scholarly journals Randomized, Comparative, Clinical Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of PNB001 in Moderate COVID-19 Patients

Author(s):  
Eric Lattmann ◽  
Pradnya Bhalerao ◽  
BL ShashiBhushan ◽  
Neeta Nargundkar ◽  
Pornthip Lattmann ◽  
...  

ABSTARCTObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of PNB001 a CCK-A agonist and CCK-B antagonist, a new chemical entity with anti-inflammatory and immune stimulation properties, along with Standard of Care (SOC) in patients with moderate COVID-19 infection.DesignMulti-center, randomized, parallel group, comparative, open label study.SettingTwo tertiary-care hospitals in India.ParticipantsPatients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection as determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) within 2 days of randomization, having pneumonia with no signs of severe disease (severe disease means SpO2≤94% on room air), and any two of the following signs or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19: fever, cough, dyspnea, or hypoxia.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive PNB001 at an oral dose of 100 mg three times daily for 14 days with Standard of Care (PNB001+SOC) or only SOC.Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoints were mean change in the 8-point WHO Ordinal Scale score from baseline by Day 14 and mortality rate by Day 28. The key secondary endpoints were percentage of patients showing change in clinical status using the ordinal scale, improvement in inflammatory segments in X-ray chest, reduction of days of hospitalization, duration of supplemental oxygen use, days to negative PCR for COVID-19 and change in inflammation markers Interlukin-6 (IL6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) from baseline by Day 14.ResultsA total of 40 (20 in PNB 001+SOC arm and 20 in SOC arm) patients were randomized and received treatment. The primary endpoint showed significant clinical improvement from baseline to Day 14 with PNB001+SOC (0.22 Vs 1.12; P=0.0421). One patient in PNB001+SOC arm and two patients in SOC arm died (1 Vs 2; HR: 2.0 [95%CI=0.18, 22.05]; P=0.5637) by Day 28. At the end of the treatment by Day 14, more patients achieved zero ordinal scale in PNB001+SOC arm (17 Vs 12; P=0.0766). In the PNB001+SOC arm, change in mean chest X-ray score showed significant improvement (2.05 Vs 1.16; P=0.0321), and more patients quickly showed complete improvement (10 Vs 7; HR: 1.48 [95%CI=0.64, 3.44]; P=0.4309). In the PNB001+SOC arm, patients needed shorter duration of hospitalization in days (9.45 Vs 9.80) and more patients attained earlier discharge from the hospital (19 Vs 15; P=0.0486) with respect to days. The mean duration of supplemental oxygen requirement in days was shorter (5.45 Vs 7.10) and complete withdrawal from supplemental oxygen was more frequent with PNB001+SOC compared to SOC by Day 14 (17 Vs 13; P=0.1441). All patients in both the arms had negative PCR by the end of the study (18 Vs 17; P=0.6265) by similar time (7.6 Vs 7.0). Exploratory analysis done for IL-6, CRP, Neutrophil-Lymphocyte-Ratio (NLR), Platelet-Lymphocyte-Ratio (PLR) and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) showed statistically significant reduction by Day 14 demonstrating PNB001’s anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. Lymphocyte and neutrophil counts also improved by Day 14. 11 adverse events (AE) in 8 patients were observed with PNB001+SOC compared to 13 AEs in 10 patients with SOC; none of the AEs in PNB001+SOC arm were related to PNB001. The most common AE were tachycardia and acute respiratory distress syndrome; there were isolated cases of hepatic enzyme elevation and hyperglycemia. Overall, safety profile was similar between PNB001+SOC and SOC arms.ConclusionsPNB001 with standard of care showed significant clinical improvement in moderate COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care and was well tolerated by moderate COVID-19 patients.Trial RegistrationCTRI/2020/10/028423

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Streinu-Cercel ◽  
Oana Sandulescu ◽  
Victor Daniel Miron ◽  
Alina-Alexandra Oana ◽  
Maria Magdalena Motoi ◽  
...  

Background: Trans Sodium Crocetinate (TSC) is a bipolar synthetic carotenoid under development as a drug to enhance oxygenation to hypoxic tissue in addition to standard of care. TSC acts via a novel mechanism of action, improving the diffusivity of oxygen in blood plasma. Thus, it is based on physical-chemical principles, unlike most drugs which are based on biochemistry-based mechanisms. We explored the use of escalating doses and multiple daily dosing of TSC as a potential therapeutic for patients suffering from hypoxemia due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Individuals ≥18 years who were hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and hypoxemia, defined as SpO2 < 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen, WHO ordinal scale 3 through 7 (exclusive of Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation [ECMO]) were enrolled in cohorts of six subjects, each of whom received the same dose (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 mg/kg) of TSC via intravenous bolus every 6 hours in addition to standard of care (SOC). This report describes the safety and efficacy results from the lead-in phase of the study and the population pharmacokinetics (PK) analyses. Safety was assessed as the number of serious adverse events and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed with each dose. Several efficacy parameters were examined in the lead-in phase and descriptive statistics of efficacy parameters are provided. No formal statistical analyses were performed. The population PK analyses were based on previous analyses and examination of the concentration profiles, and two-compartment linear pharmacokinetic models were evaluated and validated. Covariates, including body size, age, sex, organ function, and dose level, were evaluated for inclusion into the model. Results: TSC was well tolerated. There were no treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported. There were 2 serious adverse events (SAEs) reported during the study, neither were considered treatment-related. A total of 24 (96%) subjects survived. One subject (4.0%) died during the study as a result of an SAE (respiratory failure), and that event was determined to be due to COVID-19 complications and not related to study drug. There was an observed reduction in the time to improvement in WHO Ordinal Scale with increasing dose. The median time to 1-point reduction in subjects receiving 0.25 mg/kg was 11.5 days versus 7.5 days in the 1.5 mg/kg treatment cohort. The overall range across all doses was 1 day to 28 days. A total of 36.0% of subjects had a 1-point improvement in WHO Ordinal Scale to Day 7. The 1.5 mg/kg dose resulted in observed superior outcomes for multiple secondary clinical outcomes: time to 1-point WHO Ordinal Score improvement through Day 29/discharge, 1-point improvement by Day 7, days to return to room air, and hospital length of stay. The PK results showed that the two-compartment model fit the data well. Clearance decreased with increasing dose level and there was no evidence that clearance was affected by covariates other than dose level. Conclusions: These findings suggest that TSC administration every 6 hours at doses up to 1.5 mg/kg for up to 15 days is safe and well tolerated with predictable pharmacokinetics and demonstrated an observed clinical benefit in the treatment of COVID-19-related hypoxemia.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kavi Sharma ◽  
Dr Lisa Berry ◽  
Dr Evangelos Vryonis ◽  
Dr Asad Ali ◽  
Dr Beatriz Lara ◽  
...  

Background: Globally there is a scarcity of effective treatments for SARS-CoV-2 infections (causing COVID 19). Repurposing existing medications may offer the best hope for treating COVID 19 patients to curb the pandemic. IMU-838 is a dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH) inhibitor, which is an effective mechanism for antiviral effects against respiratory viruses. When used synergistically with Oseltamivir, therapeutic effects have been observed against influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in rodents.(13) The IONIC trial is a randomized control trial that will investigate whether time to clinical improvement in COVID 19 patients is improved following a 14 day course of IMU-838 + Oseltamivir versus Oseltamivir alone. Methods: IONIC trial is an open label study in which participants will be randomised 1:1 in two parallel arms; the intervention arm (IMU-838 + Oseltamivir) and control arm (Oseltamivir only). The primary outcome is time-to-clinical improvement; defined as the time from randomisation to: a 2-point improvement on WHO ordinal scale; discharge from hospital, or death (whichever occurs first). The study is sponsored by UHCW NHS Trust and funded by LifeArc. Discussion: The IONIC Protocol describes an overarching trial design to provide reliable evidence on the efficacy of IMU-838 (vidofludimus calcium) when delivered in combination with an antiviral therapy (Oseltamivir) [IONIC Intervention] for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection in adult patients receiving usual standard of care. Trial Registration: The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001805-21) on 09.04.2020 and ISRCTN on 23.09.2020 (ISRCTN53038326) and Clinicaltrials.gov on 17.08.2020 (NCT04516915) Strengths and Limitations: This study is the first to recruit participants in the trial exploring the effectiveness of IMU-838 in COVID-19. In addition, we believe it is the only trial exploring the effectiveness of IMU-838 in combination with Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. However, to make the trial design flexible due to the on-going pandemic the trial is un-blinded.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Diago-Sempere ◽  
José Luis Bueno ◽  
Aránzazu Sancho-López ◽  
Elena Múñez Rubio ◽  
Ferrán Torres ◽  
...  

Abstract Background COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. At the time this clinical trial was planned, there were no available vaccine or therapeutic agents with proven efficacy, but the severity of the condition prompted the use of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. It has long been hypothesized that the use of convalescent plasma (CP) from infected patients who have developed an effective immune response is likely to be an option for the treatment of patients with a variety of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) of viral etiology. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods/design The ConPlas-19 study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label controlled trial. The study has been planned to include 278 adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 infection not requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Subjects are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (139 per treatment arm), stratified by center, to receive intravenously administered CP (single infusion) plus SOC or SOC alone, and are to be followed for 30 days. The primary endpoint of the study is the proportion of patients that progress to category 5, 6, or 7 (on the 7-point ordinal scale proposed by the WHO) at day 15. Interim analyses for efficacy and/or futility will be conducted once 20%, 40%, and 60% of the planned sample size are enrolled and complete D15 assessment. Discussion This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma for the treatment of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The results of this study are expected to contribute to establishing the potential place of CP in the therapeutics for a new viral disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345523. Registered on 30 March, 2020. First posted date: April 14, 2020.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dhan Bahadur Shrestha ◽  
Pravash Budhathoki ◽  
Sitaram Khadka ◽  
Prajwol Bikram Shah ◽  
Nisheem Pokharel ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The coronavirus, cause of COVID-19 is an enveloped, RNA virus that utilizes an enzyme RNA dependent RNA polymerase for its replication. Favipiravir (FVP) triphosphate, a purine nucleoside analog, inhibits that enzyme. We have conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of drug FVP as a treatment for COVID-19. Methods Databases like Pubmed, Medline, Google Scholar, preprint sites, and clinicaltirals.gov were searched. Studies including FVP along with the standard of care (SOC) were taken in the treatment arm and SOC including other antivirals, and supportive care as control arm. Quantitative synthesis done using RevMan 5.4. Clinical improvement, negative conversion of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), adverse effects, and oxygen requirement were studied. Results We identified a total of 824 studies after electronic database searching. Five in qualitative studies and three studies in quantitative synthesis meet the criteria. There was a significant clinical improvement on FVP arms on 14th day compared to control arms (RR 1.41, 1.10–1.80). Clinical deterioration rates was significantly unlikely in FVP group (OR 0.21, 0.08–0.58) at the endpoint of study. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between two arms on virological clearance (Day 14: RR 1.03, 0.64–1.67), oxygen requirement (OR 0.47, 0.21–1.04), and adverse effects (OR 0.42, 0.03–6.05). There are 25 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in different parts of the world focusing FVP for COVID-19 treatment. Conclusion There is significant clinical and radiological improvement following treatment with FVP in comparison to the standard of care with no significant differences on virological clearance, oxygen support requirement and side effect profile.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S356-S356
Author(s):  
Rand A Alattar ◽  
Shiema A Ahmed ◽  
Tasneem Abdallah ◽  
Rashid Kazman ◽  
Aseelah N Qadmour ◽  
...  

Abstract Background We investigated clinical outcomes of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods Patients who between 23 May 2020 and 18 July 2020 received ≥24 hours of favipiravir were assigned to the favipiravir group, while those who did not formed the non-favipiravir group. The primary outcome was 28-day clinical improvement, defined as two-category improvement from baseline on an 8-point ordinal scale. Propensity scores (PS) for favipiravir therapy were used for 1:1 matching. Cox regression was used to examine associations with the primary endpoint. Results The unmatched cohort included 1,493 patients, of which 51.7% were in the favipiravir group, and 48.3% were not receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline (table 1). Favipiravir was started within a median of 5 days from symptoms onset. Significant baseline differences between the two unmatched groups existed, but not between the PSmatched groups (N = 774) (table 1). After PS-matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the proportion with 28-day clinical improvement (93.3% versus 92.8%, P 0.780), or 28-day all-cause mortality (2.1% versus 3.1%, P 0.360) (Table 2). Favipiravir was associated with more viral clearance by day 28 (79.8% versus 64.1%, P &lt; 0.001) (table 2). In the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, favipiravir therapy was not associated 28-day clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio 0.978, 95% confidence interval 0.862 –1.109, P 0.726) (Table 3). Conclusion Favipiravir therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia is well tolerated but is not associated with an increased likelihood of clinical improvement or reduced all-cause mortality by 28 days. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


Author(s):  
Nikita V. Lomakin ◽  
Bulat A. Bakirov ◽  
Denis N. Protsenko ◽  
Vadim I. Mazurov ◽  
Gaziyavdibir H. Musaev ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective and design The aim of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III CORONA clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-6 receptor inhibitor levilimab (LVL) in subjects with severe COVID-19. Subjects The study included 217 patients. The eligible were men and non-pregnant women aged 18 years or older, hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Treatment 206 subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive single subcutaneous administration of LVL 324 mg or placebo, both in combination with standard of care (SOC). 204 patients received allocated therapy. After the LVL/placebo administration in case of deterioration of symptoms, the investigator could perform a single open-label LVL 324 mg administration as the rescue therapy. Methods The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained clinical improvement on the 7-category ordinal scale on Day 14. All efficacy data obtained after rescue therapy administration were considered missing. For primary efficacy analysis, all subjects with missing data were considered non-responders. Results 63.1% and 42.7% of patients in the LVL and in the placebo groups, respectively, achieved sustained clinical improvement on Day 14 (P = .0017). The frequency of adverse drug reactions was comparable between the groups. Conclusion In patients with radiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, requiring or not oxygen therapy (but not ventilation) with no signs of other active infection administration of LVL + SOC results in an increase of sustained clinical improvement rate. Trail registration The trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04397562).


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2961 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Brunetti ◽  
Oumou Diawara ◽  
Andrew Tsai ◽  
Bonnie L. Firestein ◽  
Ronald G. Nahass ◽  
...  

The repurposing of colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19 was suggested based in its immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and anti-viral properties. We performed a single-center propensity score matched cohort study, including all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to a community hospital between 1 March 2020 and 30 May 2020. Patients were stratified according to the receipt of colchicine. The primary endpoint was defined as in-hospital death within 28-days follow-up. Secondary endpoints included favorable change in the Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on days 14 and 28 versus baseline, proportion of patients not requiring supplemental oxygen on days 14 and 28, and proportion of patients discharged by day 28. In total data for 303 PCR positive COVID-19 patients were extracted and 66 patients were included in the 1:1 matched cohort study. At the end of the 28 day follow-up, patients receiving colchicine were approximately five times more likely to be discharged (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.1; p = 0.023) and when comparing mortality, there were 3 deaths (9.1%) in patients receiving colchicine versus 11 deaths (33.3%) in the groups receiving standard of care (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.80; p = 0.023). These observations warrant further investigation in large controlled clinical trials.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suresh Balkrishna Patankar ◽  
Hrishikesh Rangnekar ◽  
Kalpana Joshi ◽  
Kishor Suryawanshi ◽  
Pravin Soni ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of polyherbal formulation (designated as IP) in comparison to placebo as add on to the standard of care (SoC) among patients with mild to moderate novel corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Methods: Laboratory proved patients of mild to moderate COVID-19 disease were randomized to either placebo or IP as an add-on to SoC. Using quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRTPCR), we assessed the effect on viral load (VL). Change in immunological parameters such as blood lymphocyte subset, serum immunoglobulin was determined. The clinical improvement was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS) and WHO ordinal scale. Patients were followed for 30 days after randomization. Results:In total, 72 patients were randomized to either placebo (n=33) and IP (n=39). Fifty-two patients (n=21 in placebo and n=31 in IP arm) had qRT-PCR on day 0 and day 4. There was significant reduction in VL in IP arm (from 662081 copies/mL on day 0 to 48963 copies/mL on day 4; p=0.002)) but not in the placebo arm (from 385670 copies/mL on day 0 to 66845 copies/mL on day 4, p=0.106). Change in the NRS score and WHO ordinal scale score was significant in both treatment arms. However, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant in favour of drug group, . The increase in Th1 response was significant in the IP arm (p=0.023) but not in the placebo arm (p=0.098), thus implying immunomodulatory activity in the drug. No safety concerns were observed in any of the trial participants. Conclusion: This study finds that polyherbal formulation reduces viral load and contributes to immunomodulation and improvement in clinical conditions when used as add-on to the standard care in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 without any side effects. These findings need to be further confirmed in a large, prospective, randomized study. Keywords: COVID-19, herbal medication, viral load, immuno modulation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ran Abuhasira ◽  
Irit Ayalon-Dangur ◽  
Neta Zaslavsky ◽  
Ronit Koren ◽  
Mally Keller ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of linagliptin vs. standard therapy in improving clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with diabetes and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Materials and MethodsWe did an open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in 3 Israeli hospitals between October 1, 2020, and April 4, 2021. Eligible patients were adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of COVID-19. A total of 64 patients, 32 in each group, were randomized to receive linagliptin 5 mg PO daily throughout the hospitalization or standard of care therapy. The primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization, defined as a 2-point reduction on an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (discharged without disease) to 8 (death).ResultsThe mean age was 67 ± 14 years, and most patients were male (59.4%). Median time to clinical improvement was 7 days (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5-15) in the linagliptin group compared with 8 days (IQR 3.5–28) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.70–2.15; p = 0.49). In-hospital mortality was 5 (15.6%) and 8 (25.0%) in the linagliptin and standard of care groups, respectively (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.16–1.93). The trial was prematurely terminated due to the control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Israel.ConclusionsIn this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with diabetes and COVID-19 who received linagliptin, there was no difference in the time to clinical improvement compared with the standard of care.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04371978.


Author(s):  
Joshua A Hill ◽  
Manoj P Menon ◽  
Shireesha Dhanireddy ◽  
Mark M Wurfel ◽  
Margaret Green ◽  
...  

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 causes substantial morbidity. Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, might improve outcomes by mitigating inflammation. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted to the University of Washington Hospital system with COVID-19 and requiring supplemental oxygen. Outcomes included clinical improvement, defined as a two-point reduction in severity on a 6-point ordinal scale or discharge, and mortality within 28 days. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with propensity score inverse probability weighting to compare outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. Results We evaluated 43 patients who received tocilizumab and 45 who did not. Patients receiving tocilizumab were younger with fewer comorbidities but higher baseline oxygen requirements. Tocilizumab treatment was associated with reduced CRP, fibrinogen, and temperature, but there were no meaningful differences in Cox models of time to clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.38-2.22) or mortality (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.21-1.52). A numerically higher proportion of tocilizumab-treated patients had subsequent infections, transaminitis, and cytopenias. Conclusions Tocilizumab did not improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, this study was not powered to detect small differences, and there remains the possibility for a survival benefit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document