Safety and efficacy of inhaled PEG-ADM in ARDS patients: a randomised controlled trial
- PMID: 41131549
- PMCID: PMC12551264
- DOI: 10.1186/s13054-025-05617-y
Safety and efficacy of inhaled PEG-ADM in ARDS patients: a randomised controlled trial
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of inhaled pegylated adrenomedullin (PEG-ADM) for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation.
Methods: A Phase 2a/b randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trial was conducted. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome were assigned to receive PEG-ADM 960 μg or 1920 μg, or placebo. The primary endpoints were safety, efficacy, and ventilator-free survival at Day 28. Efficacy was assessed using ventilator-free survival and the clinical utility index, a composite endpoint that includes extravascular lung water index, oxygenation index, non-pulmonary Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.
Results: Ninety patients were randomised (PEG-ADM 960 μg: n = 29; PEG-ADM 1920 μg: n = 30; placebo: n = 31). Both dosages of PEG-ADM were well tolerated, with adverse event profiles similar to placebo. However, no significant efficacy was observed on the clinical utility index. Ventilator-free survival at Day 28 was lower in the PEG-ADM 960 μg group (52%) compared with the PEG-ADM 1920 μg (67%) and placebo (65%) groups. No significant differences were noted in overall mortality or the need for continued ventilation at Days 28 and 60.
Conclusion: Inhaled PEG-ADM was well tolerated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but it did not improve clinical outcomes, which led to the early discontinuation after the first part of the trial for futility.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04417036 (date of registration: 4 June 2020).
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Patient consent and ethical approval: Research involving human participants: This study was conducted in accordance with the consensus ethical principles derived from international guidelines including the Declaration of Helsinki and Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) International Ethical Guidelines, as well as applicable International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and all applicable laws and regulations. The protocol was approved by Institutional Review Boards or Independent Ethics Committees at each study site. Informed consent: Written informed consent was obtained from all capable patients before they were screened for study eligibility. Many of the patients approached for participation had limited decision-making abilities as a result of their critical illness. If a patient was incapable of giving informed consent, consent for study inclusion was sought from authorised representatives according to applicable laws and regulations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures
References
-
- Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries [published correction appears in JAMA 2016;316(3):350]. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788–800. 10.1001/jama.2016.0291. - PubMed
-
- Perkins GD, Giles SP, McAuley DF, et al. Resolution of pulmonary oedema predicts outcome in ARDS. Br J Anaesth. 2003;92:621–2.
-
- Ware LB, Matthay MA. Alveolar fluid clearance is impaired in the majority of patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163(6):1376–83. 10.1164/ajrccm.163.6.2004035. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
