No abstract

IntroductionSome COVID-19 patients evolve to severe lung injury and systemic hyperinflammatory syndrome triggered by both the coronavirus infection and the subsequent host-immune response. Accordingly, the use of immunomodulatory agents has been suggested but still remains controversial. Our working hypothesis is that methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus may be an effective and safety drug combination for treating severe COVID-19 patients.Methods and analysisTACROVID is a randomized, open-label, single-center, phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus plus standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone, in patients at advanced stage of COVID-19 disease with lung injury and systemic hyperinflammatory response. Patients are randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two arms (42 patients in each group). The primary aim is to assess the time to clinical stability after initiating randomization. Clinical stability is defined as body temperature ≤ 37.5°C, and PaO2/FiO2 > 400 and/or SatO2/FiO2 > 300, and respiratory rate ≤24 rpm; for 48 consecutive hours.DiscussionMethylprednisolone and tacrolimus might be beneficial to treat those COVID-19 patients progressing into severe pulmonary failure and systemic hyperinflammatory syndrome. The rationale for its use is the fast effect of methylprednisolone pulses and the ability of tacrolimus to inhibit both the CoV-2 replication and the secondary cytokine storm. Interestingly, both drugs are low-cost and can be manufactured on a large scale; thus, if effective and safe, a large number of patients could be treated in developed and developing countries.Trial registration numberNCT04341038 / EudraCT: 2020-001445-39

Background Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a very common complication in patients with haematological malignancies and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Broad-spectrum antipseudomonal β-lactam antibiotics (BLA) are routinely used for the treatment of cancer patients with FN. However, the clinical efficacy of BLA may be diminished in these patients because they present with pathophysiological variations that compromise the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of these antibiotics. Optimized administration of BLA in prolonged infusions has demonstrated better clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. However, there is a paucity of data on the usefulness of this strategy in patients with FN. The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that the administration of BLA would be clinically more effective by extended infusion (EI) than by intermittent infusion (II) in haematologic patients with FN. Methods A randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority clinical trial will be performed. Patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplant and who have FN and receive empirical antibiotic therapy with cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem will be randomised (1:1) to receive the antibiotic by EI (during half the time of the dosing interval) in the study group, or by II (30 minutes) in the control group. The primary endpoint will be clinical efficacy, defined as defervescence without modifying the antibiotic treatment administered within the first 5 days of therapy. The primary endpoint will be analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoints will be pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target achievement, bacteraemia clearance, decrease in C-reactive protein, overall (30-day) case-fatality rate, adverse events and development of a population PK model of the BLA studied. Discussion Data on the usefulness of BLA administration in patients with FN are scant. Only three clinical studies addressing this issue have been published thus far, with contradictory results. Moreover, these studies had some methodological flaws that limit the interpretation of their findings. If this randomised, multicentre, phase IV, open-label, superiority clinical trial validates the hypothesis that the administration of BLA is clinically more effective by EI than by II in haematologic patients with FN, then the daily routine management of these high-risk patients could be changed to improve their outcomes.

Critically ill patients undergo significant pathophysiological changes that affect antibiotic pharmacokinetics. Piperacillin/tazobactam administered by continuous infusion (CI) improves pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment. This study aimed to characterize piperacillin PK after CI administration of piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adult patients with preserved renal function and to determine the empirical optimal dosing regimen. A total of 218 piperacillin concentrations from 106 patients were simultaneously analyzed through the population PK approach. A two-compartment linear model best described the data. Creatinine clearance (CLCR) estimated by CKD-EPI was the covariate, the most predictive factor of piperacillin clearance (CL) interindividual variability. The mean (relative standard error) parameter estimates for the final model were: CL: 12.0 L/h (6.03%); central and peripheral compartment distribution volumes: 20.7 L (8.94%) and 62.4 L (50.80%), respectively; intercompartmental clearance: 4.8 L/h (26.4%). For the PK/PD target of 100% fT>1×MIC, 12 g of piperacillin provide a probability of target attainment > 90% for MIC < 16 mg/L, regardless of CLCR, but higher doses are needed for MIC = 16 mg/L when CLCR > 100 mL/min. For 100% fT>4×MIC, the highest dose (24 g/24 h) was not sufficient to ensure adequate exposure, except for MICs of 1 and 4 mg/L. Our model can be used as a support tool for initial dose guidance and during therapeutic drug monitoring.