Evidence Hub

Clinical efficacy of invimestrocel for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by pneumonia: Comparison with historical data using propensity score analysis

K. Ichikado, Toru Kotani, K. Kawamura, Yasuhiro Kondoh, Hideaki Imanaka, T. Johkoh, Kiminori Fujimoto, Shin Nunomiya et al.

Regenerative Therapy, 2025

20 participants

Abstract

Introduction Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening inflammatory lung injury often resulting from pneumonia. The efficacy and safety of invimestrocel in patients with pneumonia-induced ARDS have been demonstrated previously in a phase II randomized, open-label trial (the ONE-BRIDGE study). In this study, we aimed to compare data from the intervention (invimestrocel) arm of the ONE-BRIDGE study with matched historical data from a previously established cohort to provide further support for the beneficial effects of invimestrocel in patients with pneumonia-induced ARDS. Methods Twenty patients from the invimestrocel arm of the ONE-BRIDGE study (Invimestrocel group) and 104 from the historical cohort were included in this study. A matched historical data group (n = 20) was extracted from the historical cohort based on the propensity score analysis using age, sex, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and high-resolution computed tomography scores. The primary outcomes measured were ventilator-free days (VFDs) during the first 28 days following treatment and mortality on days 28, 60, 90, and 180. Results Patients in the Invimestrocel group showed higher VFDs (14.8 ± 11.0 vs. 6.7 ± 9.4 days; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.4–14.7; p = 0.0110) and survival rates (log-rank testing; hazard ratio, 0.330; 95 % CI, 0.116–0.938) than those in the matched historical data group. Conclusions The addition of invimestrocel to the standard treatment for pneumonia-induced ARDS may result…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free