Daily Lactobacillus Probiotic versus Placebo in COVID-19-Exposed Household Contacts (PROTECT-EHC): A Randomized Clinical Trial

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

Download Full-text

Impact of Fatty Acid Supplementation on Cognitive Performance among United States (US) Military Officers: The Ranger Resilience and Improved Performance on Phospholipid-Bound Omega-3’s (RRIPP-3) Study

Nutrients ◽

10.3390/nu13061854 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (6) ◽

pp. 1854

Author(s):

Bernadette P. Marriott ◽

Travis H. Turner ◽

Joseph R. Hibbeln ◽

Jill C. Newman ◽

Marcie Pregulman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

The United States ◽

Military Officers ◽

Krill Oil ◽

Omega 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Significant Group ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Improved Performance

Studies have assessed omega-3 fatty acids and cognitive decline among older adults and cognitive development among children, although less is known about cognitive or neurological effects among young adults. We examined whether omega-3 supplementation from krill oil could improve cognition and resilience among young military officers compared to a control. This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 555 officers (mean age 23.4 ± 2.8, 98.6% male) entering the United States (US) Army Infantry Basic Officer Leaders Course (IBOLC) with the intention to complete the US Ranger Course. Volunteer participants consumed eight dietary supplements daily of krill oil containing 2.3 g omega-3 or control (macadamia nut oil) over an approximate 20-week period. Cognitive functioning, resilience, and mood were assessed during a well-rested period at approximately 14 weeks and after a battlefield simulation at 16 weeks. Blood spot samples were collected to monitor compliance and dietary intake was assessed. All hypotheses were tested using both ‘Intention to Treat’ (ITT) and ‘As Per Protocol’ (APP) approaches. Of the 555 randomized individuals, 245 (44.1%) completed the study. No statistically significant group-by-time interactions indicating treatment effect were found on any outcomes. Poor compliance was indicated by lower than expected omega-3 elevations in the treatment group, and may have contributed to a failure to detect a response.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy ◽

10.1007/s10156-013-0622-9 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 19 (4) ◽

pp. 740-749 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Seizaburo Kashiwagi ◽

Akira Watanabe ◽

Hideyuki Ikematsu ◽

Shinichiro Awamura ◽

Takako Okamoto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Controlled Trial ◽

Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽

Double Blind ◽

Double Blind Placebo ◽

Post Exposure ◽

Household Contacts ◽

Exposure Prophylaxis

Download Full-text

Repeat Subcutaneous Administration of REGEN-COV® in Adults is Well-Tolerated and Prevents the Occurrence of COVID-19

10.1101/2021.11.10.21265889 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Flonza Isa ◽

Eduardo Forleo-Neto ◽

Jonathan Meyer ◽

Wenjun Zheng ◽

Scott Rasmussen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Reduction ◽

Odds Ratio ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Subcutaneous Administration ◽

Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Double Blind ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Exposure Prophylaxis

Background: Data show that a single dose of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV®) is effective in treating hospitalized individuals and outpatients with COVID-19 and in post-exposure prophylaxis. We present results from a phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of repeat monthly doses of subcutaneous (SC) REGEN-COV in uninfected adult volunteers who were healthy or had chronic stable medical conditions. Methods: Subjects were randomized (3:1) to SC REGEN-COV 1200 mg or placebo dosed every 4 weeks for up to 6 doses. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of multiple-dose administration of REGEN-COV. Efficacy was evaluated by the incidence of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion. Results: In total, 969 subjects were treated. Repeat monthly dosing of SC REGEN-COV led to a 92.4% relative risk reduction in clinically-defined COVID-19 compared to placebo (3/729 [0.4%] vs 13/240 [5.4%]; odds ratio: 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01–0.27]), and a 100% reduction in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (0/729 vs 10/240 [4.2%]; odds ratio 0.00). Development of anti-drug antibodies was low (<5% subjects). No grade ≥3 injection-site reactions (ISRs) or hypersensitivity reactions were reported. A slightly higher percentage of subjects reported TEAEs with REGEN-COV (54.9%) than placebo (48.3%), due to ISRs (all grade 1-2). Serious adverse events were rare and occurred at similar percentages in the REGEN-COV and placebo groups. No deaths were reported in the 6-month treatment period. Conclusions: Repeated monthly administration of 1200 mg SC REGEN-COV was well-tolerated with low immunogenicity, and showed a substantial risk reduction in COVID-19 occurrence. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04519437)

Download Full-text

Randomized controlled trial transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection

10.1101/2021.12.13.21267611 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Shmuel Shoham ◽

Evan M Bloch ◽

Arturo Casadevall ◽

Daniel Hanley ◽

Bryan Lau ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Close Contact ◽

High Titer ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

The United States ◽

Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽

Post Exposure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Contact Exposure ◽

Exposure Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. We hypothesized that CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was development of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity at screening. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. There were 28 adverse events in CCP and 58 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs. 25.2 days; p=0.49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs. 25.9 days; p=0.35) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: In this trial, which enrolled persons with recent exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19, high titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis appeared safe, but did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrial.gov number NCT04323800.

Download Full-text

LB-17. Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for Post-exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa515.1914 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S851-S852

Author(s):

Elizabeth R Brown ◽

Anna Bershteyn ◽

Helen C Stankiewicz Karita ◽

Christine Johnston ◽

Lorna Thorpe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Panel Member ◽

Control Group ◽

Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽

Research Support ◽

Double Blind ◽

Post Exposure ◽

Exposure Prophylaxis ◽

Close Contacts

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

Download Full-text

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Prebiotic Enriched Infant Formula—A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nutrients ◽

10.3390/nu13041276 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (4) ◽

pp. 1276

Author(s):

Franka Neumer ◽

Orenci Urraca ◽

Joaquin Alonso ◽

Jesús Palencia ◽

Vicente Varea ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Infant Formula ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Fecal Microbiota ◽

First Year ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Double Blind ◽

Term Infants ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Prebiotic Oligosaccharides ◽

First Year Of Life

The present study aims to evaluate the effects of an infant formula supplemented with a mixture of prebiotic short and long chain inulin-type oligosaccharides on health outcomes, safety and tolerance, as well as on fecal microbiota composition during the first year of life. In a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, n = 160 healthy term infants under 4 months of age were randomized to receive either an infant formula enriched with 0.8 g/dL of Orafti®Synergy1 or an unsupplemented control formula until the age of 12 months. Growth, fever (>38 °C) and infections were regularly followed up by a pediatrician. Digestive symptoms, stool consistency as well as crying and sleeping patterns were recorded during one week each study month. Fecal microbiota and immunological biomarkers were determined from a subgroup of infants after 2, 6 and 12 months of life. The intention to treat (ITT) population consisted of n = 149 infants. Both formulae were well tolerated. Mean duration of infections was significantly lower in the prebiotic fed infants (p < 0.05). The prebiotic group showed higher Bifidobacterium counts at month 6 (p = 0.006), and higher proportions of Bifidobacterium in relation to total bacteria at month 2 and 6 (p = 0.042 and p = 0.013, respectively). Stools of infants receiving the prebiotic formula were softer (p < 0.05). Orafti®Synergy1 tended to beneficially impact total daily amount of crying (p = 0.0594). Supplementation with inulin-type prebiotic oligosaccharides during the first year of life beneficially modulates the infant gut microbiota towards higher Bifidobacterium levels at the first 6 months of life, and is associated with reduced duration of infections.

Download Full-text

Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029942 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (9) ◽

pp. e029942 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Janet Rea Hardy ◽

Helen Skerman ◽

Jennifer Philip ◽

Phillip Good ◽

David C Currow ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Response Rates ◽

Complete Response ◽

Response To Treatment ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Double Blind ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Point Reduction

ObjectivesMethotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy.DesignDouble-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol.Setting11 palliative care sites in Australia.ParticipantsParticipants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours.InterventionsBased on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours.Main outcome measuresA ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change.ResultsResponse to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In theper protocolanalysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Completeper protocolresponse rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm.ConclusionThis study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea.Trial registration numberACTRN 12615000177550.

Download Full-text