Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
Filter
2.
BMJ ; 375: e068060, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1495140

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine if inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide are superior to placebo at decreasing respiratory symptoms in adult outpatients with covid-19. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. SETTING: Three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia). PARTICIPANTS: 203 adults aged 18 years and older with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19, presenting with fever, cough, or dyspnoea. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either inhaled ciclesonide (600 µg twice daily) and intranasal ciclesonide (200 µg daily) or metered dose inhaler and nasal saline placebos for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was symptom resolution at day 7. Analyses were conducted on the modified intention-to-treat population (participants who took at least one dose of study drug and completed one follow-up survey) and adjusted for stratified randomisation by sex. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat population included 203 participants: 105 were randomly assigned to ciclesonide (excluding two dropouts and one loss to follow-up) and 98 to placebo (excluding three dropouts and six losses to follow-up). The median age was 35 years (interquartile range 27-47 years) and 54% were women. The proportion of participants with resolution of symptoms by day 7 did not differ significantly between the intervention group (42/105, 40%) and control group (34/98, 35%); absolute adjusted risk difference 5.5% (95% confidence interval -7.8% to 18.8%). Results might be limited to the population studied, which mainly included younger adults without comorbidities. The trial was stopped early, therefore could have been underpowered. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, the combination of inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide did not show a statistically significant increase in resolution of symptoms among healthier young adults with covid-19 presenting with prominent respiratory symptoms. As evidence is insufficient to determine the benefit of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of covid-19, further research is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435795.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Ambulatory Care/methods , COVID-19/drug therapy , Pregnenediones/administration & dosage , Administration, Inhalation , Adolescent , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Pregnenediones/therapeutic use , Self Report , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
3.
Am J Epidemiol ; 190(11): 2405-2419, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493668

ABSTRACT

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as an early therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after in vitro studies indicated possible benefit. Previous in vivo observational studies have presented conflicting results, though recent randomized clinical trials have reported no benefit from HCQ among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We examined the effects of HCQ alone and in combination with azithromycin in a hospitalized population of US veterans with COVID-19, using a propensity score-adjusted survival analysis with imputation of missing data. According to electronic health record data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, 64,055 US Veterans were tested for the virus that causes COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Of the 7,193 veterans who tested positive, 2,809 were hospitalized, and 657 individuals were prescribed HCQ within the first 48-hours of hospitalization for the treatment of COVID-19. There was no apparent benefit associated with HCQ receipt, alone or in combination with azithromycin, and there was an increased risk of intubation when HCQ was used in combination with azithromycin (hazard ratio = 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.24). In conclusion, we assessed the effectiveness of HCQ with or without azithromycin in treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, using a national sample of the US veteran population. Using rigorous study design and analytic methods to reduce confounding and bias, we found no evidence of a survival benefit from the administration of HCQ.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Intention to Treat Analysis , Machine Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Pharmacoepidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
4.
N Engl J Med ; 385(21): 1941-1950, 2021 11 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493318

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) disproportionately results in hospitalization or death in older patients and those with underlying conditions. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus monoclonal antibody that was designed to prevent progression of Covid-19 in high-risk patients early in the course of disease. METHODS: In this ongoing, multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic Covid-19 (≤5 days after the onset of symptoms) and at least one risk factor for disease progression to receive a single infusion of sotrovimab at a dose of 500 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was hospitalization (for >24 hours) for any cause or death within 29 days after randomization. RESULTS: In this prespecified interim analysis, which included an intention-to-treat population of 583 patients (291 in the sotrovimab group and 292 in the placebo group), 3 patients (1%) in the sotrovimab group, as compared with 21 patients (7%) in the placebo group, had disease progression leading to hospitalization or death (relative risk reduction, 85%; 97.24% confidence interval, 44 to 96; P = 0.002). In the placebo group, 5 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, including 1 who died by day 29. Safety was assessed in 868 patients (430 in the sotrovimab group and 438 in the placebo group). Adverse events were reported by 17% of the patients in the sotrovimab group and 19% of those in the placebo group; serious adverse events were less common with sotrovimab than with placebo (in 2% and 6% of the patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, sotrovimab reduced the risk of disease progression. No safety signals were identified. (Funded by Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline; COMET-ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04545060.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Disease Progression , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Ambulatory Care , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Infusions, Intravenous , Intention to Treat Analysis , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged
5.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(10): 1494-1501, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454090

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine if commercially available mouthwash with ß-cyclodextrin and citrox (bioflavonoids) (CDCM) could decrease the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) salivary viral load. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR-positive patients aged 18-85 years with asymptomatic to mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms for <8 days were recruited. A total of 176 eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to CDCM or placebo. Three rinses daily were performed for 7 days. Saliva sampling was performed on day 1 at 09.00 (T1), 13.00 (T2) and 18.00 (T3). On the following 6 days, one sample was taken at 15.00. Quantitative RT-PCR was used to detect SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that, over the course of 1 day, CDCM was significantly more effective than placebo 4 hours after the first dose (p 0.036), with a median percentage (log10 copies/mL) decrease T1-T2 of -12.58% (IQR -29.55% to -0.16%). The second dose maintained the low median value for the CDCM (3.08 log10 copies/mL; IQR 0-4.19), compared with placebo (3.31 log10 copies/mL; IQR 1.18-4.75). At day 7, there was still a greater median percentage (log10 copies/mL) decrease in salivary viral load over time in the CDCM group (-58.62%; IQR -100% to -34.36%) compared with the placebo group (-50.62%; IQR -100% to -27.66%). These results were confirmed by the per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This trial supports the relevance of using CDCM on day 1 (4 hours after the initial dose) to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva. For long-term effect (7 days), CDMC appears to provide a modest benefit compared with placebo in reducing viral load in saliva.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Mouthwashes/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antiviral Agents/chemistry , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/transmission , Double-Blind Method , Female , Flavonoids/analysis , Flavonoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Mouthwashes/chemistry , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Viral Load/drug effects , Young Adult , beta-Cyclodextrins/analysis , beta-Cyclodextrins/therapeutic use
6.
N Engl J Med ; 385(19): 1774-1785, 2021 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434206

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: At interim analysis in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). After emergency use of the vaccine was authorized, the protocol was amended to include an open-label phase. Final analyses of efficacy and safety data from the blinded phase of the trial are reported. METHODS: We enrolled volunteers who were at high risk for Covid-19 or its complications; participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 µg) or placebo, 28 days apart, at 99 centers across the United States. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The data cutoff date was March 26, 2021. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 30,415 participants; 15,209 were assigned to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 15,206 to receive placebo. More than 96% of participants received both injections, 2.3% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and the median follow-up was 5.3 months in the blinded phase. Vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0 to 94.8), with 55 confirmed cases in the mRNA-1273 group (9.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 7.2 to 12.5) and 744 in the placebo group (136.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 127.0 to 146.8). The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group, and the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection starting 14 days after the second injection was 63.0% (95% CI, 56.6 to 68.5), with 214 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 498 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnic and racial groups, age groups, and participants with coexisting conditions. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 vaccine continued to be efficacious in preventing Covid-19 illness and severe disease at more than 5 months, with an acceptable safety profile, and protection against asymptomatic infection was observed. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Incidence , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
7.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(8): 924-932, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1413874

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a role for excessive inflammation in COVID-19 complications. Colchicine is an oral anti-inflammatory medication beneficial in gout, pericarditis, and coronary disease. We aimed to investigate the effect of colchicine on the composite of COVID-19-related death or hospital admission. METHODS: The present study is a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, adaptive, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. The study was done in Brazil, Canada, Greece, South Africa, Spain, and the USA, and was led by the Montreal Heart Institute. Patients with COVID-19 diagnosed by PCR testing or clinical criteria who were not being treated in hospital were eligible if they were at least 40 years old and had at least one high-risk characteristic. The randomisation list was computer-generated by an unmasked biostatistician, and masked randomisation was centralised and done electronically through an automated interactive web-response system. The allocation sequence was unstratified and used a 1:1 ratio with a blocking schema and block sizes of six. Patients were randomly assigned to receive orally administered colchicine (0·5 mg twice per day for 3 days and then once per day for 27 days thereafter) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death or hospital admission for COVID-19. Vital status at the end of the study was available for 97·9% of patients. The analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The COLCORONA trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04322682) and is now closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Trial enrolment began in March 23, 2020, and was completed in Dec 22, 2020. A total of 4488 patients (53·9% women; median age 54·0 years, IQR 47·0-61·0) were enrolled and 2235 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine and 2253 to placebo. The primary endpoint occurred in 104 (4·7%) of 2235 patients in the colchicine group and 131 (5·8%) of 2253 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 0·79, 95·1% CI 0·61-1·03; p=0·081). Among the 4159 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, the primary endpoint occurred in 96 (4·6%) of 2075 patients in the colchicine group and 126 (6·0%) of 2084 patients in the placebo group (OR 0·75, 0·57-0·99; p=0·042). Serious adverse events were reported in 108 (4·9%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 139 (6·3%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p=0·051); pneumonia occurred in 63 (2·9%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 92 (4·1%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p=0·021). Diarrhoea was reported in 300 (13·7%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 161 (7·3%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In community-treated patients including those without a mandatory diagnostic test, the effect of colchicine on COVID-19-related clinical events was not statistically significant. Among patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, colchicine led to a lower rate of the composite of death or hospital admission than placebo. Given the absence of orally administered therapies to prevent COVID-19 complications in community-treated patients and the benefit of colchicine in patients with PCR-proven COVID-19, this safe and inexpensive anti-inflammatory agent could be considered for use in those at risk of complications. Notwithstanding these considerations, replication in other studies of PCR-positive community-treated patients is recommended. FUNDING: The Government of Quebec, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the US National Institutes of Health, the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation, the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the Rudin Family Foundation, and philanthropist Sophie Desmarais.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colchicine , Administration, Oral , Ambulatory Care/methods , Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colchicine/administration & dosage , Colchicine/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
8.
Lancet ; 398(10303): 856-869, 2021 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397746

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Equivalence Trials as Topic , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
9.
Am J Epidemiol ; 190(11): 2405-2419, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1393147

ABSTRACT

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as an early therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after in vitro studies indicated possible benefit. Previous in vivo observational studies have presented conflicting results, though recent randomized clinical trials have reported no benefit from HCQ among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We examined the effects of HCQ alone and in combination with azithromycin in a hospitalized population of US veterans with COVID-19, using a propensity score-adjusted survival analysis with imputation of missing data. According to electronic health record data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, 64,055 US Veterans were tested for the virus that causes COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Of the 7,193 veterans who tested positive, 2,809 were hospitalized, and 657 individuals were prescribed HCQ within the first 48-hours of hospitalization for the treatment of COVID-19. There was no apparent benefit associated with HCQ receipt, alone or in combination with azithromycin, and there was an increased risk of intubation when HCQ was used in combination with azithromycin (hazard ratio = 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.24). In conclusion, we assessed the effectiveness of HCQ with or without azithromycin in treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, using a national sample of the US veteran population. Using rigorous study design and analytic methods to reduce confounding and bias, we found no evidence of a survival benefit from the administration of HCQ.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Intention to Treat Analysis , Machine Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Pharmacoepidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
10.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(8): e2121867, 2021 08 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1375583

ABSTRACT

Importance: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) occurring after cardiac surgery is associated with adverse outcomes. Whether POAF persists beyond discharge is not well defined. Objective: To determine whether continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring enhances detection of POAF among cardiac surgical patients during the first 30 days after hospital discharge compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted at 10 Canadian centers. Enrollment spanned from March 2017 to March 2020, with follow-up through September 11, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment stopped on July 17, 2020, at which point 85% of the proposed sample size was enrolled. Cardiac surgical patients with CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, female sex) score greater than or equal to 4 or greater than or equal to 2 with risk factors for POAF, no history of preoperative AF, and POAF lasting less than 24 hours during hospitalization were enrolled. Interventions: The intervention group underwent continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring with wearable, patch-based monitors for 30 days after randomization. Monitoring was not mandated in the usual care group within 30 days after randomization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cumulative AF and/or atrial flutter lasting 6 minutes or longer detected by continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring or by a 12-lead electrocardiogram within 30 days of randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included cumulative AF lasting 6 hours or longer and 24 hours or longer within 30 days of randomization, death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, non-central nervous system thromboembolism, major bleeding, and oral anticoagulation prescription. Results: Of the 336 patients randomized (163 patients in the intervention group and 173 patients in the usual care group; mean [SD] age, 67.4 [8.1] years; 73 women [21.7%]; median [interquartile range] CHA2DS2-VASc score, 4.0 [3.0-4.0] points), 307 (91.4%) completed the trial. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the primary end point occurred in 32 patients (19.6%) in the intervention group vs 3 patients (1.7%) in the usual care group (absolute difference, 17.9%; 95% CI, 11.5%-24.3%; P < .001). AF lasting 6 hours or longer was detected in 14 patients (8.6%) in the intervention group vs 0 patients in the usual care group (absolute difference, 8.6%; 95% CI, 4.3%-12.9%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In post-cardiac surgical patients at high risk of stroke, no preoperative AF history, and AF lasting less than 24 hours during hospitalization, continuous monitoring revealed a significant increase in the rate of POAF after discharge that would otherwise not be detected by usual care. Studies are needed to examine whether these patients will benefit from oral anticoagulation therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02793895.


Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , Atrial Flutter/diagnosis , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Electrocardiography, Ambulatory/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Patient Discharge , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Aged , Atrial Fibrillation/etiology , Atrial Flutter/etiology , COVID-19 , Canada , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Cardiovascular Diseases/surgery , Electrocardiography , Female , Hemorrhage , Hospitalization , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Ischemic Attack, Transient , Male , Pandemics , Risk Factors , Stroke , Thromboembolism
11.
N Engl J Med ; 385(8): 695-706, 2021 08 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364626

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is being investigated for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with 4 to 14 migraine days per month in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a once-daily dose of oral atogepant (10 mg, 30 mg, or 60 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean number of migraine days per month across the 12 weeks. Secondary end points included headache days per month, a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the 3-month average of migraine days per month, quality of life, and scores on the Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D). RESULTS: A total of 2270 participants were screened, 910 were enrolled, and 873 were included in the efficacy analysis; 214 were assigned to the 10-mg atogepant group, 223 to the 30-mg atogepant group, 222 to the 60-mg atogepant group, and 214 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline ranged from 7.5 to 7.9 in the four groups. The changes from baseline across 12 weeks were -3.7 days with 10-mg atogepant, -3.9 days with 30-mg atogepant, -4.2 days with 60-mg atogepant, and -2.5 days with placebo. The mean differences from placebo in the change from baseline were -1.2 days with 10-mg atogepant (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.8 to -0.6), -1.4 days with 30-mg atogepant (95% CI, -1.9 to -0.8), and -1.7 days with 60-mg atogepant (95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). Results for the secondary end points favored atogepant over placebo with the exceptions of the AIM-D Performance of Daily Activities score and the AIM-D Physical Impairment score for the 10-mg dose. The most common adverse events were constipation (6.9 to 7.7% across atogepant doses) and nausea (4.4 to 6.1% across atogepant doses). Serious adverse events included one case each of asthma and optic neuritis in the 10-mg atogepant group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral atogepant once daily was effective in reducing the number of migraine days and headache days over a period of 12 weeks. Adverse events included constipation and nausea. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effect and safety of atogepant for migraine prevention. (Funded by Allergan; ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03777059.).


Subject(s)
Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists/administration & dosage , Migraine Disorders/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Constipation/chemically induced , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Nausea/chemically induced , Young Adult
12.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(9): 1010-1020, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331331

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Doxycycline/administration & dosage , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Doxycycline/adverse effects , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Minimal Clinically Important Difference , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
13.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 116(5): 976-983, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1326047

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment can significantly reduce the risk of liver-related mortality; however, many patients remain unaware of their infection in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of inreach, with and without mailed outreach, to increase HCV screening and follow-up in a large, difficult-to-reach patient population. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial from August 2018 to May 2019 in a large safety-net health system. Patients born between 1945 and 1965 were randomly assigned (1:1) to inreach with an electronic health record reminder to providers (n = 6,195) or inreach plus mailed HCV screening outreach (n = 6,191) to complete HCV antibody screening. Outreach also included processes to promote HCV RNA testing among those with a positive HCV antibody and linkage to care among those with positive HCV RNA. The primary outcome was completion of HCV antibody testing within 3 months of randomization (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03706742). RESULTS: We included 12,386 eligible patients (median age 60 years; 46.5% Hispanic, 33.0% Black, and 16.0% White). In intent-to-treat analyses, HCV screening completion was significantly higher among inreach-plus-outreach patients than inreach-alone patients at 3 months (14.6% vs 7.4%, P < 0.001) and 6 months (17.4% vs 9.8%, P < 0.001) after randomization. Among those who completed HCV screening within 6 months, a higher proportion of inreach-plus-outreach patients with positive antibody results completed RNA testing within 3 months than inreach-alone patients (81.1% vs 57.1%, respectively, P = 0.02); however, linkage to care within 3 months of HCV infection confirmation did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (48.1% vs 75.0%, respectively, P = 0.24). DISCUSSION: Among difficult-to-reach patients, a combination of inreach and mailed outreach significantly increased HCV screening compared with inreach alone. However, HCV screening completion in both arms remained low, highlighting a need for more intensive interventions.


Subject(s)
Health Promotion/methods , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Mass Screening , Postal Service , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Early Diagnosis , Female , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged
14.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 498-510, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301092

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, only monoclonal antibodies have been shown to be effective for outpatients with COVID-19. Interferon lambda-1 is a type III interferon involved in innate antiviral responses with activity against respiratory pathogens. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of peginterferon lambda in the treatment of outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, outpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned to a single subcutaneous injection of peginterferon lambda 180 µg or placebo within 7 days of symptom onset or first positive swab if asymptomatic. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation list created with a randomisation schedule in blocks of four. At the time of administration, study nurses received a sealed opaque envelope with the treatment allocation number. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA on day 7 after the injection, analysed by a χ2 test following an intention-to-treat principle. Prespecified analysis of the primary endpoint, adjusted for baseline viral load, using bivariate logistic regression was done. The trial is now complete. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354259. FINDINGS: Between May 18, and Sept 4, 2020, we recruited 30 patients per group. The decline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA was greater in those treated with peginterferon lambda than placebo from day 3 onwards, with a difference of 2·42 log copies per mL at day 7 (p=0·0041). By day 7, 24 (80%) participants in the peginterferon lambda group had an undetectable viral load, compared with 19 (63%) in the placebo group (p=0·15). After controlling for baseline viral load, patients in the peginterferon lambda group were more likely to have undetectable virus by day 7 than were those in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 4·12 [95% CI 1·15-16·73; p=0·029). Of those with baseline viral load above 106 copies per mL, 15 (79%) of 19 patients in the peginterferon lambda group had undetectable virus on day 7, compared with six (38%) of 16 in the placebo group (OR 6·25 [95% CI 1·49-31·06]; p=0·012). Peginterferon lambda was well tolerated, and adverse events were similar between groups with mild and transient aminotransferase, concentration increases more frequently observed in the peginterferon lambda group. Two individuals met the threshold of grade 3 increase, one in each group, and no other grade 3 or 4 laboratory adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Peginterferon lambda accelerated viral decline in outpatients with COVID-19, increasing the proportion of patients with viral clearance by day 7, particularly in those with high baseline viral load. Peginterferon lambda has potential to prevent clinical deterioration and shorten duration of viral shedding. FUNDING: The Toronto COVID-19 Action Initiative, University of Toronto, and the Ontario First COVID-19 Rapid Research Fund, Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/methods , COVID-19 , Interleukins , Polyethylene Glycols , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load/drug effects , Virus Shedding/drug effects , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/immunology , Double-Blind Method , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Interleukins/administration & dosage , Interleukins/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Polyethylene Glycols/administration & dosage , Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
15.
Enferm Clin (Engl Ed) ; 31: S107-S111, 2021 Feb.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065072

ABSTRACT

Objective: To make a synthesis of the available scientific evidence in the emotional management of the declared health crisis in the face of coronavirus. Methods: A bibliographic search was made, without date limit, in Medline, CINAHL®, PsycINFO®, Scopus and Web of Science™ databases using the following keywords "emotional management", "health crisis" and "health crisis response". Initially, 73 studies were identified and, after selecting them according to eligibility criteria, 10 were included. Results: The main recommendations based on the available evidence indicate emotional management measures such as offering support groups to professionals, ensuring their social non-discrimination, strengthening their confidence and control capacity through training actions, as well as reinforcing the recognition of nurses by the community. Discussion and conclusions: The accumulated evidence comes from experience with previous outbreaks of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. Stress was the most studied aspect, concerning issues such as social stigma, professionalism, intention to care, burnout, ethical conflicts, anxiety, depression or guilt. The emotional management of health crises in the face of the coronavirus requires an individual, collective, social and institutional strategy to reinforce security on all fronts and reduce fear through effective control measures using sufficient and adequate material and human resources.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Occupational Diseases/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Anxiety/prevention & control , Anxiety/psychology , Burnout, Professional/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Depression/prevention & control , Depression/psychology , Ethics, Professional , Guilt , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/psychology , Social Stigma
16.
Am Heart J ; 235: 54-64, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1051398

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The MITIGATE study aims to evaluate the real-world clinical effectiveness of pre-treatment with icosapent ethyl (IPE), compared with usual care, on laboratory-confirmed viral upper respiratory infection (URI)-related morbidity and mortality in adults with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). BACKGROUND: IPE is a highly purified and stable omega-3 fatty acid prescription medication that is approved for cardiovascular risk reduction in high-risk adults on statin therapy with elevated triglycerides. Preclinical data and clinical observations suggest that IPE may have pleiotropic effects including antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties that may prevent or reduce the downstream sequelae and cardiopulmonary consequences of viral URIs. METHODS: MITIGATE is a virtual, electronic health record-based, open-label, randomized, pragmatic clinical trial enrolling ∼16,500 participants within Kaiser Permanente Northern California - a fully integrated and learning health care delivery system with 21 hospitals and >255 ambulatory clinics serving ∼4.5 million members. Adults ≥50 years with established ASCVD and no prior history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will be prospectively identified and pre-randomized in a 1:10 allocation ratio (∼ 1,500 IPE: ∼15,000 usual care) stratified by age and previous respiratory health status to the intervention (IPE 2 grams by mouth twice daily with meals) vs the control group (usual care) for a minimum follow-up duration of 6 months. The co-primary endpoints are moderate-to-severe laboratory-confirmed viral URI and worst clinical status due to a viral URI at any point in time. CONCLUSION: The MITIGATE study will inform clinical practice by providing evidence on the real-world clinical effectiveness of pretreatment with IPE to prevent and/or reduce the sequelae of laboratory-confirmed viral URIs in a high-risk cohort of patients with established ASCVD.


Subject(s)
Atherosclerosis/complications , COVID-19/complications , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Eicosapentaenoic Acid/analogs & derivatives , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Eicosapentaenoic Acid/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Tract Infections/complications , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology
17.
N Engl J Med ; 384(7): 610-618, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1012716

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Therapies to interrupt the progression of early coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) remain elusive. Among them, convalescent plasma administered to hospitalized patients has been unsuccessful, perhaps because antibodies should be administered earlier in the course of illness. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of convalescent plasma with high IgG titers against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in older adult patients within 72 hours after the onset of mild Covid-19 symptoms. The primary end point was severe respiratory disease, defined as a respiratory rate of 30 breaths per minute or more, an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while the patient was breathing ambient air, or both. The trial was stopped early at 76% of its projected sample size because cases of Covid-19 in the trial region decreased considerably and steady enrollment of trial patients became virtually impossible. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat population, severe respiratory disease developed in 13 of 80 patients (16%) who received convalescent plasma and 25 of 80 patients (31%) who received placebo (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.94; P = 0.03), with a relative risk reduction of 48%. A modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded 6 patients who had a primary end-point event before infusion of convalescent plasma or placebo showed a larger effect size (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.81). No solicited adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund; Dirección de Sangre y Medicina Transfusional del Ministerio de Salud number, PAEPCC19, Plataforma de Registro Informatizado de Investigaciones en Salud number, 1421, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04479163.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Respiratory Insufficiency/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Component Transfusion , COVID-19/complications , Disease Progression , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Intention to Treat Analysis , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Severity of Illness Index
18.
N Engl J Med ; 384(10): 905-914, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998037

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Failure
19.
N Engl J Med ; 384(1): 20-30, 2021 01 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-983928

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia is often associated with hyperinflammation. Despite the disproportionate incidence of Covid-19 among underserved and racial and ethnic minority populations, the safety and efficacy of the anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab in patients from these populations who are hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia who were not receiving mechanical ventilation to receive standard care plus one or two doses of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo. Site selection was focused on the inclusion of sites enrolling high-risk and minority populations. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. RESULTS: A total of 389 patients underwent randomization, and the modified intention-to-treat population included 249 patients in the tocilizumab group and 128 patients in the placebo group; 56.0% were Hispanic or Latino, 14.9% were Black, 12.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 12.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 3.7% were of other or unknown race or ethnic group. The cumulative percentage of patients who had received mechanical ventilation or who had died by day 28 was 12.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5 to 16.9) in the tocilizumab group and 19.3% (95% CI, 13.3 to 27.4) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for mechanical ventilation or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.97; P = 0.04 by the log-rank test). Clinical failure as assessed in a time-to-event analysis favored tocilizumab over placebo (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.93). Death from any cause by day 28 occurred in 10.4% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 8.6% of those in the placebo group (weighted difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.2 to 7.8). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 38 of 250 patients (15.2%) in the tocilizumab group and 25 of 127 patients (19.7%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia who were not receiving mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab reduced the likelihood of progression to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death, but it did not improve survival. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by Genentech; EMPACTA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04372186.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/mortality , Disease Progression , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Survival Rate
20.
N Engl J Med ; 384(6): 497-511, 2021 02 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-953632

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Treatment Failure
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...