Alternative C activation is involved in the pathogenesis of ANCA-associated vasculitis. However, glucocorticoids used as treatment contribute to the morbidity and mortality of vasculitis. We determined whether avacopan (CCX168), an orally administered, selective C5a receptor inhibitor, could replace oral glucocorticoids without compromising efficacy. In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, adults with newly diagnosed or relapsing vasculitis received placebo plus prednisone starting at 60 mg daily (control group), avacopan (30 mg, twice daily) plus reduced-dose prednisone (20 mg daily), or avacopan (30 mg, twice daily) without prednisone. All patients received cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score by week 12 and no worsening in any body system. We enrolled 67 patients, 23 in the control and 22 in each of the avacopan groups. Clinical response at week 12 was achieved in 14 of 20 (70.0%) control patients, 19 of 22 (86.4%) patients in the avacopan plus reduced-dose prednisone group (difference from control 16.4%; two-sided 90% confidence limit, −4.3% to 37.1%; P=0.002 for noninferiority), and 17 of 21 (81.0%) patients in the avacopan without prednisone group (difference from control 11.0%; two-sided 90% confidence limit, −11.0% to 32.9%; P=0.01 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 21 of 23 (91%) control patients, 19 of 22 (86%) patients in the avacopan plus reduced-dose prednisone group, and 21 of 22 (96%) patients in the avacopan without prednisone group. In conclusion, C5a receptor inhibition with avacopan was effective in replacing high-dose glucocorticoids in treating vasculitis.

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with a high mortality of up to 60%. The mode of renal replacement therapy (intermittent versus continuous) has no impact on patient survival. Sustained low efficiency dialysis using a single-pass batch dialysis system (SLED-BD) has recently been introduced for the treatment of dialysis-dependent AKI. To date, however, only limited evidence is available in the comparison of SLED-BD versus continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with AKI. Methods: Prospective, randomized, interventional, clinical study at a surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Between 1 April 2006 and 31 January 2009, 232 AKI patients who underwent renal replacement therapy (RRT) were randomized in the study. Follow-up was assessed until 30 August 2009. Patients were either assigned to 12-h SLED-BD or to 24-h predilutional CVVH. Both therapies were performed at a blood flow of 100 to 120 ml/min. Results: 115 patients were treated with SLED-BD (total number of treatments n = 817) and 117 patients with CVVH (total number of treatments n = 877).The primary outcome measure, 90-day mortality, was similar between groups (SLED: 49.6% vs. CVVH: 55.6%, P = 0.43). Hemodynamic stability did not differ between SLED-BD and CVVH, whereas patients in the SLED-BD group had significantly fewer days of mechanical ventilation (17.7 ± 19.4 vs. 20.9 ± 19.8, P = 0.047) and fewer days in the ICU (19.6 ± 20.1 vs. 23.7 ± 21.9, P = 0.04). Patients treated with SLED needed fewer blood transfusions (1,375 ± 2,573 ml vs. 1,976 ± 3,316 ml, P = 0.02) and had a substantial reduction in nursing time spent for renal replacement therapy (P < 0.001) resulting in lower costs. Conclusions: SLED-BD was associated with reduced nursing time and lower costs compared to CVVH at similar outcomes. In the light of limited health care resources, SLED-BD offers an attractive alternative for the treatment of AKI in ICU patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00322530

Despite limited data on safety and immunogenicity, heterologous prime-boost vaccination is currently recommended for individuals with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime immunization in certain age groups. In this prospective, single-center study we included 166 health care workers from Heidelberg University Hospital who received either heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2, homologous BNT162b2 or homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination between December 2020 and May 2021. We measured anti-S1 IgG, SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies, and antibodies against different SARS-CoV-2 fragments 0–3 days before and 19–21 days after boost vaccination. Before boost, 55/70 (79%) ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-primed compared with 44/45 (98%) BNT162b2-primed individuals showed positive anti-S1 IgG with a median (IQR) anti-S1 IgG index of 1.95 (1.05–2.99) compared to 9.38 (6.26–17.12). SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies exceeded the threshold in 24/70 (34%) of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-primed and 43/45 (96%) of BNT162b2-primed individuals. After boosting dose, median (IQR) anti-S1 IgG index in heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 vaccinees was 116.2 (61.84–170), compared to 13.09 (7.03–29.02) in homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 145.5 (100–291.1) in homologous BNT162b2 vaccinees. All boosted vaccinees exceeded the threshold for neutralization, irrespective of their vaccination scheme. Vaccination was well-tolerated overall. We show that heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 vaccination is safe and induces a strong and broad humoral response in healthy individuals.