STC3141

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a challenge because of its high morbidity and mortality. Circulation histones levels in ARDS patients were correlated to disease severity and mortality. This study examined the impact of histone neutralization in a rat model of acute lung injury (ALI) induced by a lipopolysaccharide (LPS) double-hit. Methods: Sixty-eight male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to sham (N = 8, received saline only) or LPS (N = 60). The LPS double-hit consisted of a 0.8 mg/kg intraperitoneal injection followed after 16 h by 5 mg/kg intra-tracheal nebulized LPS. The LPS group was then randomized into five groups: LPS only; LPS +5, 25, or 100 mg/kg intravenous STC3141 every 8 h (LPS + L, LPS + M, LPS + H, respectively); or LPS + intraperitoneal dexamethasone 2.5 mg/kg every 24 h for 56 h (LPS + D). The animals were observed for 72 h. Results: LPS animals developed ALI as suggested by lower oxygenation, lung edema formation, and histological changes compared to the sham animals. Compared to the LPS group, LPS + H and +D groups had significantly lower circulating histone levels and lung wet-to-dry ratio, and the LPS + D group also had lower BALF histone concentrations; the blood neutrophils and platelets counts in LPS + D group did not change, meanwhile, the LPS + L, +M and +H groups had significantly lower neutrophil counts and higher platelet counts in the blood; the total number of BALF WBC, platelet counts, MPO and H3 were significantly lower in the LPS + L, +M, +H and +D groups than in the LPS only group; and the degree of inflammation was significantly less in the LPS + L, +M, +H and +D groups, moreover, inflammation in the LPS + L, +M and +H animals showed a dose-dependent response; finally, the LPS + L, +M, +H and +D groups had improved oxygenation compared to the LPS group, and there were no statistical differences in PCO2 or pH among groups. All animals survived. Conclusion: Neutralization of histone using STC3141, especially at high dose, had similar therapeutic effects to dexamethasone in this LPS double-hit rat ALI model, with significantly decreased circulating histone concentration, improved acute lung injury and oxygenation.

The imperatives generated by the need for research into efficacious forms of treatment for COVID-19 have shone a fresh light upon the criteria for inclusion in clinical trials of persons unable to provide informed consent by reason of a number of factors including the seriousness of their illness symptomatology. This column identifies diversity in European, United States and Australian legislative and other guidance on the ethical issues that arise in respect of clinical research to which participants are not able to consent. It reviews the decision-making by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal in a 2020 case in which permission was sought to conduct a clinical trial into a drug, STC 3141, designed by researchers as a potential treatment for patients with Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome arising from COVID-19. It outlines the reasoning of the Tribunal in the context of debates about the balance to be struck between clinically useful medication trials and the need to avoid exploitation of vulnerable persons not able to provide their own consent, be that by virtue of disabilities such as acuteness of illness or dementia symptomatology. It contends that the decision illustrates the potential for research to be undertaken safely and ethically, utilising subjects in an intensive care unit who are unable to provide consent.