Background COMBO 1 compared time to cessation of viral shedding (TCVS) among hospitalized influenza patients treated with oseltamivir plus a single dose of baloxavir vs. oseltamivir alone. Methods In a quadruple-blinded, placebo-controlled parallel group multicenter randomized controlled trial, hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza were randomly enrolled in a 1:1 ratio to Group 1 (oseltamivir+placebo) or Group 2 (oseltamivir+baloxavir). All patients were treated with oseltamivir for 5 days; one dose of baloxavir or placebo was given in identical capsules. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were TCVS by virus titer with qCulture TCID 50 agglutination and 30-day severe adverse event (SAE) rate, respectively. Secondary virology, clinical, and safety outcomes were assessed. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed with Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and Fisher’s Exact Tests, respectively. Results 14 participants were randomized and received study drug (Group 1: n=6, Group 2: n=8); the study was stopped early due to slow accrual. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median TCVS with qCulture was 53.3 hours in Group 1 and 25.3 hours in Group 2 (p=0.13). 30-day overall SAE rates were 16.7% and 12.5%, respectively. All patients achieved negative qCulture. Median TCVS with quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) was 115.6 and 34.4 hours (p=0.24); % achieving viral negative by RT-qPCR was 33.3% and 75.0% (p=0.28), respectively. Conclusions Combination therapy with oseltamivir and a single dose of baloxavir was inconclusive with non-significant trends towards shorter median TCVS vs. monotherapy with oseltamivir in hospitalized patients with influenza. Interpretation is limited by small sample size and early termination.

BACKGROUND:Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS:We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS:325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS:In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of losartan for COVID-19 patients. Methods: COVIDMED was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled platform RCT. Enrollees were randomized to standard care plus hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, losartan, or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms were discontinued early. We report losartan data vs. combined (lopinavir-ritonavir and placebo) and prespecified placebo-only controls. The primary endpoint was the mean COVID-19 Ordinal Severity Score (COSS) slope of change. Slow enrollment prompted early termination. Results: Fourteen patients were included in our final analysis (losartan [N = 9] vs. control [N = 5] [lopinavir/ritonavir [N = 2], placebo [N = 3]]). Most baseline parameters were balanced. Losartan treatment was not associated with a difference in mean COSS slope of change vs. combined (p = 0.4) or placebo-only control (p = 0.05) (trend favoring placebo). 60-day mortality and overall AE/SAE rates were insignificantly higher with losartan. Conclusion: In this small RCT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, losartan did not improve outcome and was associated with adverse safety signals.

BACKGROUND:Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS:We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS:Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID‐19. We therefore performed a meta‐analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID‐19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID‐19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow‐up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all‐cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69–1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID‐19 severity or trial type. Network meta‐analysis identified no difference between angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33–1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05–3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID‐19 found no difference in all‐cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID‐19.

Abstract Background Outdoor workers, such as forestry workers, are at an increased risk for contracting tick‐borne diseases due to their prolonged time spent in tick habitats. Although well studied in Europe, no studies have been conducted with forestry workers in the Northeastern United States since 1990s. Methods Full‐time forestry workers and two comparison groups (volunteer firefighter/first responders and indoor/healthcare workers) within New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were recruited for this cross‐sectional seroprevalence study. Blood draws were conducted to test for antibodies to Lyme, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and ehrlichiosis. Surveys were administered to determine personal risk factors and protective behaviors. Results Between November 2020 and May 2021, 256 (105 forestry, 101 firefighter/first responder, and 50 indoor/healthcare) workers participated in this study. Forestry workers had a probability of testing positive nearly twice as high for any tick‐borne disease (14%) compared to firefighter/first responders (8%) and to indoor workers (6%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .140). Forestry workers were more likely to find embedded ticks on themselves (f = 33.26, P < .0001 vs both comparison groups) and to have been previously diagnosed with a tick‐borne disease (P = .001 vs firefighter/first responders, P = .090 vs indoor/healthcare workers). Conclusions This pilot study suggests a higher proportion of tick‐borne disease risk among forestry workers compared to firefighters/first responders and indoor/healthcare workers with lesser exposure. A larger study to confirm or refute this pilot data could help optimize mitigation/prevention strategies.

Background In the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitalized patients received empiric hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (HC/CQ). Although some retrospective-observational trials suggested potential benefit, all subsequent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) failed to show benefit and use generally ceased. Herein, we summarize key studies that clinicians advising patients on HC/CQ efficacy:safety calculus in hospitalized COVID-19 patients would want to know about in a practical one-stop-shopping source. Methods Pubmed and Google were searched on November 4, 2021. Search words included: COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, in vitro, animal studies, clinical trials, and meta-analyses. Studies were assessed for import and included if considered impactful for benefit:risk assessment. Results These searches led to inclusion of 12 in vitro and animal reports; 12 retrospective-observational trials, 19 interventional clinical trials (17 RCTs, 1 single-arm, 1 controlled but unblinded), and 51 meta-analyses in hospitalized patients. Inconsistent efficacy was seen in vitro and in animal studies for coronaviruses and nil in SARS-CoV-2 animal models specifically. Most retrospective-observational studies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients found no efficacy; QT prolongation and increased adverse events and mortality were reported in some. All RCTs and almost all meta-analyses provided robust data showing no benefit in overall populations and subgroups, yet concerning safety issues in many. Conclusions HC/CQ have inconsistent anti-coronavirus efficacy in vitro and in animal models, and no convincing efficacy yet substantial safety issues in the overwhelming majority of retrospective-observational trials, RCTs, and meta-analyses in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. HC/CQ should not be prescribed for hospitalized COVID-19 patients outside of clinical trials.

Abstract Importance There is a dearth of comparative immunologic durability data after COVID-19 vaccinations. Objective To compare antibody responses and vaccine effectiveness 8.4 months post-primary COVID-19 vaccination. Design Setting and Participants: In this cohort study of 903 healthcare workers who completed surveys about baseline characteristics and COVID-19 vaccine/infection history, 647 had antibody assays completed and were included herein. Exposure COVID-19 vaccination with mRNA-1273 (n=387); BNT162b2 (n=212); or Ad26.COV2.S (n=10); unvaccinated (n=10); or boosted (n=28). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was IgG anti-spike titer. Secondary/tertiary outcomes included IgG spike receptor-binding domain competitive antibody blocking ELISA pseudoneutralization against the USA-WA1/2020 strain, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection. Antibody levels were compared using ANOVA and multiple linear regression. Results Mean age was 49.7, 75.3% were female, and mean comorbidities/patient was 0.7. Baseline variables were balanced (p>.05) except for immunosuppression (higher in boosted, p=.047), prior COVID-19 infections (higher with Ad26.COV2.S and unvaccinated, p<.001), and time since primary vaccination (higher with mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S, p<.001). Unadjusted median (IQR) IgG anti-spike titers (AU/mL) were 1539.5 (876.7-2626.7) for mRNA-1273, 751.2 (422.0-1381.5) for BNT162b2, 451.6 (103.0-2396.7) for Ad26.COV2.S, 113.4 (3.7-194.0) for unvaccinated, and 31898.8 (21347.1-45820.1) for boosted (mRNA-1273 vs. BNT162b2, p<.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs. unvaccinated, p<.006; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs. boosted, p<.001; all other comparisons, p>.05). Unadjusted median (IQR) pseudoneutralization percentages were 90.9% (80.1-95.0) for mRNA-1273, 77.2% (59.1-89.9) for BNT162b2, 57.9% (36.6-95.8) for Ad26.COV2.S, 40.1% (21.7-60.6) for unvaccinated, and 96.4% (96.1-96.6) for boosted (mRNA-1273 vs. BNT162b2, p<.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs. unvaccinated, p<.028; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs. boosted, p<.001; all other comparisons, p>.05). Adjusted anti-spike and pseudoneutralization comparisons of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 showed similar patterns (p<.001). Vaccine effectiveness was 87-89% for mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and boosted, and 33% for Ad26.COV2.S; no group differences were statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance Durability of antibody responses 8.4 months after COVID-19 primary vaccination was significantly higher with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2, however, vaccine effectiveness was equivalent. Antibody responses and vaccine effectiveness were lower but not significantly different for Ad26.COV2.S; given statistical uncertainty in the small Ad26.COV2.S group, clinically important effects cannot be excluded.

OBJECTIVES:There are limited comparative immunologic durability data post COVID-19 vaccinations. METHODS:Approximately 8.4 months after primary COVID-19 vaccination, 647 healthcare workers completed surveys about COVID-19 vaccinations/infections and blood draws. The groups included participants vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (n = 387), BNT162b2 (n = 212), or Ad26.COV2.S (n = 10) vaccines; unvaccinated participants (n = 10); and participants who received a booster dose (n = 28). The primary outcome was immunoglobin anti-spike titer. Secondary/tertiary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based pseudoneutralization) and vaccine effectiveness (VE). Antibody levels were compared using analysis of variance and linear regression. RESULTS:Mean age was 49.7 and 75.3% of the participants were female. Baseline variables were balanced except for immunosuppression, previous COVID-19 infection, and post-primary vaccination time. Unadjusted median (interquartile range [IQR]) anti-spike titers (AU/ml) were 1539.5 (876.7-2626.7) for mRNA-1273, 751.2 (422.0-1381.5) for BNT162b2, 451.6 (103.0-2396.7) for Ad26.COV2.S, 113.4 (3.7-194.0) for unvaccinated participants, and 31898.8 (21347.1-45820.1) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.006; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). Unadjusted median (IQR) pseudoneutralization was as follows: 90.9% (80.1-95.0) for mRNA-1273, 77.2% (59.1-89.9) for BNT162b2, 57.9% (36.6-95.8) for Ad26.COV2.S, 40.1% (21.7-60.6) for unvaccinated, and 96.4% (96.1-96.6) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.028; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). VE was 87-89% for participants administered mRNA-1273 vaccine, BNT162b2 vaccine, and booster dose, and 33% for Ad26.COV2.S (none significantly different). CONCLUSION:Antibody responses 8.4 months after primary vaccination were significantly higher with mRNA-1273 than those observed with BNT162b2.

INTRODUCTION:Whether ACE inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy should be continued, initiated or ceased in patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Given the widespread use of ACEi/ARBs worldwide, guidance on the use of these drugs is urgently needed. This prospective meta-analysis aims to pool data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety and efficacy of ACEi/ARB therapy in adults infected with SARS-CoV-2.METHODS AND ANALYSIS:RCTs will be eligible if they compare patients with COVID-19 randomised to ACEi/ARB continuation or commencement versuss no ACEi/ARB therapy; study duration ≥14 days; recruitment completed between March 2020 and May 2021. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. Secondary outcomes will include mechanical ventilation, admission to intensive care or cardiovascular events at short-term follow-up (≤30 days) and all-cause mortality at longer-term follow-up (>1 month). Prespecified subgroup analyses will assess the effect of sex; age; comorbidities; smoking status; ethnicity; country of origin on all-cause mortality. A search of ClinicalTrials.gov has been performed, which will be followed by a formal search of trial registers, preprint servers, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs that meet inclusion criteria. To date, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified 21 potentially eligible trials for this meta-analysis. We will request trial investigators/sponsors to contribute standardised grouped tabular outcome data.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval and informed consent will be the responsibility of the individual RCTs. Dissemination of results will occur by peer-reviewed publication. The results of our analysis can inform public health policy and clinical decision making regarding ACEi/ARB use in patients with COVID-19 on a global scale.

Context: Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) has been used as an adjunctive therapy for acute post-traumatic hemorrhage and reversal of iatrogenic coagulopathy in trauma patients in the hospital setting. However, investigations regarding its potential use in pre-hospital management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have not been conducted extensively. Aims: In the present study, we investigated the physiology, hematology and histology effects of a single pre-hospital bolus injection of rFVIIa compared to current clinical practice of no pre-hospital intervention in a swine model of moderate fluid percussion TBI. Materials and Methods: Animals were randomized to receive either a bolus of rFVIIa (90 μg/kg) or nothing 15 minutes (T15) post-injury. Hospital arrival was simulated at T60, and animals were euthanized at experimental endpoint (T360). Results: Survival was 100% in both groups; baseline physiology parameters were similar, vital signs were comparable. Animals that received rFVIIa demonstrated less hemorrhage in subarachnoid space (P = 0.0037) and less neuronal degeneration in left hippocampus, pons, and cerebellum (P = 0.00009, P = 0.00008, and P = 0.251, respectively). Immunohistochemical staining of brain sections showed less overall loss of microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP2) and less Flouro-Jade B positive cells in rFVIIa-treated animals. Conclusions: Early pre-hospital administration of rFVIIa in this swine TBI model reduced neuronal necrosis and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). These results merit further investigation of this approach in pre-hospital trauma care.

Animal models of combined traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hemorrhagic shock (HS) suggest a benefit of hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier (HBOC)-based resuscitation, but their use remains controversial, and little is known of the specific effects of TBI and high-pressure (large arterial injury) bleeding on resuscitation. We examine the effect of TBI and aortic tear injury on low-volume HBOC resuscitation in a swine polytrauma model and hypothesize that HBOC-based resuscitation will improve survival in the setting of aortic tear regardless of the presence of TBI. Anesthetized swine subjected to HS with aortic tear with or without fluid percussion TBI underwent equivalent limited resuscitation with HBOC, lactated Ringer's solution, or HBOC + nitroglycerine (vasoattenuated HBOC) and were observed for 6 h. There was no independent effect of TBI on survival time after adjustment for fluid type, and there was no interaction between TBI and resuscitation fluid type. However, total catheter hemorrhage volume required to reach target shock blood pressure was less with TBI (14.0 mL · kg(-1) [confidence interval, 12.4-15.6 mL · kg(-1)]) versus HS only (21.0 mL · kg(-1) [confidence interval, 19.5-22.5 mL · kg(-1)]), with equivalent lactate accumulation. Traumatic brain injury did not affect survival in this polytrauma model, but less hemorrhage was required in the presence of TBI to achieve an equivalent degree of shock suggesting globally impaired cardiovascular response to hemorrhage in the presence of TBI. There was also no benefit of HBOC-based fluid resuscitation over lactated Ringer's solution, contrary to models using liver injury as the source of hemorrhage, considering wound location is of paramount importance when choosing resuscitation strategy.

INTRODUCTION:Unavailability of blood (and oxygen delivery) for pre-hospital resuscitation in haemorrhagic shock patients are major problems, supporting the importance for novel resuscitation strategies. In a combined polytrauma model of uncontrolled haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury (TBI) in swine, we investigated if pre-hospital administration of the haemoglobin based oxygen carrier HBOC-201 will improve tissue oxygenation and physiologic parameters compared to Lactated Ringer's (LR) solution.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Anaesthetised Yorkshire swine underwent fluid-percussion TBI and Grade III liver laceration. During a 30-min pre-hospital phase, the animals were resuscitated with a single infusion of HBOC-201, LR solution, or nothing (NON). Upon hospital arrival, the animals were given blood or normal saline as needed. Surviving animals were euthanised 6h post-injury. Cerebral blood flow was measured by microsphere injection, and pathology was assessed by gross observation and immunohistochemical analysis.RESULTS:Mean TBI force (2.4±0.1atm) (means±standard error of the mean) and blood loss (22.5±1.7mL/kg) were similar between groups. Survival at the 6h endpoint was similar in all groups (∼50%). Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and brain tissue oxygen tension were significantly greater in HBOC-201 as compared with LR animals (p<0.005). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) were not significantly different amongst groups. Blood transfusion requirements were delayed in HBOC-201 animals. Animals treated with HBOC-201 or LR showed no immunohistopathological differences in glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP-2). Severity of subarachnoid and intraparenchymal haemorrhages were similar for HBOC and LR groups.CONCLUSION:In this polytrauma swine model of uncontrolled haemorrhage and TBI with a 30-min delay to hospital arrival, pre-hospital resuscitation with one bolus of HBOC-201 indicated short term benefits in systemic and cerebrovascular physiological parameters. True clinical benefits of this strategy need to be confirmed on TBI and haemorrhagic shock patients.

BACKGROUND:Vasoconstriction is a side effect that may prevent the use of haemoglobin based oxygen carrier (HBOC) as blood substitute. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that the NO donor, sodium nitroprusside (SNP), would mitigate systemic and pulmonary hypertension associated with HBOC-201 in a simple controlled haemorrhage swine model. METHODS:After 55% estimated blood volume withdrawal through a venous catheter, invasively anesthetized and instrumented animals were resuscitated with three 10 ml/kg infusions of either HBOC-201 or Hextend (HEX) with or without 0.8 μg/kg/min SNP (infused concomitantly via different lines). Haemodynamics, direct and indirect measures of tissue oxygenation, and coagulation were measured for 2h. RESULTS:Haemorrhage caused a state of shock manifested by hypotension and base deficit. HBOC-201 resuscitation resulted in higher systemic (p<0.0001) and pulmonary (p<0.002) blood pressure than with HEX. Elevation of systemic (p<0.0001) but not pulmonary (p>0.05) arterial pressure was attenuated by co-infusion of SNP, without significant group differences in haemodynamics, tissue oxygenation, platelet function, coagulation, methaemoglobin, or survival (p>0.05). CONCLUSION:In swine with haemorrhagic shock, co-administration of the NO donor, SNP, effectively and safely reduces HBOC-201-related systemic but not pulmonary vasoactivity. Interestingly, co-administration of the vasodilator SNP with HEX had no deleterious effects in comparison with HEX alone.

Exsanguinating hemorrhage and unavailability of blood are major problems in pre-hospital trauma care. We investigated if combining rFVIIa with HBOC-201 reduces blood loss and improves physiologic parameters compared to HBOC alone. Swine underwent liver injury and were resuscitated with HBOC-201 alone or HBOC+90, 180 or 360 μg/kg rFVIIa before hospital arrival at 240 min; animals survived to 72 hours. Blood loss was reduced; MAP, CI, transcutaneous oxygen saturation, and 72-hour survival improved in the 90 and 180 μg/kg rFVIIa groups. Lactate was cleared faster in the HBOC+rFVIIa 90 μg/kg group. Verification in a large, well-powered study is indicated.