Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Pacritinib vs Placebo for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 remain high despite advances in standard of care therapy, and the role of anti-inflammatory agents that inhibit the interleukin 6/JAK2 pathway is still being elucidated.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor pacritinib vs placebo in the treatment of adults with severe COVID-19.

Design, setting, and participants

This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial enrolled hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 at 21 centers across the US between June 2020 and February 2021, with approximately 1.5 months of safety follow-up per patient. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to July 2022.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard of care plus pacritinib (400 mg per os on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily on days 2-14) vs placebo, for 14 days.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) by day 28. All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed.

Results

A total of 200 patients were randomized to pacritinib (99 patients; 56 men [56.6%]; median [range] age, 60 [19-87] years) or placebo (101 patients; 64 men [63.4%]; median [range] age 59 [28-94] years). The percentage requiring supplementary oxygen was 99.0% (98 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 98.0% (99 patients) in the placebo group. The percentage who progressed to IMV, ECMO, or death was 17.2% (17 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 22.8% (23 patients) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.28-1.35; P = .23). Among patients with elevated interleukin 6, the rate was 17.5% (11 of 63 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 30.4% (21 of 96 patients) in the placebo group. The adverse event rate was similar for pacritinib vs placebo (78.1% [75 patients] vs 80.2% [81 patients]), with no excess in infection (14.6% [14 patients] vs 19.8% [20 patients]), bleeding (8.3% [8 patients] vs 10.9% [11 patients]), or thrombosis (8.3% [8 patients] vs 7.9% [8 patients]). Rates of grade 3 or higher adverse events were lower with pacritinib than placebo (29.2% [28 patients] vs 40.6% [41 patients]).

Conclusions and relevance

The study did not meet its primary end point in patients with severe COVID-19. Subgroup analyses may indicate specific populations with hyperinflammation that could benefit from pacritinib, although further clinical trials would be needed to confirm these effects.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04404361.

SUBMITTER: Cafardi J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9855296 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Pacritinib vs Placebo for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Cafardi John J Miller Carole C Terebelo Howard H Tewell Chad C Benzaquen Sadia S Park David D Egan Pamela P Lebovic Daniel D Pettit Kristen K Whitman Eric E Tremblay Douglas D Feld Jonathan J Buckley Sarah S Roman-Torres Karisse K Smith Jennifer J Craig Adam A Mascarenhas John J

JAMA network open 20221201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 remain high despite advances in standard of care therapy, and the role of anti-inflammatory agents that inhibit the interleukin 6/JAK2 pathway is still being elucidated.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor pacritinib vs placebo in the treatment of adults with severe COVID-19.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized c ...[more]

PMID: 36469321

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPolymorphonuclear cell influx into the interstitial and bronchoalveolar spaces is a cardinal feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), principally mediated by interleukin-8 (IL-8). We sought to determine whether reparixin, a novel IL-8 pathway inhibitor, could reduce disease progression in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsIn this Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were randomized 2:1 to receive oral reparixin 1200 mg three times daily or placebo for up to 21 days or until hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28, with key secondary endpoints being the proportion of patients free of respiratory failure at Day 60, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission by Day 28 and time to recovery by Day 28.ResultsOf 279 patients randomized, 182 received at least one dose of reparixin and 88 received placebo. The proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 was similar in the two groups {83.5% versus 80.7%; odds ratio 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75, 3.51]; p = 0.216}. There were no statistically significant differences in the key secondary endpoints, but a numerically higher proportion of patients in the reparixin group were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 60 (88.7% versus 84.6%; p = 0.195), fewer required ICU admissions by Day 28 (15.8% versus 21.7%; p = 0.168), and a higher proportion recovered by Day 28 compared with placebo (81.6% versus 74.9%; p = 0.167). Fewer patients experienced adverse events with reparixin than placebo (45.6% versus 54.5%), most mild or moderate intensity and not related to study treatment.ConclusionsThis trial did not meet the primary efficacy endpoints, yet reparixin showed a trend toward limiting disease progression as an add-on therapy in COVID-19 severe pneumonia and was well tolerated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04878055, EudraCT: 2020-005919-51.

Project description:ImportanceAlzheimer disease (AD), a neurodegenerative disease characterized by β-amyloid plaques and τ tangles in the brain, represents an unmet medical need with no fully approved therapeutics to modify disease progression.ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of crenezumab, a humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G4 antibody targeting β-amyloid oligomers, in participants with prodromal to mild (early) AD.Design, setting, and participantsTwo phase 3 multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group efficacy and safety studies of crenezumab in participants with early AD, CREAD and CREAD2, were initiated in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and were designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of crenezumab in participants with early AD. CREAD (194 sites in 30 countries) and CREAD2 (209 sites in 27 countries) were global multicenter studies. A total of 3736 and 3664 participants were screened in CREAD and CREAD2, respectively. A total of 3736 and 3664 participants were screened in CREAD and CREAD2, respectively. Both trials enrolled individuals aged 50 to 85 years with early AD. Participants with some comorbidities and evidence of cerebral infarction or more than 4 microbleeds or areas of leptomeningeal hemosiderosis on magnetic resonance imaging were excluded. After 2923 and 2858 were excluded, respectively, 813 participants in CREAD and 806 in CREAD2 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either placebo or crenezumab. In the final analysis, there were 409 participants in the placebo group and 404 in the crenezumab group in CREAD and 399 in the placebo group and 407 in the crenezumab group in CREAD2. Data were analyzed up until January 2019 and August 2019, respectively.InterventionsParticipants received placebo or 60 mg/kg crenezumab intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 100 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change from baseline to week 105 in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score.ResultsThere were 813 participants in CREAD (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.2] years; 483 female and 330 male) and 806 in CREAD2 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.7] years; 456 female and 350 male). Baseline characteristics were balanced between both groups. The between-group difference in mean change from baseline in CDR-SB score (placebo minus crenezumab) was -0.17 (95% CI, -0.86 to 0.53; P = .63) at week 105 in the CREAD study (88 placebo; 86 crenezumab). Compared with previous trials, no new safety signals were identified, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema were rare, mild, and transient. No meaningful changes in AD biomarkers were observed. Both studies were discontinued following a preplanned interim analysis indicating that CREAD was unlikely to meet the primary end point.Conclusions and relevanceCrenezumab was well tolerated but did not reduce clinical decline in participants with early AD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: CREAD, NCT02670083; CREAD2, NCT03114657.

Project description:BackgroundMany recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs).MethodsWe did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates.ResultsFrom 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96-393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21-30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15-18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22-32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12-24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43-17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09-0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients.ConclusionWe conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

Project description:IntroductionVidofludimus calcium has shown anti-inflammatory effects in clinical trials of autoimmune diseases and recently demonstrated antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vidofludimus calcium in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Europe and the USA.MethodsPatients aged 18 years or older who positive for COVID-19 were randomized (1:1) to receive placebo or 45 mg vidofludimus calcium for 14 days with both groups receiving standard-of-care treatment. The primary endpoint was the need for invasive ventilation after 28 days (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04379271; EudraCT 2020-001264-28).ResultsBetween June 12, 2020 and December 10, 2020, a total of 223 were randomized to receive either placebo (n = 112) or vidofludimus calcium (n = 111); three patients withdrew consent and were not treated. Eight (9%) patients in the placebo group and 12 (11%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group needed invasive ventilation during the 28-day study period, which was lower than the assumed rate of 40%. Time to clinical improvement was shorter by approximately 1 day in the vidofludimus calcium group (15.0 days [90% CI 14.8-15.9]) compared to the placebo group (15.9 days [90% CI 14.9-19.9]). This effect was greatest in patients who initiated therapy within 9 days of symptom onset (3.8 days shorter in the vidofludimus calcium group). Higher trough concentrations of vidofludimus calcium were associated with quicker time to clinical recovery. The rate and timing of appearance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were not different between groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 (4%) patients in the placebo group and 2 (2%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group; treatment-emergent adverse events of increased severity related to COVID-19 occurred in 13 (12%) patients in the placebo group and 8 (7%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group. Overall mortality was low (2%).ConclusionsThese findings support vidofludimus calcium being safe and well tolerated in patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel corinavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2 virus), was fistly reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China towards the end of 2019. Large-scale spread within China and internationally led the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 virus infection include asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory symptoms, severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure, and even death. There are no antivirals of proven clinical efficacy in coronavirus infections. Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue, has inhibitory effects on animal and human highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, in in vitro and in vivo experiments. It is also inhibitory against the COVID-19 virus in vitro. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19.MethodsThe protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Adults (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 virus infection, severe pneumonia signs or symptoms, and radiologically confirmed severe pneumonia are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenously administered remdesivir or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement (censored at day 28), defined as the time (in days) from randomization of study treatment (remdesivir or placebo) until a decline of two categories on a six-category ordinal scale of clinical status (1 = discharged; 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital. One interim analysis for efficacy and futility will be conducted once half of the total number of events required has been observed.DiscussionThis is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in COVID-19. Enrolment began in sites in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on 6th February 2020.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04257656. Registered on 6 February 2020.

Project description:BackgroundCalcium release-activated calcium (CRAC) channel inhibitors block proinflammatory cytokine release, preserve endothelial integrity and may effectively treat patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsCARDEA was a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the addition of Auxora, a CRAC channel inhibitor, to corticosteroids and standard of care in adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Eligible patients were adults with ≥ 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 infection, a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by laboratory testing using polymerase chain reaction or other assay, and pneumonia documented by chest imaging. Patients were also required to be receiving oxygen therapy using either a high flow or low flow nasal cannula at the time of enrolment and have at the time of enrollment a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2 ratio > 75 and ≤ 300. The PaO2/FiO2 was imputed from a SpO2/FiO2 determine by pulse oximetry using a non-linear equation. Patients could not be receiving either non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of enrolment. The primary endpoint was time to recovery through Day 60, with secondary endpoints of all-cause mortality at Day 60 and Day 30. Due to declining rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and utilization of standard of care medications prohibited by regulatory guidance, the trial was stopped early.ResultsThe pre-specified efficacy set consisted of the 261 patients with a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2≤ 200 with 130 and 131 in the Auxora and placebo groups, respectively. Time to recovery was 7 vs. 10 days (P = 0.0979) for patients who received Auxora vs. placebo, respectively. The all-cause mortality rate at Day 60 was 13.8% with Auxora vs. 20.6% with placebo (P = 0.1449); Day 30 all-cause mortality was 7.7% and 17.6%, respectively (P = 0.0165). Similar trends were noted in all randomized patients, patients on high flow nasal cannula at baseline or those with a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 100. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were less frequent in patients treated with Auxora vs. placebo and occurred in 34 patients (24.1%) receiving Auxora and 49 (35.0%) receiving placebo (P = 0.0616). The most common SAEs were respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pneumonia.ConclusionsAuxora was safe and well tolerated with strong signals in both time to recovery and all-cause mortality through Day 60 in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies of Auxora in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are warranted. Trial registration NCT04345614.

Project description:BackgroundTrimodulin (human polyvalent immunoglobulin [Ig] M ~ 23%, IgA ~ 21%, IgG ~ 56% preparation) has previously been associated with a lower mortality rate in a subpopulation of patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and with clear signs of inflammation. The hypothesis for the ESsCOVID trial was that trimodulin may prevent inflammation-driven progression of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to critical disease or even death.MethodsAdults with severe COVID-19 were randomised to receive intravenous infusions of trimodulin or placebo for 5 consecutive days in addition to standard of care. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of clinical deterioration (Days 6-29) and 28-day all-cause mortality (Days 1-29).ResultsOne-hundred-and-sixty-six patients received trimodulin (n = 84) or placebo (n = 82). Thirty-three patients died, nine during the treatment phase. Overall, 84.9% and 76.5% of patients completed treatment and follow-up, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was reported in 33.3% of patients on trimodulin and 34.1% of patients on placebo (P = 0.912). No differences were observed in the proportion of patients recovered on Day 29, days of invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit-free days. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable. A post hoc analysis was conducted in patients with early systemic inflammation by excluding those with high CRP (> 150 mg/L) and/or D-dimer (≥ 3 mg/L) and/or low platelet counts (< 130 × 109/L) at baseline. Forty-seven patients in the trimodulin group and 49 in the placebo group met these criteria. A difference of 15.5 percentage points in clinical deterioration and mortality was observed in favour of trimodulin (95% confidence interval: -4.46, 34.78; P = 0.096).ConclusionAlthough there was no difference in the primary outcome in the overall population, observations in a subgroup of patients with early systemic inflammation suggest that trimodulin may have potential in this setting that warrants further investigation. ESSCOVID WAS REGISTERED PROSPECTIVELY AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ON OCTOBER 6, 2020.: NCT04576728.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Pacritinib vs Placebo for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Pacritinib vs Placebo for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets