Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 34
Filter
1.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 511-521, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537197

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Global randomised controlled trials of the anti-IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have shown conflicting results but potential decreases in time to discharge and burden on intensive care. Tocilizumab reduced progression to mechanical ventilation and death in a trial population enriched for racial and ethnic minorities. We aimed to investigate whether tocilizumab treatment could prevent COVID-19 progression in the first multicentre randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab done entirely in a lower-middle-income country. METHODS: COVINTOC is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 12 public and private hospitals across India. Adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 (Indian Ministry of Health grading) confirmed by positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result were randomly assigned (1:1 block randomisation) to receive tocilizumab 6 mg/kg plus standard care (the tocilizumab group) or standard care alone (the standard care group). The primary endpoint was progression of COVID-19 (from moderate to severe or from severe to death) up to day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat population of all participants who had at least one post-baseline assessment for the primary endpoint. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is completed and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/05/025369). FINDINGS: 180 patients were recruited between May 30, 2020, and Aug 31, 2020, and randomly assigned to the tocilizumab group (n=90) or the standard care group (n=90). One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group inadvertently received tocilizumab at baseline and was included in the tocilizumab group for all analyses. One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group withdrew consent after the baseline visit and did not receive any study medication and was not included in the modified intention-to-treat population but was still included in safety analyses. 75 (82%) of 91 in the tocilizumab group and 68 (76%) of 89 in the standard care group completed 28 days of follow-up. Progression of COVID-19 up to day 14 occurred in eight (9%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 11 (13%) of 88 in the standard care group (difference -3·71 [95% CI -18·23 to 11·19]; p=0·42). 33 (36%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 22 (25%) of 89 patients in the standard care group had adverse events; 18 (20%) and 15 (17%) had serious adverse events. The most common adverse event was acute respiratory distress syndrome, reported in seven (8%) patients in each group. Grade 3 adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (6%) patients in the standard care group. There were no grade 4 adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in 18 (20%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 15 (17%) in the standard care group; 13 (14%) and 15 (17%) patients died during the study. INTERPRETATION: Routine use of tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 is not supported. However, post-hoc evidence from this study suggests tocilizumab might still be effective in patients with severe COVID-19 and so should be investigated further in future studies. FUNDING: Medanta Institute of Education and Research, Roche India, Cipla India, and Action COVID-19 India.


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 , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , India , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
2.
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
3.
J Mol Liq ; 333: 115934, 2021 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1386336

ABSTRACT

The binding and displacement interaction of colchicine and azithromycin to the model transport protein bovine serum albumin (BSA) was evaluated in this study. Azithromycin, a macrolide antibiotic, has antiviral properties and hence, has been used concomitantly with hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-2. Colchicine, a natural plant product is used to treat and prevent acute gout flares. Some macrolide antibiotics are reported to have fatal drug-drug interactions with colchicine. The displacement interaction between colchicine and azithromycin on binding to BSA was evaluated using spectroscopic techniques, molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation studies. The binding constant recorded for the binary system BSA-colchicine was 7.44 × 104 whereas, the binding constant for the ternary system BSA-colchicine in presence of azithromycin was 7.38 × 104 and were similar. Azithromycin didn't bind to BSA neither did it interfere in binding of colchicine. The results from molecular docking studies also led to a similar conclusion that azithromycin didn't interfere in the binding of colchicine to BSA. These findings are important since there is possibility of serious adverse event with co-administration of colchicine and azithromycin in patients with underlying gouty arthritis and these patients need to be continuously monitored for colchicine toxicity.

4.
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
5.
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
6.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(12): 1826-1837, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
7.
J Nucl Cardiol ; 28(5): 2167-2173, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1202853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As the coronavirus pandemic progresses, patients that have recovered from COVID-19-related hospitalization require resumption of care for other medical issues. Thus far, the literature has not detailed the experience of stress testing in this patient population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients that recovered from COVID-19-related hospitalizations and underwent SPECT MPI studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical Center. RESULTS: 15 patients (median age 60 years, 67% male) were identified with COVID-19-related hospitalization and then underwent SPECT MPI imaging after recovery. During COVID-19-related hospitalization (median length of stay 8 days), patients received various COVID-19 therapies; 3 required mechanical ventilation. Stress tests (4 Exercise, 11 Pharmacologic) were performed 65 days (interquartile range 31-94 days) after the diagnosis of COVID-19. None of the patients experienced serious adverse events during or after stress testing. One patient required regadenoson reversal using aminophylline due to chest pain. CONCLUSION: Over time, more patients that recover from COVID-19 infection will require MPI testing for myocardial ischemia evaluation. Our study provides some information regarding performing stress testing in patients who have recently recovered from COVID-19 infections requiring hospitalization. Further studies are recommended to establish formal protocols for testing in this cohort.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/physiopathology , Exercise Test , Myocardial Perfusion Imaging , Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors
8.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(2): 209-220, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1197659

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity. LIMITATIONS: Low-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Drug Administration Schedule , Humans , Length of Stay , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
9.
Lancet ; 397(10277): 881-891, 2021 03 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174543

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Schedule , Immunization, Secondary , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibody Formation , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Young Adult
10.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 85(1): 46-55, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1171221

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA)-based COVID-19 vaccines have been reported but are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the morphology and timing of cutaneous reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: A provider-facing registry-based study collected cases of cutaneous manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: From December 2020 to February 2021, we recorded 414 cutaneous reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%). Delayed large local reactions were most common, followed by local injection site reactions, urticarial eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. Forty-three percent of patients with first-dose reactions experienced second-dose recurrence. Additional less common reactions included pernio/chilblains, cosmetic filler reactions, zoster, herpes simplex flares, and pityriasis rosea-like reactions. LIMITATIONS: Registry analysis does not measure incidence. Morphologic misclassification is possible. CONCLUSIONS: We report a spectrum of cutaneous reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We observed some dermatologic reactions to Moderna and Pfizer vaccines that mimicked SARS-CoV-2 infection itself, such as pernio/chilblains. Most patients with first-dose reactions did not have a second-dose reaction and serious adverse events did not develop in any of the patients in the registry after the first or second dose. Our data support that cutaneous reactions to COVID-19 vaccination are generally minor and self-limited, and should not discourage vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Drug Eruptions/etiology , Adult , Drug Eruptions/epidemiology , Female , Global Health , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Registries
11.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(1): e2031266, 2021 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1130416

ABSTRACT

Importance: Trivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and trivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) are US-licensed for adults aged 65 years and older. Data are needed on the comparative safety, reactogenicity, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) effects of these vaccines. Objective: To compare safety, reactogenicity, and changes in HRQOL scores after aIIV3 vs HD-IIV3. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized blinded clinical trial was a multicenter US study conducted during the 2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019 influenza seasons. Among 778 community-dwelling adults aged at least 65 years and assessed for eligibility, 13 were ineligible and 8 withdrew before randomization. Statistical analysis was performed from August 2019 to August 2020. Interventions: Intramuscular administration of aIIV3 or HD-IIV3 after age-stratification (65-79 years; ≥80 years) and randomization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of participants with moderate-to-severe injection-site pain and 14 other solicited reactions during days 1 to 8, using a noninferiority test (5% noninferiority margin), and serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events of clinical interest (AECI), including new-onset immune-mediated conditions, during days 1 to 43. Changes in HRQOL scores before and after vaccination (days 1, 3) were also compared between study groups. Results: A total of 757 adults were randomized, 378 to receive aIIV3 and 379 to receive HD-IIV3. Of these participants, there were 420 women (55%) and 589 White individuals (78%) with a median (range) age of 72 (65-97) years. The proportion reporting moderate-to-severe injection-site pain, limiting or preventing activity, after aIIV3 (12 participants [3.2%]) (primary outcome) was noninferior compared with HD-IIV3 (22 participants [5.8%]) (difference -2.7%; 95% CI, -5.8 to 0.4). Ten reactions met noninferiority criteria for aIIV3; 4 (moderate-to-severe injection-site tenderness, arthralgia, fatigue, malaise) did not. It was inconclusive whether these 4 reactions occurred in higher proportions of participants after aIIV3. No participant sought medical care for a vaccine reaction. No AECI was observed. Nine participants had at least SAE after aIIV3 (2.4%; 95% CI,1.1% to 4.5%); 3 had at least 1 SAE after HD-IIV3 (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 2.2%). No SAE was associated with vaccination. Changes in prevaccination and postvaccination HRQOL scores were not clinically meaningful and not different between the groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Overall safety and HRQOL findings were similar after aIIV3 and HD-IIV3, and consistent with prelicensure data. From a safety standpoint, this study's results support using either vaccine to prevent influenza in older adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03183908.


Subject(s)
Adjuvants, Immunologic , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Quality of Life , Vaccines, Inactivated , Adjuvants, Immunologic/administration & dosage , Adjuvants, Immunologic/adverse effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Injections, Intramuscular , Male , Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Inactivated/adverse effects , Vaccines, Inactivated/immunology
12.
PLoS Med ; 18(3): e1003415, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1115283

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19-2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04375098.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Early Medical Intervention/methods , Time-to-Treatment , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , Chile , Disease Progression , Early Medical Intervention/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Time-to-Treatment/standards , Treatment Outcome
13.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(7): 827-838, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1103186

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) causes a respiratory disease with a case fatality rate of up to 35%. Given its potential to cause a public health emergency and the absence of efficacious drugs or vaccines, MERS is one of the WHO priority diseases warranting urgent research and development of countermeasures. We aimed to assess safety and tolerability of an anti-MERS-CoV modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA)-based vaccine candidate that expresses the MERS-CoV spike glycoprotein, MVA-MERS-S, in healthy adults. METHODS: This open-label, phase 1 trial was done at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Hamburg, Germany). Participants were healthy men and women aged 18-55 years with no clinically significant health problems as determined during medical history and physical examination, a body-mass index of 18·5-30·0 kg/m2 and weight of more than 50 kg at screening, and a negative pregnancy test for women. A key exclusion criterion was a previous MVA vaccination. For the prime immunisation, participants received doses of 1 × 107 plaque-forming unit (PFU; low-dose group) or 1 × 108 PFU (high-dose group) MVA-MERS-S intramuscularly. A second identical dose was administered intramuscularly as a booster immunisation 28 days after first injection. As a control group for immunogenicity analyses, blood samples were drawn at identical study timepoints from six healthy adults, who did not receive any injections. The primary objectives of the study were safety and tolerability of the two dosage levels and reactogenicity after administration. Immunogenicity was assessed as a secondary endpoint by ELISA and neutralisation tests. T-cell immunity was evaluated by interferon-γ-linked enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot assay. All participants who were vaccinated at least once were included in the safety analysis. Immunogenicity was analysed in the participants who completed 6 months of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03615911, and EudraCT, 2014-003195-23 FINDINGS: From Dec 17, 2017, to June 5, 2018, 26 participants (14 in the low-dose group and 12 in the high-dose group) were enrolled and received the first dose of the vaccine according to their group allocation. Of these, 23 participants (12 in the low-dose group and 11 in the high-dose group) received a second dose of MVA-MERS-S according to their group allocation after a 28-day interval and completed follow-up. Homologous prime-boost immunisation with MVA-MERS-S revealed a benign safety profile with only transient mild-to-moderate reactogenicity. Participants had no severe or serious adverse events. 67 vaccine-related adverse events were reported in ten (71%) of 14 participants in the low-dose group, and 111 were reported in ten (83%) of 12 participants in the high-dose group. Solicited local reactions were the most common adverse events: pain was observed in 17 (65%; seven in the low-dose group vs ten in the high-dose group) participants, swelling in ten (38%; two vs eight) participants, and induration in ten (38%; one vs nine) participants. Headaches (observed in seven participants in the low-dose group vs nine in the high-dose group) and fatigue or malaise (ten vs seven participants) were the most common solicited systemic adverse events. All adverse events resolved swiftly (within 1-3 days) and without sequelae. Following booster immunisation, nine (75%) of 12 participants in the low-dose group and 11 (100%) participants in the high-dose group showed seroconversion using a MERS-CoV S1 ELISA at any timepoint during the study. Binding antibody titres correlated with MERS-CoV-specific neutralising antibodies (Spearman's correlation r=0·86 [95% CI 0·6960-0·9427], p=0·0001). MERS-CoV spike-specific T-cell responses were detected in ten (83%) of 12 immunised participants in the low-dose group and ten (91%) of 11 immunised participants in the high-dose group. INTERPRETATION: Vaccination with MVA-MERS-S had a favourable safety profile without serious or severe adverse events. Homologous prime-boost immunisation induced humoral and cell-mediated responses against MERS-CoV. A dose-effect relationship was demonstrated for reactogenicity, but not for vaccine-induced immune responses. The data presented here support further clinical testing of MVA-MERS-S in larger cohorts to advance MERS vaccine development. FUNDING: German Center for Infection Research.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Vaccinia virus/genetics , Viral Vaccines/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Coronavirus Infections/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Genetic Vectors , Germany , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/immunology , Neutralization Tests , Vaccines, DNA , Young Adult
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013587, 2021 02 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1098870

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: 1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.


Subject(s)
Antimalarials/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Antimalarials/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bias , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , Cause of Death , Chloroquine/adverse effects , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prognosis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Standard of Care , Treatment Outcome
15.
J Immunother Cancer ; 9(2)2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1088281

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In ambulatory patients with cancer with asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the safety of targeted therapies (TTs), chemotherapy (CT) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy is still unknown. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From the start of the first epidemic wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Bergamo, Italy, we have prospectively screened all consecutive outpatients who presented for treatment to the Oncology Division of the Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo for SARS-CoV-2 antigen expression. We identified patients treated with ICIs and compared these to patients with the same cancer subtypes treated with TTs or CT. RESULTS: Between March 5 and May 18, 293 consecutive patients (49% melanoma, 34% non-small cell lung cancer, 9% renal cell carcinoma, 8% other) were included in this study: 159 (54%), 50 (17%) and 84 (29%) received ICIs, CT or TTs, respectively. Overall 89 patients (30.0%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Mortality of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was statistically significantly higher compared with SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (8/89 vs 3/204, respectively, Fisher's exact test p=0.004). All deaths were due to COVID-19. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were more frequent in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative cases (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test p=0.0008). The incidence of SAEs in SARS-CoV-2 positive compared with SARS-CoV-2 negative patients was similar in ICI and CT patients (17.3% and 3.7% for positive and negative patients in ICIs and 15.4% and 2.7% in CT, Breslow-Day test p=0.891). No COVID-19-related SAEs were observed in the TTs patients. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SAEs was higher for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients treated with ICIs and CT, mostly in advanced disease. No SAEs were observed in patients treated with TTs. SAEs were COVID-19 related rather than treatment related. Treatment with ICIs does not appear to significantly increase risk of SAEs compared with CT. This information should be considered when determining treatment options for patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Female , Gastrointestinal Diseases/chemically induced , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/mortality , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Survival Rate
16.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 78(8): 697-704, 2021 03 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1087686

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This article assesses the relative efficacy and safety of infliximab biosimilars in treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate evidence from randomized controlled trials that examined the use of infliximab biosimilars for treatment of patients with RA. PubMed/MEDLINE and other sources were searched for reports evaluating rates of response to treatment with the reference product (infliximab) vs an infliximab biosimilar. The primary efficacy outcome of interest was the rate of attainment of ACR20 (ie, 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology core measures). The primary safety outcome was the rate of treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Data were extracted by the primary author, and an assessment for risks of methodological bias was performed for each evaluated study. RESULTS: Five studies that enrolled a total of 2,499 patients were included. Overall comparisons using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) did not indicate statistically significant differences in response to treatment with biosimilar agents relative to each other or the infliximab reference product. ORs for ACR20 response for biosimilars vs infliximab were as follows: 1.475 (95% CI, 0.940-2.315) for infliximab-axxq, 1.259 (95% CI, 0.854-1.855) for infliximab-dyyb, 0.865 (95% CI, 0.5511.358) for infliximab-qbtx, and 0.832 (95% CI, 0.506-1.367) for infliximab-abda. Similar findings were observed in reported SAE rates among patients treated with the various biosimilars. CONCLUSION: ACR20 response appears to be comparable and nonsignificantly different between infliximab biosimilars. In the absence of any meaningful differences in safety or efficacy, biosimilar cost may be the deciding factor in choosing a treatment or agent for formulary inclusion.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Antirheumatic Agents/adverse effects , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/diagnosis , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/adverse effects , Humans , Infliximab/adverse effects , Network Meta-Analysis , Treatment Outcome
17.
Lancet ; 397(10275): 671-681, 2021 02 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1062668

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A heterologous recombinant adenovirus (rAd)-based vaccine, Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V), showed a good safety profile and induced strong humoral and cellular immune responses in participants in phase 1/2 clinical trials. Here, we report preliminary results on the efficacy and safety of Gam-COVID-Vac from the interim analysis of this phase 3 trial. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 25 hospitals and polyclinics in Moscow, Russia. We included participants aged at least 18 years, with negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR and IgG and IgM tests, no infectious diseases in the 14 days before enrolment, and no other vaccinations in the 30 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive vaccine or placebo, with stratification by age group. Investigators, participants, and all study staff were masked to group assignment. The vaccine was administered (0·5 mL/dose) intramuscularly in a prime-boost regimen: a 21-day interval between the first dose (rAd26) and the second dose (rAd5), both vectors carrying the gene for the full-length SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein S. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 from day 21 after receiving the first dose. All analyses excluded participants with protocol violations: the primary outcome was assessed in participants who had received two doses of vaccine or placebo, serious adverse events were assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose at the time of database lock, and rare adverse events were assessed in all participants who had received two doses and for whom all available data were verified in the case report form at the time of database lock. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04530396). FINDINGS: Between Sept 7 and Nov 24, 2020, 21 977 adults were randomly assigned to the vaccine group (n=16 501) or the placebo group (n=5476). 19 866 received two doses of vaccine or placebo and were included in the primary outcome analysis. From 21 days after the first dose of vaccine (the day of dose 2), 16 (0·1%) of 14 964 participants in the vaccine group and 62 (1·3%) of 4902 in the placebo group were confirmed to have COVID-19; vaccine efficacy was 91·6% (95% CI 85·6-95·2). Most reported adverse events were grade 1 (7485 [94·0%] of 7966 total events). 45 (0·3%) of 16 427 participants in the vaccine group and 23 (0·4%) of 5435 participants in the placebo group had serious adverse events; none were considered associated with vaccination, with confirmation from the independent data monitoring committee. Four deaths were reported during the study (three [<0·1%] of 16 427 participants in the vaccine group and one [<0·1%] of 5435 participants in the placebo group), none of which were considered related to the vaccine. INTERPRETATION: This interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of Gam-COVID-Vac showed 91·6% efficacy against COVID-19 and was well tolerated in a large cohort. FUNDING: Moscow City Health Department, Russian Direct Investment Fund, and Sberbank.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Injections, Intramuscular , Male , Middle Aged , Moscow , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
18.
JAMA Dermatol ; 156(12): 1333-1343, 2020 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1008230

ABSTRACT

Importance: Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, effectively reduced disease severity in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in 2 phase 3 monotherapy studies. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of 4 mg and 2 mg of baricitinib in combination with background topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy in adults with moderate to severe AD who previously had an inadequate response to TCS therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, BREEZE-AD7 (Study of Baricitinib [LY3009104] in Combination With Topical Corticosteroids in Adults With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis) was conducted from November 16, 2018, to August 22, 2019, at 68 centers across 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. Patients 18 years or older with moderate to severe AD and an inadequate response to TCSs were included. After completing the study, patients were followed up for up to 4 weeks or enrolled in a long-term extension study. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 2 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 109), 4 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 111), or placebo (n = 109) for 16 weeks. The use of low-to-moderate potency TCSs was allowed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear), with a 2-point or greater improvement from baseline at week 16. Results: Among 329 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.8 [12.4] years; 216 [66%] male), at week 16, a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was achieved by 34 patients (31%) receiving 4 mg of baricitinib and 26 (24%) receiving 2 mg of baricitinib compared with 16 (15%) receiving placebo (odds ratio vs placebo, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.4-5.6]; P = .004 for the 4-mg group; 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-3.9]; P = .08 for the 2-mg group). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 64 of 111 patients (58%) in the 4-mg group, 61 of 109 patients (56%) in the 2-mg group, and 41 of 108 patients (38%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 patients (4%) in the 4-mg group, 2 (2%) in the 2-mg group, and 4 (4%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and folliculitis. Conclusions and Relevance: A dose of 4 mg of baricitinib in combination with background TCS therapy significantly improved the signs and symptoms of moderate to severe AD, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib in AD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03733301.


Subject(s)
Azetidines/administration & dosage , Dermatitis, Atopic/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Purines/administration & dosage , Pyrazoles/administration & dosage , Sulfonamides/administration & dosage , Administration, Cutaneous , Administration, Oral , Adult , Azetidines/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Atopic/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Therapy, Combination/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Folliculitis/chemically induced , Folliculitis/epidemiology , Folliculitis/immunology , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Humans , Janus Kinase 1/antagonists & inhibitors , Janus Kinase 1/metabolism , Janus Kinase 2/antagonists & inhibitors , Janus Kinase 2/metabolism , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharyngitis/chemically induced , Nasopharyngitis/epidemiology , Nasopharyngitis/immunology , Purines/adverse effects , Pyrazoles/adverse effects , Respiratory Tract Infections/chemically induced , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Signal Transduction/drug effects , Signal Transduction/immunology , Sulfonamides/adverse effects , Young Adult
19.
Eur Respir J ; 58(1)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999707

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nitazoxanide is widely available and exerts broad-spectrum antiviral activity in vitro. However, there is no evidence of its impact on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult patients presenting up to 3 days after onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms (dry cough, fever and/or fatigue) were enrolled. After confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection using reverse transcriptase PCR on a nasopharyngeal swab, patients were randomised 1:1 to receive either nitazoxanide (500 mg) or placebo, three times daily, for 5 days. The primary outcome was complete resolution of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were viral load, laboratory tests, serum biomarkers of inflammation and hospitalisation rate. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: From June 8 to August 20, 2020, 1575 patients were screened. Of these, 392 (198 placebo, 194 nitazoxanide) were analysed. Median (interquartile range) time from symptom onset to first dose of study drug was 5 (4-5) days. At the 5-day study visit, symptom resolution did not differ between the nitazoxanide and placebo arms. Swabs collected were negative for SARS-CoV-2 in 29.9% of patients in the nitazoxanide arm versus 18.2% in the placebo arm (p=0.009). Viral load was reduced after nitazoxanide compared to placebo (p=0.006). The percentage viral load reduction from onset to end of therapy was higher with nitazoxanide (55%) than placebo (45%) (p=0.013). Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild COVID-19, symptom resolution did not differ between nitazoxanide and placebo groups after 5 days of therapy. However, early nitazoxanide therapy was safe and reduced viral load significantly.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Nitro Compounds , SARS-CoV-2 , Thiazoles , Treatment Outcome
20.
medRxiv ; 2020 Nov 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955727

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL