72. Remdesivir vs Standard Care in Patients with Moderate covid-19
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Marty F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7777983 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report safety of RDV in patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) in hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned to receive RDV (5 or 10 days) or standard of care (SOC). RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated through the day 11 data cut; safety data through day 28 will be presented at the meeting. Results 584 patients were randomized and treated (5d RDV: n=191; 10d RDV, n=193; SOC: n=200). Baseline characteristics were balanced among groups; median (range) age was 57y (12-95y), 39% were female and 19% Black, 39% had arterial hypertension, 15% hyperlipidemia, 11% asthma. Briefly, across both the 5d and 10d arms, RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of Grade 3 or 4 AEs and fewer SAEs compared to SOC (Table). AEs more common with RDV vs SOC included nausea, headache, and hypokalemia. Overall, across the 3 arms, incidence of AEs leading to discontinuation and death were low and no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters were observed. In addition, median changes in renal and liver function tests from baseline were not statistically significant between the RDV 5d and RDV 10d groups compared to the SOC only group at d14 (Table 1). Table 1. Conclusion RDV given for 5d or 10d was well tolerated in patients with moderate COVID-19. No clinically significant safety signals were observed with RDV vs SOC. Disclosures Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Mi Young Ahn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gregory Huhn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Proteus (Grant/Research Support)US National Institutes of Health (Grant/Research Support)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Aruna Subramanian, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Stefan Schmiedel, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Vithika Suri, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Huldrych Günthard, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) D Jose Sanz-Moreno, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Emanuele Nicastri, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA
| S-EPMC7777368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRemdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group.ResultsAmong 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.
| S-EPMC7442954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of IL-6 blockers in COVID-19 hospitalized patients has been associated with a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. However, many uncertainties remain pertaining to optimal intervention time, administration schedule, and predictors of response. To date, data on the use of subcutaneous sarilumab is limited and no randomized trial results are available.MethodsOpen label randomized controlled trial at a single center in Spain. We included adult patients admitted with microbiology documented COVID-19 infection, imaging confirmed pneumonia, fever and/or laboratory evidence of inflammatory phenotype, and no need for invasive ventilation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive sarilumab, a single 400 mg dose in two 200 mg subcutaneous injections, added to standard care or standard care, in a 2:1 proportion. Primary endpoints included 30-day mortality, mean change in clinical status at day 7 scored in a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharge (category 7), and duration of hospitalization. The primary efficacy analysis was conducted on the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 30 patients underwent randomization: 20 to sarilumab and 10 to standard care. Most patients were male (20/30, 67%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 61.5 years (56-72). At day 30, 2/20 (10%) patients died in the sarilumab arm vs. none (0/10) in standard care (Log HR 15.11, SE 22.64; p = 0.54). At day 7, no significant differences were observed in the median change in clinical status (2 [0-3]) vs. 3 [0-3], p = 0.32). Median time to discharge (days) was similar (7 [6-11] vs. 6 [4-12]; HR 0.65, SE 0.26; p = 0.27). No significant differences were detected in the rate of progression to invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation.Conclusions and relevanceOur pragmatic pilot study has failed to demonstrate the benefit of adding subcutaneous sarilumab to standard care for mortality by 30 days, functional status at day 7, or hospital stay. Findings herein do not exclude a potential effect of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 but adequately powered blinded randomized phase III trials are warranted to assess the impact of the subcutaneous route and a more selected target population.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04357808.
| S-EPMC8904894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmacological strategies that have been proposed by complementary medical systems, can be effective in management of COVID-19.MethodsThis study was designed as a three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. A total of 139 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned into three groups: (1) acupuncture (ACUG), (2) cupping (CUPG), and (3) control (CTRG). All participants received conventional treatment. The primary study endpoint included changes in respiratory signs including oxygen saturation (SpO2) and respiratory rate (RR). The secondary endpoints were COVID-19-related hospitalization duration and serious adverse events such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation or death, all up to day 30. Also, improvements in cough, dyspnea, chest tightness, oxygen demand, anorexia, headache, weakness, sore throat, and myalgia were evaluated.ResultsForty-two patients in ACUG, 44 patients in CUPG, and 42 patients in CTRG completed the trial. After 3 days, SpO2 and RR improved significantly in CUPG and ACUG compared with CTRG (effect size: 8.49 (6.4 to 10.57) and 8.51 (6.67 to 10.34), respectively: p<0.001). Compared with CTRG, patients in CUPG and ACUG recovered faster (mean difference: 6.58 (4.8 to 8.35) and 9.16 (7.16 to 11.15), respectively) and except for two patients in ACUG who were admitted to ICU, none of patients in ACUG or CUPG needed ICU or intubation (p<0.001 in comparison to CTRG). Amelioration of clinical COVID-19 related symptoms reached a high level of statistical significance in CUPG and ACUG in comparison with CTRG (p<0.01).ConclusionCupping and acupuncture are promising safe and effective therapies in management of COVID-19. Trial registration: This study was registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials: IRCT20201127049504N1 (https://en.irct.ir/trial/52621).
| S-EPMC9617672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care.MethodsGS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality.ResultsAfter the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22-.68, P = .001).ConclusionsIn this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19.Clinical trials registrationNCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.
| S-EPMC7454434 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST719 | biostudies-other
Project description:Objectives: The dysregulated immune response occurring upon COVID-19 infection can lead to tissue damage and organ failure. Different therapeutic strategies are needed to cope with the current and future outspread of COVID-19, including antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents. We describe the outcome of hospitalized patients treated with canakinumab and remdesivir plus the standard of care therapy. Methods: This observational study describes the outcome of the combination of canakinumab (450 mg for patients ≥40 and <60 kg, 600 mg for those ≥60 and <80 kg, or 750 mg for patients ≥80 kg) and 200 mg remdesivir intravenous infusion, plus standard of care (SOC), in 17 moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the "Annunziata" Hospital, Cosenza, Italy, between August and November 2021. Hematological markers, biochemical, and hemogasanalysis values at baseline versus day 7 of combination treatment were compared by paired t test after checking for normal distribution and correcting for multiple comparison. Results: The median age of patients was 64 years (range: 39-85), and the median hospitalization time (calculated on the 16 patients that were not transferred to intensive care unit) was of 12.5 days (range: 7-35 days); 15/17 patients (88%) did not experience complications. After 7 days of combination therapy, all the inflammatory parameters were significantly reduced with the exception of procalcitonin; moreover, hematological prognostic markers such neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, CRP-to-lymphocyte ratio, and derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio reduced. Overall, 16/17 patients (94%) recovered after 14 days. Conclusions: Canakinumab and remdesivir treatment, in addition to SOC, in the early stage of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 showed promising outcomes in terms of safety and effectiveness potentially leading to a reduction in inflammatory and hematological prognostic markers after 7 days of treatment.
| S-EPMC10402280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeverity of illness in COVID-19 is consistently lower in women. A focus on sex as a biological factor may suggest a potential therapeutic intervention for this disease. We assessed whether adding progesterone to standard of care (SOC) would improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Research questionDoes short-term subcutaneous administration of progesterone safely improve clinical outcome in hypoxemic men hospitalized with COVID-19?Study design and methodsWe conducted a pilot, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of subcutaneous progesterone in men hospitalized with confirmed moderate to severe COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC plus progesterone (100 mg subcutaneously twice daily for up to 5 days) or SOC alone. In addition to assessment of safety, the primary outcome was change in clinical status on day 7. Length of hospital stay and number of days on supplemental oxygen were key secondary outcomes.ResultsForty-two patients were enrolled from April 2020 to August 2020; 22 were randomized to the control group and 20 to the progesterone group. Two patients from the progesterone group withdrew from the study before receiving progesterone. There was a 1.5-point overall improvement in median clinical status score on a seven-point ordinal scale from baseline to day 7 in patients in the progesterone group as compared with control subjects (95% CI, 0.0-2.0; P = .024). There were no serious adverse events attributable to progesterone. Patients treated with progesterone required three fewer days of supplemental oxygen (median, 4.5 vs 7.5 days) and were hospitalized for 2.5 fewer days (median, 7.0 vs 9.5 days) as compared with control subjects.InterpretationProgesterone at a dose of 100 mg, twice daily by subcutaneous injection in addition to SOC, may represent a safe and effective approach for treatment in hypoxemic men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04365127; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.
| S-EPMC7896492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Favipiravir has antiviral activity against influenza, West Nile virus, and yellow fever virus and against flaviviruses. The objective of this pilot study was to compare three arms: favipiravir; hydroxychloroquine; standard care (no specific SARS-CoV-2 treatment) only, in symptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 in an open-labelled randomized clinical trial. The trial was registered with Bahrain National Taskforce for Combatting COVID-19 on the 7th of May 2020 (registration code: NCT04387760). 150 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 disease were randomized into one of three arms: favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, or standard care only. The primary outcome was the clinical scale at the end of study follow up (day 14 or on discharge/death) based on a points scale. The secondary outcomes were viral clearance, biochemical parameter changes and mortality at 30-days. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The proportion of patients who achieved a clinical scale < 2 did not differ between groups. The favipiravir-treated and hydroxychloroquine-treated group showed increased viral clearance (OR, 95%CI 2.38, 0.83-6.78, OR, 95%CI 2.15, 0.78-5.92, respectively) compared to standard care, but this was not significant. The biochemical profile did not differ between groups, except for the platelet count (P < 0.03) and uric acid (P < 0.004) that were higher with favipiravir-treatment. Primary or secondary outcome measures did not differ between favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and standard therapy for mild to moderate COVID-19 disease; therefore, whilst favipiravir therapy appeared safe with a trend to increased viral clearance, there was no superior therapeutic utility.Clinical trials registration. NCT04387760. Registration date: 07/05/2020.
| S-EPMC8943168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed.Findings298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationIn patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.
| S-EPMC8270523 | biostudies-literature