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

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

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

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

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

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

scholarly journals Role of Interferon Therapy in Severe COVID-19: The COVIFERON Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilad Alavi Darazam ◽  
Mohamad Amin Pourhoseingholi ◽  
Shervin Shokouhi ◽  
Seyed Sina Naghibi Irvani ◽  
Majid Mokhtari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Infections ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Subcutaneous Injections ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Type 1 Interferons (IFNs) have been associated with positive effects on Coronaviruses. Previous studies point towards the superior potency of IFNβ compared to IFNα against viral infections. We conducted a three-armed, individually-randomized, open-label, controlled trial of IFNβ1a and IFNβ1b, comparing them against each other and a control group. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to IFNβ1a (subcutaneous injections of 12,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), IFNβ1b (subcutaneous injections of 8,000,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), or the control group. All three arms orally received Lopinavir/Ritonavir (400mg/100 mg twice a day for ten days) and a single dose of Hydroxychloroquine 400 mg on the first day. Our utilized primary outcome measure was Time To Clinical Improvement (TTCI) defined as the time from enrollment to discharge or a decline of two steps on the clinical seven-step ordinal scale, whichsoever came first. A total of 60 severely ill patients with positive RT-PCR and Chest CT scans underwent randomization (20 patients to each arm). In the Intention-To-Treat population, IFNβ1a was associated with a significant difference against the control group, in the TTCI; (HR; 2.36, 95% CI=1.10-5.17, P-value=0.031) while the IFNβ1b indicated no significant difference compared with the control; HR; 1.42, (95% CI=0•63-3•16, P-value=0•395). The median TTCI for both of the intervention groups was five days vs. seven days for the control group. The mortality was numerically lower in both of the intervention groups (20% in the IFNβ1a group and 30% in the IFNβ1b group vs. 45% in the control group). There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding the adverse events. In patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared with the base therapeutic regiment, the benefit of a significant reduction in TTCI was observed in the IFNβ1a arm. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies. Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04343768. (Submitted: 08/04/2020; First Online: 13/04/2020) (Registration Number: NCT04343768)

scholarly journals Methylprednisolone or Dexamethasone, Which One Is the Superior Corticosteroid in the Treatment of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Triple-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keivan Ranjbar ◽  
Reza Shahriarirad ◽  
Amirhossein Erfani ◽  
Zohre Khodamoradi ◽  
Mohammad Hasan Gholampoor Saadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
And Control

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

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

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

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

scholarly journals Role of interferon therapy in severe COVID-19: the COVIFERON randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilad Alavi Darazam ◽  
Shervin Shokouhi ◽  
Mohamad Amin Pourhoseingholi ◽  
Seyed Sina Naghibi Irvani ◽  
Majid Mokhtari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Infections ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Subcutaneous Injections ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Registration Number

AbstractType 1 Interferons (IFNs) have been associated with positive effects on Coronaviruses. Previous studies point towards the superior potency of IFNβ compared to IFNα against viral infections. We conducted a three-armed, individually-randomized, open-label, controlled trial of IFNβ1a and IFNβ1b, comparing them against each other and a control group. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to IFNβ1a (subcutaneous injections of 12,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), IFNβ1b (subcutaneous injections of 8,000,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), or the control group. All three arms orally received Lopinavir/Ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice a day for ten days) and a single dose of Hydroxychloroquine 400 mg on the first day. Our utilized primary outcome measure was Time To Clinical Improvement (TTCI) defined as the time from enrollment to discharge or a decline of two steps on the clinical seven-step ordinal scale, whichsoever came first. A total of 60 severely ill patients with positive RT-PCR and Chest CT scans underwent randomization (20 patients to each arm). In the Intention-To-Treat population, IFNβ1a was associated with a significant difference against the control group, in the TTCI; (HR; 2.36, 95% CI 1.10–5.17, P-value = 0.031) while the IFNβ1b indicated no significant difference compared with the control; HR; 1.42, (95% CI 0.63–3.16, P-value = 0.395). The median TTCI for both of the intervention groups was five days vs. seven days for the control group. The mortality was numerically lower in both of the intervention groups (20% in the IFNβ1a group and 30% in the IFNβ1b group vs. 45% in the control group). There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding the adverse events. In patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared with the base therapeutic regiment, the benefit of a significant reduction in TTCI was observed in the IFNβ1a arm. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies.Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04343768. (Submitted: 08/04/2020; First Online: 13/04/2020) (Registration Number: NCT04343768).

scholarly journals DEFINE: A Phase IIa Randomised Controlled Trial to Evaluate Repurposed Treatments for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Gaughan ◽  
Tom Michael Quinn ◽  
Annya Bruce ◽  
Jean Antonelli ◽  
Vikki Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Assisted Ventilation ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Experimental Therapy ◽  
Experimental Medicine ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomised Study ◽  
Hospitalised Patients

Abstract: Introduction; COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) is a new viral-induced pneumonia caused by infection with a novel coronavirus, SARS CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2). At present there are few proven effective treatments. This early phase experimental medicine protocol describes an overarching and adaptive trial designed to provide safety, pharmacokinetic (PK)/ pharmacodynamic (PD) information and exploratory biological surrogates of efficacy, which may support further development and deployment of candidate therapies in larger scale trials of COVID-19 positive patients. Methods and analysis; DEFINE is an ongoing exploratory multicentre platform, open label, randomised study. COVID-19 positive patients will be recruited from the following cohorts; a) community cases b) hospitalised patients with new changes on a chest x-ray (CXR) or a computed tomography (CT) scan or requiring supplemental oxygen and c) hospitalised patients requiring assisted ventilation. Participants may be recruited from all three of these cohorts, depending on the experimental therapy, its route of administration and mechanism of action. The primary statistical analyses are concerned with the safety of candidate agents as add-on therapy to standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Safety will be assessed using: - Haematological and biochemical safety laboratory investigations. - Physical examination - Vital signs (blood pressure/heart rate/temperature and respiratory rate) - Daily electrocardiogram (ECG) readings - Adverse events The analysis population will consist of (i) all patients randomised to a treatment arm who receive any dose of the study drug and (ii) all patients randomised to the control arm who would also have been eligible to receive a study drug. Secondary analysis will assess the following variables during treatment period 1) the response of key exploratory biomarkers 2) change in WHO ordinal scale and NEWS2 score 3) oxygen requirements 4) viral load 5) duration of hospital stay 6) PK/PD and 7) changes in key coagulation pathways. Ethics and dissemination; The DEFINE trial platform and its initial two treatment and standard of care arms have received full ethical approval from Scotland A REC (20/SS/0066), the MHRA (EudraCT 2020-002230-32) and NHS Lothian and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The results of each study arm will be published as soon as the treatment arm has finished recruitment, data input is complete and any outstanding patient safety follow-ups have been completed. Depending on the results of these or future arms, data will be shared with larger clinical trial networks, including RECOVERY, and to other partners for rapid roll out in larger patient cohorts.

Investigating the Impact of Cognitive Training for Individuals With Bothersome Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982199474
Author(s):  
Maggie Xing ◽  
Dorina Kallogjeri ◽  
Jay F. Piccirillo
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Cognitive Training ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Functional Index ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive training in improving tinnitus bother and to identify predictors of patient response. Study Design Prospective open-label randomized controlled trial. Setting Online. Methods Participants were adults with subjective idiopathic nonpulsatile tinnitus causing significant tinnitus-related distress. The intervention group trained by using auditory-intensive exercises for 20 minutes per day, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks. The active control group trained on the same schedule with non–auditory intensive games. Surveys were completed at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results A total of 64 participants completed the study. The median age was 63 years (range, 25-69) in the intervention group and 61 years (34-68) in the control group. Mixed model analysis revealed that within-subject change in Tinnitus Functional Index in the intervention group was not different than the control group, with marginal mean differences (95% CI): 0.24 (–11.20 to 10.7) and 2.17 (–8.50 to 12.83) at 8 weeks and 2.33 (–8.6 to 13.3) and 3.36 (–7.91 to 14.6) at 12 weeks, respectively. When the 2 study groups were compared, the control group had higher Tinnitus Functional Index scores than the intervention group by 10.5 points at baseline (95% CI, –0.92 to 29.89), 8.1 at 8 weeks (95% CI, –3.27 to 19.42), and 9.4 at 12 weeks (95% CI, –2.45 to 21.34). Conclusion Auditory-intensive cognitive training was not associated with changes in self-reported tinnitus bother. Given the potential for neuroplasticity to affect tinnitus, we believe that future studies on cognitive training for tinnitus remain relevant.

scholarly journals Intravitreal conbercept for diabetic macular oedema: 2-year results from a randomised controlled trial and open-label extension study

2021 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-318690
Author(s):  
Kun Liu ◽  
Hanying Wang ◽  
Wei He ◽  
Jian Ye ◽  
Yanping Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Oedema ◽  
Laser Photocoagulation ◽  
Sham Group ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Diabetic Macular Oedema ◽  
Intravitreal Injections ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Extension Study ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Open Label Extension

BackgroundTo demonstrate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal injections of conbercept versus laser photocoagulation in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME).MethodsA 12-month multicentre, randomised, double-masked, double-sham, parallel controlled, phase III trial (Sailing Study), followed by a 12-month open-label extension study. Patients with centre-involved DME were randomly assigned to receive either laser photocoagulation followed by pro re nata (PRN) sham intravitreal injections (laser/sham) or sham laser photocoagulation followed by PRN 0.5 mg conbercept intravitreal injections (sham/conbercept). Patients who entered the extension study received PRN conbercept treatment. The primary endpoint was the changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline.ResultsA total of 248 eyes were included in the full analysis set and 157 eyes continued in the extension study. Significant improvement in mean change in BCVA from baseline to month 12 was observed in the sham/conbercept group (8.2±9.5 letters), whereas no improvement was observed in the laser/sham group (0.3±12.0 letters). Patients in the laser/sham group showed a marked improvement in BCVA after the switch to conbercept in the extension study, and there was no difference in BCVA between the two groups at the end of the extension study.ConclusionThe use of a conbercept PRN intravitreal injection regimen improved the BCVA of patients with DME, and its efficacy was better than that of laser photocoagulations, and the same efficacy was observed when the eyes treated with laser alone were switched to conbercept.Trial registration numberNCT02194634.

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 Effectiveness of Measures to Eradicate Staphylococcus aureus Carriage in Patients with Community-Associated Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections: A Randomized Trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 872-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Fritz ◽  
Bernard C. Camins ◽  
Kimberly A. Eisenstein ◽  
Joseph M. Fritz ◽  
Emma K. Epplin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Intranasal Mupirocin ◽  
Mupirocin Ointment ◽  
Hygiene Education ◽  
To Receive

Background.Despite a paucity of evidence, decolonization measures are prescribed for outpatients with recurrent Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft-tissue infection (SSTI).Objective.Compare the effectiveness of 4 regimens for eradicating S. aureus carriage.Design.Open-label, randomized controlled trial. Colonization status and recurrent SSTI were ascertained at 1 and 4 months.Setting.Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children's Hospitals, St. Louis, Missouri, 2007–2009.Participants.Three hundred patients with community-onset SSTI and S. aureus colonization in the nares, axilla, or inguinal folds.Interventions.Participants were randomized to receive no therapeutic intervention (control subjects) or one of three 5-day regimens: 2% mupirocin ointment applied to the nares twice daily, intranasal mupirocin plus daily 4% chlorhexidine body washes, or intranasal mupirocin plus daily dilute bleach water baths.Results.Among 244 participants with 1-month colonization data, modified intention-to-treat analysis revealed S. aureus eradication in 38% of participants in the education only (control) group, 56% of those in the mupirocin group (P = .03 vs controls), 55% of those in the mupirocin and chlorhexidine group (P = .05), and 63% off those in the mupirocin and bleach group (P = .006). Of 229 participants with 4-month colonization data, eradication rates were 48% in the control group, 56% in the mupirocin only group (P = .40 vs controls), 54% in the mupirocin and chlorhexidine group (P = .51), and 71% in the mupirocin and bleach group (P = .02). At 1 and 4 months, recurrent SSTIs were reported by 20% and 36% of participants, respectively.Conclusions.An inexpensive regimen of dilute bleach baths, intranasal mupirocin, and hygiene education effectively eradicated S. aureus over a 4-month period. High rates of recurrent SSTI suggest that factors other than endogenous colonization are important determinants of infection.Trial Registration.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00513799.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document