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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Marion Mafham ◽  
Leon Peto ◽  
Mark Campbell ◽  
Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Care Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Proportional Effect ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Efficacy Population

Background: REGEN-COV is a combination of 2 monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab and imdevimab) that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of REGEN-COV in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus a single dose of REGEN-COV 8g (casirivimab 4g and imdevimab 4g) by intravenous infusion (REGEN-COV group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed first among patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at randomisation (seronegative) and then in the overall population. Findings: Between 18 September 2020 and 22 May 2021, 9785 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus REGEN-COV or usual care alone, including 3153 (32%) seronegative patients, 5272 (54%) seropositive patients and 1360 (14%) patients with unknown baseline antibody status. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 451 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.91; p=0.0010). In an analysis involving all randomised patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 944 (20%) of 4839 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 1026 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.86-1.03; p=0.17). The proportional effect of REGEN-COV on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity = 0.001). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) reduced 28-day mortality among patients who were seronegative at baseline.

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 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.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Lise Estcourt ◽  
Leon Peto ◽  
Jonathan R Emberson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
High Titre ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

ABSTRACTBackgroundTreatment of COVID-19 patients with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) several possible treatments are being compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to receive either usual care plus high titre convalescent plasma or usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.FindingsBetween 28 May 2020 and 15 January 2021, 5795 patients were randomly allocated to receive convalescent plasma and 5763 to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1398 (24%) of 5795 patients allocated convalescent plasma and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1·00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·93 to 1·07; p=0·93). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (66% vs. 67%; rate ratio 0·98; 95% CI 0·94-1·03, p=0·50). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (28% vs. 29%; rate ratio 0·99; 95% CI 0·93-1·05, p=0·79).InterpretationAmong patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant refs: MC_PC_19056; COV19-RECPLA).

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 0753 Cataplexy-Free Days in a Phase 3, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Withdrawal Study of JZP-258 in Adults With Narcolepsy With Cataplexy

SLEEP ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. A286-A286
Author(s):  
Y Dauvilliers ◽  
N Foldvary-Schaefer ◽  
R K Bogan ◽  
K Šonka ◽  
J Profant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Stable Dose ◽  
Titration Period ◽  
Product Candidate ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Optimized Treatment ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Efficacy Population

Abstract Introduction Sodium oxybate (SXB) is a standard of care for the treatment of cataplexy and excessive daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy. JZP-258 is an oxybate product candidate with 92% less sodium. This analysis evaluated cataplexy-free days/week, as a measure of treatment impact, in a placebo-controlled randomized withdrawal study of JZP-258 treatment in patients with narcolepsy. Methods Treatment for cataplexy at study entry included 1) SXB (SXB-only); 2) SXB plus other anticataplectics (SXB+other); 3) anticataplectics other than SXB (other anticataplectics); or 4) cataplexy treatment-naive (anticataplectic-naive). Participants (aged 18-70 years with narcolepsy with cataplexy) began JZP-258 treatment during a 12-week, open-label, optimized treatment and titration period (OLOTTP), followed by a 2-week stable-dose period (SDP). Participants were randomized to receive placebo or continue JZP-258 treatment during a 2-week, double-blind, randomized withdrawal period (DBRWP). Results Of 201 enrolled participants, 134 comprised the efficacy population (placebo, n=65; JZP-258, n=69). Median (Q1, Q3) cataplexy-free days/week at first week of OLOTTP (while initiating JZP-258) by prior treatment were SXB-only, 5.8 (2.0, 7.0); SXB+other, 6.4 (5.0, 7.0); other anticataplectics, 4.0 (1.8, 6.0); anticataplectic-naive, 3.5 (0, 5.8). At end of SDP (on stable dose of JZP-258), median (Q1, Q3) cataplexy-free days/week were 6.0 (3.5, 7.0), 6.1 (1.4, 7.0), 6.0 (2.6, 7.0), and 6.2 (4.0, 7.0), respectively. Prior to randomization, there was no difference in median cataplexy-free days/week between participants to be randomized to placebo (6.0 [3.5, 7.0]) or JZP-258 treatment (6.0 [3.0, 7.0]); during DBRWP, median cataplexy-free days/week decreased in participants randomized to placebo (3.5 [0, 5.83]) but remained similar in participants randomized to continue JZP-258 treatment (5.6 [2.8, 7.0]). The overall safety profile of JZP-258 was similar to SXB. Conclusion Number of cataplexy-free days/week increased with JZP-258 treatment in participants previously naive to oxybate. Number of cataplexy-free days/week decreased during placebo exposure in participants randomized to placebo. Support Jazz Pharmaceuticals

scholarly journals Effect of PEP flute self-care versus usual care in early covid-19: non-drug, open label, randomised controlled trial in a Danish community setting

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. e066952
Author(s):  
Annette Mollerup ◽  
Marius Henriksen ◽  
Sofus Christian Larsen ◽  
Anita Selmer Bennetzen ◽  
Mette Kildevæld Simonsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Objective To determine whether positive expiratory pressure (PEP) by PEP flute self-care is effective in reducing respiratory symptoms among community dwelling adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection and early stage covid-19. Design Non-drug, open label, randomised controlled trial. Setting Capital Region and Region Zealand in Denmark from 6 October 2020 to 26 February 2021. Participants Community dwelling adults, able to perform self-care, with a new SARS-CoV-2 infection (verified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests) and symptoms of covid-19. Intervention Participants were randomised to use PEP flute self-care in addition to usual care or have usual care only. Randomisation was based on permuted random blocks in a 1:1 ratio, stratified for sex and age (<60 or ≥60 years). The PEP self-care group was instructed to use a PEP flute three times per day during the 30 day intervention. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was a change in symptom severity from baseline to day 30, as assessed by the self-reported COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) assessment test (CAT), which was adjusted for baseline values and stratification factors. Participants completed the CAT test questionnaire every day online. Secondary outcomes were self-reported urgent care visits due to covid-19, number of covid-19 related symptoms, and change in self-rated health, all within 30-days’ follow-up. Results 378 participants were assigned to the PEP flute self-care intervention (n=190) or usual care only (n=188). In the PEP self-care group, the median number of days with PEP flute use was 21 days (interquartile range 13-25). For the intention-to-treat population, a group difference was observed in changes from baseline in CAT scores of −1.2 points (95% confidence interval −2.1 to −0.2; P=0.017) in favour of the PEP flute self-care group. At day 30, the PEP flute self-care group also reported less chest tightness, less dyspnoea, more vigour, and higher level of daily activities, but these differences were small, and no consistent effects were seen on the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions In community dwelling adults with early covid-19, PEP flute self-care had a significant, yet marginal and uncertain clinical effect on respiratory symptom severity, as measured by CAT scores. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04530435 .

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim ◽  
Leon Peto ◽  
Christopher E Brightling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Systemic Inflammation ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Systemic Corticosteroids ◽  
Randomised Controlled

SUMMARYBackgroundTocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the receptor for interleukin (IL)-6, reducing inflammation, and is commonly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with evidence of both hypoxia and systemic inflammation.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for randomisation to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg to 800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12 to 24 hours later if the patient’s condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936).FindingsBetween 23 April 2020 and 24 January 2021, 4116 adults were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 562 (14%) patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 1686 (41%) receiving non-invasive respiratory support, and 1868 (45%) receiving no respiratory support other than oxygen. Median CRP was 143 [IQR 107-204] mg/L and 3385 (82%) patients were receiving systemic corticosteroids at randomisation. Overall, 596 (29%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 694 (33%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·77-0·96; p=0·007). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. In particular, a clear mortality benefit was seen in those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (54% vs. 47%; rate ratio 1·22; 95% CI 1·12-1·34; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (33% vs. 38%; risk ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·78-0·93; p=0·0005).InterpretationIn hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the level of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056).

scholarly journals Combination of InnoSEAL plus TR band compared with TR band alone for radial artery outcomes in patients undergoing transradial coronary intervention (InnoSEAL-II): an open-label randomised controlled trial (protocol)

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e042101
Author(s):  
Saba Aijaz ◽  
Sana Sheikh ◽  
Asad Pathan
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Radial Artery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
P Value ◽  
Radial Compression ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAbout 2%–30% of cardiac catheterisation procedures get complicated by radial artery occlusion (RAO). Ensuring patent haemostasis appears to be an important factor in reducing RAO. Currently employed method is a radial compression device (RCD) such as transradial band (TRB) that take hours to achieve haemostasis and cause discomfort to the patients. Haemostatic pads offer an alternative to RCD with reduced time to achieve haemostasis. Our trial aims to determine the non-inferiority of the catecholamine chitosan-based pad (InnoSEAL haemostatic pad) used in conjunction with TRB (InnoSEAL +TRB) when compared with the TRB alone in reducing composite adverse access site outcomes.Methods and analysisIt will be an open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial on 714 adult patients (325 in each arm) undergoing coronary procedure using transradial approach at a cardiac health facility over 7 months duration. InnoSEAL patch along with TRB will be used to control bleeding in intervention arm and TRB alone in control arm, which is the standard practice. Study primary outcomes include RAO and haematoma; secondary outcomes are compression time, patient discomfort, time to discharge and ease of use of the intervention technique by the healthcare staff. χ2 test will be used to compare the categorical outcomes between two arms and student’s t-test for continuous outcomes. A p value of <0.05 will be considered significant.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Tabba Heart Institute number IORG0007863. Findings will be disseminated through seminars and scientific publications.Trial registration numberNCT04380883; Pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document