Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 293
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Int J Mol Med ; 49(3)2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1625254

ABSTRACT

Mefenamic acid is a non­steroidal anti­inflammatory drug exhibiting a wide range of anti­inflammatory, antipyretic, analgesic and probable antiviral activities. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with mefenamic acid combined with standard medical care vs. standard medical care plus a placebo in ambulatory patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19; nasal/oropharyngeal swabs reverse transcription­PCR test results positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). The present study is a phase II prospective, two­arm, parallel­group, randomized, double­blind placebo­controlled clinical trial which analyzed 36 patients. Two aspects were evaluated during the 14­day follow­up period: i) The time for reaching a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and ii) the last day of each COVID­19 symptom presentation. Adverse effects were evaluated. The clinical severity for all the patients in the study was mild (88.9%) and moderate (11.1%). The control (placebo) group achieved PASS on day 8.0±1.3, compared with day 4.4±0.8 in the mefenamic acid group (P=0.020, Kaplan­Meier analyses using log­rank tests). Patients that received mefenamic acid plus standard medical care had a ~16­fold higher probability of achieving PASS on day 8 (adjusted RR, 15.57; 95% CI, 1.22­198.71; P=0.035), compared with the placebo plus standard medical care group. All symptoms lasted for fewer days in the mefenamic acid group, compared with the placebo group; however, only the symptoms of headache (P=0.008), retro­orbital eye pain (P=0.049), and sore throat (P=0.029) exhibited statistically significant differences. The experimental treatment produced no severe adverse effects. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that the administration of mefenamic acid markedly reduced the symptomatology and time to reach PASS in ambulatory patients with COVID­19. Due to its probable antiviral effects and potent anti­inflammatory mechanisms, mefenamic acid may prove to be useful in the treatment of COVID­19, in combination with other drugs, including the new antivirals (remdesivir, molnupiravir, or favipiravir). However, future studies are also required to confirm these findings.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Mefenamic Acid/therapeutic use , Ambulatory Care , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Double-Blind Method , Eye Pain/etiology , Headache/etiology , Humans , Pharyngitis/etiology , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
2.
Nutrients ; 14(1)2022 Jan 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613923

ABSTRACT

Elderly people are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, with a high risk of developing severe disease and a reduced immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to assess the effect of the consumption of the probiotic Loigolactobacillus coryniformis K8 CECT 5711 on the immune response generated by the COVID-19 vaccine in an elderly population was performed. Two hundred nursing home residents >60 yrs that had not COVID-19 were randomized to receive L. coryniformis K8 or a placebo daily for 3 months. All volunteers received a complete vaccination schedule of a mRNA vaccine, starting the intervention ten days after the first dose. Specific IgG and IgA antibody levels were analyzed 56 days after the end of the immunization process. No differences between the groups were observed in the antibody levels. During the intervention, 19 subjects had COVID-19 (11 receiving K8 vs. 8 receiving placebo, p = 0.457). Subgroup analysis in these patients showed that levels of IgG were significantly higher in those receiving K8 compared to placebo (p = 0.038). Among subjects >85 yrs that did not get COVID-19, administration of K8 tended to increase the IgA levels (p = 0.082). The administration of K8 may enhance the specific immune response against COVID-19 and may improve the COVID-19 vaccine-specific responses in elderly populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Immunity/immunology , Lactobacillus/immunology , Probiotics/administration & dosage , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Trials ; 23(1): 19, 2022 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613249

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect the globe. After 18 months of the SARS-CoV-2 emergence, clinicians have clearly defined a subgroup of patients with lasting, disabling symptoms. While big strides have been made in understanding the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the pathophysiology of long COVID is still largely unknown, and evidence-based, effective treatments for this condition remain unavailable. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of 10 mg oral montelukast every 24 h versus placebo in improving quality of life associated with mild to moderate respiratory symptoms in patients with long COVID as measured with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) questionnaire. The secondary objectives will evaluate the effect of montelukast versus placebo on improving exercise capacity, COVID-19 symptoms (asthenia, headache, mental confusion or brain fog, ageusia, and anosmia), oxygen desaturation during exertion, functional status, and mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. We will include 18- to 80-year-old patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate respiratory symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (experimental treatment with 10 mg/day montelukast) or the control group (placebo group), during a 28-day treatment. Follow-up will finish 56 days after the start of treatment. The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life associated with respiratory symptoms according to the COPD Assessment Test 4 weeks after starting the treatment. The following are the secondary outcomes: (a) exercise capacity and oxygen saturation (1-min sit-to-stand test); (b) Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale; (c) other symptoms: asthenia, headache, mental confusion (brain fog), ageusia, and anosmia (Likert scale); (d) use of healthcare resources; (e) mortality; (f) sick leave duration in days; and (g) side effects of montelukast. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol (reference number 21/091-C). The trial results will be published in open access, peer-reviewed journals and explained in webinars to increase awareness and understanding about long COVID among primary health professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04695704 . Registered on January 5, 2021. EudraCT number 2021-000605-24. Prospectively registered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Acetates , COVID-19/complications , Cyclopropanes , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Quality of Life , Quinolines , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Sulfides , Treatment Outcome
4.
BMJ ; 376: e068407, 2022 01 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612964

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of statin treatment versus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients with covid-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design. Results for the anticoagulation randomization have been reported previously. Results for the double blind randomization to atorvastatin versus placebo are reported here. SETTING: 11 hospitals in Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with covid-19 admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTION: Atorvastatin 20 mg orally once daily versus placebo, to be continued for 30 days from randomization irrespective of hospital discharge status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality within 30 days from randomization. Prespecified safety outcomes included increase in liver enzyme levels more than three times the upper limit of normal and clinically diagnosed myopathy. A clinical events committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Of 605 patients randomized between 29 July 2020 and 4 April 2021 for statin randomization in the INSPIRATION-S trial, 343 were co-randomized to intermediate dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin based regimens, whereas 262 were randomized after completion of the anticoagulation study. 587 of the 605 participants were included in the primary analysis of INSPIRATION-S, reported here: 290 were assigned to atorvastatin and 297 to placebo (median age 57 years (interquartile range 45-68 years); 256 (44%) women). The primary outcome occurred in 95 (33%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 108 (36%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.21). Death occurred in 90 (31%) patients in the atorvastatin group and 103 (35%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.22). Rates for venous thromboembolism were 2% (n=6) in the atorvastatin group and 3% (n=9) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 2.06). Myopathy was not clinically diagnosed in either group. Liver enzyme levels were increased in five (2%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and six (2%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 2.81). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with covid-19 admitted to the ICU, atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality compared with placebo. Treatment was, however, found to be safe. As the overall event rates were lower than expected, a clinically important treatment effect cannot be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04486508.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Atorvastatin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Critical Care/methods , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Double-Blind Method , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/statistics & numerical data , Female , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/virology , Young Adult
5.
Lancet ; 398(10296): 213-222, 2021 07 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598580

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: CoronaVac, an inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has been shown to be well tolerated with a good safety profile in individuals aged 18 years and older in phase 1/2 trials, and provided a good humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. We present the interim efficacy and safety results of a phase 3 clinical trial of CoronaVac in Turkey. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Volunteers aged 18-59 years with no history of COVID-19 and with negative PCR and antibody test results for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled at 24 centres in Turkey. Exclusion criteria included (but were not limited to) immunosuppressive therapy (including steroids) within the past 6 months, bleeding disorders, asplenia, and receipt of any blood products or immunoglobulins within the past 3 months. The K1 cohort consisted of health-care workers (randomised in a 1:1 ratio), and individuals other than health-care workers were also recruited into the K2 cohort (randomised in a 2:1 ratio) using an interactive web response system. The study vaccine was 3 µg inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virion adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide in a 0·5 mL aqueous suspension. Participants received either vaccine or placebo (consisting of all vaccine components except inactivated virus) intramuscularly on days 0 and 14. The primary efficacy outcome was the prevention of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second dose in the per protocol population. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04582344) and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Among 11 303 volunteers screened between Sept 14, 2020, and Jan 5, 2021, 10 218 were randomly allocated. After exclusion of four participants from the vaccine group because of protocol deviations, the intention-to-treat group consisted of 10 214 participants (6646 [65·1%] in the vaccine group and 3568 [34·9%] in the placebo group) and the per protocol group consisted of 10 029 participants (6559 [65·4%] and 3470 [34·6%]) who received two doses of vaccine or placebo. During a median follow-up period of 43 days (IQR 36-48), nine cases of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 were reported in the vaccine group (31·7 cases [14·6-59·3] per 1000 person-years) and 32 cases were reported in the placebo group (192·3 cases [135·7-261·1] per 1000 person-years) 14 days or more after the second dose, yielding a vaccine efficacy of 83·5% (95% CI 65·4-92·1; p<0·0001). The frequencies of any adverse events were 1259 (18·9%) in the vaccine group and 603 (16·9%) in the placebo group (p=0·0108) with no fatalities or grade 4 adverse events. The most common systemic adverse event was fatigue (546 [8·2%] participants in the vaccine group and 248 [7·0%] the placebo group, p=0·0228). Injection-site pain was the most frequent local adverse event (157 [2·4%] in the vaccine group and 40 [1·1%] in the placebo group, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: CoronaVac has high efficacy against PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 with a good safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING: Turkish Health Institutes Association.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/prevention & control , Double-Blind Method , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Turkey , Vaccination , Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Inactivated/immunology , Virion/immunology
6.
Lancet Neurol ; 21(1): 31-41, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1586195

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder with considerable neurodevelopmental impact and neurodegenerative morbidity. In a pilot trial in young adults with Down syndrome, memantine (a drug approved for Alzheimer's disease) showed a significant effect on a secondary measure of episodic memory. We aimed to test whether memantine would improve episodic memory in adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial with a parallel design, stratified by age and sex. Participants (aged 15-32 years) with either trisomy 21 or complete unbalanced translocation of chromosome 21 and in general good health were recruited from the community at one site in Brazil and another in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either memantine (20 mg/day orally) or placebo for 16 weeks. Computer-generated randomisation tables for both sites (allocating a placebo or drug label to each member of a unique pair of participants) were centrally produced by an independent statistician and were shared only with investigational pharmacists at participating sites until unblinding of the study. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignments. Neuropsychological assessments were done at baseline (T1) and week 16 (T2). The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to week 16 in the California Verbal Learning Test-second edition short-form (CVLT-II-sf) total free recall score, assessed in the per-protocol population (ie, participants who completed 16 weeks of treatment and had neuropsychological assessments at T1 and T2). Linear mixed effect models were fit to data from the per-protocol population. Safety and tolerability were monitored and analysed in all participants who started treatment. Steady-state concentrations in plasma of memantine were measured at the end of the trial. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02304302. FINDINGS: From May 13, 2015, to July 22, 2020, 185 participants with Down syndrome were assessed for eligibility and 160 (86%) were randomly assigned either memantine (n=81) or placebo (n=79). All participants received their allocated treatment. Linear mixed effect models were fit to data from 149 (81%) participants, 73 in the memantine group and 76 in the placebo group, after 11 people (eight in the memantine group and three in the placebo group) discontinued due to COVID-19 restrictions, illness of their caregiver, adverse events, or low compliance. The primary outcome measure did not differ between groups (CVLT-II-sf total free recall score, change from baseline 0·34 points [95% CI -0·98 to 1·67], p=0·61). Memantine was well tolerated, with infrequent mild-to-moderate adverse events, the most common being viral upper respiratory infection (nine [11%] participants in the memantine group and 12 [15%] in the placebo group) and transient dizziness (eight [10%] in the memantine group and six [8%] in the placebo group). No serious adverse events were observed. Amounts of memantine in plasma were substantially lower than those considered therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease. INTERPRETATION: Memantine was well tolerated, but cognition-enhancing effects were not recorded with a 20 mg/day dose in adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome. Exploratory analyses point to a need for future work. FUNDING: Alana Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Down Syndrome/drug therapy , Memantine/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Cognition/drug effects , Double-Blind Method , Down Syndrome/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Memantine/administration & dosage , Memantine/pharmacology , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
7.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 24392, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585793

ABSTRACT

Most public health measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic are based on preventing the pathogen spread, and the use of oral antiseptics has been proposed as a strategy to reduce transmission risk. The aim of this manuscript is to test the efficacy of mouthwashes to reduce salivary viral load in vivo. This is a multi-centre, blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial that tests the effect of four mouthwashes (cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide) in SARS-CoV-2 salivary load measured by qPCR at baseline and 30, 60 and 120 min after the mouthrinse. A fifth group of patients used distilled water mouthrinse as a control. Eighty-four participants were recruited and divided into 12-15 per group. There were no statistically significant changes in salivary viral load after the use of the different mouthwashes. Although oral antiseptics have shown virucidal effects in vitro, our data show that salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients was not affected by the tested treatments. This could reflect that those mouthwashes are not effective in vivo, or that viral particles are not infective but viral RNA is still detected by PCR. Viral infectivity studies after the use of mouthwashes are therefore required. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04707742 ; Identifier: NCT04707742).


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Saliva/virology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/chemistry , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Child , Child, Preschool , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Mouthwashes/chemistry , Placebo Effect , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Viral Load/drug effects , Young Adult
8.
Infect Dis Poverty ; 10(1): 138, 2021 Dec 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581999

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a substantial burden on health-care systems around the world. This is a randomized parallel controlled trial for assessment of the immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, aiming to determine an appropriate vaccination interval of the vaccine for high-risk occupational population. METHODS: In an ongoing randomized, parallel, controlled phase IV trial between January and May 2021 in Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province, China, we randomly assigned the airport ground staff and public security officers aged 18 to 59 years to receive two doses of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at 14 days, 21 days, or 28 days. The serum neutralizing antibody to live SARS-CoV-2 was performed at baseline and 28 days after immunization. Long-term data are being collected. The primary immunogenicity endpoints were neutralization antibody seroconversion and geometric mean titer (GMT) at 28 days after the second dose. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), chi-square, and logistic regression analysis were used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 809 participants underwent randomization and received two doses of injections: 270, 270, 269 in the 0-14, 0-21, and 0-28 vaccination group, respectively. By day 28 after the second injection, SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody of GMT was 98.4 (95% CI: 88.4-108.4) in the 0-14 group, which was significantly lower compared with 134.4 (95% CI: 123.1-145.7) in the 0-21 group (P < 0.001 vs 0-14 group) and 145.5 (95% CI: 131.3-159.6) in the 0-28 group (P < 0.001 vs 0-14 group), resulting in the seroconversion rates to neutralizing antibodies (GMT ≥ 16) of 100.0% for all three groups, respectively. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis yielded similar results. All reported adverse reactions were mild. CONCLUSIONS: Both a two-dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at 0-21 days and 0-28 days regimens significantly improved SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody level compared to the 0-14 days regimen in high-risk occupational population, with seroconversion rates of 100.0%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2100041705, ChiCTR2100041706. Registered 1 January 2021, www.chictr.org.cn .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , Double-Blind Method , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Int Immunol ; 33(10): 521-527, 2021 09 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575141

ABSTRACT

There is currently an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Individuals with COVID-19 have symptoms that are usually asymptomatic or mild in most initial cases. However, in some cases, moderate and severe symptoms have been observed with pneumonia. Many companies are developing COVID-19 vaccine candidates using different technologies that are classified into four groups (intact target viruses, proteins, viral vectors and nucleic acids). For rapid development, RNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines have been urgently approved, and their injection has already started across the world. These types of vaccine technologies have been developed over more than 20 years using translational research for use against cancer or diseases caused by genetic disorders but the COVID-19 vaccines are the first licensed drugs to prevent infectious diseases using RNA vaccine technology. Although these vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID-19 for a short period, safety and efficiency evaluations should be continuously monitored over a long time period. As the time of writing, more than 10 projects are now in phase 3 to evaluate the prevention of infection in double-blind studies. Hopefully, several projects may be approved to ensure high-efficiency and safe vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Animals , Double-Blind Method , Genetic Therapy/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Technology/methods , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology
10.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e26292, 2021 02 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574360

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between-within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. RESULTS: The study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ≥5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre-post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR. CONCLUSIONS: EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25291.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronic Pain/therapy , Health Behavior , Low Back Pain/therapy , Pain Management/methods , Virtual Reality , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Self Report , Time Factors , Young Adult
11.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(11): e342-e347, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561809

ABSTRACT

Large-scale deployment of COVID-19 vaccines will seriously affect the ongoing phases 2 and 3 randomised placebo-controlled trials assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates. The effect will be particularly acute in high-income countries where the entire adult or older population could be vaccinated by late 2021. Regrettably, only a small proportion of the population in many low-income and middle-income countries will have access to available vaccines. Sponsors of COVID-19 vaccine candidates currently in phase 2 or initiating phase 3 trials in 2021 should consider continuing the research in countries with limited affordability and availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Several ethical principles must be implemented to ensure the equitable, non-exploitative, and respectful conduct of trials in resource-poor settings. Once sufficient knowledge on the immunogenicity response to COVID-19 vaccines is acquired, non-inferiority immunogenicity trials-comparing the immune response of a vaccine candidate to that of an authorised vaccine-would probably be the most common trial design. Until then, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trials will continue to play a role in the development of new vaccine candidates. WHO or the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences should define an ethical framework for the requirements and benefits for trial participants and host communities in resource-poor settings that should require commitment from all vaccine candidate sponsors from high-income countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Trials as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
12.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(11): 1590-1597, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561435

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Trials of BCG vaccination to prevent or reduce severity of COVID-19 are taking place in adults, some of whom have been previously vaccinated, but evidence of the beneficial, non-specific effects of BCG come largely from data on mortality in infants and young children, and from in-vitro and animal studies, after a first BCG vaccination. We assess all-cause mortality following a large BCG revaccination trial in Malawi. METHODS: The Karonga Prevention trial was a population-based, double-blind, randomised controlled in Karonga District, northern Malawi, that enrolled participants between January, 1986, and November, 1989. The trial compared BCG (Glaxo-strain) revaccination versus placebo to prevent tuberculosis and leprosy. 46 889 individuals aged 3 months to 75 years were randomly assigned to receive BCG revaccination (n=23 528) or placebo (n=23 361). Here we report mortality since vaccination as recorded during active follow-up in northern areas of the district in 1991-94, and in a demographic surveillance follow-up in the southern area in 2002-18. 7389 individuals who received BCG (n=3746) or placebo (n=3643) lived in the northern follow-up areas, and 5616 individuals who received BCG (n=2798) or placebo (n=2818) lived in the southern area. Year of death or leaving the area were recorded for those not found. We used survival analysis to estimate all-cause mortality. FINDINGS: Follow-up information was available for 3709 (99·0%) BCG recipients and 3612 (99·1%) placebo recipients in the northern areas, and 2449 (87·5%) BCG recipients and 2413 (85·6%) placebo recipients in the southern area. There was no difference in mortality between the BCG and placebo groups in either area, overall or by age group or sex. In the northern area, there were 129 deaths per 19 694 person-years at risk in the BCG group (6·6 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·5-7·8]) versus 133 deaths per 19 111 person-years at risk in the placebo group (7·0 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·9-8·2]; HR 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·20]; p=0·62). In the southern area, there were 241 deaths per 38 399 person-years at risk in the BCG group (6·3 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·5-7·1]) versus 230 deaths per 38 676 person-years at risk in the placebo group (5·9 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·2-6·8]; HR 1·06 [95% CI 0·88-1·27]; p=0·54). INTERPRETATION: We found little evidence of any beneficial effect of BCG revaccination on all-cause mortality. The high proportion of deaths attributable to non-infectious causes beyond infancy, and the long time interval since BCG for most deaths, might obscure any benefits. FUNDING: British Leprosy Relief Association (LEPRA); Wellcome Trust.


Subject(s)
BCG Vaccine/administration & dosage , Immunization, Secondary/statistics & numerical data , Mortality , Vaccination/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , BCG Vaccine/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Child, Preschool , Double-Blind Method , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Leprosy/immunology , Leprosy/mortality , Leprosy/prevention & control , Malawi/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Mycobacterium leprae/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Treatment Outcome , Tuberculosis/immunology , Tuberculosis/mortality , Tuberculosis/prevention & control , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
13.
Nat Med ; 27(7): 1262-1271, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550325

ABSTRACT

Preclinical and clinical data suggest that fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) is anti-fibrotic, improves metabolic status and has potential to treat non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We assessed the safety and efficacy of efruxifermin, a long-acting Fc-FGF21 fusion protein, for the treatment of NASH. BALANCED was a randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with NASH conducted at 27 centers in the United States (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03976401 ). Eighty patients, stratified by hepatic fat fraction (HFF) and fibrosis stage, were randomized using a centrally administered minimization algorithm 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo (n = 21) or efruxifermin 28 mg (n = 19), efruxifermin 50 mg (n = 20) or efruxifermin 70 mg (n = 20) via weekly subcutaneous injection for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint-absolute change from baseline in HFF measured as magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction at week 12-was met. For the full analysis set, the least squares mean absolute changes (one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) from baseline in HFF were -12.3% (-infinity (-inf), -10.3), -13.4% (-inf, -11.4) and -14.1% (-inf, -12.1) in the 28-, 50- and 70-mg groups, respectively, versus 0.3% (-inf, 1.6) in the placebo group, with statistically significant differences between efruxifermin groups and placebo (P < 0.0001 each). Overall, 70 of 79 patients who received the study drug (89%) experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with the majority grade 1-2 (64 (81%)), five (6%) grade 3 and one grade 4. The most commonly reported drug-related TEAEs were grade 1-2 gastrointestinal (36 (46%)). Treatment with efruxifermin significantly reduced HFF in patients with F1-F3 stage NASH, with an acceptable safety profile.


Subject(s)
Fibroblast Growth Factors/therapeutic use , Immunoglobulin Fc Fragments/therapeutic use , Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/drug therapy , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/therapeutic use , Body Mass Index , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Liver/pathology , Liver Cirrhosis/drug therapy , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
14.
Nutrients ; 13(12)2021 Dec 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551616

ABSTRACT

A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 72 volunteers who received a synergistic combination of yeast-based ingredients with a unique ß-1,3/1,6-glucan complex and a consortium of heat-treated probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae rich in selenium and zinc (ABB C1®) or placebo on the next day after getting vaccinated against influenza (Chiromas®) (n = 34) or the COVID-19 (Comirnaty®) (n = 38). The duration of treatment was 30 and 35 days for the influenza and COVID-19 vaccine groups, respectively. Mean levels of CD4+T cells increased from 910.7 at baseline to 1000.2 cells/µL after the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ABB C1® group, whereas there was a decrease from 1055.1 to 929.8 cells/µL in the placebo group. Changes of CD3+T and CD8+T lymphocytes showed a similar trend. In the COVID-19 cohort, the increases in both IgG and IgM were higher in the ABB C1® supplement than in the placebo group. Serum levels of selenium and zinc showed a higher increase in subjects treated with the active product than in those receiving placebo. No serious adverse events related to ABB C1® or tolerance issues were reported. The study findings validate the capacity of the ABB C1® product to stimulate trained immunity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Dietary Supplements , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Saccharomyces cerevisiae , Selenium/administration & dosage , Zinc/administration & dosage , beta-Glucans/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Selenium/immunology , Zinc/immunology , beta-Glucans/immunology
15.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(9): 586-594, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545532

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can lead to multiorgan failure. Dapagliflozin, a SGLT2 inhibitor, has significant protective benefits for the heart and kidney. We aimed to see whether this agent might provide organ protection in patients with COVID-19 by affecting processes dysregulated during acute illness. METHODS: DARE-19 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and with at least one cardiometabolic risk factor (ie, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease). Patients critically ill at screening were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to dapagliflozin (10 mg daily orally) or matched placebo for 30 days. Dual primary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population: the outcome of prevention (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death), and the hierarchial composite outcome of recovery (change in clinical status by day 30). Safety outcomes, in patients who received at least one study medication dose, included serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and adverse events of interest. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350593. FINDINGS: Between April 22, 2020 and Jan 1, 2021, 1250 patients were randomly assigned with 625 in each group. The primary composite outcome of prevention showed organ dysfunction or death occurred in 70 patients (11·2%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 86 (13·8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·58-1·10; p=0·17). For the primary outcome of recovery, 547 patients (87·5%) in the dapagliflozin group and 532 (85·1%) in the placebo group showed clinical status improvement, although this was not statistically significant (win ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·97-1·22; p=0·14). There were 41 deaths (6·6%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 54 (8·6%) in the placebo group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·52-1·16). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (10·6%) of 613 patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 82 (13·3%) of 616 patients given the placebo. INTERPRETATION: In patients with cardiometabolic risk factors who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin did not result in a statistically significant risk reduction in organ dysfunction or death, or improvement in clinical recovery, but was well tolerated. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
Benzhydryl Compounds/administration & dosage , COVID-19/complications , Cardiometabolic Risk Factors , Glucosides/administration & dosage , Multiple Organ Failure/prevention & control , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Aged , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multiple Organ Failure/complications , Treatment Outcome
16.
BioDrugs ; 35(6): 735-748, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536382

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: AVT02 (adalimumab) is a proposed biosimilar to Humira®. AVT02 is produced at a 100 mg/mL concentration with a citrate-free formulation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of AVT02 versus Humira® in subjects with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, parallel group, active control study of adult subjects compared (at a 1:1 ratio) AVT02 with originator adalimumab 80 mg subcutaneously in Week 1, then 40 mg every other week. At Week 16, subjects who had received originator adalimumab were re-randomised at a 1:1 ratio to continue receiving originator adalimumab, or to switch to AVT02, every other week until Week 48, with final efficacy endpoint at Week 50. Subjects who initially received AVT02 continued to receive AVT02 from Week 16 to Week 48. The primary endpoint was percentage improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at Week 16. Secondary efficacy endpoints included percentage improvement in PASI score at additional timepoints, change from baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score and number and percentage of subjects achieving static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) responses of 'clear' or 'almost clear'. Additional secondary endpoints included comparison of adverse event profiles, anti-drug antibodies and neutralising antibodies, and serum trough levels of adalimumab at steady state. RESULTS: A total of 413 subjects were randomised (205 to AVT02 and 208 to originator). The percentage improvement in PASI score at Week 16 was 91.6% for AVT02-treated subjects and 89.6% for originator adalimumab. The 90% confidence intervals for the primary endpoint were within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±10% (90% CI - 0.76 to 5.29; 95% CI - 1.34 to 5.88), and a comparable pattern for DLQI score (11.4-point and 10.6-point improvement in AVT02-treated and originator adalimumab-treated groups, respectively) and sPGA (90.5% in both groups achieving 'clear' or 'almost clear') at Week 16 supported the assessment. Efficacy persisted through Week 50 of the study in all treatment groups, including those who switched from originator adalimumab to AVT02, for percent improvement in PASI score, quality-of-life assessment and sPGA. The safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles between AVT02 and originator adalimumab were similar at Week 16, and this persisted in the switched and continued groups through Week 50. CONCLUSION: Objective and subjective measures of efficacy supported the evaluation of biosimilarity between AVT02 and originator adalimumab at Week 16 and until Week 50, in switched and continued treatment groups. AVT02 was safe and well tolerated, with a safety and immunogenicity profile similar to that observed in originator adalimumab with no clinically meaningful difference between the two. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2017-003367-35; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03849404.


Subject(s)
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Psoriasis , Adalimumab/adverse effects , Adult , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Psoriasis/drug therapy , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
17.
Epidemiol Health ; 43: e2021051, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526916

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as mouthwash and nasal spray on symptom relief in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: Patients positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), who were treated in a hospital or at home, and patients' family members (not positive for SARS-CoV-2), were randomized into 2 groups: experimental (1% H2O2 for gargling, 0.5% H2O2 for nasal wash), and control. Patients gargled the solution 3 times a day, and applied the nasal spray twice a day, for a 7-day period. Family members received the same treatment as the treated COVID-19 patient. The researchers contacted patients every 2 days over an 8-day period. An average post-treatment interval of 8 days passed before testing family members. RESULTS: The most frequent symptoms on day 0 were cough, loss of taste, and hyposmia; there were no significant differences between groups, independent of the period. The symptom of dyspnea presented a significant difference between days 2 and 4 (p<0.05). Among family members, 86.0% had no antibodies, 2.3% had antibodies, and 11.6% had active infections (4 in the experimental group and 6 in the control group). The most frequent adverse effects in the H2O2 group were a burning throat and nose. CONCLUSIONS: H2O2 was not effective for the relief of COVID-19 symptoms and was associated with reports of transient adverse effects.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydrogen Peroxide , Brazil , Double-Blind Method , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
18.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 22(1): 953, 2021 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526624

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis is a common and disabling problem without effective therapies. Accumulating evidence suggests the role of local inflammation in causing pain and structural progression in hand osteoarthritis, and hand osteoarthritis with synovitis is a commonly encountered clinical phenotype. Methotrexate is a well-established, low-cost, and effective treatment for inflammatory arthritis with a well-described safety profile. The aim of this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is to determine whether methotrexate reduces pain over 6 months in patients with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis. METHODS: Ninety-six participants with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis will be recruited through the Osteoarthritis Clinical Trial Network (Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, and Perth), and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either methotrexate 20 mg or identical placebo once weekly for 6 months. The primary outcome is pain reduction (assessed by 100 mm visual analogue scale) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes include changes in physical function and quality of life assessed using Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, Short-Form-36, tender and swollen joint count, and grip strength, and structural progression assessed using progression of synovitis and bone marrow lesions from magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic progression at 6 months. Adverse events will be recorded. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat, including all participants in their randomised groups. DISCUSSION: This study will provide high-quality evidence to address whether methotrexate has an effect on reducing pain over 6 months in patients with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis, with major clinical and public health importance. While a positive trial will inform international clinical practice guidelines for the management of hand osteoarthritis, a negative trial would be highly topical and change current trends in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12617000877381. Registered 15 June 2017, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373124.


Subject(s)
Osteoarthritis , Synovitis , Australia , Canada , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Methotrexate/therapeutic use , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Osteoarthritis/diagnostic imaging , Osteoarthritis/drug therapy , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Synovitis/diagnostic imaging , Synovitis/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome
19.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1703-1712, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525396

ABSTRACT

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.


Subject(s)
Aspirin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Pyridones/therapeutic use , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aspirin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Pyrazoles/administration & dosage , Pyrazoles/adverse effects , Pyridones/administration & dosage , Pyridones/adverse effects
20.
Trials ; 22(1): 808, 2021 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1518287

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising strategy to break COVID-19 transmission. Although hydroxychloroquine was evaluated for treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis, it is not evaluated for COVID-19 PrEP yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PrEP with hydroxychloroquine against placebo in healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during an epidemic period. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in three hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. From 350 adult healthcare workers screened, we included 269 participants with no active or past SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by a negative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and a negative serology against SARS-CoV-2). Participants allocated in the intervention arm (PrEP) received 400 mg of hydroxychloroquine daily for the first four consecutive days and subsequently, 400 mg weekly during the study period. Participants in the control group followed the same treatment schedule with placebo tablets. RESULTS: 52.8% (142/269) of participants were in the hydroxychloroquine arm and 47.2% (127/269) in the placebo arm. Given the national epidemic incidence decay, only one participant in each group was diagnosed with COVID-19. The trial was stopped due to futility and our study design was deemed underpowered to evaluate any benefit regarding PrEP efficacy. Both groups showed a similar proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse event (AE) (p=0.548). No serious AEs were reported. Almost all AEs (96.4%, 106/110) were mild. Only mild gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly higher in the hydroxychloroquine arm compared to the placebo arm (27.4% (39/142) vs 15.7% (20/127), p=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Although the efficacy of PrEP with hydroxychloroquine for preventing COVID-19 could not be evaluated, our study showed that PrEP with hydroxychloroquine at low doses is safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04331834 . Registered on April 2, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , Adult , COVID-19/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...