A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF BILEVEL POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE DEVICE AND HIGH FLOW OXYGEN FOR PERSISTENT DYSPNEA IN

Background: Dyspnea is a common and distressing symptom among patients with advanced cancer. The role of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) and Vapotherm in the relief of dyspnea have not been well defined. We aimed to determine and to compare the efficacy of BIPAP and VapoTherm for cancer related dyspnea. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, we randomly assigned advanced cancer patients with persistent dyspnea >=3/10 to either Vapotherm for 2 hours followed by BiPAP for 2 hours, or BiPAP followed by Vaptherm. A variable washout period was instituted between interventions. The primary end point was change in numeric rating scale before and after each intervention. We planned to enroll 50 patients in total. Results: Among the 803 patients screened over the last 8 months, 62 (26%) were eligible, and 16 (2%) were enrolled so far. Five patients completed the entire study successfully, 4 discontinued the study prematurely due to prolonged relief of dyspnea, and 7 dropped out for various reasons, including inability to tolerate BiPAP (N=3), anxiety (N=2), fatigue (N=1) and pain requiring opioids (N=1). The median baseline numeric rating score for dyspnea was 7/10 (interquartile range (IQR) 5-8), and the median baseline Borg score was 4/10 (3-7). Interim analysis revealed that BiPAP was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -3 (N=10, IQR -6.3 to -1, p=0.007) and modified Borg score of -1 (N=10, IQR -3 to 0.3, p=0.058), while Vapotherm was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -2 (N=9, IQR -3 to -1, p=0.011) and modified Borg score of -2.5 (N=8, IQR -5.5 to -0.1, p=0.051). Among the 5 individuals who completed the entire study, 2 preferred Vapotherm, 2 favored BiPAP, and 1 liked both. The respiratory rate decreased and the oxygen saturation improved with both interventions. No significant toxicities were observed. Conclusions: We were successfully able to enroll patients onto this clinic trial. Our preliminary results suggest that BiPAP and Vapotherm are highly efficacious in providing relief for patients with persistent refractory dyspnea. A direct comparison of the two interventions will be done upon study completion. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiretroviral activity of multiple doses of ibalizumab (formerly TNX-355), an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody in HIV-1 infected adults

Context: Despite tremendous strides in HIV treatment over the past decade, resistance remains a major problem. A growing number of patients develop resistance and require new therapies to suppress viral replication. ^ Objective: To assess the safety of multiple administrations of the anti-CD4 receptor (anti-CD4) monoclonal antibody ibalizumab given as intravenous (IV) infusions, in three dosage regimens, in subjects infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). ^ Design: Phase 1, multi-center, open-label, randomized clinical trial comparing the safety, pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity of three dosages of ibalizumab. ^ Setting: Six clinical trial sites in the United States. ^ Participants: A total of twenty-two HIV-positive patients on no anti-retroviral therapy or a stable failing regimen. ^ Intervention: Randomized to one of two treatment groups in Arms A and B followed by non-randomized enrollment in Arm C. Patients randomized to Arm A received 10 mg/kg of ibalizumab every 7 days, for a total of 10 doses; patients randomized to Arm B received a total of six doses of ibalizumab; a single loading dose of 10 mg/kg on Day 1 followed by five maintenance doses of 6 mg/kg every 14 days, starting at Week 1. Patients assigned to Arm C received 25 mg/kg of ibalizumab every 14 days for a total of 5 doses. All patients were followed for safety for an additional 7 to 8 weeks. ^ Main Outcome Measures: Clinical and laboratory assessments of safety and tolerability of multiple administrations of ibalizumab in HIV-infected patients. Secondary measures of efficacy include HIV-1 RNA (viral load) measurements. ^ Results: 21 patients were treatment-experienced and 1 was naïve to HIV therapy. Six patients were failing despite therapy and 15 were on no current HIV treatment. Mean baseline viral load (4.78 log 10; range 3.7-5.9) and CD4+ cell counts (332/μL; range 89-494) were similar across cohorts. Mean peak decreases in viral load from baseline of 0.99 log10(1.11 log10, and 0.96 log 10 occurred by Wk 2 in Cohorts A, B and C, respectively. Viral loads decreased by >1.0 log10 in 64%; 4 patients viral loads were suppressed to < 400 copies/mL. Viral loads returned towards baseline by Week 9 with reduced susceptibility to ibalizumab. CD4+ cell counts rose transiently and returned toward baseline. Maximum median elevations above BL in CD4+ cell counts for Cohorts A, B and C were +257, +198 and +103 cells/μL, respectively and occurred within 3 Wks in 16 of 22 subjects. The half-life of ibalizumab was 3-3.5 days and elimination was characteristic of capacity-limited kinetics. Administration of ibalizumab was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported during the study. None of these events were related to study drug. Headache, nausea and cough were the most frequently reported treatment emergent adverse events and there were no laboratory abnormalities related to study drug. ^ Conclusions: Ibalizumab administered either weekly or bi-weekly was safe, well tolerated, and demonstrated antiviral activity. Further studies with ibalizumab in combination with standard antiretroviral treatments are warranted.^