Evidence Hub

Anti-CD14 treatment in patients with severe COVID-19: Clinical and biological effects in a Phase 2 randomized open-label adaptive platform clinical trial

F. Mabrey, Thomas R. Martin, C. Calfee, Kathleen D. Liu, Benjamin LaCombe, L. Brown-Swigart, A. Discacciati, M. Eklund et al.

CHEST critical care, 2024

76 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background and Research Question: CD14-dependent innate immunity contributes to poor outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia. We tested the clinical and biological efficacy of a blocking monoclonal antibody to CD14 (IC14) for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia and the utility of a biomarker of CD14 pathway activation in predicting outcome. Study Design and Methods: We report a preplanned secondary analysis of the I-SPY COVID Trial, which enrolled hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia at 19 medical centers in the U.S. who required high-level respiratory support. Participants were randomized to receive either intravenous IC14 (4 mg/kg on Day 1, then 2 mg/kg on Days 2–4) (N=67) or standard care (N=76). Primary endpoints included time-to-recovery, defined as the first two-day period on ≤6L/min O2, and mortality. In predefined secondary analyses, we tested the association between IC14 treatment and mortality in patients with high or low baseline plasma presepsin (sCD14-ST), a biomarker of CD14 pathway activity, and the effects of IC14 on plasma biomarkers of pharmacodynamics, injury and inflammation. Results: IC14 treatment did not improve time-to-recovery or 28-day mortality in the overall population, and the trial was stopped due to meeting futility criteria for the time-to-recovery endpoint. However, a predefined sub-group analysis showed that IC14 treatment was associated with a numerical reduction in 28-day mortality in participants with high (above median)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 76 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