Clinical efficacy of invimestrocel for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by pneumonia: Comparison with historical data using propensity score analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
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: 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 in early withdrawal from the ventilator and lower mortality. However, further randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled studies without or addressing multiplicity are required to confirm these findings.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Clinical efficacy of invimestrocel for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by pneumonia: Comparison with historical data using propensity score analysis
- Date Crossref
- 01/06/2025
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.