Dataset Information

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19.

Objective

To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia.

Design, setting, and participants

Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021.

Interventions

Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale.

Results

Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies.

Conclusions and relevance

Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

SUBMITTER: O'Halloran JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10334296 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

O'Halloran Jane A JA Ko Emily R ER Anstrom Kevin J KJ Kedar Eyal E McCarthy Matthew W MW Panettieri Reynold A RA Maillo Martin M Nunez Patricia Segura PS Lachiewicz Anne M AM Gonzalez Cynthia C Smith P Brian PB de Tai Sabina Mendivil-Tuchia SM Khan Akram A Lora Alfredo J Mena AJM Salathe Matthias M Capo Gerardo G Gonzalez Daniel Rodríguez DR Patterson Thomas F TF Palma Christopher C Ariza Horacio H Lima Maria Patelli MP Blamoun John J Nannini Esteban C EC Sprinz Eduardo E Mykietiuk Analia A Alicic Radica R Rauseo Adriana M AM Wolfe Cameron R CR Witting Britta B Wang Jennifer P JP Parra-Rodriguez Luis L Der Tatyana T Willsey Kate K Wen Jun J Silverstein Adam A O'Brien Sean M SM Al-Khalidi Hussein R HR Maldonado Michael A MA Melsheimer Richard R Ferguson William G WG McNulty Steven E SE Zakroysky Pearl P Halabi Susan S Benjamin Daniel K DK Butler Sandra S Atkinson Jane C JC Adam Stacey J SJ Chang Soju S LaVange Lisa L Proschan Michael M Bozzette Samuel A SA Powderly William G WG

JAMA 20230701 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 su ...[more]

PMID: 37428480

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSevere pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectiveTo determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, setting, and particpantsThis cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.ResultsOf 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], -21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI -28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04331808.

Project description:BackgroundConvalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy.Research questionIs rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19?Study design and methodsThis was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for < 14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n = 487) or placebo (n = 473). The primary outcome was clinical status (disease severity) 14 days following study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) < 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than with placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified according to the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality.ResultsAmong 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR, 1.04; one-seventh support interval [1/7 SI], 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR, 1.15; 1/7 SI, 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR, 0.96; 1/7 SI, 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89 of 482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80 of 465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR, 1.04; 1/7 SI, 0.69-1.58).InterpretationAmong adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04362176; URL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov.

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.

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days is the recommended treatment for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The evidence on the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone is limited. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of 6 mg daily vs. 20 mg daily of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe conducted a single-center, randomized, clinical trial involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Participants were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone 6 mg daily or dexamethasone 20 mg daily, and were stratified by the WHO-Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI). The primary outcome was clinical improvement equal to or greater than 2 points by OSCI on day 28. Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, intensive care unit-free days, and ventilator-free days on day 28.ResultsOf the 107 patients who enrolled and completed the follow up, 55 patients enrolled in the low-dose group and 52 patients enrolled in the high-dose group. Treatment with dexamethasone 20 mg daily compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily did not result in better clinical improvement based on OSCI on day 28 (71.2% vs. 78.2%; odds ratio, 1.45 [0.55-3.86]; p = 0.403). For participants who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization, the 6-mg group had better survival than the 20-mg group on day 28 (100% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.025). Although more participants in the 6-mg group received immune modulators (40% vs. 21.2%; p = 0.035), 50% of death cases in the 20-mg group who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization received immune modulators.ConclusionsDexamethasone 20 mg daily did not result in better clinical outcome improvement, and was probably associated with higher 28-day mortality in patients on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation, compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily.Trial registrationClinialtrials.gov number, NCT04707534, registered January 13, 2021.

Project description:BackgroundEnsovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.ObjectiveTo investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone.DesignDouble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978).SettingMultinational, multicenter trial.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionIntravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo.MeasurementsEnsovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90.ResultsAn independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep).LimitationThe trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome.ConclusionCompared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets