Dataset Information

Intravenous immunoglobulins in patients with COVID-19-associated moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ICAR): multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury.

Methods

In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580.

Findings

Between April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089).

Interpretation

In patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials.

Funding

Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.

SUBMITTER: Mazeraud A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8585489 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intravenous immunoglobulins in patients with COVID-19-associated moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ICAR): multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Mazeraud Aurélien A Jamme Matthieu M Mancusi Rossella Letizia RL Latroche Claire C Megarbane Bruno B Siami Shidasp S Zarka Jonathan J Moneger Guy G Santoli Francesco F Argaud Laurent L Chillet Patrick P Muller Gregoire G Bruel Cedric C Asfar Pierre P Beloncle Francois F Reignier Jean J Vinsonneau Christophe C Schimpf Caroline C Amour Julien J Goulenok Cyril C Lemaitre Caroline C Rohaut Benjamin B Mateu Philippe P De Rudnicki Stephane S Mourvillier Bruno B Declercq Pierre-Louis PL Schwebel Carole C Stoclin Annabelle A Garnier Marc M Madeux Benjamin B Gaudry Stéphane S Bailly Karine K Lamer Christian C Aegerter Philippe P Rieu Christine C Sylla Khaoussou K Lucas Bruno B Sharshar Tarek T

The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20211111 2

<h4>Background</h4>Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury.<h4>Methods</h4>In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed ...[more]

PMID: 34774185

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might result from hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, contributing to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Because almitrine improves V/Q, it might reduce the risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) in such patients. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of almitrine on the need for MV at day 7.MethodsIn a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial involving 15 ICUs, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and experiencing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive 5 days of intravenous low-dose (2 µg.kg-1.min-1) almitrine or placebo. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation for MV or death within 7 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, number of ventilator-free days, number of days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357457.FindingsBetween September 3, 2020 and September 25, 2021 181 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to almitrine (n=89) or placebo (n=92). 179 patients (excluding two who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age: 60·1 years; 34% women) and analyzed. On day 7, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients assigned to almitrine (36%) and in 37 patients assigned to placebo (41%), for a difference of -4·3% (95% confidence interval: -18·7% to 10·2%). Secondary outcomes (28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at day 28, days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects) did not differ between the two groups.InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low-dose almitrine failed in reducing the need for MV or death at day 7.FundingProgramme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC COVID 2020) funded by the French Ministry of Health, Les Laboratoires Servier (Suresnes, France) providing the study drug free of charge.

Project description:Three small trials suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin can affect biomarkers and symptoms of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. We tested the safety, effective dose, and infusion interval of intravenous immunoglobulin in such patients.We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at seven sites in the USA and five in Germany. Participants with probable Alzheimer's disease aged 50-85 years were randomly assigned (by a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with block sizes of eight) to infusions every 4 weeks (0·2, 0·5, or 0·8 g intravenous immunoglobulin per kg bodyweight, or placebo) or infusions every 2 weeks (0·1, 0·25, or 0·4 g/kg, or placebo). Patients, caregivers, investigators assessing outcomes, and staff at imaging facilities and the clinical research organisation were masked to treatment allocation, but dispensing pharmacists, the statistician, and the person responsible for final PET analyses were not. Treatment was masked with opaque pouches and infusion lines. The primary endpoint was median area under the curve (AUC) of plasma amyloid ? (A?)(1-40) between the last infusion and the final visit (2 weeks or 4 weeks depending on infusion interval) in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00812565) and controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN64846759).89 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 58 were enrolled and 55 included in the primary analysis. Median AUC of plasma A?(1-40) was not significantly different for intravenous immunoglobulin compared with placebo for five of the six intervention groups (-18·0 [range -1347·0 to 1068·5] for 0·2 g/kg, -364·3 [-5834·5 to 1953·5] for 0·5 g/kg, and -351·8 [-1084·0 to 936·5] for 0·8 g/kg every 4 weeks vs -116·3 [-1379·0 to 5266·0] for placebo; and -13·8 [-1729·0 to 307·0] for 0·1 g/kg, and -32·5 [-1102·5 to 451·5] for 0·25 g/kg every 2 weeks vs 159·5 [51·5 to 303·0] for placebo; p>0·05 for all). The difference in median AUC of plasma A?(1-40) between the 0·4 g/kg every 2 weeks group (47·0 [range -341·0 to 72·5]) and the placebo group was significant (p=0·0216). 25 of 42 (60%) patients in the intervention group versus nine of 14 (64%) receiving placebo had an adverse event. Four of 42 (10%) patients in the intravenous immunoglobulin group versus four of 14 (29%) receiving placebo had a serious adverse event, including one stroke in the intervention group.Intravenous immunoglobulin may have an acceptable safety profile. Our results did not accord with those from previous studies. Longer trials with greater power are needed to assess the cognitive and functional effects of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the morphine-sparing effects of the sequential treatment versus placebo in subjects undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effects on pain relief, inflammation control and functional rehabilitation after TKA and safety.DesignDouble-blind, pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.SettingFour tertiary hospitals in China.Participants246 consecutive patients who underwent elective unilateral TKA because of osteoarthritis (OA).InterventionsPatients were randomised 1:1 to the parecoxib/celecoxib group or the control group. The patients in the parecoxib/celecoxib group were supplied sequential treatment with intravenous parecoxib 40 mg (every 12 hours) for the first 3 days after surgery, followed by oral celecoxib 200 mg (every 12 hours) for up to 6 weeks. The patients in the control group were supplied with the corresponding placebo under the same instructions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was the cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks post operation (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints included the Knee Society Score, patient-reported outcomes and the cumulative opioid consumption.ResultsThe cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks was significantly smaller in the parecoxib/celecoxib group than in the control group (median difference, 57.31 (95% CI 34.66 to 110.33)). The parecoxib/celecoxib group achieving superior Knee Society Scores and EQ-5D scores and greater Visual Analogue Scale score reduction during 6 weeks. Interleukin 6, erythrocyte sedation rate and C-reactive protein levels were reduced at 72 hours, 2 weeks and 4 weeks and prostaglandin E2 levels were reduced at 48 hours and 72 hours in the parecoxib/celecoxib group compared with the placebo group. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly lower in the parecoxib/celecoxib group.ConclusionsThe sequential intravenous parecoxib followed by oral celecoxib regimen reduces morphine consumption, achieves better pain control and functional recovery and leads to less AEs than placebo after TKA for OA.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02198924).

Project description:BackgroundLeritrelvir is a novel α-ketoamide based peptidomimetic inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 main protease. A preclinical study has demonstrated leritrelvir poses similar antiviral activities towards different SARS-CoV-2 variants compared with nirmatrelvir. A phase 2 clinical trial has shown a comparable antiviral efficacy and safety between leritrelvir with and without ritonavir co-administration. This trial aims to test efficacy and safety of leritrelvir monotherapy in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial at 29 clinical sites in China. Enrolled patients were from 18 to 75 years old, diagnosed with mild or moderate COVID-19 and not requiring hospitalization. Patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (NAT) and at least one of the COVID-19 symptoms within 48 h before randomization, and the interval between the first positive SARS-CoV-2 NAT and randomization was ≤120 h (5 days). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 5-day course of either oral leritrelvir 400 mg TID or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from the first dose to sustained clinical recovery of all 11 symptoms (stuffy or runny nose, sore throat, shortness of breath or dyspnea, cough, muscle or body aches, headache, chills, fever ≥37 °C, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea). The safety endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AE). Primary and safety analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05620160.FindingsBetween Nov 12 and Dec 30, 2022 when the zero COVID policy was abolished nationwide, a total of 1359 patients underwent randomization, 680 were assigned to leritrelvir group and 679 to placebo group. The median time to sustained clinical recovery in leritrelvir group was significantly shorter (251.02 h [IQR 188.95-428.68 h]) than that of Placebo (271.33 h [IQR 219.00-529.63 h], P = 0.0022, hazard ratio [HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.35). Further analysis of subgroups for the median time to sustained clinical recovery revealed that (1) subgroup with positive viral nucleic acid tested ≤72 h had a 33.9 h difference in leritrelvir group than that of placebo; (2) the subgroup with baseline viral load >8 log 10 Copies/mL in leritrelvir group had 51.3 h difference than that of placebo. Leritrelvir reduced viral load by 0.82 log10 on day 4 compared to placebo. No participants in either group progressed to severe COVID-19 by day 29. Adverse events were reported in two groups: leritrelvir 315 (46.46%) compared with placebo 292 (43.52%). Treatment-relevant AEs were similar 218 (32.15%) in the leritrelvir group and 186 (27.72%) in placebo. Two cases of COVID-19 pneumonia were reported in placebo group, and one case in leritrelvir group, none of them were considered by the investigators to be leritrelvir related. The most frequently reported AEs (occurring in ≥5% of participants in at least one group) were laboratory finding: hypertriglyceridemia (leritrelvir 79 [11.7%] vs. placebo 70 [10.4%]) and hyperlipidemia (60 [8.8%] vs. 52 [7.7%]); all of them were nonserious.InterpretationLeritrelvir monotherapy has good efficacy for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and without serious safety concerns.FundingThis study was funded by the National Multidisciplinary Innovation Team Project of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Science and Technology Foundation, Guangzhou Science and Technology Planning Project and R&D Program of Guangzhou Laboratory.

Dataset Information

Intravenous immunoglobulins in patients with COVID-19-associated moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ICAR): multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Intravenous immunoglobulins in patients with COVID-19-associated moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ICAR): multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets