Skip to content

Repertaxin in Prevention of Primary Graft Dysfunction After Lung Transplantation

A Phase 2, Multi-center, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group Study of Repertaxin in the Prevention of Primary Graft Dysfunction After Lung Transplantation

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00224406
Enrollment
114
Registered
2005-09-23
Start date
2005-05-01
Completion date
2007-09-13
Last updated
2024-12-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury, Lung Transplantation

Keywords

Lung transplantation, Reperfusion Injury, Survival

Brief summary

The objective of this clinical study was to evaluate whether CXCL8 (CXC ligand 8 \[formerly interleukin (IL)-8\]) inhibition with repertaxin leads to reduced severity of primary graft dysfunction, as the result of improved functional and clinical outcomes in lung transplantation patients. The safety of repertaxin in the specific clinical setting was also evaluated. The ability of repertaxin to reduce target cells (polymorphonuclear leukocyte \[PMN\]) infiltration into the graft was evaluated to confirm its mechanism of action.

Detailed description

This was a phase 2, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (two arms) study. A total of 100 patients accepted and listed for lung transplantation, who met all of the study inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria described in Sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 of this report, were planned to be enrolled in the study. These patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either repertaxin or placebo, by continuous intravenous infusion for a period of 48 hours to start approximately 2 hours before reperfusion of the (first) transplanted lung occurred. The experimental treatment was additional to the standard treatment of lung transplant recipients. An initial 'loading dose' of repertaxin of 4.488 mg/kg body weight/hour was to be administered over 30 minutes followed by a maintenance dose of 2.772 mg/kg body weight/hour lasting 47.5 hours. Placebo was to be volume matched saline. Total infusion volume was not to exceed 500 mL/24 hours. Study medication was to be provided as clear glass class I ampoules, each containing 10 mL of the following products: repertaxin (33 mg/mL aqueous injectable solution) and placebo (9 mg/mL aqueous injectable solution of NaCl). The double-blind was to be maintained for the main part of the study only, i.e. up to the Month 1 (at least 30 days post-transplant) follow-up visit of the last patient in. After database lock of Month 1 data the study proceeded in an open fashion.

Interventions

DRUGRepertaxin

An initial 'loading dose' of repertaxin was administered over 30 minutes by intravenous infusion followed by a maintenance dose lasting 47.5 hours.The infusion was to start approximately 2 hours prior to the anticipated time of reperfusion and was to continue during the ICU/hospital stay. The study medication was administered as a continuous intravenous infusion into a (high flow) central vein, by an infusion pump adequate to provide reliable infusion rates , as per treatment schedule. Total infusion volume was not to exceed 500 mL/24 hours.

OTHERPlacebo

An initial 'loading dose' of placebo was administered over 30 minutes by intravenous infusion followed by a maintenance dose lasting 47.5 hours.The infusion was to start approximately 2 hours prior to the anticipated time of reperfusion and was to continue during the ICU/hospital stay. The placebo was administered as a continuous intravenous infusion into a (high flow) central vein, by an infusion pump adequate to provide reliable infusion rates , as per treatment schedule. Total infusion volume was not to exceed 500 mL/24 hours.

Sponsors

Dompé Farmaceutici S.p.A
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Masking description

All personnel involved and patients participating in the study were to remain blinded to the patient randomization codes with the exception of those involved in packaging and labelling the study medication. After the database lock of data recorded in the main part of the study, corresponding to the Month 1 follow-up visit of the last patient in, the blind code was broken and the study continued in an open fashion.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients accepted and listed for transplantation due to irreversible, progressive disabling, end-stage pulmonary disease; * Ages 18 to 65 years; * Body weight 30 to 95 kg (inclusive) (i.e. up to 95.99 kg); * Planned isolated (single and bi-lateral) lung transplant from a non-living donor with brain death. This included lobar lung transplant involving excision and sizing of a cadaver donor lobe to meet the thoracic dimension of the recipient before being transplanted; * Normal renal function at the time of transplant as per calculated creatinine clearance (Clcr) 60 mL/min. Creatinine clearance was calculated according to the Cockcroft-Gault formula; * Patient was willing and able to comply with the protocol procedures for the duration of the study, including scheduled follow-up visits and examinations; * Patient gave written informed consent, prior to any study-related procedure not part of normal medical care, with the understanding that consent could be withdrawn by the patient at any time without prejudice to their future medical care.

Exclusion criteria

* Recipients of an intended multiple organ transplant, including heart-lung and liver-lung transplantation; * Recipients of a lung from a living lobar donor; * Recipients of a lung from a non-heart beating donor; * Re-do lung transplantation; * Recipients requiring mechanical ventilation at the time of transplant; * Recipients with an extra-respiratory tract site of infection (positive blood culture(s) and/or fever associated with other signs of systemic sepsis syndrome). The criterion was not meant to exclude bacteraemic cystic fibrosis patients with or without fever, unless they presented with other signs of sepsis; * Recipients with hepatic dysfunction (bilirubin exceeding 3 mg/dL and/or transaminases \>3X upper limit of normal \[ULN\]) at the time of transplant; * Hypersensitivity to: * Ibuprofen or to more than one non steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID); * Medications belonging to the class of sulfonamides, such as sulfamethazine, sulfamethoxazole, sulfasalazine, nimesulide or celecoxib; * Patients simultaneously participating in any other studies involving a study drug to be administered concomitantly with the investigational product and/or a study drug intended to prevent ischemia/reperfusion injury; * Planned use of anli-CD3 monoclonal antibody (Orthoclone OKT3) or alemtuzumab (Campath) induction immunosuppression; * Planned use of sirolimus in the first 3 months after transplantation; * Pregnant or breast-feeding women (NB: pregnancy was lo be avoided in patients or partners during the first month of participation in the study; no other specific warnings were described, considering even stricter general recommendations concerning pregnancy in transplanted patients, the treatment course of the investigational product, its pharmacokinetic profile, and the lack of significant adverse effects on mating performance and fertility in animal studies).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
PaO2/FiO2 Ratio at ICU Admission (Time 0) and 24 HoursAt T0 (time of ICU admission) and 24 hours post-ICU admissionThe PaO2/FiO2 ratio was calculated to assess the severity of hypoxemia, or low blood oxygen levels. A low PaO2/FiO2 value has been associated with increased mortality and hospital stay in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). It was calculated by dividing the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) by the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). A normal P/F ratio was typically above 300, and a lower ratio indicates a greater severity of hypoxemia. As the Pa02/Fi02 ratio was dependent on altitude, data were corrected for altitude in the analyses of corrected data. The correction factor is defined as (Pressure at Denver)/(Pressure at sea level) = 633/760 = 0.8329; PaO2 values were corrected as follows: Corrected value = measured value/0.8329

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)At ICU admission (T0), 24, 48 and 72 hours post-ICU admissionPGD after lung transplantation ranged from mild to severe depending on the level of hypoxaemia and lung injury post-transplant. PGD score was calculated according to the scoring system below: Grade 0 PaO2/FiO2 \>=300 mmHg; no radiographic infiltrates (RI); Grade 1 PaO2/FiO2 \>=300mmHg + RI consistent with pulmonary oedema; Grade 2 200 mmHg \<=PaO2/FiO2 \<=300 mm Hg + RI consistent with pulmonary oedema; Grade 3 PaO2/FiO2 \< 200 mm Hg + RI consistent with pulmonary oedema. The higher the score, the worse the outcome. Any patient with no infiltrate on chest X-rays was automatically Grade 0. If the patient was on nasal cannula for oxygen or FiO2 \<0.3, the patient was graded as 0 or 1, based on chest X-rays. Any patient on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was Grade 3. Any subject mechanically ventilated with FiO2 greater than 0.5 or requiring nitric oxide beyond 48 hours from the time of transplant was Grade 3.
Time to Freedom From Mechanical VentilationAt 24, 48, 72 hours post ICU admissionTime to freedom from mechanical ventilation was defined as time between admission to the ICU and the initial time of first extubation (breathing off mechanical ventilation without a tube) which was maintained for more than 24 hours. This number was measured in hours and was derived as (date/time of extubation-date/time of ICU admission)/3600. The longer the time, the worst the outcome.Time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, if greater than 1 month (720 hours), was censored to 720 hours. Patients re-transplanted were censored at the date/time of re-transplant. Herein differences in the time to freedom from mechanical ventilation were reported between placebo and repertaxin.
Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different TimepointsAt 24, 48, 72 hours post ICU admissionThe duration of ICU stay, in term of hours, at different timepoints, in both placebo and repertaxin groups, was measured. The longer the ICU stay, the worse the outcome. mean event probability (death) and its standard error (SE) at each timepoint.
Number of Patients Dead Within 30 Days Post-transplantUp to 30 days post-transplantMortality, defined as any death occurring in the first 30 days post-transplant, regardless of hospital discharge.
Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).At months 1, 6 and 12 post-transplantForced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) measured the amount/ volume, exhaled by a patient in the first second of the expiration after a full inspiration. Average values in healthy patients aged 20-60 range from 4.5 to 3.5 liters in males and from 3.25 to 2.5 liters in females. Forced vital capacity (FVC) was the volume of air that a patient could exhale with a maximal forced expiration effort after a deep inhaling, simply put, how much air a patient could breathe out by blowing as fast as possible. Average values in healthy patients aged 20-60 range from 5.5 to 4.75 liters in males and from 3.75 to 3.25 liters in females. The lower the values fo both parameters, the worse the outcome.
PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)At ICU admission (T0), 24, 48 and 72 hours post-ICU admissionTime profile of oxygenation was a comparison of the sequential measurements of the ratios of arterial PaO2 to inspired oxygen fractions FiO2. Herein repeated measurements analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data.
Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplantAt months 1, 6 and 12 post-transplantAcute rejection was diagnosed according to Yousem et al. (1996). Histopathologic assessment of transbronchial biopsies first required confirmation of the diagnosis of mild (ACR; A2) using criteria defined in the Working Formulation for Lung Allograft Rejection. Morphological variables assessed included: one or more perivascular infiltrates in the total transbronchial biopsy fragments obtained at one bronchoscopy session, the presence of large or small airway inflammation, endothelialitis, eosinophils, plasma cells, intra-airway and intra-airspace granulation tissue, and alveolar hemosiderosis. The Working Formulation for grading of acute rejection of lung allografts contains five acute rejection grades: A0, none; A1, minimal; A2, mild; A3, moderate; and A4, severe; and is based on the intensity of perivascular mononuclear infiltrates and their extension into alveolar septa.
Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplantat Months 3, 6, 9 and 12 post-transplantPatient survival is derived from the date of ICU admission untile the date of death or study completion/withdrawal. Here this parameter is expressed as the cumulative number of events (death) at different timepoints till month 12, per arm.
Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First Monthto month 1An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product, which did not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE could therefore be any unfavourable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related to the medicinal (investigational) product.
Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12from month 1 to month 12An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product, which did not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE could therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related to the medicinal (investigational) product.
Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantAt Months 6 and 12 post-transplantBOS is defined as an irreversible decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of at least 20% from baseline. Spirometric measurements must be made with equipment that conforms to the American Thoracic Society standards for spirometric testing. Here the classification where stage 3 is the worst: BOS 0 FEV1 \>90% of baseline and FEF25-75 \>75% of baseline. BOS 0-p FEV1 \>81% to 90% of baseline and/or FEF25-75 \> 75% of baseline. BOS 1 FEV1 \>66% to 80% of baseline. BOS 2 FEV1 \>51% to 65% of baseline BOS 3 FEV1 \>50% or less of baseline. CRF data are reported.

Countries

Canada, United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

A total of 233 subjects were screened, of whom 114 were randomised and 119 were screen failures.

Pre-assignment details

In total 114 subjects were randomised 1:1 to Repertaxin or Placebo, with slightly more assigned to the Placebo group (59 compared to 55 Repertaxin). 101 patients received study drug and were included in the ITT and safety population (46 on Repertaxin; 55 on placebo).

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Repertaxin (SAF)
Both repertaxin and placebo were aqueous solutions packaged into identical clear glass Type I ampoule single dose units. Each ampoule contained 10 mL of either repertaxin or placebo.The dosing solution for infusion was prepared aseptically at the designated Pharmacy within each center and dispensed as 12.65 mg/mL solution in appropriate size infusion bags. An initial 'loading dose' of Repertaxin of 4.488 mg/kg body weight/hour was administered over 30 minutes followed by a maintenance dose of 2.772 mg/kg body weight/hour lasting 47.5 hours.The loading and maintenance doses were administered using the same dosing solution (Repertaxin 12.65 mg/ml), but with the pump rate altered to provide an infusion rate of approximately 0.35 mUkg/hour and 0.22 ml/kg/hour, respectively. Repertaxin: An initial 'loading dose' of repertaxin was administered over 30 minutes by intravenous infusion followed by a maintenance dose lasting 47.5 hours.The infusion was to start approximately 2 hours prior to the anticipated time of reperfusion and was to continue during the ICU/hospital stay. The study medication was administered as a continuous intravenous infusion into a (high flow) central vein, by an infusion pump adequate to provide reliable infusion rates , as per treatment schedule. Total infusion volume was not to exceed 500 mL/24 hours.
46
Placebo (SAF)
Both repertaxin and placebo were aqueous solutions packaged into identical clear glass Type I ampoule single dose units. The dosing solution for infusion was prepared aseptically at the designated Pharmacy within each center and dispensed as 12.65 mg/mL solution in appropriate size infusion bags. ampoule contained 10 mL of either repertaxin or placebo. An initial 'loading dose' of 9 mg/ml sodium chloride (NaCl) solution was administered over 30 minutes, followed by a maintenance dose lasting 47.5 hours. Placebo: An initial 'loading dose' of placebo was administered over 30 minutes by intravenous infusion followed by a maintenance dose lasting 47.5 hours.The infusion was to start approximately 2 hours prior to the anticipated time of reperfusion and was to continue during the ICU/hospital stay. The placebo was administered as a continuous intravenous infusion into a (high flow) central vein, by an infusion pump adequate to provide reliable infusion rates , as per treatment schedule. Total infusion volume was not to exceed 500 mL/24 hours.
55
Total101

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyDeath01
Overall StudyDrug not delivered20
Overall StudyOther40
Overall StudyRe-transplant02
Overall StudyTransplant cancelled04

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicRepertaxin (SAF)Placebo (SAF)Total
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants4 Participants4 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
46 Participants50 Participants96 Participants
Age, Continuous46.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.5
50.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.2
48.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
45 Participants55 Participants100 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Canada
16 participants17 participants33 participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
30 participants38 participants68 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
23 Participants27 Participants50 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
23 Participants28 Participants51 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
1 / 466 / 55
other
Total, other adverse events
46 / 4655 / 55
serious
Total, serious adverse events
14 / 4614 / 55

Outcome results

Primary

PaO2/FiO2 Ratio at ICU Admission (Time 0) and 24 Hours

The PaO2/FiO2 ratio was calculated to assess the severity of hypoxemia, or low blood oxygen levels. A low PaO2/FiO2 value has been associated with increased mortality and hospital stay in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). It was calculated by dividing the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) by the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). A normal P/F ratio was typically above 300, and a lower ratio indicates a greater severity of hypoxemia. As the Pa02/Fi02 ratio was dependent on altitude, data were corrected for altitude in the analyses of corrected data. The correction factor is defined as (Pressure at Denver)/(Pressure at sea level) = 633/760 = 0.8329; PaO2 values were corrected as follows: Corrected value = measured value/0.8329

Time frame: At T0 (time of ICU admission) and 24 hours post-ICU admission

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Repertaxin (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio at ICU Admission (Time 0) and 24 HoursICU Admission (Time 0)346.3 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 125.5
Repertaxin (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio at ICU Admission (Time 0) and 24 Hours24 Hours Post ICU Admission320.1 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 119.5
Placebo (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio at ICU Admission (Time 0) and 24 HoursICU Admission (Time 0)337.9 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 143
Placebo (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio at ICU Admission (Time 0) and 24 Hours24 Hours Post ICU Admission307.3 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 111.3
Comparison: Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0).p-value: 0.8541t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at 24 Hours Post ICU Admission.p-value: 0.6996t-test, 1 sided
Secondary

Number of Patients Dead Within 30 Days Post-transplant

Mortality, defined as any death occurring in the first 30 days post-transplant, regardless of hospital discharge.

Time frame: Up to 30 days post-transplant

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients Dead Within 30 Days Post-transplant0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients Dead Within 30 Days Post-transplant1 Participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant

Acute rejection was diagnosed according to Yousem et al. (1996). Histopathologic assessment of transbronchial biopsies first required confirmation of the diagnosis of mild (ACR; A2) using criteria defined in the Working Formulation for Lung Allograft Rejection. Morphological variables assessed included: one or more perivascular infiltrates in the total transbronchial biopsy fragments obtained at one bronchoscopy session, the presence of large or small airway inflammation, endothelialitis, eosinophils, plasma cells, intra-airway and intra-airspace granulation tissue, and alveolar hemosiderosis. The Working Formulation for grading of acute rejection of lung allografts contains five acute rejection grades: A0, none; A1, minimal; A2, mild; A3, moderate; and A4, severe; and is based on the intensity of perivascular mononuclear infiltrates and their extension into alveolar septa.

Time frame: At months 1, 6 and 12 post-transplant

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 1 Post transplant17 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant35 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant17 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant33 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 1 Post transplant19 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Acute Rejection Episode at Months 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant13 Participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12

An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product, which did not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE could therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related to the medicinal (investigational) product.

Time frame: from month 1 to month 12

Population: The safety population that consisted of all patients who received any study medication and was based on the treatment actually received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation of study drug0 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with no relationship to study drug11 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE21 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with unlikely relationship to study drug9 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one serious TEAE0 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with possible relationship to study drug1 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number of patients with TEAEs46 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with probable relationship to study drug0 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to death0 participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with highly probable relationship to study drug0 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with highly probable relationship to study drug0 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number of patients with TEAEs40 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE20 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation of study drug0 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one serious TEAE0 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to death0 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with no relationship to study drug9 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with unlikely relationship to study drug8 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with possible relationship to study drug3 participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events From Month 1 to Month 12Number (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with probable relationship to study drug0 participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First Month

An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product, which did not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE could therefore be any unfavourable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related to the medicinal (investigational) product.

Time frame: to month 1

Population: The safety population that consisted of all patients who received any study medication and was based on the treatment actually received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE46 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation of study drug1 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one serious TEAE14 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to death0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with no relationship to study drug19 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with unlikely relationship to study drug18 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with possible study drug9 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with highly probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with no relationship to study drug5 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with unlikely relationship to study drug5 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with possible relationship to study drug4 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with highly probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with unlikely relationship to study drug6 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE55 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation of study drug0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one serious TEAE14 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with highly probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting at least one TEAE leading to death0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with possible relationship to study drug2 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with no relationship to study drug26 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with no relationship to study drug6 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with unlikely relationship to study drug22 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting Serious TEAEs with highly probable relationship to study drug0 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With at Least One Adverse Events Within the First MonthNumber (%) of patients reporting TEAEs with possible study drug7 Participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplant

BOS is defined as an irreversible decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of at least 20% from baseline. Spirometric measurements must be made with equipment that conforms to the American Thoracic Society standards for spirometric testing. Here the classification where stage 3 is the worst: BOS 0 FEV1 \>90% of baseline and FEF25-75 \>75% of baseline. BOS 0-p FEV1 \>81% to 90% of baseline and/or FEF25-75 \> 75% of baseline. BOS 1 FEV1 \>66% to 80% of baseline. BOS 2 FEV1 \>51% to 65% of baseline BOS 3 FEV1 \>50% or less of baseline. CRF data are reported.

Time frame: At Months 6 and 12 post-transplant

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant. Note that Out of 101 patients who entered the trial, 46 and 52 patients completed Month 1 follow-up in the repertaxin and placebo groups, respectively, and were included in the ITT population for Month 12 analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS Missing0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 045 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 11 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 20 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 30 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - Missing4 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 035 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 11 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 23 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 33 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 15 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS Missing4 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - Missing7 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 044 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 32 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 13 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 036 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 21 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 12 Post Transplant - BOS 22 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS) Scores (0-3) Assessed at Months 6 and 12 Post-transplantMonth 6 Post Transplant - BOS 30 Participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)

PGD after lung transplantation ranged from mild to severe depending on the level of hypoxaemia and lung injury post-transplant. PGD score was calculated according to the scoring system below: Grade 0 PaO2/FiO2 \>=300 mmHg; no radiographic infiltrates (RI); Grade 1 PaO2/FiO2 \>=300mmHg + RI consistent with pulmonary oedema; Grade 2 200 mmHg \<=PaO2/FiO2 \<=300 mm Hg + RI consistent with pulmonary oedema; Grade 3 PaO2/FiO2 \< 200 mm Hg + RI consistent with pulmonary oedema. The higher the score, the worse the outcome. Any patient with no infiltrate on chest X-rays was automatically Grade 0. If the patient was on nasal cannula for oxygen or FiO2 \<0.3, the patient was graded as 0 or 1, based on chest X-rays. Any patient on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was Grade 3. Any subject mechanically ventilated with FiO2 greater than 0.5 or requiring nitric oxide beyond 48 hours from the time of transplant was Grade 3.

Time frame: At ICU admission (T0), 24, 48 and 72 hours post-ICU admission

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score Missing0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 19 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 022 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score Missing0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 115 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 028 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 24 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 022 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 35 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 114 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score Missing1 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 26 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 022 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 25 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 116 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score Missing0 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 23 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 35 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 34 Participants
Repertaxin (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 33 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 36 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score Missing1 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 033 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 18 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 24 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)ICU Admission (Time 0) - PGD Score 39 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score Missing1 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 112 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 26 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 36 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score Missing3 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 024 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 117 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 22 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)48 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 39 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score Missing3 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 027 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 117 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)72 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 22 Participants
Placebo (ITT)Number of Patients With Different Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) Scores (0-3, and Missing Data)24 Hours Post ICU Admission - PGD Score 030 Participants
Comparison: Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0). One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.p-value: 0.798595% CI: [0.727, 11.302]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 24h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.p-value: 0.560695% CI: [0.226, 3.092]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 48h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.p-value: 0.878695% CI: [0.531, 5.552]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 72h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.p-value: 0.849995% CI: [0.352, 5.072]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)

Time profile of oxygenation was a comparison of the sequential measurements of the ratios of arterial PaO2 to inspired oxygen fractions FiO2. Herein repeated measurements analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data.

Time frame: At ICU admission (T0), 24, 48 and 72 hours post-ICU admission

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Repertaxin (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)ICU Admission (Time 0)346.3 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 125.5
Repertaxin (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)24 Hours Post ICU Admission320.1 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 119.5
Repertaxin (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)48 Hours Post ICU Admission266.1 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 117.3
Repertaxin (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)72 Hours Post ICU Admission275.6 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 88.1
Placebo (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)72 Hours Post ICU Admission233.9 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 132
Placebo (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)ICU Admission (Time 0)337.9 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 143
Placebo (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)48 Hours Post ICU Admission279.2 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 151.8
Placebo (ITT)PaO2/FiO2 Ratio (ICU Admission Then 24 Hours up to Extubation or up to 72 Hours)24 Hours Post ICU Admission307.3 ratio of PaO2/FiO2Standard Deviation 111.3
Comparison: ICU Admission (Time 0)p-value: 0.8654t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: 24 Hours Post ICU Admissionp-value: 0.6789t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: 48 Hours Post ICU Admissionp-value: 0.6345t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: 72 Hours Post ICU Admissionp-value: 0.9858t-test, 1 sided
Secondary

Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant

Patient survival is derived from the date of ICU admission untile the date of death or study completion/withdrawal. Here this parameter is expressed as the cumulative number of events (death) at different timepoints till month 12, per arm.

Time frame: at Months 3, 6, 9 and 12 post-transplant

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Repertaxin (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant3 Months0 number of events
Repertaxin (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant6 Months0 number of events
Repertaxin (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant9 Months0 number of events
Repertaxin (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant12 Months0 number of events
Placebo (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant12 Months7 number of events
Placebo (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant3 Months3 number of events
Placebo (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant9 Months6 number of events
Placebo (ITT)Patient Survival up to 12 Months Post-transplant6 Months5 number of events
Comparison: Herein analysis up to month 3 was reported.p-value: 0.011195% CI: [-0.1188, 0.0056]Log Rank
Comparison: Herein analysis up to month 6 was reported.p-value: 0.011195% CI: [-0.173, -0.0156]Log Rank
Comparison: Herein analysis up to month 9 was reported.p-value: 0.011195% CI: [-0.1985, -0.0279]Log Rank
Comparison: Herein analysis up to month 12 was reported.p-value: 0.011195% CI: [-0.2254, -0.0413]Log Rank
Secondary

Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different Timepoints

The duration of ICU stay, in term of hours, at different timepoints, in both placebo and repertaxin groups, was measured. The longer the ICU stay, the worse the outcome. mean event probability (death) and its standard error (SE) at each timepoint.

Time frame: At 24, 48, 72 hours post ICU admission

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Repertaxin (ITT)Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different TimepointsAt 24 h hours post ICU admission0.0000 event probabilityStandard Error 0
Repertaxin (ITT)Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different TimepointsAt 48 h hours post ICU admission0.3261 event probabilityStandard Error 0.0691
Repertaxin (ITT)Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different TimepointsAt 72 h hours post ICU admission0.4783 event probabilityStandard Error 0.0737
Placebo (ITT)Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different TimepointsAt 24 h hours post ICU admission0.0364 event probabilityStandard Error 0.0252
Placebo (ITT)Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different TimepointsAt 48 h hours post ICU admission0.2909 event probabilityStandard Error 0.0612
Placebo (ITT)Probability of Death During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay at Different TimepointsAt 72 h hours post ICU admission0.4962 event probabilityStandard Error 0.0679
Comparison: Analysis at 24 hoursp-value: 0.963295% CI: [-0.0858, 0.0131]Log Rank
Comparison: Analysis at 48 hp-value: 0.963295% CI: [-0.1458, 0.2162]Log Rank
Comparison: analysis at 72 hp-value: 0.963295% CI: [-0.2143, 0.1785]Log Rank
Secondary

Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).

Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) measured the amount/ volume, exhaled by a patient in the first second of the expiration after a full inspiration. Average values in healthy patients aged 20-60 range from 4.5 to 3.5 liters in males and from 3.25 to 2.5 liters in females. Forced vital capacity (FVC) was the volume of air that a patient could exhale with a maximal forced expiration effort after a deep inhaling, simply put, how much air a patient could breathe out by blowing as fast as possible. Average values in healthy patients aged 20-60 range from 5.5 to 4.75 liters in males and from 3.75 to 3.25 liters in females. The lower the values fo both parameters, the worse the outcome.

Time frame: At months 1, 6 and 12 post-transplant

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Repertaxin (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FEV1 - Month 1 post transplant2.20 LitresStandard Deviation 0.74
Repertaxin (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FEV1 - Month 6 post transplant2.62 LitresStandard Deviation 0.95
Repertaxin (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FEV1 - Month 12 post transplant2.52 LitresStandard Deviation 1.07
Repertaxin (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FVC - Month 1 post transplant2.49 LitresStandard Deviation 0.7
Repertaxin (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FVC - Month 6 post transplant3.19 LitresStandard Deviation 0.93
Repertaxin (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FVC - Month 12 post transplant3.19 LitresStandard Deviation 1.05
Placebo (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FVC - Month 6 post transplant3.11 LitresStandard Deviation 0.99
Placebo (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FEV1 - Month 1 post transplant2.05 LitresStandard Deviation 0.84
Placebo (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FVC - Month 1 post transplant2.56 LitresStandard Deviation 1.01
Placebo (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FEV1 - Month 6 post transplant2.34 LitresStandard Deviation 0.85
Placebo (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FVC - Month 12 post transplant3.07 LitresStandard Deviation 1.1
Placebo (ITT)Pulmonary Function Tests (FEV1=Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second and FVC=Forced Vital Capacity) at Month 1, 6 and 12 Post-transplant Evaluated According to Estenne et al.(2002).FEV1 - Month 12 post transplant2.22 LitresStandard Deviation 0.95
Secondary

Time to Freedom From Mechanical Ventilation

Time to freedom from mechanical ventilation was defined as time between admission to the ICU and the initial time of first extubation (breathing off mechanical ventilation without a tube) which was maintained for more than 24 hours. This number was measured in hours and was derived as (date/time of extubation-date/time of ICU admission)/3600. The longer the time, the worst the outcome.Time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, if greater than 1 month (720 hours), was censored to 720 hours. Patients re-transplanted were censored at the date/time of re-transplant. Herein differences in the time to freedom from mechanical ventilation were reported between placebo and repertaxin.

Time frame: At 24, 48, 72 hours post ICU admission

Population: The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients who received any study medication and a lung transplant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Repertaxin (ITT)Time to Freedom From Mechanical Ventilation24 Hours Post-ICU Admission0.5000 hoursStandard Error 0.0737
Repertaxin (ITT)Time to Freedom From Mechanical Ventilation48 Hours Post-ICU Admission0.6957 hoursStandard Error 0.0678
Repertaxin (ITT)Time to Freedom From Mechanical Ventilation72 Hours Post-ICU Admission0.7391 hoursStandard Error 0.0647
Placebo (ITT)Time to Freedom From Mechanical Ventilation24 Hours Post-ICU Admission0.4909 hoursStandard Error 0.0674
Placebo (ITT)Time to Freedom From Mechanical Ventilation48 Hours Post-ICU Admission0.7273 hoursStandard Error 0.0601
Placebo (ITT)Time to Freedom From Mechanical Ventilation72 Hours Post-ICU Admission0.8052 hoursStandard Error 0.0541
p-value: 0.707695% CI: [-0.1867, 0.2049]Log Rank
Comparison: at 48 hrs from mechanical ventilationp-value: 0.707695% CI: [-0.2092, 0.146]Log Rank
Comparison: at 72 hrs from mechanical ventilationp-value: 0.707695% CI: [-0.2314, 0.0993]Log Rank

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026