A feedforward pathological signaling loop generated by TNFα and IFN-γ synergy in the inflamed lung, driving CXCL-10 (IP-10) and CXCL-9 chemokine-mediated activated T-cell and monocyte/macrophage tissue recruitment, may define the inflammatory biology of lethal COVID-19 respiratory failure.

To assess TNFα-antagonist therapy, 18 hospitalized adults with hypoxic respiratory failure and COVID-19 pneumonia received single-dose infliximab-abda therapy 5 mg/kg intravenously between April and December 2020. The primary endpoint was time to increase in oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (SpO2/FiO2) by ≥50 compared to baseline and sustained for 48 h. Secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality, dynamic cytokine profiles, secondary infections, duration of supplemental oxygen support, and hospitalization.

Patients were predominantly in critical respiratory failure (15/18, 83%), male (14/18, 78%), above 60 years (median 63 years, range 31–80), race-ethnic minorities (13/18, 72%), lymphopenic (13/18, 72%), steroid-treated (17/18, 94%), with a median ferritin of 1953 ng/ml. Sixteen patients (89%) met the primary endpoint within a median of 4 days; 14/18 (78%) were discharged in a median of 8 days and were alive at 28-day follow-up. Three deaths were attributed to secondary lung infection. Mean plasma IP-10 levels declined sharply from 9183 to 483 pg/ml at Day 3 and 146 pg/ml at Day 14/discharge. Significant Day 3 declines in IFN-$\gamma $, TNFα, IL-27, CRP, and ferritin occurred. IP-10 and CXCL-9 declines were strongly correlated among patients with lymphopenia reversal (Day 3, Pearson r: 0.98, P-value 0.0006).

Infliximab-abda may rapidly abrogate pathological inflammatory signaling to facilitate clinical recovery in severe and critical COVID-19.

Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs).

SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations.

Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures.

The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations.