Remotely Provided Open-Label Placebo Reduces Frequency of and Impairment by Allergic Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Placebos being prescribed with full honesty and disclosure (i.e., open-label placebo [OLP]) have been shown to reduce symptom burden in a variety of conditions. With regard to allergic rhinitis, previous research provided inconclusive evidence for the effects of OLP, possibly related to a separate focus on either symptom severity or symptom frequency. Overcoming this limitation of previous research, the present study aimed to examine the effects of OLP on both the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms. METHODS: In a randomized-controlled trial, patients with allergic rhinitis ( N = 74) were randomized to OLP or treatment as usual (TAU). Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was administered remotely in a virtual clinical encounter. Participants took placebo tablets for 14 days. The primary outcomes were the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms. The secondary end point was allergy-related impairment. RESULTS: OLP did not significantly improve symptom severity over TAU ( F (1,71) = 3.280, p = .074, η2 = 0.044) but did reduce symptom frequency ( F (1,71) = 7.272, p = .009, η2 = 0.093) and allergy-related impairment more than TAU ( F (1,71) = 6.445, p = .013, η2 = 0.083), reflecting medium to large effects. The use of other antiallergic medication did not influence the results. CONCLUSIONS: Although OLP was able to lower the frequency of allergic symptoms and allergy-related impairment substantially, its effects on symptom severity were weaker. The remote provision of OLP suggests that physical contact between patients and providers might not be necessary for OLP to work.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.  Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. Study Selection: The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.

Rationale and design for the study of rivaroxaban to reduce thrombotic events, hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19: The PREVENT-HD study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with both venous and arterial thrombotic complications. While prophylactic anticoagulation is now widely recommended for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19 has not been established. STUDY DESIGN: PREVENT-HD is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, pragmatic, event-driven phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in symptomatic outpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 at risk for thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. Several challenges posed by the pandemic have necessitated innovative approaches to clinical trial design, start-up, and conduct. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by time from COVID-19 confirmation, to either rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or placebo for 35 days. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety end point is fatal and critical site bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis definition. Enrollment began in August 2020 and is expected to enroll approximately 4,000 participants to yield the required number of end point events. CONCLUSIONS: PREVENT-HD is a pragmatic trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban in the outpatient setting to reduce major venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and mortality associated with COVID-19.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-COVID trial: A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with valsartan for PRevention of Acute rEspiraTORy dIstress syndrome in hospitAlized patieNts with SARS-COV-2 Infection Disease.

There is much debate on the use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients. Although it has been suggested that ARBs might lead to a higher susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, experimental data suggest that ARBs may reduce acute lung injury via blocking angiotensin-II-mediated pulmonary permeability, inflammation, and fibrosis. However, despite these hypotheses, specific studies on ARBs in SARS-CoV-2 patients are lacking. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized clinical trial in adult hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (n = 651). The primary aim is to investigate the effect of the ARB valsartan compared to placebo on the composite end point of admission to an intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or death within 14 days of randomization. The active-treatment arm will receive valsartan in a dosage titrated to blood pressure up to a maximum of 160 mg bid, and the placebo arm will receive matching placebo. Treatment duration will be 14 days, or until the occurrence of the primary end point or until hospital discharge, if either of these occurs within 14 days. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335786, 2020). SUMMARY: The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized trial to assess the effect of valsartan compared to placebo on the occurrence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. The results of this study might impact the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients globally.