Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ramakrishnan S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8040526 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial.
Ramakrishnan Sanjay S Nicolau Dan V DV Langford Beverly B Mahdi Mahdi M Jeffers Helen H Mwasuku Christine C Krassowska Karolina K Fox Robin R Binnian Ian I Glover Victoria V Bright Stephen S Butler Christopher C Cane Jennifer L JL Halner Andreas A Matthews Philippa C PC Donnelly Louise E LE Simpson Jodie L JL Baker Jonathan R JR Fadai Nabil T NT Peterson Stefan S Bengtsson Thomas T Barnes Peter J PJ Russell Richard E K REK Bafadhel Mona M
The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20210409 7
<h4>Background</h4>Multiple early reports of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented in these cohorts. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids among these patients was responsible for this finding, and tested if inhaled glucocorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised controlled ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the duration of oxygen therapy (an indicator of time to clinical improvement) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.Setting9 hospitals (3 academic hospitals and 6 non-academic hospitals) in Sweden between 1 June 2020 and 17 May 2021.ParticipantsAdults hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving oxygen therapy.InterventionInhaled ciclesonide 320 µg two times a day for 14 days versus standard care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was duration of oxygen therapy, an indicator of time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcome was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation/death.ResultsData from 98 participants were analysed (48 receiving ciclesonide and 50 receiving standard care; median (IQR) age, 59.5 (49-67) years; 67 (68%) men). Median (IQR) duration of oxygen therapy was 5.5 (3-9) days in the ciclesonide group and 4 (2-7) days in the standard care group (HR for termination of oxygen therapy 0.73 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.11), with the upper 95% CI being compatible with a 10% relative reduction in oxygen therapy duration, corresponding to a <1 day absolute reduction in a post-hoc calculation). Three participants in each group died/received invasive mechanical ventilation (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.15 to 5.32)). The trial was discontinued early due to slow enrolment.ConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving oxygen therapy, this trial ruled out, with 0.95 confidence, a treatment effect of ciclesonide corresponding to more than a 1 day reduction in duration of oxygen therapy. Ciclesonide is unlikely to improve this outcome meaningfully.Trial registration numberNCT04381364.
| S-EPMC9950582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community.MethodsPRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing.FindingsThe trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19).InterpretationInhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications.FundingNational Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.
| S-EPMC8354567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733.FindingsBetween May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87).InterpretationFavipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19.FundingLifeArc and CW+.
| S-EPMC9891737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine and fluvoxamine were repurposed for the treatment of early COVID-19 based on their antiviral activity in vitro, and observational and clinical trial evidence suggesting they prevented progression to severe disease. However, these SSRIs have not been recommended in therapeutic guidelines and their antiviral activity in vivo has not been characterised.MethodsPLATCOV is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial running in Thailand, Brazil, Pakistan, and Laos. We recruited low-risk adult outpatients aged 18-50 with early symptomatic COVID-19 (symptoms <4 days) between 5 April 2022 and 8 May 2023. Patients were assigned using block randomisation to one of eleven treatment arms including oral fluoxetine (40 mg/day for 7 days), or no study drug. Uniform randomisation ratios were applied across the active treatment groups while the no study drug group comprised ≥20% of patients at all times. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed until day 7. Measurements were taken daily between days 0 and 7 and analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population (>2 days follow-up).The viral clearance rate was estimated under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log10 viral densities measured in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over one week (18 measurements per patient). Secondary endpoints were all-cause hospital admission at 28 days, and time to resolution of fever and symptoms. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907).Findings271 patients were concurrently randomised to either fluoxetine (n = 120) or no study drug (n = 151). All patients had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and 67% were female (182/271). In the primary analysis, viral clearance rates following fluoxetine were compatible with a small or no increase relative to the no study drug arm (15% increase; 95% credible interval (CrI): -2 to 34%). There were no deaths or hospitalisations in either arm. There were no significant differences in times to symptom resolution or fever clearance between the fluoxetine and the no study drug arms (although only a quarter of patients were febrile at baseline). Fluoxetine was well tolerated, there were no serious adverse events and only one grade 3 adverse event in the intervention arm.InterpretationOverall, the evidence from this study is compatible with fluoxetine having a weak in vivo antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, although the primary endpoint is also compatible with no effect. This level of antiviral efficacy is substantially less than with other currently available antiviral drugs.FundingWellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.
| S-EPMC11787712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In early symptomatic COVID-19 treatment, high dose oral favipiravir did not accelerate viral clearance.BackgroundFavipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries.MethodsIn a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]), assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907) on 13/09/2021.ResultsIn the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients given favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug; a -1% (95% credible interval: -14 to 14%) difference. High dose favipiravir was well-tolerated.InterpretationFavipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. The viral clearance rate estimated from quantitative measurements of oropharyngeal eluate viral densities assesses the antiviral efficacy of drugs in vivo with comparatively few studied patients.
| S-EPMC10789040 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7615401 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8040539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe use of sedation in intensive care units (ICUs) is necessary and ubiquitous. The impact of sedation strategy on outcome, particularly when delivered early after initiation of mechanical ventilation, is unknown. Evidence is increasing that volatile anaesthetic agents could be associated with better outcome. Their use in delirium prevention is unknown.Methods and analysisThis study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, two-arm, randomised, control, open-trial comparing inhaled sedation strategy versus intravenous sedation strategy in mechanically ventilated patients in ICU. Two hundred and fifty patients will be randomly assigned to the intravenous sedation group or inhaled sedation group, with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the sedation strategy. The primary outcome is the occurrence of delirium assessed using two times a day confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). Secondary outcomes include cognitive and functional outcomes at 3 and 12 months.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (CPP Ouest) and national authorities (ANSM). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04341350.
| S-EPMC7896597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe complement pathway is a potential target for the treatment of severe COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ravulizumab, a terminal complement C5 inhibitor, in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (ALXN1210-COV-305) enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 31 hospitals in France, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 that required hospitalisation and either invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, with severe pneumonia, acute lung injury, or acute respiratory distress syndrome confirmed by CT scan or x-ray. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) to receive intravenous ravulizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone using a web-based interactive response system. Randomisation was in permuted blocks of six with stratification by intubation status. Bodyweight-based intravenous doses of ravulizumab were administered on days 1, 5, 10, and 15. The primary efficacy endpoint was survival based on all-cause mortality at day 29 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group who received at least one dose of ravulizumab, and in all randomly assigned patients in the BSC group. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04369469, and was terminated at interim analysis due to futility.FindingsBetween May 10, 2020, and Jan 13, 2021, 202 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to ravulizumab plus BSC or BSC. 201 patients were included in the ITT population (135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 66 in the BSC group). The ravulizumab plus BSC group comprised 96 (71%) men and 39 (29%) women with a mean age of 63·2 years (SD 13·23); the BSC group comprised 43 (65%) men and 23 (35%) women with a mean age of 63·5 years (12·40). Most patients (113 [84%] of 135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 53 [80%] of 66 in the BSC group) were on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline. Overall survival estimates based on multiple imputation were 58% for patients receiving ravulizumab plus BSC and 60% for patients receiving BSC (Mantel-Haenszel analysis: risk difference -0·0205; 95% CI -0·1703 to 0·1293; one-sided p=0·61). In the safety population, 113 (89%) of 127 patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 56 (84%) of 67 in the BSC group had a treatment-emergent adverse event. Of these events, infections and infestations (73 [57%] vs 24 [36%] patients) and vascular disorders (39 [31%] vs 12 [18%]) were observed more frequently in the ravulizumab plus BSC group than in the BSC group. Five patients had serious adverse events considered to be related to ravulizumab. These events were bacteraemia, thrombocytopenia, oesophageal haemorrhage, cryptococcal pneumonia, and pyrexia (in one patient each).InterpretationAddition of ravulizumab to BSC did not improve survival or other secondary outcomes. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ravulizumab in its approved indications. Despite the lack of efficacy, the study adds value for future research into complement therapeutics in critical illnesses by showing that C5 inhibition can be accomplished in severely ill patients.FundingAlexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease.
| S-EPMC10027334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardioembolism in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is a preventable cause of transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or ischaemic stroke; however, due to its transient nature, a short-duration Holter monitor may miss a significant proportion of events.MethodsWe conducted an open-label randomised controlled trial of cardiac monitoring after a TIA or ischaemic stroke comparing a 14-day ECG monitoring patch (Zio® Patch, iRhythm Technologies) with short-duration Holter monitoring for the detection of PAF. The primary outcome was the detection of one or more episodes of ECG-documented PAF lasting at least 30 s within 90 days in each of the study arms. A budget impact analysis from the healthcare perspective was performed.ResultsFrom February 2016 through February 2017, 43 (76.8%) of the 56 patients assigned to the patch-based monitoring group and 47 (78.3%) of the 60 patients assigned to short-duration Holter monitoring group had successful monitor placement with 90 days of follow-up. Of the 26 protocol failures between the two groups, 23 (88.5%) were due to patient refusal for outpatient short-duration ECG monitor placement, whilst only 1 (3.8%) was due unsuccessful ZioPatch placement. The rate of detection of PAF at 90 days was 16.3% in the patch-based monitoring group (seven patients) compared to 2.1% in the short-duration Holter monitoring group (1 patient), with an odds ratio of 8.9 (95% CI 1.1-76.0; P = 0.026). An economic model demonstrated that implementation of the Zio Patch service would result in 10.8 more strokes avoided per year compared to current practice with Holter monitoring with an associated yearly saving in direct medical costs of £113,630, increasing to £162,491 over 5 years.ConclusionsEarly, prolonged, patch-based monitoring after an index stroke or TIA is superior to short-duration Holter monitoring in the detection of PAF and likely cost-effective for preventing recurrent strokes. Trial registration http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 50253271. Registered 21 January 2016.
| S-EPMC6659210 | biostudies-literature