The Safety, Tolerability, and Effects on the Systemic Inflammatory Response and Renal Function of the Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Hormone-Derivative EA-230 Following On-Pump Cardiac Surgery (The EASI Study): Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cardiac surgery-induced systemic inflammatory response may induce postoperative hemodynamic instability and impairment of renal function. EA-230, a linear tetrapeptide (A-Q-G-V), is derived from the beta chain of the human chorionic gonadotropin pregnancy hormone. It has shown immunomodulatory and renoprotective effects in several animal models of systemic inflammation. In phase 1 and phase 2a studies, these immunomodulatory effects were confirmed during human experimental endotoxemia, and EA-230 was found to have an excellent safety profile. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this first in-patient study is to test the safety and tolerability as well as the immunomodulatory and renoprotective effects of EA-230 in a proof-of-principle design in patients with systemic inflammation following on-pump cardiac surgery. METHODS: We describe a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 180 elective patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, with or without concomitant valve surgery, are enrolled. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio and will receive either EA-230 (90 mg/kg/hour) or a placebo. These will be infused at the start of the surgical procedure until the end of the use of the cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary focus of this first-in-patient study will be on safety and tolerability of EA-230. The primary efficacy end point is the modulation of the inflammatory response by EA-230 quantified as the change in interleukin-6 plasma concentrations after surgery. The key secondary end point is the effect of EA-230 on renal function. The study will be conducted in 2 parts to enable an interim safety analysis by an independent data monitoring committee at a sample size of 60. An adaptive design is used to reassess statistical power halfway through the study. RESULTS: This study has been approved by the independent competent authority and ethics committee and will be conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, guidelines of Good Clinical Practice, and European Directive 2001/20/CE regarding the conduct of clinical trials. Results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Enrollment of this study commenced in July 2016, and results are expected at the end of 2018. CONCLUSIONS: This adaptive phase 2 clinical study is designed to test the safety and tolerability of EA-230 in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In addition, efficacy end points focused on the effect of the systemic inflammatory response and renal function are investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03145220; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03145220 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74JPh8GNN). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11441.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".