scholarly journals 517. Subcutaneous Sarilumab for the Treatment of Hospitalized patients with Moderate to Severe COVID19 Disease: A Pragmatic, Embedded, Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S360-S360
Author(s):  
Westyn Branch-Elliman ◽  
Ryan Ferguson ◽  
Gheorghe Doros ◽  
Patricia Woods ◽  
Sarah Leatherman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Panel Member ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Learning Healthcare System

Abstract Background The aim of this pragmatic, embedded adaptive trial was to measure the effectiveness of subcutaneous sarilumab in addition to an evolving standard of care for clinical management of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease (NCT04359901). The study is also a real-world demonstration of the realization of a prospective learning healthcare system. Methods Two-arm, randomized, open-label controlled 5-center trial comparing standard care alone to standard care (SOC), which evolved over time, with addition of subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg or 400 mg anti-IL6R) among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was 14-day incidence of intubation or death. The trial used a randomized play-the-winner design and was fully embedded within the EHR system, including the adaptive randomization process. Results Among 417 patients screened, 162 were eligible based on chart review, 53 consented, and 50 were evaluated for the primary endpoint of intubation or death ( >30% of eligible patients enrolled) (Figure 1). After the second interim review, the unblinded Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the study be stopped due to concern for safety: a high probability that rates of intubation or death were higher with addition of sarilumab to SOC (92.6%), and a very low probability (3.4%) that sarilumab would be found to be superior. Figure 1. Key Study Milestones, Outcomes, and Adaptations Conclusion This randomized trial of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and requiring supplemental oxygen but not mechanical ventilation found no evidence of benefit from subcutaneous sarilumab in addition to an evolving standard-of-care. The numbers of patients and events were too low to allow independent conclusions to be drawn, but this study contributes valuable information about the role of subcutaneous IL-6 inhibition in the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The major innovation of this trial was the advancement of embedded, point-of-care clinical trials for FDA-approved drugs; this represents a realization of the learning healthcare system. Methods developed and piloted during the conduct of this trial can be used in future investigations to speed the advancement of clinical science. Disclosures Nishant Shah, MD, General Electric (Shareholder)Pfizer, Inc. (Research Grant or Support) Karen Visnaw, RN, Liquidia (Shareholder) Paul Monach, MD,PhD, Celgene (Consultant)ChemoCentryx (Consultant)Kiniksa (Advisor or Review Panel member)

scholarly journals A Phase II Safety and Efficacy Study on Prognosis of Moderate Pneumonia in COVID-19 patients with Regular Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raman R S ◽  
Vijaykumar Bhagwan Barge ◽  
Anil Kumar Darivenula ◽  
Himanshu Dandu ◽  
Rakesh R Kartha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Immunoglobulin Therapy ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Therapeutic Benefits ◽  
Wide Range

Abstract Background Currently, there is no specific drug for the treatment of COVID-19. Therapeutic benefits of intravenous immunoglobin (IVIG) have been demonstrated in wide range of diseases. The present study is conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. Methods An open-label, multicenter, comparative, randomized study was conducted on COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia. 100 eligible patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio either to receive IVIG + standard of care (SOC) or SOC. Results Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in IVIG group to that of SOC alone (7.7 Vs. 17.5 days). Duration for normalization of body temperature, oxygen saturation and mechanical ventilation were significantly shorter in IVIG compared to SOC. Percentages of patients on mechanical ventilation in two groups were not significantly different (24% Vs. 38%). Median time to RT-PCR negativity was significantly shorter with IVIG than SOC (7 Vs.18 days). There were only mild to moderate adverse events in both groups except for one patient (2%), who died in SOC. Conclusions IVIG was safe and efficacious as an adjuvant with other antiviral drugs in the treatment of COVID-19. The trial was registered under Clinical Trial Registry, India (CTRI/2020/06/026222).

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.

scholarly journals Using a network organisational architecture to support the development of Learning Healthcare Systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 937-946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria T Britto ◽  
Sandra C Fuller ◽  
Heather C Kaplan ◽  
Uma Kotagal ◽  
Carole Lannon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare System ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Data Entry ◽  
Regulatory Compliance ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Learning System ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Statistical Process ◽  
Learning Healthcare System ◽  
Communication Policies

The US National Academy of Sciences has called for the development of a Learning Healthcare System in which patients and clinicians work together to choose care, based on best evidence, and to drive discovery as a natural outgrowth of every clinical encounter to ensure innovation, quality and value at the point of care. However, the vision of a Learning Healthcare System has remained largely aspirational. Over the last 13 years, researchers, clinicians and families, with support from our paediatric medical centre, have designed, developed and implemented a network organisational model to achieve the Learning Healthcare System vision. The network framework aligns participants around a common goal of improving health outcomes, transparency of outcome measures and a flexible and adaptive collaborative learning system. Team collaboration is promoted by using standardised processes, protocols and policies, including communication policies, data sharing, privacy protection and regulatory compliance. Learning methods include collaborative quality improvement using a modified Breakthrough Series approach and statistical process control methods. Participants observe their own results and learn from the experience of others. A common repository (a ‘commons’) is used to share resources that are created by participants. Standardised technology approaches reduce the burden of data entry, facilitate care and result in data useful for research and learning. We describe how this organisational framework has been replicated in four conditions, resulting in substantial improvements in outcomes, at scale across a variety of conditions.

scholarly journals Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the effect of plasma antibodies: a randomized controlled, open-label trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Bégin ◽  
Jeannie Callum ◽  
Erin Jamulae Jamula ◽  
Richard Cook ◽  
Nancy M Heddle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Harmful Effect ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Intent To Treat

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 is unclear. While most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content may influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 days of respiratory symptom onset. Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 mL of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 days. The effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. 940 patients were randomized and 921 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) in the standard of care arm; relative risk (RR) 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43; p=0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% vs. 26.4%; RR=1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, p=0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standard log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (OR=0.74; 0.57-0.95 and OR=0.66; 0.50-0.87, respectively), while IgG against the full transmembrane Spike protein increased it (OR=1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 days among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavourable antibody profiles may be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

scholarly journals Convalescence plasma treatment of COVID-19: results from a prematurely terminated randomized controlled open-label study in Southern Sweden

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Holm ◽  
Maria N. Lundgren ◽  
Jens Kjeldsen-Kragh ◽  
Oskar Ljungquist ◽  
Blenda Böttiger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Plasma Treatment ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Oxygen Treatment ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Objective Convalescent plasma has been tried as therapy for various viral infections. Early observational studies of convalescent plasma treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were promising, but randomized controlled studies were lacking at the time. The objective of this study was to investigate if convalescent plasma is beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results Hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 and an oxygen saturation below 94% were randomized 1:1 to receive convalescent plasma in addition to standard of care or standard of care only. The primary outcome was number of days of oxygen treatment to keep saturation above 93% within 28 days from inclusion. The study was prematurely terminated when thirty-one of 100 intended patients had been included. The median time of oxygen treatment among survivors was 11 days (IQR 6–15) for the convalescent plasma group and 7 days (IQR 5–9) for the standard of care group (p = 0.4, median difference -4). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group and three patients in the standard of care group died (p = 0.64, OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.08–2.79). Thus no significant differences were observed between the groups. Trial registration ClinicalTrials NCT04600440, retrospectively registered Oct 23, 2020.

scholarly journals Azithromycin in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Alistair Roddick ◽  
Enti Spata ◽  
Natalie Staplin ◽  
Jonathan R Emberson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

Background: Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of azithromycin in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once daily by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other treatment arms). Patients were twice as likely to be randomised to usual care as to any of the active treatment groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Findings: Between 7 April and 27 November 2020, 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5182 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 496 (19%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 997 (19%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.12; p=0.99). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. There was no difference in duration of hospitalisation (median 12 days vs. 13 days) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (60% vs. 59%; rate ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.97-1.10; p=0.29). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs. 22%; risk ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.89-1.07; p=0.54). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, azithromycin did not provide any clinical benefit. Azithromycin use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients where there is a clear antimicrobial indication.

MM-003: A phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study of pomalidomide (POM) plus low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8510-8510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesùs F. San-Miguel ◽  
Katja C. Weisel ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Martha Lacy ◽  
Kevin W. Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Intent To Treat

8510 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Mark Campbell ◽  
Enti Spata ◽  
Jonathan R Emberson ◽  
Natalie Staplin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

Background: Colchicine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-inflammatory actions. 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 colchicine twice daily for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other treatment arms) 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 27 November 2020 and 4 March 2021, 5610 patients were randomly allocated to receive colchicine and 5730 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1173 (21%) patients allocated to colchicine and 1190 (21%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.10; p=0.77). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. There was no significant difference in duration of hospitalisation (median 10 days vs. 10 days) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (70% vs. 70%; rate ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.03; p=0.44). 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 (25% vs. 25%; risk ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.96-1.09; p=0.47). Interpretation: In adults hospitalised with COVID-19, colchicine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.

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)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Welen ◽  
Anna Överby Wernstedt ◽  
Clas Ahlm ◽  
Eva Freyhult ◽  
David Robinsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Immunosuppressive Drugs ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Laboratory Assessment ◽  
Exploration Phase

Abstract ObjectivesThe main goal of the COVIDENZA trial is to evaluate if inhibition of testosterone signalling by enzalutamide can improve the outcome of patients hospitalized 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 designHospitalized COVID-19 patients will be randomised (2:1) to enzalutamide plus standard of care vs. standard of care designed to identify superiority.ParticipantsIncluded participants, men or women above 50 years of age, must be hospitalized 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 comparatorPatients 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 outcomesThe 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).RandomisationRandomisation 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 StatusThe 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 registrationEudract number 2020-002027-10ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475601, registered June 8, 2020

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document