding oncological patients. Two trained, independent authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for appropriate studies. Furthermore, references of review articles and included RCTs were screened to identify more studies. No language restrictions were enforced. To assess the risk of bias of included trials, the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used.

Results

Overall, six studies were included and involved 406 patients (220 received reparixin and 186 received the comparator). The all-cause mortality in the reparixin group was significantly lower than that in the control group [5/220 (2.3%) in the reparixin group vs. 12/186 (6.5%) in the control group, odds ratio = 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.96), p-value for effect 0.04, p for heterogeneity 0.20, I2 = 36%]. In addition, no difference in the rate of pneumonia, sepsis, or non-serious infections was shown between the two groups.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that short-term inhibition of CXCL8 activity improved survival in patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality without increasing the risk of infection.

Meta-analysis registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021254467.

A Multicenter Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Reparixin in the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia

Introduction

Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome are common complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 are associated with cytokine release syndrome. Binding of interleukin-8 (CXCL8/IL-8) to its chemokine receptors, CXCR1/2, may mediate this inflammatory process. The aim of this clinical trial was to determine if CXCR1/2 blockade with reparixin can improve clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The dose and safety of reparixin have been investigated in clinical trials of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Methods

This was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, randomized study in hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia from May 5, 2020 until November 27, 2020. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg reparixin orally three times daily or standard of care (SOC) for up to 21 days. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of clinical events: use of supplemental oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and/or use of rescue medication.

Results

Fifty-five patients were enrolled between reparixin (n = 36) and SOC (n = 19). The rate of clinical events was statistically significantly lower in the reparixin group compared with the SOC group (16.7% [95% CI 6.4–32.8%] vs. 42.1% [95% CI 20.3–66.5%], P = 0.02). The sensitivity analysis based on the Cox regression model provided an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.33 with statistical significance lower than 0.05 (95% CI 0.11–0.99; P = 0.047). Reparixin treatment appeared to be well tolerated.

Conclusion

In patients with severe COVID-19, reparixin led to an improvement in clinical outcomes when compared with the SOC. A larger phase 3 clinical study is needed to confirm these results.

Trial Registration

EudraCT identifier, 2020-001645-40; registered May 6, 2020 (retrospectively registered), and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04794803) on March 8, 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-022-00644-6.

Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 and value of D-dimer assessment: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate, in a meta-analysis, the frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with COVID-19 and whether D-dimer assessment may be useful to select patients for computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for original studies which reported the frequency of PE on CTPA in patients with COVID-19. The frequency of PE, the location of PE, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) of D-dimer levels between patients with and without PE were pooled by random effects models.

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies were included. Pooled frequencies of PE in patients with COVID-19 at the emergency department (ED), general wards, and intensive care unit (ICU) were 17.9% (95% CI: 12.0-23.8%), 23.9% (95% CI: 15.2-32.7%), and 48.6% (95% CI: 41.0-56.1%), respectively. PE was more commonly located in peripheral than in main pulmonary arteries (pooled frequency of 65.3% [95% CI: 60.0-70.1%] vs. 32.9% [95% CI: 26.7-39.0%]; OR = 3.540 [95% CI: 2.308-5.431%]). Patients with PE had significantly higher D-dimer levels (pooled SMD of 1.096 [95% CI, 0.844-1.349]). D-dimer cutoff levels which have been used to identify patients with PE varied between 1000 and 4800 μg/L.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of PE in patients with COVID-19 is highest in the ICU, followed by general wards and the ED. PE in COVID-19 is more commonly located in peripheral than in central pulmonary arteries, which suggests local thrombosis to play a major role. D-dimer assessment may help to select patients with COVID-19 for CTPA, using D-dimer cutoff levels of at least 1000 μg/L.

KEY POINTS

• The frequency of PE in patients with COVID-19 is highest in the ICU, followed by general wards and the ED. • PE in COVID-19 is more commonly located in peripheral than in central pulmonary arteries. • D-dimer levels are significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 who have PE.

Early versus late tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients: a "pros/cons" debate also considering heart-lung interactions

The best timing of orotracheal intubation and invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is unknown. The use of non-invasive ventilation, a life-saving technique in many medical conditions, is debated in patients with ARDS since prolonged NIV and delayed intubation may be harmful. Shortage of intensive care beds and ventilators during a respiratory pandemic can trigger a widespread use of early non-invasive ventilation in many hospitals but which is the best way to ventilate patients with severe bilateral pneumonia and severely increased spontaneous ventilation is controversial. Moreover, viral spreading to health-care workers and other hospitalized patients is an issue for any device used to administer oxygen. Even if protective mechanical ventilation is currently the gold standard for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome, tracheal intubation is not without risks and is associated with delirium, hemodynamic instability, immobilization and post intensive care syndrome. Both invasive and non-invasive ventilation are associated with advantages and limitations that should be carefully considered when patients with COVID-19-ARDS need our attention. In the absence of strong evidence, in this review we highlight all the pro and con of these two different approaches.