Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(12):e148983. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.148983.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Whether airspace biomarkers add value to plasma biomarkers in studying acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not well understood. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are an investigational therapy for ARDS, and airspace biomarkers may provide mechanistic evidence for MSCs’ impact in patients with ARDS.METHODS We carried out a nested cohort study within a phase 2a safety trial of treatment with allogeneic MSCs for moderate-to-severe ARDS. Nonbronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage and plasma samples were collected 48 hours after study drug infusion. Airspace and plasma biomarker concentrations were compared between the MSC (n = 17) and placebo (n = 10) treatment arms, and correlation between the two compartments was tested. Airspace biomarkers were also tested for associations with clinical and radiographic outcomes.RESULTS Compared with placebo, MSC treatment significantly reduced airspace total protein, angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), IL-6, and soluble TNF receptor-1 concentrations. Plasma biomarkers did not differ between groups. Each 10-fold increase in airspace Ang-2 was independently associated with 6.7 fewer days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (95% CI, –12.3 to –1.0, P = 0.023), and each 10-fold increase in airspace receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) was independently associated with a 6.6-point increase in day 3 radiographic assessment of lung edema score (95% CI, 2.4 to 10.8, P = 0.004).CONCLUSION MSCs reduced biological evidence of lung injury in patients with ARDS. Biomarkers from the airspaces provide additional value for studying pathogenesis, treatment effects, and outcomes in ARDS.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02097641.FUNDING National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Authors
Katherine D. Wick, Aleksandra Leligdowicz, Hanjing Zhuo, Lorraine B. Ware, Michael A. Matthay
Usage data is cumulative from May 2022 through May 2023.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 2,235 | 412 |
| 227 | 197 | |
| Figure | 99 | 6 |
| Table | 76 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 105 | 24 |
| Citation downloads | 73 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,815 | 639 |
| Total Views | 3,454 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
