Pharmacokinetics of Remdesivir and GS-441524 during PIRRT and Seraph 100 Therapy

[Extracorporeal removal of pathogens using a biomimetic adsorber-A new treatment strategy for the intensive care unit : Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter and its fields of application]

BACKGROUND

In 2019 the World Health Organization (WHO) listed antimicrobial resistance among the top 10 threats to global health. The Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity blood filter (Seraph® 100) has been in use since 2019 to eliminate pathogens from the bloodstream in addition to anti-infective pharmacotherapy. It is the first device used to rapidly and efficiently reduce the number of circulating bacteria and viruses.

OBJECTIVE

After a background on the concept of extracorporeal pathogen removal in general, this review summarizes the preclinical and clinical data on the Seraph® 100 Affinity Blood Filter. The clinical effect of this treatment and potential therapeutic options are described.

METHODS

Structured PubMed review including references published up to February 2024.

RESULTS

Case reports, uncontrolled observational studies and data from registries show widespread clinical use of the Seraph® 100 ranging from difficult to treat bacterial (super) infections to viral infections. The treatment can be done as stand-alone hemoperfusion or in combination with all forms of kidney replacement therapy as well as in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

CONCLUSION

The use of the Seraph® 100 varies in terms of duration, concomitant therapy and clinical settings. Due to the absence of prospective controlled trials the clinical effect cannot be properly evaluated.

Using the Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity blood filter under slow flow conditions through 18 G and 16 G central lines

INTRODUCTION

The Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity blood filter (Seraph® 100) has been in use since 2019 for the treatment of fulminant or difficult to treat blood stream infections as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy. In 2020 the device received emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients with confirmed or imminent respiratory failure. Results of an international registry showed that the Seraph® 100 was operated under blood flow rates of 100-350 mL/min. As those conditions require a large bore central line, a dialysis catheter is currently considered indispensable to operate the Seraph® 100. The use of smaller catheter lumina has neither been evaluated in vitro nor in vivo.

METHODS

In vitro pressure data before and after the Seraph® 100 at various blood pump rates (prepump line 16 G, postpump line 18 G) with saline and human plasma were obtained. Further, anecdotal flow and pressure data of two patients treated with the Seraph® 100 for a COVID-19 infection are reported.

RESULTS

At a pump speed of 50 mL/min pre-Seraph® pressure using saline was -70 [-70 to -60] mm Hg. In comparison, using plasma pre-Seraph® pressure was lower at -120 [-120 to -105] mm Hg; p < 0.001 (t-test). The post-Seraph® pressure at 50 mL/min using saline of 120 [110-130] mm Hg was not different from plasma at 130 [120-140] mm Hg, p = 0.152 (t-test). Blood flow rates of 50 mL/min did not lead to preAP levels below -250 mm Hg in the two clinical cases.

CONCLUSION

Seraph® 100 blood flow rate of 50 mL/min may be achieved using low flow vascular access, allowing to treat a blood volume 72 L in 24 h.

Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter Does Not Clear Antibiotics: An Analysis of Antibiotic Concentration Data from PURIFY-OBS

INTRODUCTION

Novel hemoperfusion systems are emerging for the treatment of sepsis. These devices can directly remove pathogens, pathogen-associated molecular patterns, cytokines, and other inflammatory markers from circulation. However, significant safety concerns such as potential antibiotic clearance need to be addressed prior to these devices being used in large clinical studies.

METHODS

Prospective, observational study of 34 participants undergoing treatment with the Seraph 100® Microbind Affinity Blood Filter (Seraph 100) device at 6 participating sites in the USA. Patients were included for analysis if they had a record of receiving an antibiotic concurrent with Seraph 100 treatment. Patients were excluded if there was missing information for blood flow rate. Blood samples were drawn pre- and post-filter at 1 h and 4 h after treatment initiation. These average pre- and post-filter time-concentration observations were then used to estimate antibiotic clearance in L/h (CLSeraph) due to the Seraph 100 device.

RESULTS

Of the 34 participants in the study, 17 met inclusion and exclusion criteria for the antibiotic analysis. Data were obtained for 7 antibiotics (azithromycin, cefazolin, cefepime, ceftriaxone, linezolid, piperacillin, and vancomycin) and one beta-lactamase inhibitor. Mean CLSeraph for the antibiotics investigated ranged from -0.57 to 0.47 L/h. No antibiotic had a CLSeraph statistically significant from 0.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The Seraph 100 did not significantly clear any measured antibiotic in clinical samples. These data give further evidence to suggest that these therapies may be safely administered to critically ill patients and will not impact concentrations of administered antibiotics.

[Hemoperfusion and plasmapheresis in the intensive care unit]

In addition to kidney replacement procedures, several other extracorporeal procedures are employed in the intensive care unit. Hemoperfusion with activated charcoal was the predominant treatment used for removal of toxins from the 1970s until the millennium. Nowadays, this treatment does no longer play a clinically meaningful role as even strongly protein-bound toxins can be removed by effective dialysis procedures in case poisoning. The concept of a cytokine adsorber was introduced 10 years ago, which is directed towards withstanding the cytokine storm. Despite negative data from prospective randomized controlled studies, its use is steadily increasing in Germany. A totally different treatment concept is the biomimetic pathogen adsorber, which removes bacteria, viruses and fungi from the bloodstream by binding to immobilized heparin. Whether this rapid reduction of the pathogen load translates into an improvement of clinically relevant endpoints is unclear, as prospective randomized controlled studies are lacking. For the early hours of septic shock a very old procedure, plasmapheresis, has recently regained interest. The results of two large randomized controlled studies in this setting from Europe and Canada will become available in 2025/2026. The rationale to use plasma exchange in early sepsis is that this procedure not only removes cytokines but also replenishes reduced levels of protective factors, such as angiopoietin‑1, a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13 (ADAMTS-13) and protein C, if fresh plasma is used as exchange fluid. All afore mentioned procedures do not only have a different mode of action but are also used at seperate time points of bloodstream infections and/or sepsis.

Rationale for sequential extracorporeal therapy (SET) in sepsis

Sepsis and septic shock remain drivers for morbidity and mortality in critical illness. The clinical picture of patients presenting with these syndromes evolves rapidly and may be characterised by: (a) microbial host invasion, (b) establishment of an infection focus, (c) opsonisation of bacterial products (e.g. lipopolysaccharide), (d) recognition of pathogens resulting in an immune response, (e) cellular and humoral effects of circulating pathogen and pathogen products, (f) immunodysregulation and endocrine effects of cytokines, (g) endothelial and organ damage, and (h) organ crosstalk and multiple organ dysfunction. Each step may be a potential target for a specific therapeutic approach. At various stages, extracorporeal therapies may target circulating molecules for removal. In sequence, we could consider: (a) pathogen removal from the circulation with affinity binders and cartridges (specific), (b) circulating endotoxin removal by haemoperfusion with polymyxin B adsorbers (specific), (c) cytokine removal by haemoperfusion with sorbent cartridges or adsorbing membranes (non-specific), (d) extracorporeal organ support with different techniques for respiratory and cardiac support (CO₂ removal or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), and renal support (haemofiltration, haemodialysis, or ultrafiltration). The sequence of events and the use of different techniques at different points for specific targets will likely require trials with endpoints other than mortality. Instead, the primary objectives should be to achieve the desired action by using extracorporeal therapy at a specific point.

Hemoperfusion with Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter Unlikely to Require Increased Antibiotic Dosing: A Simulations Study Using a Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Approach

INTRODUCTION

The Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter (Seraph 100) is a hemoperfusion device that can remove pathogens from central circulation. However, the effect of Seraph 100 on achieving pharmacodynamic (PD) targets is not well described. We sought to determine the impact of Seraph 100 on ability to achieve PD targets for commonly used antibiotics.

METHODS

Estimates of Seraph 100 antibiotic clearance were obtained via literature. For vancomycin and gentamicin, published pharmacokinetic models were used to explore the effect of Seraph 100 on ability to achieve probability of target attainment (PTA). For meropenem and imipenem, the reported effect of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) on achieving PTA was used to extrapolate decisions for Seraph 100.

RESULTS

Seraph 100 antibiotic clearance is likely less than 0.5 L/h for most antibiotics. Theoretical Seraph 100 clearance up to 0.5 L/h and 2 L/h had a negligible effect on vancomycin PTA in virtual patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) = 14 mL/min and CrCl >14 mL/min, respectively. Theoretical Seraph 100 clearance up to 0.5 L/h and 2 L/h had a negligible effect on gentamicin PTA in virtual patients with CrCl = 120 mL/min and CrCl <60 mL/min, respectively. CKRT intensity resulting in antibiotic clearance up to 2 L/h generally does not require dose increases for meropenem or imipenem. As Seraph 100 is prescribed intermittently and likely contributes far less to antibiotic clearance, dose increases would also not be required.

CONCLUSION

Seraph 100 clearance of vancomycin, gentamicin, meropenem, and imipenem is likely clinically insignificant. There is insufficient evidence to recommend increased doses. For aminoglycosides, we recommend extended interval dosing and initiating Seraph 100 at least 30 min to 1 h after completion of infusion to avoid the possibility of interference with maximum concentrations.

Hämoperfusion und Plasmapherese auf der Intensivstation

Neben Nierenersatzverfahren werden auf der Intensivstation mehrere andere extrakorporale Verfahren eingesetzt. In den 1970er- bis 2000er-Jahren stand die Hämoperfusion mit Aktivkohlekapseln zur Entfernung von Toxinen im Vordergrund. Dies ist mittlerweile aufgrund der effektiven Dialyseverfahren, die im Vergiftungsfall auch stark proteingebundene Toxine entfernen, fast bedeutungslos geworden. Vor 10 Jahren erlebte ein Zytokinadsorber die Markteinführung, der darauf gerichtet ist, den „Zytokinsturm“ zu überstehen. Dieser erfreut sich trotz ernüchternder Daten aus prospektiven, randomisierten, kontrollierten Studien wachsender Beliebtheit. Ein gänzlich anderes Therapiekonzept ist der biomimetische Pathogenadsorber, der Bakterien, Viren und Pilze durch Bindung an immobilisiertes Heparin aus dem Blutstrom entfernt. Ob sich diese schnelle Reduktion der Pathogenlast in eine Verbesserung klinisch relevanter Endpunkte übersetzt, ist unklar, da hier prospektive, randomisierte und kontrollierte Studien gänzlich fehlen. Für ein sehr altes Verfahren, nämlich die Plasmapherese, werden wir für die Frühphase der Sepsis bis zum Jahr 2025/2026 Ergebnisse aus 2 großen randomisierten, kontrollierten Studien aus Europa und Kanada erhalten. Neben der Entfernung von Zytokinen erhofft man sich durch die Verwendung von Frischplasma als Austauschflüssigkeit auch das Wiederauffüllen reduzierter protektiver Faktoren wie Angiopoietin 1, ADAMTS13 („a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13“) und Protein C. Alle genannten Verfahren funktionieren nicht nur unterschiedlich, sondern werden auch zu unterschiedlichen Zeitpunkten der Blutstrominfektion/Sepsis eingesetzt.

Safety and efficacy of the Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter to remove bacteria from the blood stream: results of the first in human study

Background

Bacterial burden as well as duration of bacteremia influence the outcome of patients with bloodstream infections. Promptly decreasing bacterial load in the blood by using extracorporeal devices in addition to anti-infective therapy has recently been explored. Preclinical studies with the Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter (Seraph® 100), which consists of heparin that is covalently bound to polymer beads, have demonstrated an effective binding of bacteria and viruses. Pathogens adhere to the heparin coated polymer beads in the adsorber as they would normally do to heparan sulfate on cell surfaces. Using this biomimetic principle, the Seraph® 100 could help to decrease bacterial burden in vivo.

Methods

This first in human, prospective, multicenter, non-randomized interventional study included patients with blood culture positive bloodstream infection and the need for kidney replacement therapy as an adjunctive treatment for bloodstream infections. We performed a single four-hour hemoperfusion treatment with the Seraph® 100 in conjunction with a dialysis procedure. Post procedure follow up was 14 days.

Results

Fifteen hemodialysis patients (3F/12 M, age 74.0 [68.0–78.5] years, dialysis vintage 28.0 [11.0–45.0] months) were enrolled. Seraph® 100 treatment started 66.4 [45.7–80.6] hours after the initial positive blood culture was drawn. During the treatment with the Seraph® 100 with a median blood flow of 285 [225–300] ml/min no device or treatment related adverse events were reported. Blood pressure and heart rate remained stable while peripheral oxygen saturation improved during the treatment from 98.0 [92.5–98.0] to 99.0 [98.0–99.5] %; p = 0.0184. Four patients still had positive blood culture at the start of Seraph® 100 treatment. In one patient blood cultures turned negative during treatment. The time to positivity (TTP) was increased between inflow and outflow blood cultures by 36 [− 7.2 to 96.3] minutes. However, overall TTP increase was not statistical significant.

Conclusions

Seraph® 100 treatment was well tolerated. Adding Seraph® 100 to antibiotics early in the course of bacteremia might result in a faster resolution of bloodstream infections, which has to be evaluated in further studies.

Trail registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02914132, first posted September 26, 2016.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04044-7.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Remdesivir and GS-441524 in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

The objective of this study was to describe the population pharmacokinetics of remdesivir and GS-441524 in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A prospective observational pharmacokinetic study was performed in non-critically ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia. For evaluation of the plasma concentrations of remdesivir and its metabolite GS-441524, samples were collected on the first day of therapy. A nonlinear mixed-effects model was developed to describe the pharmacokinetics and identify potential covariates that explain variability. Alternative dosing regimens were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. Seventeen patients were included. Remdesivir and GS-441524 pharmacokinetics were best described by a one-compartment model. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on GS-441524 clearance was identified as a clinically relevant covariate. The interindividual variability in clearance and volume of distribution for both remdesivir and GS-441524 was high (remdesivir, 38.9% and 47.9%, respectively; GS-441525, 47.4% and 42.9%, respectively). The estimated elimination half-life for remdesivir was 0.48 h, and that for GS-441524 was 26.6 h. The probability of target attainment (PTA) of the in vitro 50% effective concentration (EC₅₀) for GS-441524 in plasma can be improved by shortening the dose interval of remdesivir and thereby increasing the total daily dose (PTA, 51.4% versus 94.7%). In patients with reduced renal function, the metabolite GS-441524 accumulates. A population pharmacokinetic model for remdesivir and GS-441524 in COVID-19 patients was developed. Remdesivir showed highly variable pharmacokinetics. The elimination half-life of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients is short, and the clearance of GS-441524 is dependent on the eGFR. Alternative dosing regimens aimed at optimizing the remdesivir and GS-441524 concentrations may improve the effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in COVID-19 patients.

A Multicenter Evaluation of the Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19

The Seraph100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter (Seraph 100) (ExThera Medical, Martinez, CA) is an extracorporeal therapy that can remove pathogens from blood, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of Seraph 100 treatment for COVID-19.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Nine participating ICUs.

PATIENTS

COVID-19 patients treated with Seraph 100 (n = 53) and control patients matched by study site (n = 53).

INTERVENTION

Treatment with Seraph 100.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

At baseline, there were no differences between the groups in terms of sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and need for mechanical ventilation. However, patients in the Seraph 100 group were younger (median age, 54 yr; interquartile range [IQR], 41-65) compared with controls (median age, 64 yr; IQR, 56-69; p = 0.009). Charlson comorbidity index scores were lower in the Seraph 100 group (2; IQR, 0-3) compared with the control group (3; IQR, 2-4; p = 0.006). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were also lower in Seraph 100 subjects (12; IQR, 9-17) compared with controls (16; IQR, 12-21; p = 0.011). The Seraph 100 group had higher vasopressor-free days with an incidence rate ratio of 1.30 on univariate analysis. This difference was not significant after adjustment. Seraph 100-treated subjects were less likely to die compared with controls (32.1% vs 64.2%; p = 0.001), a difference that remained significant after adjustment. However, no difference in mortality was observed in a post hoc analysis utilizing an external control group. In the full cohort of 86 treated patients, there were 177 total treatments, in which only three serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study did not demonstrate consistently significant clinical benefit across all endpoints and comparisons, the findings suggest that broad spectrum, pathogen agnostic, blood purification can be safely deployed to meet new pathogen threats while awaiting targeted therapies and vaccines.