Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 96
Filter
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e23441, 2021 02 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 522-532, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. METHODS: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. FINDINGS: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference -1·7 [-9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [-6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI -7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , International Cooperation , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
3.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(5): 276-292, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531931

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Tract Infections/diet therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Vitamin D/administration & dosage , Dietary Supplements , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
4.
Mini Rev Med Chem ; 21(17): 2530-2543, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504184

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus strain and the causative agent of COVID-19 was emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 [1]. This pandemic situation and magnitude of suffering have led to global effort to find out effective measures for discovery of new specific drugs and vaccines to combat this deadly disease. In addition to many initiatives to develop vaccines for protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2, some of which are at various stages of clinical trials, researchers worldwide are currently using available conventional therapeutic drugs with the potential to combat the disease effectively in other viral infections and it is believed that these antiviral drugs could act as a promising immediate alternative. Remdesivir (RDV), a broad-spectrum anti-viral agent, initially developed for the treatment of Ebola virus (EBOV) and known to showed promising efficiency in in vitro and in vivo studies against SARS and MERS coronaviruses, is now being investigated against SARS-CoV-2. On May 1, 2020, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for RDV to treat COVID- 19 patients [2]. A number of multicentre clinical trials are on-going to check the safety and efficacy of RDV for the treatment of COVID-19. Results of published double blind, and placebo-controlled trial on RDV against SARS-CoV-2, showed that RDV administration led to faster clinical improvement in severe COVID-19 patients compared to placebo. This review highlights the available knowledge about RDV as a therapeutic drug for coronaviruses and its preclinical and clinical trials against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/pharmacology , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/pharmacology , Alanine/therapeutic use , Animals , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
5.
J Am Soc Nephrol ; 32(3): 708-722, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496675

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Late antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is a leading cause of transplant failure. Blocking IL-6 has been proposed as a promising therapeutic strategy. METHODS: We performed a phase 2 randomized pilot trial to evaluate the safety (primary endpoint) and efficacy (secondary endpoint analysis) of the anti-IL-6 antibody clazakizumab in late ABMR. The trial included 20 kidney transplant recipients with donor-specific, antibody-positive ABMR ≥365 days post-transplantation. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 25 mg clazakizumab or placebo (4-weekly subcutaneous injections) for 12 weeks (part A), followed by a 40-week open-label extension (part B), during which time all participants received clazakizumab. RESULTS: Five (25%) patients under active treatment developed serious infectious events, and two (10%) developed diverticular disease complications, leading to trial withdrawal. Those receiving clazakizumab displayed significantly decreased donor-specific antibodies and, on prolonged treatment, modulated rejection-related gene-expression patterns. In 18 patients, allograft biopsies after 51 weeks revealed a negative molecular ABMR score in seven (38.9%), disappearance of capillary C4d deposits in five (27.8%), and resolution of morphologic ABMR activity in four (22.2%). Although proteinuria remained stable, the mean eGFR decline during part A was slower with clazakizumab compared with placebo (-0.96; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -1.96 to 0.03 versus -2.43; 95% CI, -3.40 to -1.46 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per month, respectively, P=0.04). During part B, the slope of eGFR decline for patients who were switched from placebo to clazakizumab improved and no longer differed significantly from patients initially allocated to clazakizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Although safety data indicate the need for careful patient selection and monitoring, our preliminary efficacy results suggest a potentially beneficial effect of clazakizumab on ABMR activity and progression.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Graft Rejection/therapy , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Adult , Allografts , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Female , Glomerular Filtration Rate , Graft Rejection/immunology , Graft Rejection/physiopathology , Humans , Infections/etiology , Interleukin-6/immunology , Isoantibodies/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Tissue Donors , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
6.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0247782, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456064

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of aspirin dose on the incidence of all gestational age preeclampsia and preterm preeclampsia. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Web of Science) were searched for articles published between January 1985 and March 2019 with no language restrictions. METHODS: We followed the PRIMSA guidelines and utilized Covidence software. Articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers, with discrepancies settled by an independent 3rd party. Study selection criteria were randomized trials comparing aspirin for prevention of all gestational age and preterm preeclampsia to placebo or no antiplatelet treatment in women aged 15-55 years with moderate or high-risk factors according to the list of risk factors from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis comparing aspirin at doses of <81, 81, 100, and 150 mg. Pre-specified outcomes were all gestational age and preterm preeclampsia. RESULTS: Of 1,609 articles screened, 23 randomized trials, which included 32,370 women, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In preterm preeclampsia, women assigned at random to 150 mg experienced a significant 62% reduction in risk of preterm preeclampsia (RR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.20-0.72; P = 0.011). Aspirin doses <150 mg produced no significant reductions. The number needed to treat with 150 mg of aspirin was 39 (95% CI: 23-100). There was a maximum 30% reduction in risk of all gestational age preeclampsia at all aspirin doses. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, based on indirect comparisons, aspirin at a dose greater than the current, recommended 81 mg was associated with the highest reduction in preterm preeclampsia. Our meta-analysis is limited due to the deficiency of homogeneous high evidence data available in the literature to date; however, it may be prudent for clinicians to consider that the optimal aspirin dose may be higher than the current guidelines advise. Future research to compare the efficacy aspirin doses greater than 81 mg is recommended. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019127951 (University of York, UK; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/administration & dosage , Aspirin/administration & dosage , Pre-Eclampsia/epidemiology , Pre-Eclampsia/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Humans , Incidence , Middle Aged , Pregnancy , Risk Factors , Young Adult
7.
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM ; 3(3): 100312, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453982

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone vs betamethasone for preterm birth. DATA SOURCES: The sources searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform without language restrictions until October 2019 in addition to the reference lists of included studies. Field experts were also contacted. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing any corticosteroids against each other or against placebo at any dose for preterm birth were included in the study. METHODS: Three researchers independently selected and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies by using Early Review Organizing Software and Covidence software. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed. The primary outcomes were chorioamnionitis, endometritis or puerperal sepsis, neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, and neurodevelopmental disability. RESULTS: A total of 45 trials (11,227 women and 11,878 infants) were included in the study. No clinical or statistical difference was found between dexamethasone and betamethasone in neonatal death (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.84; moderate-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence), intraventricular hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.78); low-certainty evidence), or birthweight (+5.29 g; 95% confidence interval, -49.79 to 58.97; high-certainty evidence). There was no statistically significant difference, but a potentially clinically important effect was found between dexamethasone and betamethasone in chorioamnionitis (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.06; moderate-certainty evidence), fetal death (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-2.41; low-certainty evidence), puerperal sepsis (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-6.06; low-certainty evidence), and respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses did not reveal important changes regarding the main analysis. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids have proven effective for most neonatal and child-relevant outcomes compared with placebo or no treatment for women at risk of preterm birth. No important difference was found on neonatal death, neurodevelopmental disability, intraventricular hemorrhage, and birthweight between corticosteroids, and there was no statistically significant difference, but a potentially important difference was found in chorioamnionitis, fetal death, endometritis or puerperal sepsis, and respiratory distress syndrome. Further research is warranted to improve the certainty of evidence and inform health policies.


Subject(s)
Premature Birth , Bayes Theorem , Betamethasone , Child , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Network Meta-Analysis , Pregnancy , Premature Birth/epidemiology
8.
World J Psychiatry ; 10(7): 162-174, 2020 Jul 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456458

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is among the most prevalent forms of dementia in the world and neuropathological studies suggest similar high prevalence of mixed (AD + vascular) dementias. Approximately 25%-50% of individuals with AD develop psychosis sometime during their illness. The presence of psychosis in AD worsens outcomes. Currently there are no United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved medications for the treatment of psychosis in AD. Pimavanserin, a novel atypical antipsychotic medication, was approved by the FDA for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson disease psychosis and is currently in clinical trials for the treatment of psychosis in AD. AIM: To evaluate the existing literature regarding the use of pimavanserin for treating psychosis among individuals with AD. METHODS: A literature review of clinical studies of pimavanserin treatment for psychosis in individuals with AD was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Trials were identified by systematically searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus through October 2019. The 5-point Jadad scoring system was used to assess the methodologic quality of the randomized placebo-controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 499 citations were retrieved and pooled in EndNote and de-duplicated to 258 citations. This set was uploaded to Covidence for screening. Two separate screeners (Srinivasan S and Tampi RR) evaluated the titles, abstracts, and full text of eligible articles. Of the identified 258 abstracts, 98 articles underwent full text review and 2 publications from 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included in the final analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed to be of good methodologic quality, scoring 4 out of 5 using the 5-point Jadad questionnaire with the Jadad Scoring calculation. This systematic review found only one RCT that evaluated the use of pimavanserin for the treatment of psychosis among individuals with AD. This phase 2 trial resulted in two publications, the second of which was a subgroup analysis from the original study. The evidence from these two publications showed that pimavanserin improves psychotic symptoms among individuals with AD when compared to placebo at week 6. CONCLUSION: Pimavanserin may be a pharmacologic consideration for the treatment for psychosis in AD. Additional RCTs are needed to assess the evidence of effectiveness before pimavanserin is considered a standard treatment.

9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013101, 2020 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453526

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are routinely given to children undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in an attempt to ameliorate the inflammatory response. Their use is still controversial and the decision to administer the intervention can vary by centre and/or by individual doctors within that centre. OBJECTIVES: This review is designed to assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic corticosteroids in children between birth and 18 years of age undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science in June 2020. We also searched four clinical trials registers and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of prophylactic administration of corticosteroids, including single and multiple doses, and all types of corticosteroids administered via any route and at any time-point in the perioperative period. We excluded studies if steroids were administered therapeutically. We included individually randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with two or more groups (e.g. multi-drug or dose comparisons with a control group) but not 'head-to-head' trials without a placebo or a group that did not receive corticosteroids. We included studies in children, from birth up to 18 years of age, including preterm infants, undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of CPB. We also excluded studies in patients undergoing heart or lung transplantation, or both; studies in patients already receiving corticosteroids; in patients with abnormalities of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; and in patients given steroids at the time of cardiac surgery for indications other than cardiac surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the Covidence systematic review manager to extract and manage data for the review. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consultation with a third review author. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We found 3748 studies, of which 888 were duplicate records. Two studies had the same clinical trial registration number, but reported different populations and interventions. We therefore included them as separate studies. We screened titles and abstracts of 2868 records and reviewed full text reports for 84 studies to determine eligibility. We extracted data for 13 studies. Pooled analyses are based on eight studies. We reported the remaining five studies narratively due to zero events for both intervention and placebo in the outcomes of interest. Therefore, the final meta-analysis included eight studies with a combined population of 478 participants. There was a low or unclear risk of bias across the domains. There was moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids do not change the risk of in-hospital mortality (five RCTs; 313 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 2.07) for children undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. There was high certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation (six RCTs; 421 participants; mean difference (MD) 11.37 hours lower, 95% CI -20.29 to -2.45) after the surgery. There was high-certainty evidence that the intervention probably made little to no difference to the length of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay (six RCTs; 421 participants; MD 0.28 days lower, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.24) and moderate-certainty evidence that the intervention probably made little to no difference to the length of the postoperative hospital stay (one RCT; 176 participants; mean length of stay 22 days; MD -0.70 days, 95% CI -2.62 to 1.22). There was moderate certainty of evidence for no effect of the intervention on all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up (five RCTs; 313 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.07) or cardiovascular mortality at the longest follow-up (three RCTs; 109 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.46). There was low certainty of evidence that corticosteroids probably make little to no difference to children separating from CPB (one RCT; 40 participants; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.92). We were unable to report information regarding adverse events of the intervention due to the heterogeneity of reporting of outcomes. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for several reasons, including imprecision due to small sample sizes, a single study providing data for an individual outcome, the inclusion of both appreciable benefit and harm in the confidence interval, and publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids  probably do not change the risk of mortality for children having heart surgery using CPB at any time point. They probably reduce the duration of postoperative ventilation in this context, but have little or no effect on the total length of postoperative ICU stay or total postoperative hospital stay. There was inconsistency in the adverse event outcomes reported which, consequently, could not be pooled. It is therefore impossible to provide any implications and policy-makers will be unable to make any recommendations for practice without evidence about adverse effects. The review highlighted the need for well-conducted RCTs powered for clinical outcomes to confirm or refute the effect of corticosteroids versus placebo in children having cardiac surgery with CPB. A core outcome set for adverse event reporting in the paediatric major surgery and intensive care setting is required.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/methods , Cardiopulmonary Bypass/adverse effects , Inflammation/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/adverse effects , Bias , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/mortality , Cardiopulmonary Bypass/mortality , Cause of Death , Child , Child, Preschool , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Heart-Lung Machine/adverse effects , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Inflammation/etiology , Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD012559, 2020 Jan 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453525

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Women who have undergone surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) may develop menopausal symptoms due to immediate loss of ovarian function following surgery and chemotherapy. Women may experience vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance, difficulty concentrating, sexual dysfunction, vaginal symptoms and accelerated osteoporosis. Although hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective treatment to relieve these symptoms, its safety has been questioned for women with EOC. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of HRT for menopausal symptoms in women surgically treated for EOC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2019) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2019, week 23). We also handsearched conference reports and trial registries. There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants of any age and menopausal status who had undergone surgery for EOC and, after diagnosis and treatment, used any regimen and duration of HRT compared with placebo or no hormone therapy. We also included trials comparing different regimens or duration of administration of HRT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified studies that met the inclusion criteria. They used Covidence to extract study characteristics, outcome data and to assess methodological quality of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 2617 titles, of which 2614 titles were excluded. Three studies, involving 350 women, met our inclusion criteria. Two of the studies included pre and postmenopausal women, and the third only included premenopausal women. The overall age range of those women included in the studies was 20 to 89.6 years old, with a median follow-up ranging from 31.4 months to 19.1 years. The geographical distribution of participants included Europe, South Africa and China. All stages and histological subtypes were included in two of the studies, but stage IV disease had been excluded in the third. The three included studies used a variety of HRT regimens (conjugated oestrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone and with or without nylestriol) and HRT administrations (oral, patch and implant), In all studies, the comparisons were made versus women who had not received HRT. The studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and reporting bias, and at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The certainty of the evidence was low for overall survival and progression-free survival, and very low for quality-of-life assessment, incidence of breast cancer, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Meta-analysis of these studies showed that HRT may improve overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.93; 350 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life assessment by use of the EORTC-C30 questionnaire was performed only in one study. We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces quality of life as the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low (mean difference (MD) 13.67 points higher, 95% CI 9.26 higher to 18.08 higher; 1 study; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Likewise, HRT may make little or no difference to progression-free survival (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.01; 275 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces the incidence of breast cancer (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 225 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); TIA (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.42; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); CVA (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and MI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gallstones was not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hormone replacement therapy may slightly improve overall survival in women who have undergone surgical treatment for EOC, but the certainty of the evidence is low. HRT may make little or no difference to quality of life, incidence of breast cancer, TIA, CVA and MI as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. There may be little or no effect of HRT use on progression-free survival. The evidence in this review is limited by imprecision and incompleteness of reported relevant outcomes and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. Future well-designed RCTs are required as this is an important area to women experiencing menopausal symptoms following surgical treatment for ovarian cancer, especially as doctors are often reluctant to prescribe HRT in this scenario. The evidence in this review is too limited to support or refute that HRT is very harmful in this population.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/drug therapy , Hormone Replacement Therapy , Ovarian Neoplasms/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/surgery , Female , Humans , Menopause, Premature/drug effects , Ovarian Neoplasms/surgery , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
11.
Hepatology ; 74(2): 1049-1064, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1372725

ABSTRACT

The aim of this document is to provide a concise scientific review of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines and those in development, including mRNA, adenoviral vectors, and recombinant protein approaches. The anticipated use of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and liver transplant (LT) recipients is reviewed and practical guidance is provided for health care providers involved in the care of patients with liver disease and LT about vaccine prioritization and administration. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a 94%-95% vaccine efficacy compared to placebo against COVID-19. Local site reactions of pain and tenderness were reported in 70%-90% of clinical trial participants, and systemic reactions of fever and fatigue were reported in 40%-70% of participants, but these reactions were generally mild and self-limited and occurred more frequently in younger persons. Severe hypersensitivity reactions related to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are rare and more commonly observed in women and persons with a history of previous drug reactions for unclear reasons. Because patients with advanced liver disease and immunosuppressed patients were excluded from the vaccine licensing trials, additional data regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are eagerly awaited in these and other subgroups. Remarkably safe and highly effective mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are now available for widespread use and should be given to all adult patients with CLD and LT recipients. The online companion document located at https://www.aasld.org/about-aasld/covid-19-resources will be updated as additional data become available regarding the safety and efficacy of other COVID-19 vaccines in development.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/standards , COVID-19/prevention & control , Liver Diseases , Liver Transplantation , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Consensus , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , United States
12.
Hepatology ; 73(5): 1688-1700, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1332969

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is associated with microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) could be a promising approach. APPROACH AND RESULTS: In this phase 1, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients with AUD-related cirrhosis with problem drinking (AUDIT-10 > 8) were randomized 1:1 into receiving one placebo or FMT enema from a donor enriched in Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae. Six-month safety was the primary outcome. Alcohol craving questionnaire, alcohol consumption (urinary ethylglucuronide/creatinine), quality of life, cognition, serum IL-6 and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, plasma/stool short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), and stool microbiota were tested at baseline and day 15. A 6-month follow-up with serious adverse event (SAE) analysis was performed. Twenty patients with AUD-related cirrhosis (65 ± 6.4 years, all men, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 8.9 ± 2.7) with similar demographics, cirrhosis, and AUD severity were included. Craving reduced significantly in 90% of FMT versus 30% in placebo at day 15 (P = 0.02) with lower urinary ethylglucuronide/creatinine (P = 0.03) and improved cognition and psychosocial quality of life. There was reduction in serum IL-6 and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and increased butyrate/isobutyrate compared with baseline in FMT but not placebo. Microbial diversity increased with higher Ruminococcaceae and other SCFAs, producing taxa following FMT but not placebo, which were linked with SCFA levels. At 6 months, patients with any SAEs (8 vs. 2, P = 0.02), AUD-related SAEs (7 vs. 1, P = 0.02), and SAEs/patient (median [interquartile range], 1.5 [1.25] vs. 0 [0.25] in FMT, P = 0.02) were higher in placebo versus FMT. CONCLUSIONS: This phase 1 trial shows that FMT is safe and associated with short-term reduction in alcohol craving and consumption with favorable microbial changes versus placebo in patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis with alcohol misuse. There was also a reduction in AUD-related events over 6 months in patients assigned to FMT.


Subject(s)
Alcoholism/therapy , Fecal Microbiota Transplantation , Aged , Alcohol Drinking/epidemiology , Craving , Double-Blind Method , Fecal Microbiota Transplantation/methods , Gastrointestinal Microbiome , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome
13.
Cancer Sci ; 112(7): 2915-2920, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1294969

ABSTRACT

Adjuvant chemotherapy has reduced the risk of tumor recurrence and improved survival in patients with resected colorectal cancer. Potential utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) prior to and post surgery has been reported across various solid tumors. We initiated a new type of adaptive platform trials to evaluate the clinical benefits of ctDNA analysis and refine precision adjuvant therapy for resectable colorectal cancer, named CIRCULATE-Japan including three clinical trials. The GALAXY study is a prospectively conducted large-scale registry designed to monitor ctDNA for patients with clinical stage II to IV or recurrent colorectal cancer who can undergo complete surgical resection. The VEGA trial is a randomized phase III study designed to test whether postoperative surgery alone is noninferior to the standard therapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for 3 months in patients with high-risk stage II or low-risk stage III colon cancer if ctDNA status is negative at week 4 after curative surgery in the GALAXY study. The ALTAIR trial is a double-blind, phase III study designed to establish the superiority of trifluridine/tipiracil as compared with placebo in patients with resected colorectal cancer who show circulating tumor-positive status in the GALAXY study. Therefore, CIRCULATE-Japan encompasses both "de-escalation" and "escalation" trials for ctDNA-negative and -positive patients, respectively, and helps to answer whether measuring ctDNA postoperatively has prognostic and/or predictive value. Our ctDNA-guided adaptive platform trials will accelerate clinical development toward further precision oncology in the field of adjuvant therapy. Analysis of ctDNA status could be utilized as a predictor of risk stratification for recurrence and to monitor the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy. ctDNA is a promising, noninvasive tumor biomarker that can aid in tumor monitoring throughout disease management.


Subject(s)
Circulating Tumor DNA/blood , Colorectal Neoplasms/blood , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/blood , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Capecitabine/administration & dosage , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Colonic Neoplasms/blood , Colonic Neoplasms/genetics , Colonic Neoplasms/pathology , Colonic Neoplasms/therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/therapy , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Japan , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/genetics , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/therapy , Oxaliplatin/administration & dosage , Prospective Studies , Pyrrolidines/administration & dosage , Thymine/administration & dosage , Trifluridine/administration & dosage
14.
Parasit Vectors ; 14(1): 304, 2021 Jun 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257961

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin is widely used in human and animal medicine to treat and prevent parasite nematode infections. It has been suggested that its mode of action requires the host immune system, as it is difficult to reproduce its clinical efficacy in vitro. We therefore studied the effects of a single dose of ivermectin (Stromectol®-0.15 mg/kg) on cytokine levels and immune cell gene expression in human volunteers. This dose reduces bloodstream microfilariae rapidly and for several months when given in mass drug administration programmes. METHODS: Healthy volunteers with no travel history to endemic regions were given 3-4 tablets, depending on their weight, of either ivermectin or a placebo. Blood samples were drawn immediately prior to administration, 4 h and 24 h afterwards, and complete blood counts performed. Serum levels of 41 cytokines and chemokines were measured using Luminex® and expression levels of 770 myeloid-cell-related genes determined using the NanoString nCounter®. Cytokine levels at 4 h and 24 h post-treatment were compared to the levels pre-treatment using simple t tests to determine if any individual results required further investigation, taking p = < 0.05 as the level of significance. NanoString data were analysed on the proprietary software, nSolver™. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in complete blood counts or cytokine levels at either time point between people given ivermectin versus placebo. Only three genes showed a significant change in expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells 4 h after ivermectin was given; there were no significant changes 24 h after drug administration or in polymorphonuclear cells at either time point. Leukocytes isolated from those participants given ivermectin showed no difference in their ability to kill Brugia malayi microfilariae in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our data do not support a direct effect of ivermectin, when given at the dose used in current filarial elimination programmes, on the human immune system. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03459794 Registered 9th March 2018, Retrospectively registered https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03459794?term=NCT03459794&draw=2&rank=1 .


Subject(s)
Antiparasitic Agents/administration & dosage , Antiparasitic Agents/immunology , Cytokines/blood , Immunity, Innate/drug effects , Ivermectin/administration & dosage , Ivermectin/immunology , Leukocytes, Mononuclear/drug effects , Neutrophils/drug effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Animals , Brugia malayi/drug effects , Cytokines/immunology , Gene Expression/drug effects , Human Experimentation , Humans , Leukocytes, Mononuclear/immunology , Leukocytes, Mononuclear/parasitology , Middle Aged , Neutrophils/immunology , Neutrophils/parasitology , Young Adult
15.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 65(10): 1421-1430, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1273068

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydrocortisone , Adult , Humans , Hypoxia , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
16.
N Engl J Med ; 385(5): 406-415, 2021 07 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270703

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients who are hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, hospitalized adults with Covid-19 pneumonia to receive either tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg or placebo twice daily for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the occurrence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 as assessed with the use of an eight-level ordinal scale (with scores ranging from 1 to 8 and higher scores indicating a worse condition). All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients underwent randomization at 15 sites in Brazil. Overall, 89.3% of the patients received glucocorticoids during hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 was 18.1% in the tofacitinib group and 29.0% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.97; P = 0.04). Death from any cause through day 28 occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the tofacitinib group and in 5.5% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.63). The proportional odds of having a worse score on the eight-level ordinal scale with tofacitinib, as compared with placebo, was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27 to 1.06) at day 28. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 patients (14.1%) in the tofacitinib group and in 17 (12.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia, tofacitinib led to a lower risk of death or respiratory failure through day 28 than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; STOP-COVID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04469114.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Janus Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Piperidines/therapeutic use , Pyrimidines/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Brazil , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Janus Kinase 3/antagonists & inhibitors , Janus Kinase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Piperidines/adverse effects , Pyrimidines/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology
17.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e835-e843, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Health Personnel , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
18.
J Clin Pharmacol ; 61(11): 1406-1414, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241509

ABSTRACT

Glucocorticoids are frequently prescribed in inflammatory diseases and have recently experienced a boom in the treatment of COVID-19. Small studies have shown an effect of glucocorticoids on inflammatory marker levels, but definitive proof is lacking. We investigated the influence of prednisone on inflammatory biomarkers in a previous multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that compared a 7-day treatment course of 50-mg prednisone to placebo in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. We compared levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), leukocyte and neutrophil count between patients with and without glucocorticoid treatment at baseline and on days 3, 5, and 7 and at discharge by Wilcoxon tests and analysis of variance. A total of 356 patient data sets in the prednisone group and 355 in the placebo group were available for analysis. Compared to placebo, use of prednisone was associated with reductions in levels of CRP on days 3, 5, and 7 (mean difference of 46%, P < .001 for each time point). For PCT, no such difference was observed. Leukocyte and neutrophil count were higher in the prednisone group at all time points (mean difference of 27% for leukocytes and 33% for neutrophils, P <.001 for all time points). We conclude that after administration of glucocorticoids in community-acquired pneumonia, patients had lower CRP levels and increased leukocyte and neutrophil count as compared to the placebo group. PCT levels were not different between treatment groups. PCT levels thus may more appropriately mirror the resolution of infection compared to more traditional inflammatory markers.


Subject(s)
C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19 , Community-Acquired Infections , Leukocyte Count/methods , Pneumonia , Prednisone/administration & dosage , Procalcitonin/blood , Aged, 80 and over , Analysis of Variance , Biomarkers, Pharmacological/blood , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Community-Acquired Infections/epidemiology , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Humans , Male , Pneumonia/blood , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Pneumonia/epidemiology , Pneumonia/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Statistics, Nonparametric
19.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(2)2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242237

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We investigated whether Mycobacterium w (Mw), an immunomodulator, would improve clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of hospitalised subjects with severe COVID-19 (pulmonary infiltrates and oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air) conducted at four tertiary care centres in India. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive either 0.3 mL·day-1 of Mw intradermally or a matching placebo for three consecutive days. The primary outcome of the study was the distribution of clinical status assessed on a seven-point ordinal scale ranging from discharged (category 1) to death (category 7) on study days 14, 21, and 28. The co-primary outcome was a change in SOFA (sequential organ failure assessment) score on days 7 and 14 compared to the baseline. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, time to clinical recovery, time to reverse transcription PCR negativity, adverse events, and others. RESULTS: We included 42 subjects (22 Mw, 20 placebo). On days 14 (OR 30.4 (95% CI 3.3-276.4)) and 21 (OR 14.9 (95% CI 1.8-128.4)), subjects in the Mw arm had a better clinical status distribution than placebo. There was no difference in the SOFA score change on days 7 and 14 between the two groups. We did not find any difference in the mortality, or other secondary outcomes. We observed no adverse events related to the use of Mw. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Mw results in better clinical status distribution on days 14 and 21 compared to placebo in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

20.
JAMA ; 325(16): 1620-1630, 2021 04 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1239957

ABSTRACT

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48]; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/complications , Enoxaparin/administration & dosage , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Drug Administration Schedule , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Iran , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/mortality , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology , Venous Thrombosis/mortality
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL