Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Med Virol ; 95(1): e28379, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2148395

ABSTRACT

Vaccines are critical cost-effective tools to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The heterologous prime-boost vaccination has been used by many countries to overcome supply issues, so the effectiveness and safety of this strategy need to be better clarified. This study aims to verify the effect of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare professionals from Dante Pazzanese Hospital in Brazil. It was performed serological assays of vaccinated individuals after 2-dose of CoronaVac (Sinovac; n = 89) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; n = 166) followed by a BNT162b2 booster (Pfizer-BioNTech; n = 255). The serum antibodies anti-S (spike), anti-N (nucleocapsid), and anti-RBD (receptor binding domain) were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The heterologous booster dose induced a 10-fold higher anti-Spike antibody regardless of the 2-dose of a prime vaccine. It was strikingly observed that BNT162b2 enhanced levels of anti-spike antibodies, even in those individuals who did not previously respond to the 2-dose of CoronaVac. In conclusion, the heterologous scheme of vaccination using mRNA as a booster vaccine efficiently enhanced the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2, especially benefiting those elderly who were seronegative with a virus-inactivated vaccine.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Aged , Humans , Antibodies, Viral/analysis , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , BNT162 Vaccine , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/metabolism , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
2.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 34(1): 44-55, 2022.
Article in Portuguese, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1988374

ABSTRACT

Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.


Os medicamentos reaproveitados são importantes em contextos de recursos limitados porque as intervenções estão mais rapidamente disponíveis, já foram testadas com segurança em outras populações e são, em geral, mais baratas. Os medicamentos reaproveitados são uma solução eficaz, especialmente para doenças emergentes, como a COVID-19. O estudo REVOLUTIOn visa avaliar três medicamentos antivirais reaproveitados: atazanavir, daclatasvir e sofosbuvir, já utilizados em pacientes infectados pelo HIV ou pelo vírus da hepatite C, em um estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, multibraço e em múltiplos estágios. Os medicamentos serão testados simultaneamente em um ensaio de Fase II para primeiro identificar se algum deles, isoladamente ou em combinação, reduz a carga viral. Se reduzirem, será iniciado um estudo de Fase III para investigar se tais medicamentos são capazes de aumentar o número de dias sem suporte respiratório. Os participantes devem ser adultos hospitalizados com idade ≥ 18 anos com início dos sintomas ≤ 9 dias e saturação de oxigênio ≤ 94% em ar ambiente ou necessidade de oxigênio suplementar para manter saturação de oxigênio > 94%. O tamanho total esperado da amostra varia entre 252 e 1.005 participantes, dependendo do número de estágios que serão concluídos no estudo. Assim, o protocolo é aqui descrito em detalhes, juntamente do plano de análise estatística. Em conclusão, o estudo REVOLUTIOn foi concebido para fornecer evidências se o atazanavir, o daclatasvir ou o sofosbuvir reduzem a carga viral de SARS-CoV-2 em pacientes com COVID-19 e aumentam o número de dias em que os pacientes ficam sem suporte respiratório. Neste artigo de protocolo, descrevem-se a fundamentação, o desenho e a situação do ensaio. Identificador do ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04468087.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Atazanavir Sulfate , Brazil , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Sofosbuvir , Treatment Outcome
3.
Trials ; 23(1): 255, 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775328

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread and affects large numbers of people with unprecedented impacts. Experimental evidence has already been obtained for use of the standardized extract of Brazilian green propolis (EPP-AF) against viral targets, and clinical rationality has been demonstrated for testing this extract as an adjunct to treatment in patients affected by COVID-19. The BeeCovid2 study aims to assess whether EPP-AF has an impact on the improvement of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 by reducing the length of hospital stay. METHODS: BeeCovid2 is a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical study being conducted in Brazil to provide further evidence on the effectiveness of standardized green propolis extract as an adjunctive treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Hospitalized patients over 18 years of age with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and up to 14 days of symptoms were included. Patients under mechanical ventilation at randomization, pregnant women, cancer patients, transplanted or using immunosuppression, HIV patients, patients who used propolis in the last 30 days, bacterial or fungal infection at randomization, impossibility of using medication orally or enterally, and advanced chronic diseases (e.g., advanced heart failure, severe liver disease, and end-stage chronic kidney disease). Enrolled patients are randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo or standardized propolis extract (900 mg/day) for 10 days. The study treatments are administered in a double-blinded manner, and patients are followed for 28 days. The primary outcome is the difference in length of hospital stay in days between groups. Secondary outcomes include the need for mechanical ventilation, the rate of secondary infection, rate of acute kidney injury, the need for renal replacement therapy, the requirement for vasoactive drugs, the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). DISCUSSION: This trial is very useful and will provide more data on the effectiveness of using the standardized Brazilian green propolis extract as an adjunctive treatment in association with standard care in adults hospitalized with moderate to severe acute COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04800224 . Registered on March 16, 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , HIV Infections , Propolis , Adolescent , Adult , Brazil , Female , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Plant Extracts , Pregnancy , Propolis/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
JAMA ; 326(21): 2161-2171, 2021 Dec 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596653

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
5.
Lancet ; 397(10291): 2253-2263, 2021 06 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1253771

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/blood , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Heparin/therapeutic use , Rivaroxaban/adverse effects , Rivaroxaban/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , Brazil/epidemiology , Endpoint Determination , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
6.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 32(3): 354-362, 2020.
Article in Portuguese, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-983019

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads worldwide and is considered a pandemic. The most common manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease 2019 - COVID-19) is viral pneumonia with varying degrees of respiratory compromise and up to 40% of hospitalized patients might develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. Several clinical trials evaluated the role of corticosteroids in non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome with conflicting results. We designed a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of early intravenous dexamethasone administration on the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation within 28 days after randomization in adult patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to confirmed or probable COVID-19. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, prospective, randomized, stratified, multicenter, open-label, controlled trial including 350 patients with early-onset (less than 48 hours before randomization) moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, defined by the Berlin criteria, due to COVID-19. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment plus dexamethasone (Intervention Group) or standard treatment without dexamethasone (Control Group). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20mg intravenous once daily for 5 days, followed by dexamethasone 10mg IV once daily for additional 5 days or until intensive care unit discharge, whichever occurs first. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days within 28 days after randomization, defined as days alive and free from invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality rates at day 28, evaluation of the clinical status at day 15 assessed with a 6-level ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation duration from randomization to day 28, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score evaluation at 48 hours, 72 hours and 7 days and intensive care unit -free days within 28.


OBJETIVO: A infecção causada pelo coronavírus da síndrome respiratória aguda grave 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disseminou-se por todo o mundo e foi categorizada como pandemia. As manifestações mais comuns da infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2 (doença pelo coronavírus 2019 - COVID-19) se referem a uma pneumonia viral com graus variáveis de comprometimento respiratório e até 40% dos pacientes hospitalizados, que podem desenvolver uma síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Diferentes ensaios clínicos avaliaram o papel dos corticosteroides na síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não relacionada com COVID-19, obtendo resultados conflitantes. Delineamos o presente estudo para avaliar a eficácia da administração endovenosa precoce de dexametasona no número de dias vivo e sem ventilação mecânica nos 28 dias após a randomização, em pacientes adultos com quadro moderado ou grave de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo causada por COVID-19 provável ou confirmada. MÉTODOS: Este é um ensaio pragmático, prospectivo, randomizado, estratificado, multicêntrico, aberto e controlado que incluirá 350 pacientes com quadro inicial (menos de 48 horas antes da randomização) de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada ou grave, definida segundo os critérios de Berlim, causada por COVID-19. Os pacientes elegíveis serão alocados de forma aleatória para tratamento padrão mais dexametasona (Grupo Intervenção) ou tratamento padrão sem dexametasona (Grupo Controle). Os pacientes no Grupo Intervenção receberão dexametasona 20mg por via endovenosa uma vez ao dia, por 5 dias, e, a seguir, dexametasona por via endovenosa 10mg ao dia por mais 5 dias, ou até receber alta da unidade de terapia intensiva, o que ocorrer antes. O desfecho primário será o número de dias livres de ventilação mecânica nos 28 dias após a randomização, definido como o número de dias vivo e livres de ventilação mecânica invasiva. Os desfechos secundários serão a taxa de mortalidade por todas as causas no dia 28, a condição clínica no dia 15 avaliada com utilização de uma escala ordinal de seis níveis, a duração da ventilação mecânica desde a randomização até o dia 28, a avaliação com o Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score após 48 horas, 72 horas e 7 dias, e o número de dias fora da unidade de terapia intensiva nos 28 dias após a randomização.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Time Factors , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
7.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 32(3): 337-347, 2020.
Article in Portuguese, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-982723

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pro-inflammatory markers play a significant role in the disease severity of patients with COVID-19. Thus, anti-inflammatory therapies are attractive agents for potentially combating the uncontrolled inflammatory cascade in these patients. We designed a trial testing tocilizumab versus standard of care intending to improve the outcomes by inhibiting interleukin-6, an important inflammatory mediator in COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label multicentre randomized controlled trial will compare clinical outcomes of tocilizumab plus standard of care versus standard of care alone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Two of the following four criteria are required for protocol enrolment: D-dimer > 1,000ng/mL; C reactive protein > 5mg/dL, ferritin > 300mg/dL, and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal. The primary objective will be to compare the clinical status on day 15, as measured by a 7-point ordinal scale applied in COVID-19 trials worldwide. The primary endpoint will be assessed by an ordinal logistic regression assuming proportional odds ratios adjusted for stratification variables (age and sex). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The TOCIBRAS protocol was approved by local and central (national) ethical committees in Brazil following current national and international guidelines/directives. Each participating center had the study protocol approved by their institutional review boards before initiating protocol enrolment. The data derived from this trial will be published regardless of the results. If proven active, this strategy could alleviate the consequences of the inflammatory response in COVID-19 patients and improve their clinical outcomes.


INTRODUÇÃO: Os marcadores pró-inflamatórios desempenham papel importante na severidade de pacientes com COVID-19. Assim, terapêuticas anti-inflamatórias são agentes interessantes para potencialmente combater a cascata inflamatória descontrolada em tais pacientes. Delineamos um ensaio para testar tocilizumabe em comparação com o tratamento padrão, tendo como objetivo melhorar os desfechos por meio da inibição da interleucina 6, um importante mediador inflamatório na COVID-19. MÉTODOS E ANÁLISES: Este será um estudo aberto multicêntrico, randomizado e controlado, que comparará os desfechos de pacientes tratados com tocilizumabe mais tratamento padrão com o tratamento padrão isoladamente em pacientes com COVID-19 moderada a grave. Como critérios de inclusão, serão exigidos dois dos quatro critérios a seguir: dosagens de dímero D acima de 1.000ng/mL, proteína C-reativa acima de 5mg/dL, ferritina acima de 300mg/dL e desidrogenase lática acima do limite superior do normal. O objetivo primário será comparar a condição clínica no dia 15, conforme avaliação por meio de escala ordinal de 7 pontos aplicada nos estudos de COVID-19 em todo o mundo. O desfecho primário será avaliado por regressão logística ordinal assumindo razões de propensão proporcionais ajustadas pelas variáveis de estratificação (idade e sexo). ÉTICA E DISSEMINAÇÃO: O TOCIBRAS foi aprovado pelos comitês de ética locais e central (nacional) do Brasil em conformidade com as atuais diretrizes e orientações nacionais e internacionais. Cada centro participante obteve aprovação do estudo por parte de seu comitê de ética em pesquisa, antes de iniciar as inscrições no protocolo. Os dados derivados deste ensaio serão publicados independentemente de seus resultados. Se tiver sua efetividade comprovada, esta estratégia terapêutica poderá aliviar as consequências da resposta inflamatória na COVID-19 e melhorar os resultados clínicos.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Brazil , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Humans , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Severity of Illness Index
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL