Liquid ventilation.

J S Greenspan; M R Wolfson; T H Shaffer

doi:10.1053/sper.2000.20092

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11153901

Liquid ventilation.

J S Greenspan·M R Wolfson·T H Shaffer

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Liquid breathing has been proposed as a means of improving gas exchange in infants with acute respiratory failure since the 1970s. In addition, there are potential clinical applications of perfluorochemical (PFC) liquids that span many specialties in medicine. The ability to lower surface tension directed the initial clinical focus on neonatal therapy in the treatment of premature lung disease. The first clinical trial of PFC ventilation was performed in neonates in 1989. Additional trials using LiquiVent (Alliance Pharmaceutical San Diego, CA), a medical grade PFC liquid, were initiated in 1993 in infants, children, and adults. These studies have concluded that liquid ventilation appeared to be safe, improve lung function, and recruit lung volume in patients from these populations. The results of such trials are encouraging, but randomized trials have yet to be completed. We await these pivotal trials, which will probably be completed in adult patients first, before this promising technique can be clinically available.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as Topic Fluorocarbons Humans Infant, Newborn Infant, Premature Liquid Ventilation Lung Diseases Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn Comparative Study Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J S Greenspan, M R Wolfson, T H Shaffer. 2000. Liquid ventilation.. https://doi.org/10.1053/sper.2000.20092

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Magnitude and quality of antibody response to a combination hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine.

Interference between antibodies generated by a combination hepatitis A and B vaccine was investigated by evaluating the quantity and quality of anti-hepatitis A virus (HAV) and anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs) antibodies generated by Twinrix (Hepatitis A Inactivated and Hepatitis B (Recombinant) Vaccine). The magnitude of the immune response was determined by a retrospective analysis of eight clinical trials, completed during stepwise development of Twinrix. The functionality of anti-HAV was evaluated by comparison of routine ELISA results with neutralization assays and was further characterized by defining the epitope-specificity of binding. Functionality of the anti-HBs response was not tested because a validated assay was not developed at the time this study was conducted. Results of all analyses demonstrated that the combination vaccine induced high antibody titers against hepatitis A and B and a functional anti-HAV response, with no evidence of immune interference to either viral antigen.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2001

Challenges in the development, licensure, and use of combination vaccines.

Before substantial public health benefits associated with use of combination vaccines can be realized, a variety of challenges must be addressed. In February 2000, the National Vaccine Program Office convened the International Symposium on Combination Vaccines to explore solutions for barriers to development, licensure, and use of safe and effective combination vaccines. The symposium focused on the following questions: (1) What immunologic standards should be used to evaluate new combination vaccines? (2) How should correlates of protection be developed, and how should the data they provide be interpreted? (3) What sample size is adequate for prelicensure safety trials of combination vaccines? (4) Should standards for evaluation of combination vaccines containing licensed components be different from standards for evaluation of combinations containing unlicensed components? (5) How can the "great expectations" of postlicensure surveillance be realized? Available data relevant to these issues were presented, providing a foundation for furthering the science of combination vaccines.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2001

Prelicensure evaluation of combination vaccines.

There is considerable public health interest in licensing safe and effective combination vaccines. Because combination vaccines may progress rapidly from phase 1 to a pivotal phase 2 immunogenicity trial, a rigorous approach to address product issues early in development is warranted. Clinical studies to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and (when necessary) clinical end point efficacy of combination vaccines should be randomized and well controlled in most cases. A large phase 3 safety study (i.e., a study that enrolls thousands of vaccinees) should be included in the development plan if a phase 3 (clinical end point) efficacy trial will not be conducted. Often, the new combination vaccine under development contains immunogens that have all been previously licensed, have demonstrated efficacy in earlier clinical trials, or both. For such products, comparative immunogenicity data may be sufficient to support efficacy. When applicable, clinical data to support simultaneous administration with other relevant vaccines should be obtained. Given the complexity of combination vaccine development, early consultation with United States Food and Drug Administration can be invaluable.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗