scholarly journals An open-label randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in severe COVID-19 patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Álvaro Réa-Neto ◽  
Rafaella Stradiotto Bernardelli ◽  
Bruna Martins Dzivielevski Câmara ◽  
Fernanda Baeumle Reese ◽  
Marcos Vinicius Oliveira Queiroga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Renal Dysfunction ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily

AbstractDespite several studies designed to evaluate the efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is still doubt about the effects of these drugs, especially in patients with severe forms of the disease. This randomized, open-label, controlled, phase III trial assessed the efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for five days in combination with standard care compared to standard care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Chloroquine 450 mg BID on day 1 and 450 mg once daily from days 2 to 5 or hydroxychloroquine 400 mg BID on day 1 and 400 mg once daily from days 2 to 5 were administered in the intervention group. Patients were enrolled from April 16 to August 06, 2020, in 6 hospitals in southern Brazil. The primary outcome was the clinical status measured on day 14 after randomization with a 9-point ordinal scale. The main secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality; invasive mechanical ventilation use; the incidence of acute renal dysfunction in 28 days; and the clinical status of patients on days 5, 7, 10 and 28. All patients with a positive RT-PCR result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were analyzed (modified intention to treat (mITT) population). Arrythmias and cardiovascular complications were assessed as safety outcomes. A total of 105 patients were enrolled and followed for 28 days. The trial was stopped before reaching the planned sample size due to harmful effects. Patients in the intervention group had a worse clinical outcome on the 14th day (odds ratio (OR) 2.45 [1.17 to 4.93], p = 0.016) and on the 28th day (OR 2.47 [1.15 to 5.30], p = 0.020). Moreover, the intervention group had higher incidences of invasive mechanical ventilation use (risk ratio (RR) 2.15 [1.05 to 4.40], p = 0.030) and severe renal dysfunction (KDIGO stage 3) (RR 2.24 [1.01 to 4.99], p = 0.042) until the 28th day of follow-up. No significant arrythmia was noted. In patients with severe COVID-19, the use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine added to standard treatment resulted in a significant worsening of clinical status, an increased risk of renal dysfunction and an increased need for invasive mechanical ventilation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04420247. Registered 09 June 2020—Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04420247.

scholarly journals COVID-19-associated ARDS treated with DEXamethasone (CoDEX): Study design and rationale for a randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno M. Tomazini ◽  
Israel S. Maia ◽  
Flavia R. Bueno ◽  
Maria Vitoria A.O. Silva ◽  
Franca Pellison Baldassare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation Duration ◽  
Icu Discharge

ABSTRACTOBJECTIVESThe infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) spreads worldwide and is considered a pandemic. The most common manifestation of SARS-CoV2 infection (Coronavirus disease 2019 - COVID-19) is viral pneumonia with varying degrees of respiratory compromise and up to 40% of hospitalized patients might develop Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Several clinical trials evaluated the role of corticosteroids in non-COVID-19 ARDS with conflicting results. We designed a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of early intravenous dexamethasone administration on the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation within 28 days after randomization in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed or probable COVID-19.METHODSThis is a pragmatic, prospective, randomized, stratified, multicenter, open-label, controlled trial including 350 patients with early-onset (less than 48h before randomization) moderate or severe ARDS, defined by the Berlin criteria, due to COVID-19. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment plus dexamethasone (intervention group) or standard treatment without dexamethasone (control group). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20mg IV once daily for 5 days, followed by dexamethasone 10mg IV once daily for additional 5 days or until Intensive Care Unit (ICU) discharge, whichever occurs first. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days within 28 days after randomization, defined as days alive and free from invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality rates at day 28, evaluation of the clinical status at day 15 assessed with a 6-level ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation duration from randomization to day 28, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score evaluation at 48h, 72h and 7 days and ICU-free days within 28.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATIONThis trial was approved by the Brazilian National Committee of Ethics in Research (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa - CONEP) and National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA). An independent data monitoring committee will perform interim analyses and evaluate adverse events throughout the trial. Results will be submitted for publication after enrolment and follow-up are complete.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT04327401

scholarly journals Protocol for the DisCoVeRy trial: multicentre, adaptive, randomised trial of the safety and efficacy of treatments for COVID-19 in hospitalised adults

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e041437
Author(s):  
Florence Ader
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Antiviral Agents ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
National Agency ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Hospitalised Patients

IntroductionTo find effective and safe treatments for COVID-19, the WHO recommended to systemically evaluate experimental therapeutics in collaborative randomised clinical trials. As COVID-19 was spreading in Europe, the French national institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) established a transdisciplinary team to develop a multi-arm randomised controlled trial named DisCoVeRy. The objective of the trial is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of different investigational re-purposed therapeutics relative to Standard of Care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.Methods and analysisDisCoVeRy is a phase III, open-label, adaptive, controlled, multicentre clinical trial in which hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in need of oxygen therapy are randomised between five arms: (1) a control group managed with SoC and four therapeutic arms with re-purposed antiviral agents: (2) remdesivir + SoC, (3) lopinavir/ritonavir + SoC, (4) lopinavir/ritonavir associated with interferon (IFN)-β−1a + SoC and (5) hydroxychloroquine + SoC. The primary endpoint is the clinical status at Day 15 on the 7-point ordinal scale of the WHO Master Protocol (V.3.0, 3 March 2020). This trial involves patients hospitalised in conventional departments or intensive care units both from academic or non-academic hospitals throughout Europe. A sample size of 3100 patients (620 patients per arm) is targeted. This trial has begun on 22 March 2020. Since 5 April 2020, DisCoVeRy has been an add-on trial of the Solidarity consortium of trials conducted by the WHO in Europe and worldwide. On 8 June 2020, 754 patients have been included.Ethics and disseminationInserm is the sponsor of DisCoVeRy. Ethical approval has been obtained from the institutional review board on 13 March 2020 (20.03.06.51744) and from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products (ANSM) on 9 March 2020. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04315948 Eudra-CT 2020-000936-23.

scholarly journals Methylprednisolone or dexamethasone, which one is superior corticosteroid in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keivan Ranjbar ◽  
Mohsen Moghadami ◽  
Alireza Mirahmadizadeh ◽  
Mohammad Javad Fallahi ◽  
Vahid Khaloo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Although almost a year has passed since the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and promising reports of vaccines have been presented, we still have a long way until these measures are available for all. Furthermore, the most appropriate corticosteroid and dose in the treatment of COVID-19 have remained uncertain. We conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of methylprednisolone treatment versus dexamethasone for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods In this prospective triple-blinded randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from August to November 2020, in Shiraz, Iran. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day; intervention group) or dexamethasone (6 mg/kg/day; control group). Data were assessed based on a 9-point WHO ordinal scale extending from uninfected (point 0) to death (point 8). Results There were no significant differences between the groups on admission. However, the intervention group demonstrated significantly better clinical status compared to the control group at day 5 (4.02 vs. 5.21, p = 0.002) and day 10 (2.90 vs. 4.71, p = 0.001) of admission. There was also a significant difference in the overall mean score between the intervention group and the control group, (3.909 vs. 4.873 respectively, p = 0.004). The mean length of hospital stay was 7.43 ± 3.64 and 10.52 ± 5.47 days in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p = 0.015). The need for a ventilator was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (18.2% vs 38.1% p = 0.040). Conclusion In hospitalized hypoxic COVID-19 patients, methylprednisolone demonstrated better results compared to dexamethasone. Trial registration The trial was registered with IRCT.IR (08/04/2020-No. IRCT20200204046369N1).

scholarly journals COVIDENZA - A prospective, multicenter, randomized PHASE II clinical trial of enzalutamide treatment to decrease the morbidity in patients with Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Welén ◽  
Anna K Överby ◽  
Clas Ahlm ◽  
Eva Freyhult ◽  
David Robinsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Full Protocol ◽  
Exploration Phase

Abstract Objectives The main goal of the COVIDENZA trial is to evaluate if inhibition of testosterone signalling by enzalutamide can improve the outcome of patients hospitalised for COVID-19. The hypothesis is based on the observation that the majority of patients in need of intensive care are male, and the connection between androgen receptor signalling and expression of TMPRSS2, an enzyme important for SARS-CoV-2 host cell internalization. Trial design Hospitalised COVID-19 patients will be randomised (2:1) to enzalutamide plus standard of care vs. standard of care designed to identify superiority. Participants Included participants, men or women above 50 years of age, must be hospitalised for PCR confirmed COVID-19 symptoms and not in need of immediate mechanical ventilation. Major exclusion criteria are breast-feeding or pregnant women, hormonal treatment for prostate or breast cancer, treatment with immunosuppressive drugs, current symptomatic unstable cardiovascular disease (see Additional file 1 for further details). The trial is registered at Umeå University Hospital, Region Västerbotten, Sweden and 8 hospitals are approved for inclusion in Sweden. Intervention and comparator Patients randomised to the treatment arm will be treated orally with 160 mg (4x40 mg) enzalutamide (Xtandi®) daily, for five consecutive days. The study is not placebo controlled. The comparator is standard of care treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Main outcomes The primary endpoints of the study are (time to) need of mechanical ventilation or discharge from hospital as assessed by a clinical 7-point ordinal scale (up to 30 days after inclusion). Randomisation Randomisation was stratified by center and sex. Each strata was randomized separately with block size six with a 2:1 allocation ratio (enzalutamide + “standard of care”: “standard of care”). The randomisation list, with consecutive subject numbers, was generated by an independent statistician using the PROC PLAN procedure of SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, North Carolina) Blinding (masking) This is an open-label trial. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The trial is designed to have three phases. The first, an exploration phase of 45 participants (30 treatment and 15 control) will focus on safety and includes a more extensive laboratory assessment as well as more frequent safety evaluation. The second prolongation phase, includes the first 100 participants followed by an interim analysis to define the power of the study. The third phase is the continuation of the study up to maximum 600 participants included in total. Trial Status The current protocol version is COVIDENZA v2.0 as of September 10, 2020. Recruitment started July 29, 2020 and is presently in safety pause after the first exploration phase. Recruitment is anticipated to be complete by 31 December 2021. Trial registration Eudract number 2020-002027-10 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475601, registered June 8, 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

scholarly journals Aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim ◽  
Natalie Staplin ◽  
Jonathan R Emberson ◽  
Enti Spata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Absolute Increase ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

Background: Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its antithrombotic properties. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus 150mg aspirin once daily until discharge using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 01 November 2020 and 21 March 2021, 7351 patients were randomly allocated to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.04; p=0.35). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days vs. 9 days) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs. 74%; rate ratio 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10; p=0.0062). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs. 22%; risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.03; p=0.23). Aspirin use was associated with an absolute reduction in thrombotic events of 0.6% (SE 0.4%) and an absolute increase in clinically significant bleeding of 0.6% (SE 0.2%). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive.

Early Use of Sarilumab in Patients Hospitalised with COVID-19 Pneumonia and Features of Systemic Inflammation.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolás Merchante ◽  
Sheila Cárcel ◽  
José Carlos Garrido-Gracia ◽  
Marta Trigo-Rodríguez ◽  
María Ángeles Esteban Moreno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Systemic Inflammation ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Subcutaneous Dose ◽  
Early Use

In this phase II, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 115 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and systemic inflammation, early use of sarilumab was associated with a low risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring high-flow devices or mechanical ventilation. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of early treatment with sarilumab, added to standard of care (SOC), in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Methods: Phase II, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and interleukin (IL)-6 levels ≥ 40 pg/mL and/or D-dimer > 1500 ng/mL. Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to receive SOC (control group), SOC plus a single subcutaneous dose of sarilumab 200 mg (Sarilumab-200) or SOC plus a single subcutaneous dose of sarilumab 400 mg (Sarilumab-400). The primary outcome variable was the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) at day 28. Results: One-hundred and fifteen participants (control group, n = 39; Sarilumab-200, n = 37; Sarilumab-400, n = 39) were included. At randomization, 104 (90%) patients had supplemental oxygen and 103 (90%) received corticosteroids. Eleven (28%) patients in the control group, ten (27%) in Sarilumab-200 and five (13%) in Sarilumab-400 developed the primary outcome (hazard ratio [95% CI] of Sarilumab-400 vs control group: 0.41 [0.14-1.18]; p=0.09). Seven (6%) patients died: three in the control group and four in Sarilumab-200. There were no deaths in Sarilumab-400 (p = 0.079, log-rank test for comparisons with the control group). Conclusion: In patients recently hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia and features of systemic inflammation, early IL-6 blockade with a single dose of sarilumab 400 mg was safe and associated with a trend for better outcomes.

Vandetanib with FOLFIRI in patients with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma: an open-label, multicenter Phase I study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4085-4085
Author(s):  
M. Saunders ◽  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
R. Wilson ◽  
M. Peeters ◽  
R. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tyrosine Kinases ◽  
Colorectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Related Complication ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Grade 3

4085 Background: Vandetanib (ZD6474) is a once-daily oral agent in Phase III development that selectively targets key signaling pathways in cancer by inhibiting VEGF, EGF and RET receptor tyrosine kinases. Methods: Patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who were eligible for 1st- or 2nd-line chemotherapy received once-daily oral doses of vandetanib (100 mg) in combination with standard 14-day treatment cycles of FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 1.5-hr and leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-hr i.v. infusions, followed by 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] 400 mg/mg2 i.v. bolus and 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 46–48-hr i.v. infusion). If <2 of 6 evaluable patients (i.e., having completed 6 weeks of treatment) experienced a vandetanib- related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), an additional cohort received vandetanib 300 mg + FOLFIRI. The primary objective of the study was to establish the safety and tolerability of vandetanib + FOLFIRI. Secondary objectives included an assessment of any pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction between vandetanib, irinotecan (SN-38) and 5-FU, and preliminary evaluation of efficacy (RECIST). Results: Twenty- one patients (12 male/9 female; mean age 53 years, range 33–72) received vandetanib 100 mg (n=11) or 300 mg (n=10) + FOLFIRI. Combination therapy was well tolerated at both vandetanib dose levels. There were no DLTs in the vandetanib 100 mg cohort, with one DLT of hypertension (CTC grade 3) with QTc prolongation in the 300 mg cohort. The most common adverse events (AEs; all grade 1/2) were diarrhea (n=20), nausea (n=12), fatigue (n=10) and alopecia (n=9); AEs =grade 3 reported in more than one patient were neutropenia (n=4, all grade 3), hypertension (n=3, all grade 3), catheter-related complication (n=2, both grade 3) and pulmonary embolism (n=2, both grade 4). There was no apparent PK interaction between vandetanib and irintotecan (SN-38) or 5-FU. Best overall responses in the 14 patients evaluable for efficacy were partial response (n=2), stable disease =8 weeks (n=9), and progressive disease (n=3). Conclusions: In patients with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma, combining once-daily vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) with a standard FOLFIRI regimen was generally well tolerated. ZACTIMA is a trademark of the AstraZeneca group of companies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

EPIC: A phase III randomized, open-label study of ponatinib versus imatinib in adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS7129-TPS7129
Author(s):  
Jeffrey H. Lipton ◽  
Michael W. N. Deininger ◽  
Stephanie Lustgarten ◽  
Christopher D. Turner ◽  
Victor M. Rivera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Dropout Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Absolute Increase ◽  
Once Daily

TPS7129 Background: The hallmark genetic abnormality of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), known as the Philadelphia chromosome, generates the BCR-ABL fusion gene; expression of BCR-ABL in hematopoietic stem cells gives rise to CML. Ponatinib is a potent oral pan–BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that is active against native and mutated forms of BCR-ABL, including the T315I gatekeeper mutant. Results from the phase 1 and phase 2 studies of ponatinib demonstrated that ponatinib is generally well tolerated and has substantial anti-leukemic activity in patients with CML who are resistant or intolerant to prior TKI therapy, regardless of baseline mutation status. In addition, multivariate analyses suggest that ponatinib has greater activity in younger patients who are less heavily pretreated and have a shorter time since diagnosis. The phase 3 EPIC (Evaluation of Ponatinib vs Imatinib in CML) study is testing the hypothesis that ponatinib is an effective treatment for newly diagnosed chronic phase (CP) CML patients when compared with standard imatinib therapy. Methods: EPIC is a multicenter, international, phase 3, two-arm, open-label trial of ponatinib (45 mg once daily) versus imatinib (400 mg once daily) in patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML. Patients ≥18 years of age with CP-CML (diagnosed within 6 months prior to study entry) and adequate renal, hepatic, and pancreatic function are eligible for enrollment. Enrolled patients are assigned to receive ponatinib or imatinib in a 1:1 fashion, stratified by Sokal Risk score (low vs intermediate vs high). The primary efficacy endpoint for this trial is major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months. Secondary endpoints include MMR rate at 5 years, BCR-ABLIS<10% rate at 3 months, CCyR rate at 12 months, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. A sample size consisting of 480 patients will provide 90% power to detect a 15% absolute increase in MMR rate at 12 months using an unstratified Fisher exact 2-sided test at an alpha level of 0.05. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, approximately 528 patients will be enrolled. The first patient was enrolled in August 2012. Clinical trial information: NCT01650805.

scholarly journals Ciclesonide Inhaler Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 3545
Author(s):  
Joon-Young Song ◽  
Jin-Gu Yoon ◽  
Yu-Bin Seo ◽  
Jacob Lee ◽  
Joong-Sik Eom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Eradication Rate ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Antiviral Agents ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Viral Shedding ◽  
Phase 2 Trial

Although some intravenous drugs have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), no effective antiviral agents are currently available in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of 14-day ciclesonide treatment vs. standard care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. A randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of ciclesonide inhalers was conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Patients were enrolled within 3 days of diagnosis or within 7 days from symptom onset and randomly assigned to receive either ciclesonide (320 µg inhalation twice per day for 14 days) or standard care. The primary endpoint was the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) eradication rate on day 14 from study enrollment. Clinical status was assessed once daily, and serial nasopharyngeal viral load was evaluated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. There were 35 and 26 patients in the ciclesonide and standard care groups, respectively. The SARS-CoV-2 eradication rate at day 14 was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (p = 0.021). In multivariate analysis, SARS-CoV-2 negative conversion within 14 days was 12 times more likely in the ciclesonide group (95% confidence interval, 1.187–125.240). Additionally, the clinical failure rate (high-flow nasal oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation) was significantly lower in the ciclesonide group (p = 0.034). In conclusion, ciclesonide inhalation shortened SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding duration, and it may inhibit the progression to acute respiratory failure in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04330586.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document