Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 116
Filter
1.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 490, 2022 01 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1815582

ABSTRACT

Based on the findings from the Phase III clinical trials of inactivated SARS COV-2 Vaccine, (BBIBP-CORV) emergency use authorization (EUA) was granted for the vaccine to frontline workers in the UAE. A prospective cohort study was conducted among frontline workers to estimate the incidence rate and risk of symptomatic COVID-19 infection 14 days after the second dose of inoculation with BBIBP-CORV inactivated vaccine. Those who received two doses of the BBIBP-CORV vaccine in the period from 14th of September 2020 (first dose) to 21st of December 2020 (second dose) were followed up for COVID-19 infections. 11,322 individuals who received the two-dose BBIBP-CORV vaccine were included and were followed up post the second dose plus fourteen days. The incidence rate of symptomatic infection was 0.08 per 1000-person days (95% CI 0.07, 0.10). The estimated absolute risk of developing symptomatic infection was 0.97% (95% CI 0.77%, 1.17%). The confirmed seroconversion rate was 92.8%. There were no serious adverse events reported and no individuals suffered from severe disease. Our findings show that vaccinated individuals are likely to remain protected against symptomatic infection or becoming PCR positive for SARS COV 2 following the second dose of the vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/diagnosis , Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Headache/etiology , Health Personnel , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , United Arab Emirates/epidemiology , Vaccines, Inactivated/adverse effects
2.
J Frailty Aging ; 11(2): 236-241, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1811433

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for frail older adults through a rapid review, supplemented with geriatricians' consensus statements. METHODS: References were identified through MEDLINE and Web of Science on 1st February 2021 using relevant terms related to COVID-19, vaccine, and older adults. Searches were also conducted on reference lists of review articles and Google Scholar. The content was updated on 8th April via hand searching. We included studies on Phase III randomized controlled trials, and data from real world administration of vaccines. A two-round Delphi study was conducted with 15 geriatricians to elicit their thoughts and recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccination for frail older adults. RESULTS: Five Phase III randomized controlled efficacy trials reported vaccine efficacy ranging from 66.7% to 95% among participants aged 16 to 95. The vaccine efficacy for participants aged 65 and above is 94.7% and 86.4% for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna respectively. Sputnik V reported a vaccine efficacy of 91.8% for participants 60 and above. Serious adverse events were reported by 0.27% to 1% of participants who received at least one dose of the four vaccines. For the Delphi study, 16 out of 24 statements achieved consensus. The Delphi panel opined that frail or very old adults, except those with limited life expectancy, should be vaccinated due to their vulnerability. They also agree that vaccination decisions should be made by patients when possible, with the involvement of next-of-kin should the frail older adult be unable to do so. Lastly, the panel thought that frail older adults should be included in future clinical trials. CONCLUSION: In early clinical trials, there is paucity of evidence on efficacy and safety of current COVID-19 vaccines among frail older adults. Geriatricians' consensus indicate that frail older adults should be vaccinated except where life expectancy is limited. Future trials assessing efficacy and safety should include frail older adults.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Delphi Technique , Frail Elderly , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Singapore/epidemiology , Vaccination
3.
Dermatol Ther ; 35(4): e15339, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1794709

ABSTRACT

Psoriasis is a skin disorder characterized by chronic inflammation driven by different immunologic pathways, among which the IL-23/Th17 axis plays a pivotal role. For this reason, the use of IL23p19 inhibitors in psoriasis treatment has been evaluated over the years. Guselkumab, a totally human IgG1 lambda monoclonal antibody, that selectively blocks the p 19 subunit of IL- 23 has demonstrated high efficacy and safety throughout several, randomized, double-blind phase III trials (VOYAGE 1 and 2, NAVIGATE and ECLIPSE). We designed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a population consisting of 46 patients followed from December 2018 to April 2021. After a diagnosis of moderate to severe psoriasis, all the patients were considered suitable to receive treatment with Guselkumab. In our population, among those who achieved clinical improvement in terms of Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI), PASI 75, 90, and 100 were achieved on average on weeks 14, 19, 21 respectively. We then analyzed a subgroup of our population, consisting of 35 patients, who had an identical follow-up time of 28 weeks, thus observing the trend in mean PASI at subsequent assessments and the number of patients who had reached PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 at week 4 (10; 3; 1), week 12 (12; 13; 11), week 20 (7; 6; 2), and week 28 (1; 4; 6), respectively. The results obtained are in line with those obtained from previous studies, thus confirming that Guselkumab is an excellent choice in terms of security, long-term efficacy, and overall tolerance.


Subject(s)
Psoriasis , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Psoriasis/diagnosis , Psoriasis/drug therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
4.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e055596, 2022 03 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1736069

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Ebola virus disease (EVD) continues to be a significant public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Large-scale vaccination during outbreaks may reduce virus transmission. We established a large population-based clinical trial of a heterologous, two-dose prophylactic vaccine during an outbreak in eastern DRC to determine vaccine effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label, non-randomised, population-based trial enrolled eligible adults and children aged 1 year and above. Participants were offered the two-dose candidate EVD vaccine regimen VAC52150 (Ad26.ZEBOV, Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA)-BN-Filo), with the doses being given 56 days apart. After vaccination, serious adverse events (SAEs) were passively recorded until 1 month post dose 2. 1000 safety subset participants were telephoned at 1 month post dose 2 to collect SAEs. 500 pregnancy subset participants were contacted to collect SAEs at D7 and D21 post dose 1 and at D7, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months post dose 2, unless delivery was before these time points. The first 100 infants born to these women were given a clinical examination 3 months post delivery. Due to COVID-19 and temporary suspension of dose 2 vaccinations, at least 50 paediatric and 50 adult participants were enrolled into an immunogenicity subset to examine immune responses following a delayed second dose. Samples collected predose 2 and at 21 days post dose 2 will be tested using the Ebola viruses glycoprotein Filovirus Animal Non-Clinical Group ELISA. For qualitative research, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were being conducted with participants or parents/care providers of paediatric participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by Comité National d'Ethique et de la Santé du Ministère de la santé de RDC, Comité d'Ethique de l'Ecole de Santé Publique de l'Université de Kinshasa, the LSHTM Ethics Committee and the MSF Ethics Review Board. Findings will be presented to stakeholders and conferences. Study data will be made available for open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04152486.


Subject(s)
Ebola Vaccines , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola , Adult , COVID-19 , Child , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Democratic Republic of the Congo/epidemiology , Ebola Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/prevention & control , Humans , Immunization Schedule
5.
J Neuroimmunol ; 362: 577788, 2022 01 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1720452

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To report clinical outcome, development of humoral and T-cell mediated immunity in convalescent COVID-19 people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) treated with ofatumumab in the ALITHIOS study from a single center. METHODS: Testing for SARS-Cov2 IgG antibodies was performed on two occasions with at least three months apart between the two testing. During the second antibody testing, interferon-γ ELISpot was used to assess cellular immunity. RESULTS: All four subjects had mild COVID-19 infection without any sequelae. In all subjects except subject 2, COVID-19 was confirmed with PCR. Subjects 1, 2 and 4 had normal levels of IgM and IgG without measurable counts of CD19 cells prior to COVID-19. Subject 3 administered the last dose of ofatumumab 24 days prior to COVID-19 symptoms, but had a gap of 28 weeks of ofatumumab application beforehand due to low IgM levels. Subject 4 received COVID-19 vaccinations before second testing, so second testing and T-cell immunity testing were not performed. Subjects who were CD19 depleted did not had measurable levels of SARS-Cov2 IgG antibodies. Subject 3 had first and second SARS-COV2 titer of 118 U/ml and > 250 U/ml, respectively. All three pwMS showed T cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Quotient of basal spots divided by interferon-γ secreting spot forming units were 4, 8 and 14.7 SI in subjects 1, 2 and 3, respectively (>3 considered reactive). CONCLUSION: While no antibody response was observed in pwMS who were CD19+ lymphocyte depleted, T cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in all three pwMS treated with ofatumumab.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , Multiple Sclerosis/complications , Multiple Sclerosis/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/complications , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Female , Humans , Immunity, Cellular/immunology , Immunity, Humoral/immunology , Male
6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(3): 544-552, 2022 02 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1684550

ABSTRACT

Although interim results from several large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials demonstrated high vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is unknown how effective the vaccines are in preventing people from becoming asymptomatically infected and potentially spreading the virus unwittingly. It is more difficult to evaluate VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than against symptomatic COVID-19 because infection is not observed directly but rather is known to occur between 2 antibody or reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. Additional challenges arise as community transmission changes over time and as participants are vaccinated on different dates because of staggered enrollment of participants or crossover of placebo recipients to the vaccine arm before the end of the study. Here, we provide valid and efficient statistical methods for estimating potentially waning VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection with blood or nasal samples under time-varying community transmission, staggered enrollment, and blinded or unblinded crossover. We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed methods through numerical studies that mimic the BNT162b2 phase 3 trial and the Prevent COVID U study. In addition, we assess how crossover and the frequency of diagnostic tests affect the precision of VE estimates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
8.
Mini Rev Med Chem ; 22(3): 498-549, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1677616

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic, the most unprecedented event of the year 2020, has brought millions of scientists worldwide in a single platform to fight against it. Though several drugs are now in the clinical trial, few vaccines are available on the market already, but the lack of an effect of those is making the situation worse. AIM OF THE STUDY: In this review, we demonstrated comprehensive data of natural antiviral products showing activities against different proteins of Human Coronaviruses (HCoV) that are responsible for its pathogenesis. Furthermore, we categorized the compounds into the hit, lead, and drug based on the IC50/EC50 value, drug-likeness, and lead-likeness test to portray their potentiality to be a drug. We also demonstrated the present status of our screened antiviral compounds with respect to clinical trials and reported the lead compounds that can be promoted to clinical trial against COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was employed focusing on Natural Products (NPs) with proven activity (in vitro, in vivo, or in silico) against human coronaviruses, in general, and data were gathered from databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, SciVerse, and Scopus. Information regarding clinical trials retrieved from the Clinical Trial Database. RESULTS: Total "245" natural compounds were identified initially from the literature study. Among them, Glycyrrhizin, Caffeic acid, Curcumin is in phase 3, and Tetrandrine, Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, Everolimus are in phase 4 clinical trial. Except for Glycyrrhizin, all compounds showed activity against COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In summary, our demonstrated specific small molecules with lead and drug-like capabilities clarified their position in the drug discovery pipeline and proposed future research against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , Biological Products , COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Biological Products/pharmacology , Biological Products/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Clinical Trials, Phase IV as Topic , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
11.
Mol Biol Rep ; 49(3): 2321-2324, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1664478

ABSTRACT

Numerous studies demonstrate parallels between CVD, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and COVID-19 pathology, which accentuate pre-existing complications in patients infected with COVID-19 and potentially exacerbate the infection course. Antidiabetic drugs such as sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have garnered substantial attention recently due to their efficacy in reducing the severity of cardiorenal disease. The effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 remains unclear particularly since SGLT-2 inhibitors contribute to altering the RAAS cascade activity, which includes ACE-2, the major cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV2. A study, DARE-19, was carried out to unveil the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment on comorbid disease complications and concomitant COVID-19 outcomes and demonstrated no statistical significance. However, the need for further studies is essential to provide conclusive clinical findings.


Subject(s)
Benzhydryl Compounds/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Glucosides/therapeutic use , Renin-Angiotensin System/drug effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/physiology , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Drug Repositioning , Heart Diseases/prevention & control , Humans , Kidney Diseases/prevention & control , Mitochondria/drug effects , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Oxidative Stress/drug effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Receptors, Virus/physiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2/physiology , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors/pharmacology
12.
Science ; 375(6576): 43-50, 2022 Jan 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1649486

ABSTRACT

In the coronavirus efficacy (COVE) phase 3 clinical trial, vaccine recipients were assessed for neutralizing and binding antibodies as correlates of risk for COVID-19 disease and as correlates of protection. These immune markers were measured at the time of second vaccination and 4 weeks later, with values reported in standardized World Health Organization international units. All markers were inversely associated with COVID-19 risk and directly associated with vaccine efficacy. Vaccine recipients with postvaccination 50% neutralization titers 10, 100, and 1000 had estimated vaccine efficacies of 78% (95% confidence interval, 54 to 89%), 91% (87 to 94%), and 96% (94 to 98%), respectively. These results help define immune marker correlates of protection and may guide approval decisions for messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines and other COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Female , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Male , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Young Adult
13.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262114, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643254

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, commentators warned that some COVID trials were inadequately conceived, designed and reported. Here, we retrospectively assess the prevalence of informative COVID trials launched in the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHODS: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we created a cohort of Phase 1/2, Phase 2, Phase 2/3 and Phase 3 SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention efficacy trials that were initiated from 2020-01-01 to 2020-06-30 using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. We excluded trials evaluating behavioural interventions and natural products, which are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We evaluated trials on 3 criteria of informativeness: potential redundancy (comparing trial phase, type, patient-participant characteristics, treatment regimen, comparator arms and primary outcome), trials design (according to the recommendations set-out in the May 2020 FDA guidance document on SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention trials) and feasibility of patient-participant recruitment (based on timeliness and success of recruitment). RESULTS: We included all 500 eligible trials in our cohort, 58% of which were Phase 2 and 84.8% were directed towards the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Close to one third of trials met all three criteria and were deemed informative (29.9% (95% Confidence Interval 23.7-36.9)). The proportion of potentially redundant trials in our cohort was 4.1%. Over half of the trials in our cohort (56.2%) did not meet our criteria for high quality trial design. The proportion of trials with infeasible patient-participant recruitment was 22.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one third of COVID-19 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov during the first six months met all three criteria for informativeness. Shortcomings in trial design, recruitment feasibility and redundancy reflect longstanding weaknesses in the clinical research enterprise that were likely amplified by the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Research Design/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic/ethics , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic/ethics , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic/ethics , Humans , Patient Selection/ethics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
15.
BMC Cancer ; 22(1): 3, 2022 Jan 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1605308

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Older patients are underrepresented in the clinical trials that determine the standards of care for oncological treatment. We conducted a review to identify whether there have been age-restrictive inclusion criteria in clinical trials over the last twenty five years, focusing on patients with metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. METHODS: A search strategy was developed encompassing Embase, PubMed and The Cochrane Library databases. Completed phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating systemic anti-cancer therapies in metastatic gastroesophageal malignancies from 1st January 1995 to 18th November 2020 were identified. These were screened for eligibility using reference management software (Covidence; Veritas Health Innovation Ltd). Data including age inclusion/exclusion criteria and median age of participants were recorded. The percentage of patients ≥ 65 enrolled was collected where available. The change over time in the proportion of studies using an upper age exclusion was estimated using a linear probability model. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three phase III studies were identified and screened, with 66 trials remaining for final analysis. The majority of trials were Asian (48%; n = 32) and predominantly evaluated gastric malignancies, (86%; n = 56). The median age of participants was 62 (range 18-94). Thirty-two percent (n = 21) of studies specified an upper age limit for inclusion and over half of these were Asian studies. The median age of exclusion was 75 (range 65-80). All studies prior to 2003 used an upper age exclusion (n = 12); whereas only 9 that started in 2003 or later did (17%). Among later studies, there was a very modest downward yearly-trend in the proportion of studies using an upper age exclusion (-0.02 per year; 95%CI -0.05 to 0.01; p = 0.31). Fifty-two percent (n = 34) of studies specified the proportion of their study population who were ≥ 65 years. Older patients represented only 36% of the trial populations in these studies (range 7-60%). CONCLUSIONS: Recent years have seen improvements in clinical trial protocols, with many no longer specifying restrictive age criteria. Reasons for poor representation of older patients are complex and ongoing efforts are needed to broaden eligibility criteria and prioritise the inclusion of older adults in clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Age Factors , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Esophageal Neoplasms , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Research Subjects/statistics & numerical data , Stomach Neoplasms , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Eligibility Determination , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Young Adult
17.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(1): e13-e27, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1593659

ABSTRACT

Henipaviruses, including Nipah virus, are regarded as pathogens of notable epidemic potential because of their high pathogenicity and the paucity of specific medical countermeasures to control infections in humans. We review the evidence of medical countermeasures against henipaviruses and project their cost in a post-COVID-19 era. Given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of henipavirus outbreaks, innovative strategies will be needed to circumvent the infeasibility of traditional phase 3 clinical trial regulatory pathways. Stronger partnerships with scientific institutions and regulatory authorities in low-income and middle-income countries can inform coordination of appropriate investments and development of strategies and normative guidelines for the deployment and equitable use of multiple medical countermeasures. Accessible measures should include global, regional, and endemic in-country stockpiles of reasonably priced small molecules, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccines as part of a combined collection of products that could help to control henipavirus outbreaks and prevent future pandemics.


Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Henipavirus Infections/drug therapy , Henipavirus/pathogenicity , Medical Countermeasures , Public Health , Animals , COVID-19/prevention & control , Chiroptera/virology , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Henipavirus/classification , Henipavirus Infections/prevention & control , Henipavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Nipah Virus/pathogenicity , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
18.
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban ; 46(8): 909-914, 2021 Aug 28.
Article in English, Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1439638

ABSTRACT

Compassionate use may play an important role in responding to major public health emergencies. The Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan launched the III phase of clinical trials of antiviral drug-remdesivir on February 6, 2020. As an unapproved drug, remdesivir raised great concerns about compassionate use in China. Compassionate use is therapeutic use of unauthorized drugs outside of clinical trials. It is used for critically ill patients with life-threatening diseases and no effective treatment means in China. Patients voluntarily apply to their medical institutions. The Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration shall conduct scientific and reasonable review, approval, and supervision on patients' application for compassionate medication. By analyzing and comparing the current situation of compassionate use at home and abroad, it is expected to provide thinking for the development of compassionate use system in China.


Subject(s)
Compassionate Use Trials , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Humans
19.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e053876, 2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376514

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Acne is one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases worldwide and can have significant psychosocial impact and cause permanent scarring. Spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic, has antiandrogenic properties, potentially reducing sebum production and hyperkeratinisation in acne-prone follicles. Dermatologists have prescribed spironolactone for acne in women for over 30 years, but robust clinical study data are lacking. This study seeks to evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Women (≥18 years) with persistent facial acne requiring systemic therapy are randomised to receive one tablet per day of 50 mg spironolactone or a matched placebo until week 6, increasing to up to two tablets per day (total of 100 mg spironolactone or matched placebo) until week 24, along with usual topical therapy if desired. Study treatment stops at week 24; participants are informed of their treatment allocation and enter an unblinded observational follow-up period for up to 6 months (up to week 52 after baseline). Primary outcome is the Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) symptom subscale score at week 12. Secondary outcomes include Acne-QoL total and subscales; participant acne self-assessment recorded on a 6-point Likert scale at 6, 12, 24 weeks and up to 52 weeks; Investigator's Global Assessment at weeks 6 and 12; cost and cost effectiveness are assessed over 24 weeks. Aiming to detect a group difference of 2 points on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale (SD 5.8, effect size 0.35), allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, gives a sample size of 398 participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by Wales Research Ethics Committee (18/WA/0420). Follow-up to be completed in early 2022. Findings will be disseminated to participants, peer-reviewed journals, networks and patient groups, on social media, on the study website and the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit website to maximise impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12892056;Pre-results.


Subject(s)
Acne Vulgaris , Spironolactone , Acne Vulgaris/drug therapy , Adult , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Spironolactone/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
20.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 79(2): 63-71, 2022 01 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376280

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: While COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) deemed the vaccines to be effective and safe for public use, the phase 3 trials leading to EUA predominantly excluded patients with immunocompromising conditions. Immunocompromised patients make up a significant proportion of the population, and in light of recent mass vaccination efforts, we aim to review current evidence and recommendations of COVID-19 vaccines in 4 patient populations with immunocompromising disorders or conditions: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, solid organ transplantation, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. SUMMARY: Given the evolving data on the safety and efficacy of the approved COVID-19 vaccines in the immunocompromised population, it is vital that pharmacists and other immunizing providers understand the current data and recommendations and provide the public with accurate information. To date, the only immunocompromised subgroup included in phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials have been those with HIV infection. However, recent retrospective trials have provided reassuring data on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised patients, and the interim analysis of the Moderna phase 3 trial produced promising data on efficacy in HIV-infected patients. Presently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, British Society for Immunology, and various other governmental and professional societies and organizations endorse COVID-19 vaccination in the immunocompromised population. CONCLUSION: While additional data is needed to determine the effects of immunocompromising medical conditions and immunosuppressing medications on the efficacy of the vaccine, the benefits of vaccination is anticipated to outweigh theoretical risks. Thus, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for immunocompromised patients at this time, and providers should make efforts to decrease vaccine hesitancy in this population through education and reassurance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , Immunocompromised Host , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , HIV Infections , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL