scholarly journals Laninamivir octanoate for post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza in household contacts: a randomized double blind placebo controlled trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 740-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seizaburo Kashiwagi ◽  
Akira Watanabe ◽  
Hideyuki Ikematsu ◽  
Shinichiro Awamura ◽  
Takako Okamoto ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S851-S852
Author(s):  
Elizabeth R Brown ◽  
Anna Bershteyn ◽  
Helen C Stankiewicz Karita ◽  
Christine Johnston ◽  
Lorna Thorpe ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Prevention interventions for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), are currently limited to non-pharmaceutical strategies. Observational and laboratory data suggested that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had biologic activity against SARS-CoV-2. A blinded trial of HCQ in persons with confirmed exposure and virologic and clinical endpoints is needed. Methods We conducted a national, householdrandomized, double-blind, controlled trial of HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis, with entirely remote study procedures. We enrolled close contacts exposed to persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past 96 hours. Participants were randomized to either HCQ (400 mg daily for three days followed by 200 mg daily for eleven days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg followed by 250 mg daily), as a placebo-equivalent control. Participants self-collected mid-turbinate swabs daily (days 1–14) for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons SARS-CoV-2 negative at enrollment. Symptoms were assessed using criteria from the US CDC. Results From March-August 2020, 623 households were randomized; 311 households (381 participants) to the HCQ group and 312 households (400 participants) to the control group. Ninety- one percent of participants were retained up to day 14 and 9,595 of 10,588 (91%) of swabs were tested. Among participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline (n=626/781, 80%), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was 14.5% (95% CI: 11.6–17.4) and the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 symptoms was 11.6% (95% CI: 8.9–14.2) at day 14. By day 14, there was no difference between the HCQ group and control group in SARS-CoV-2 acquisition (46 vs. 43 events, aHR= 0.99, 95% CI 0.64–1.52, p=0.95) or symptomatic disease (40 vs. 32 events, aHR= 1.23, 95% CI: 0.76–1.99, p=0.40). The adverse event frequency was similar between groups (59 [15.5%] participants in the HCQ and 45 [11.3%] in the control group, p=0.092). Cumulative incidence of RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among close contacts of diagnosed cases, by study group Conclusion This randomized, double-blind, controlled trial among persons with recent exposure and high incidence of SAR-CoV2 provides strong evidence that HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or modify clinical disease. Disclosures Anna Bershteyn, PhD, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant/Research Support)Gates Ventures (Consultant)National Institutes of Health (Grant/Research Support) Kristopher M. Paolino, MD, MTM&H, Nothing to disclose Raphael J. Landovitz, MD, MSc, Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member)Roche (Other Financial or Material Support, Speaker Honoraria) Anna Wald, MD, MPH, Aicuris (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Gilead (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; GlaxoSmithKline (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator; Merck (Individual(s) Involved: Self): DSMB participation; provision of vaccine for a study, Other Financial or Material Support; Sanofi (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator; X-Vax (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant Helen Y. Chu, MD MPH, Cepheid (Grant/Research Support)Ellume (Grant/Research Support)Glaxo Smith Kline (Consultant)Merck (Consultant)Sanofi-Pasteur (Grant/Research Support)


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E Wischmeyer ◽  
Helen Tang ◽  
Yi Ren ◽  
Lauren Bohannon ◽  
Zeni E Ramirez ◽  
...  

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose unprecedented challenges to worldwide health. While vaccines are effective, supplemental strategies to mitigate the spread and severity of COVID-19 are urgently needed. Emerging evidence suggests susceptibility to infections, including respiratory tract infections, may be reduced by probiotic interventions. Therefore, probiotics may be a low-risk, widely implementable modality to mitigate risk of COVID-19 disease, particularly in areas with low vaccine availability and/or uptake. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States testing the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) as post-COVID-19-exposure prophylaxis. We enrolled individuals > 1 year of age with a household contact with a recent (≤ 7 days) diagnosis of COVID-19. Participants were randomized to receive daily LGG or placebo for 28 days. Stool was collected to evaluate the microbiome. The primary outcome was development of symptoms of illness compatible with COVID-19 within 28 days. Findings: We enrolled 182 COVID-19-exposed participants. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that participants randomized to LGG were less likely to develop symptoms versus those randomized to placebo (26.4% vs. 42.9%, p=0.02). Further, LGG was associated with a statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 diagnosis (log rank p=0.049) via time-to-event analysis. Overall incidence of COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly different between LGG (8.8%) and placebo (15.4%) (p=0.17). LGG was well-tolerated with no increased side effects versus placebo. Interpretation: These findings suggest that LGG probiotic may protect against the development of COVID-19 infection and symptoms when used as post-exposure prophylaxis within 7 days after exposure. Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the Duke Microbiome Center to A.D.S. and P.E.W. and private philanthropic donations to A.D.S. DSM/iHealth donated the LGG and placebo for the trial but had no role in its design, conduct, analysis, or writing. Trial registration: NCT04399252


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M Wiseman ◽  
Pierre Kory ◽  
Samir A Saidi ◽  
Dan Mazzucco

BACKGROUND: A recent trial (NCT04308668) found that post-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was associated with a reduced incidence of Covid-19 by 17% overall; 36% in younger subjects, 31% in household contacts and 49% given within one day. To understand these trends, we re-analyzed the released dataset. METHODS: Our protocol conformed to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT). We compared the incidence of Covid-19 after HCQ or placebo, stratifying by intervention lag, age, and gender. RESULTS: Requesting additional data, we found that 52% of subjects received medication 1-2 days after the intended overnight delivery; 19% of them outside the intended four-day intervention lag. After re-analysis, there was a reduced incidence of Covid-19 associated with HCQ compared with placebo (9.6% vs. 16.5%) when received Early (up to 3 days) after exposure (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.35 - 0.97; p=0.044; NNT 14.5) but not Late (RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.72 - 2.04). We found a significant HCQ-associated Covid-19 reduction in subjects 18 to 45 years old with Early (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.29-0.97; p=0.0448, NNT 11.5) but not Late (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.55-1.89) prophylaxis, attenuated in older subjects (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0-27-2.05) and by co-morbidities. There were reductions associated with Early prophylaxis in household contacts (RR 0.35, 95%CI 0.13-0.89; p=0.025, NNT 5.7) and Health Care Workers (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.4-1.38). We did not detect effects of gender, folate, zinc, or ascorbic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Using novel data with a prospective post hoc re-analysis, hydroxychloroquine, in an age-dependent manner, was associated with reduced illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when supplied for post-exposure prophylaxis between 1 and 3 days after high-risk or moderate-risk exposure, at higher loading and maintenance doses than in similar studies. This finding warrants prospective confirmation. Registered with the Open Science Framework (last revised September 27, 2020, osf.io/fqtnw). Plain Language Summary A recent clinical trial examined the ability of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to prevent Covid-19 just after an exposure to a person confirmed to have Covid-19. There was an HCQ-associated reduction of Covid-19 by an overall 17%; 36% in younger subjects, and 49% in subjects given HCQ within one day of being exposed. Likely because the study had too few patients to find what may have been a medically and economically meaningful, reduction, this effect was not statistically significant. Studying the trial data, we discovered an unintended and variable delay in the delivery of study drug which may have masked any drug effect. The investigators provided further information at our request that confirmed our theory. About half of the participants received drugs one or two days later than intended, about a fifth beyond the four days the investigators thought the drug might work. When we factored in this new information, we found that if HCQ was given early (up to three days after exposure), it was associated with a statistically significant 42% reduction of Covid-19. Giving HCQ later had no effect. There was a greater effect in younger (less than 45 years) rather than older subjects (47% vs. 25%). Gender did not seem to affect the results, but there was a greater HCQ-associated reduction (65%) when it was given early to people exposed to Covid-19 in a household environment rather than to health care workers (26%). The effects associated with HCQ were better in people without co-existing conditions. These re-calculations are important because the study, as originally analyzed, was the only randomized study that dealt with preventing Covid-19 cited by FDA to support a key public health decision made in June 2020 regarding HCQ. Although other studies have shown that the drug is not effective to treat established cases of Covid-19, our research suggests that that it is effective for prevention. Other prevention studies have failed to show a benefit of HCQ, possibly because they have used lower doses or have estimated the timing of dosing differently. Our research paves the way for our result to be confirmed under clinical trial conditions and for a re-examination of public health policy regarding this drug. Even with the introduction of vaccination, there remains a need for approaches like this to prevent Covid-19 while individual and community immunity develops, especially in subjects given a lower priority for vaccination. Short Summary A prospective re-analysis of a public dataset integrated with novel data found an HCQ-associated reduction of illness compatible with Covid-19 when received between 1 and 3 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.97, p=0.044, NNT14.5).


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Tshiani Mbaya ◽  
Philippe Mukumbayi ◽  
Sabue Mulangu

The unprecedented 2013-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak accelerated several medical countermeasures (MCMs) against Ebola virus disease (EVD). Several investigational products (IPs) were used throughout the outbreak but were not conclusive for efficacy results. Only the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on ZMapp was promising but inconclusive. More recently, during the second-largest Ebola outbreak in North Kivu and Ituri provinces, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), four IPs, including one small molecule (Remdesivir), two monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktails (ZMapp and REGN-EB3) and a single mAb (mAb114), were evaluated in an RCT, the Pamoja Tulinde Maisha (PALM) study. Two products (REGN-EB3 and mAb114) demonstrated efficacy as compared to the control arm, ZMapp. There were remarkably few side effects recorded in the trial. The FDA approved both medications in this scientifically sound study, marking a watershed moment in the field of EVD therapy. These products can be produced relatively inexpensively and can be stockpiled. The administration of mAbs in EVD patients appears to be safe and effective, while several critical knowledge gaps remain; the impact of early administration of Ebola-specific mAbs on developing a robust immune response for future Ebola virus exposure is unknown. The viral mutation escape, leading to resistance, presents a potential limitation for single mAb therapy; further improvements need to be explored. Understanding the contribution of Fc-mediated antibody functions such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) of those approved mAbs is still critical. The potential merit of combination therapy and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) need to be demonstrated. Furthermore, the PALM trial has accounted for 30% of mortality despite the administration of specific treatments. The putative role of EBOV soluble Glycoprotein (sGP) as a decoy to the immune system, the virus persistence, and relapses might be investigated for treatment failure. The development of pan-filovirus or pan-species mAbs remains essential for protection. The interaction between FDA-approved mAbs and vaccines remains unclear and needs to be investigated. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety results of the PALM study and review current research questions for the further development of mAbs in pre-exposure or emergency post-exposure use.


Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Madunil A. Niriella ◽  
Dileepa S. Ediriweera ◽  
Arjuna P. De Silva ◽  
Ranjan Premarathne ◽  
Priyantha Balasooriya ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document