Effect of Lactoferrin on Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: The LAC Randomized Clinical Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Matino E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10005739 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effect of Lactoferrin on Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: The LAC Randomized Clinical Trial.
Matino Erica E Tavella Elena E Rizzi Manuela M Avanzi Gian Carlo GC Azzolina Danila D Battaglia Antonio A Becco Paolo P Bellan Mattia M Bertinieri Giovanni G Bertoletti Massimo M Casciaro Giuseppe Francesco GF Castello Luigi Mario LM Colageo Umberto U Colangelo Donato D Comolli Davide D Costanzo Martina M Croce Alessandro A D'Onghia Davide D Della Corte Francesco F De Mitri Luigi L Dodaro Valentina V Givone Filippo F Gravina Alessia A Grillenzoni Luca L Gusmaroli Graziano G Landi Raffaella R Lingua Anna A Manzoni Roberto R Marinoni Vito V Masturzo Bianca B Minisini Rosalba R Morello Marina M Nelva Anna A Ortone Elena E Paolella Rita R Patti Giuseppe G Pedrinelli Anita A Pirisi Mario M Ravizzi Lidia L Rizzi Eleonora E Sola Daniele D Sola Mariolina M Tonello Nadir N Tonello Stelvio S Topazzo Gigliola G Tua Aldo A Valenti Piera P Vaschetto Rosanna R Vassia Veronica V Zecca Erika E Zublena Nicoletta N Manzoni Paolo P Sainaghi Pier Paolo PP
Nutrients 20230304 5
As lactoferrin is a nutritional supplement with proven antiviral and immunomodulatory abilities, it may be used to improve the clinical course of COVID-19. The clinical efficacy and safety of bovine lactoferrin were evaluated in the LAC randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. A total of 218 hospitalized adult patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 were randomized to receive 800 mg/die oral bovine lactoferrin (n = 113) or placebo (n = 105), both given in combination with standard COV ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceSARS-CoV-2 entry requires the TMPRSS2 cell surface protease. Antiandrogen therapies reduce expression of TMPRSS2.ObjectiveTo determine if temporary androgen suppression induced by degarelix improves clinical outcomes of inpatients hospitalized with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThe Hormonal Intervention for the Treatment in Veterans With COVID-19 Requiring Hospitalization (HITCH) phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial compared efficacy of degarelix plus standard care vs placebo plus standard care on clinical outcomes in men hospitalized with COVID-19 but not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Inpatients were enrolled at 14 Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals from July 22, 2020, to April 8, 2021. Data were analyzed from August 9 to October 15, 2021.InterventionsPatients stratified by age, history of hypertension, and disease severity were centrally randomized 2:1 to degarelix, (1-time subcutaneous dose of 240 mg) or a saline placebo. Standard care included but was not limited to supplemental oxygen, antibiotics, vasopressor support, peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis, intravenous fluids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and dexamethasone.Main outcomes and measuresThe composite primary end point was mortality, ongoing need for hospitalization, or requirement for mechanical ventilation at day 15 after randomization. Secondary end points were time to clinical improvement, inpatient mortality, length of hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation, time to achieve a temperature within reference range, maximum severity of COVID-19, and the composite end point at 30 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped for futility after the planned interim analysis, at which time there were 96 evaluable patients, including 62 patients randomized to the degarelix group and 34 patients in the placebo group, out of 198 initially planned. The median (range) age was 70.5 (48-85) years. Common comorbidities included chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (15 patients [15.6%]), hypertension (75 patients [78.1%]), cardiovascular disease (27 patients [28.1%]), asthma (12 patients [12.5%]), diabetes (49 patients [51.0%]), and chronic respiratory failure requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline prior to COVID-19 (9 patients [9.4%]). For the primary end point, there was no significant difference between the degarelix and placebo groups (19 patients [30.6%] vs 9 patients [26.5%]; P = .67). Similarly, no differences were observed between degarelix and placebo groups in any secondary end points, including inpatient mortality (11 patients [17.7%] vs 6 patients [17.6%]) or all-cause mortality (11 patients [17.7%] vs 7 patents [20.6%]). There were no differences between degarelix and placebo groups in the overall rates of adverse events (13 patients [21.0%] vs 8 patients [23.5%) and serious adverse events (19 patients [30.6%] vs 13 patients [32.4%]), nor unexpected safety concerns.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of androgen suppression vs placebo and usual care for men hospitalized with COVID-19, degarelix did not result in amelioration of COVID-19 severity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04397718.
| S-EPMC9020208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceData on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed.ObjectiveTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality.ResultsAmong 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.
| S-EPMC7653542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening billions of people worldwide. Tocilizumab has shown promising results in retrospective studies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with a good safety profile.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of early tocilizumab administration vs standard therapy in preventing clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsProspective, open-label, randomized clinical trial that randomized patients hospitalized between March 31 and June 11, 2020, with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive tocilizumab or standard of care in 24 hospitals in Italy. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction method with nasopharyngeal swab. Eligibility criteria included COVID-19 pneumonia documented by radiologic imaging, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg, and an inflammatory phenotype defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein.InterventionsPatients in the experimental arm received intravenous tocilizumab within 8 hours from randomization (8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg), followed by a second dose after 12 hours. Patients in the control arm received supportive care following the protocols of each clinical center until clinical worsening and then could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.Main outcome and measuresThe primary composite outcome was defined as entry into the intensive care unit with invasive mechanical ventilation, death from all causes, or clinical aggravation documented by the finding of a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 150 mm Hg, whichever came first.ResultsA total of 126 patients were randomized (60 to the tocilizumab group; 66 to the control group). The median (interquartile range) age was 60.0 (53.0-72.0) years, and the majority of patients were male (77 of 126, 61.1%). Three patients withdrew from the study, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses. Seventeen patients of 60 (28.3%) in the tocilizumab arm and 17 of 63 (27.0%) in the standard care group showed clinical worsening within 14 days since randomization (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59-1.86). Two patients in the experimental group and 1 in the control group died before 30 days from randomization, and 6 and 5 patients were intubated in the 2 groups, respectively. The trial was prematurely interrupted after an interim analysis for futility.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and Pao2/Fio2 ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg who received tocilizumab, no benefit on disease progression was observed compared with standard care. Further blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and to evaluate possible applications of tocilizumab in different stages of the disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04346355; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-001386-37.
| S-EPMC7577199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of umifenovir against COVID-19 is controversial; therefore, clinical trials are crucial to evaluate its efficacy.MethodsThe study was conducted as a single-center, randomized, open-label clinical trial. Eligible moderate-severe hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection were randomly segregated into intervention and control groups. The intervention group were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg bid for 10-14 days) + hydroxychloroquine (400 mg single dose) + interferon-β1a (Subcutaneous injections of 44 µg (12,000 IU) on days 1, 3, 5) + umifenovir (200 mg trice daily for 10 days), and the control group received lopinavir/ritonavir (same dose) + hydroxychloroquine (same dose) + interferon-β1a (same dose).ResultsOf 1180 patients with positive RT-PCRs and positive chest CT scans, 101 patients were finally included in the trial; 50 were assigned to receive IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir group and 51 were managed to treat with IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir + umifenovir. Since all patients received the intended treatment as scheduled, the analysis just included as the ITT population. Time to clinical improvement (TTCI) did not hold a statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups (median, 9 days for intervention group versus 7 days for the control group; P: 0.22). Besides, Hazard Ratio for TTCI in the Cox regression model was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45-1.23, P:0.25) which also confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (38% in controls vs 33.3% treatment group).ConclusionsOur findings shed new lights on the facts that additional umifenovir has not been found to be effective in shortening the duration of SARS-CoV-2 in severe patients and improving the prognosis in non-ICU patients and mortality.Trial registrationThe trial was confirmed by the Ethics in Medical Research Committee of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. signed informed consents were obtained from all the participants or their legally authorized representatives. This trial has been registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350684.
| S-EPMC8270750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFostamatinib, a spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been reported to improve outcomes of COVID-19.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of fostamatinib in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and hypoxemia.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, phase 3, placebo-controlled, double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at 41 US sites and 21 international sites between November 17, 2021, and September 27, 2023; the last follow-up visit was December 31, 2023. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and hypoxemia. Data were analyzed between January 10 and March 8, 2024.InterventionsFostamatinib, 150 mg orally twice daily for 14 days, or placebo.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome classifying a participant's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use. An adjusted odds ratio (AOR) greater than 1.0 was considered to indicate superiority of fostamatinib over placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included elevated transaminase values, neutropenia, and hypertension.ResultsOf the 400 participants randomized (median age, 67 years [IQR, 58-76 years]; 210 [52.5%] men), 199 received fostamatinib and 201 received placebo. The mean (SD) number of oxygen-free days was 13.4 (12.4) in the fostamatinib group and 14.2 (12.1) in the placebo group (unadjusted mean difference, -1.26 days [95% CI, -3.52 to 1.00 days]; AOR, 0.82 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.58-1.17]). Mortality at 28 days occurred in 22 of 195 patients (11.3%) in the fostamatinib group and 16 of 197 (8.1%) in the placebo group (AOR, 1.44; 95% CrI, 0.72-2.90). Aspartate aminotransferase elevation occurred more commonly in the fostamatinib group (23 [11.6%]) than in the placebo group (11 [5.5%]; AOR, 2.28; 95% CrI, 1.07-4.84). Other safety outcomes were similar between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and hypoxemia, fostamatinib did not increase the number of oxygen-free days compared with placebo. These results do not support the hypothesis that fostamatinib improves outcomes among adults hospitalized with hypoxemia during the Omicron era.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.
| S-EPMC11615712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince the emergence of the novel coronavirus, herbal medicine has been considered a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This study was done to determine the efficacy of olive leaf extract on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients.Materials and methodsThis randomized, triple-blinded clinical trial was conducted on hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Using block randomization, eligible patients were allocated to the following groups: intervention A received olive leaf extract (250 mg every 12 hours for five days), intervention B received olive leaf extract (500 mg every 12 hours for five days), and the control group received placebo (every 12 hours for five days). The outcomes (vital signs, laboratory tests, and length of hospitalization) were compared by group.ResultsOf the 150 patients randomized into groups, 141 completed the follow-up and were analyzed. On the fifth day of hospitalization, body temperature (MD=0.34, P<0.001), pulse rate (MD=5.42, P=0.016), respiratory rate (MD=1.66, P=0.001), ESR (MD=13.55, P<0.001), and CRP (MD=15.68, P<0.001) of intervention A were significantly lower than the control group, while oxygen saturation (MD= -1.81, P=0.001) of intervention A was significantly higher than the control group. Furthermore, body temperature (MD=0.30, P=0.001), pulse rate (MD=5.29, P=0.022), respiratory rate (MD=1.41, P=0.006), ESR (MD=14.79, P<0.001), and CRP (MD=16.28, P<0.001) of intervention B were significantly lower than the control group, while oxygen saturation (MD= -2.38, P<0.001) of intervention B was significantly higher than the control group.ConclusionOlive leaf extract can improve the clinical status of the patients and decrease the length of hospitalization.
| S-EPMC9617633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe combination of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir has shown preliminary efficacy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in four open-label studies with small sample sizes. This larger trial aimed to assess if the addition of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir to standard care improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 19 hospitals in Iran. Patients were randomized to oral sofosbuvir/daclatasvir 400/60 mg once-daily or placebo in addition to standard of care. Patients were included if they had positive PCR or diagnostic chest CT, O2 saturation <95% and compatible symptoms. The primary outcome was hospital discharge within 10 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included mortality and time to clinical events. The trial is registered on the Iran Registry of Clinical Trials under IRCT20200624047908N1.ResultsBetween July and October 2020, 1083 patients were randomized to either the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm (n = 541) or the placebo arm (n = 542). No significant difference was observed in the primary outcome of hospital discharge within 10 days, which was achieved by 415/541 (77%) in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and 411/542 (76%) in the placebo arm [risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.95-1.08, P = 0.734]. In-hospital mortality was 60/541 (11%) in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm versus 55/542 (10%) in the placebo arm (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77-1.54, P = 0.615). No differences were observed in time to hospital discharge or time to in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsWe observed no significant effect of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir versus placebo on hospital discharge or survival in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8690191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lactoferrin (LF) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study aimed to determine the effect of bovine lactoferrin (bLF) in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care personnel. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in two tertiary hospitals that provide care to patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Lima, Peru. Daily supplementation with 600 mg of enteral bLF versus placebo for 90 days was compared. Participants were weekly screened for symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection and molecular testing was performed on suspected episodes. A serological test was obtained from all participants at the end of the intervention. The main outcome included symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. A sub-analysis explored the time to symptomatic infection. Secondary outcomes were the severity, frequency, and duration of symptomatic infection. The study was prematurely cancelled due to the availability of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in Peru. 209 participants were enrolled and randomized, 104 received bLF and 105 placebo. SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in 11 (10.6%) participants assigned to bLF and in 9 (8.6%) participants assigned to placebo without significant differences (Incidence Rate Ratio = 1.23, 95%CI 0.51-3.06, p-value = 0.64). There was no significant effect of bLF on time to symptomatic infection (Hazard Ratio = 1.61, 95%CI 0.62-4.19, p-value = 0.3). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. A significant effect of bLF in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was not proven. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of bLF supplementation on SARS-CoV-2 infection.Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04526821, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04526821?term=LACTOFERRIN&cond=COVID-19&cntry=PE&city=Lima&draw=2&rank=1 .
| S-EPMC9735051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of losartan for COVID-19 patients.MethodsCOVIDMED was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled platform RCT. Enrollees were randomized to standard care plus hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, losartan, or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms were discontinued early. We report losartan data vs. combined (lopinavir-ritonavir and placebo) and prespecified placebo-only controls. The primary endpoint was the mean COVID-19 Ordinal Severity Score (COSS) slope of change. Slow enrollment prompted early termination.ResultsFourteen patients were included in our final analysis (losartan [N = 9] vs. control [N = 5] [lopinavir/ritonavir [N = 2], placebo [N = 3]]). Most baseline parameters were balanced. Losartan treatment was not associated with a difference in mean COSS slope of change vs. combined (p = 0.4) or placebo-only control (p = 0.05) (trend favoring placebo). 60-day mortality and overall AE/SAE rates were insignificantly higher with losartan.ConclusionIn this small RCT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, losartan did not improve outcome and was associated with adverse safety signals.
| S-EPMC9296371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen.Design, setting, and participantsCONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation.InterventionsA unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8.ResultsOf 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06).Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.
| S-EPMC8669605 | biostudies-literature