scholarly journals Convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: an open-label, randomised clinical trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 2101471
Author(s):  
Leo Sekine ◽  
Beatriz Arns ◽  
Bruna R. Fabro ◽  
Murillo M. Cipolatt ◽  
Rafael R. G. Machado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Ventilatory Support ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Significant Difference

BackgroundThe effects of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. This study investigates the effect CP on clinical improvement in these patients.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated, randomised, parallel arm, open-label, superiority clinical trial. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to two infusions of CP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement 28 days after enrolment.ResultsA total of 160 (80 in each arm) patients (66.3% were critically ill and 33.7%, severe) completed the trial. The median age was 60.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 48–68), 58.1% were men and the median time from symptom onset to randomisation was 10 days (IQR, 8–12). Neutralising antibodies titres >1:80 were present in 133 (83.1%) patients at baseline. The proportion of patients with clinical improvement on day 28 was 61.3% in the CP+SOC and 65.0% in the SOC group (difference, −3.7%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], −18.8%-11.3%). The results were similar in the subgroups of severe and critically ill. There was no significant difference between CP+SOC and SOC groups in prespecified secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality, days alive and free of respiratory support and duration of invasive ventilatory support. Inflammatory and other laboratorial markers values on days 3, 7 and 14 were similar between groups.ConclusionsCP+SOC did not result in a higher proportion of clinical improvement on at day 28 in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 compared to SOC alone.

scholarly journals Comparison of Generic (Rolexan) and Brand (Clexan) Forms of Enoxaparin in Critically Ill Patients: A Cross Over, Open Label, Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shadi Ziaie ◽  
Hanieh Malekmohammadi ◽  
Mohammad Sistanizad
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Enoxaparin Sodium ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference

Backgrounds: Several generic forms of enoxaparin were introduced to the market after expiring the patent of Clexane. But the main problem with generic forms is its bio-equivalency with brand form as a little difference in active ingredients characteristics, could led to significant clinical differences. For evaluating the efficacy of enoxaparin, it is recommended to measure its activity against Anti Xa. The aim of this study was comparison of Anti Xa Activity of Enoxan® versus Clexane ® in critically ill patients with prophylactic doses. Methods: This was a cross over, open label, randomized prospective study which was performed between September 2016 and December 2017 in intensive care unit of Labbafinezhad hospital, Tehran, Iran. Thirty adult patients, who received enoxaparin for prophylaxis of thromboembolic events, were recruited. Subjects were subsequently randomized to one of the treatment sequences (Generic–brand or brand–generic). The generic drug was enoxaparin sodium 40 mg (4,000 IU anti-FXa/0.4 mL), manufactured by Ronakpharm, Iran; the brand drug was enoxaparin sodium 40 mg (Clexane® 4,000 IU anti-FXa/0.4 mL), manufactured by Sanofi, France. Results: Anti-Xa activity was assessed with Stago kit. The anti-Xa activity between 0.2 and 0.5 U/mL was defined as prophylaxis. The average Anti-Xa activities of Clexan and Rolexan were 0.3±0.12 and 0.22±0.10, respectively which reveals statistically no significant difference (P: 0.35). Also Anti-Xa activity in 6 and 11 patients in Clexan and Rolexan groups were under 0.2 (P: 0.16). Conclusion: Our study showed comparable efficacy of prophylactic doses between Clexan and Rolexan in critically ill patients. Further studies in different patient population are recommended. J Pharm Care 2020; 8(1): 23-25.

scholarly journals A Randomized Clinical Trial of Linagliptin vs. Standard of Care in Patients Hospitalized With Diabetes and COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ran Abuhasira ◽  
Irit Ayalon-Dangur ◽  
Neta Zaslavsky ◽  
Ronit Koren ◽  
Mally Keller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Point Reduction ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

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.

scholarly journals Randomised clinical trial comparing concomitant and hybrid therapy for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0244500
Author(s):  
Antonio Mestrovic ◽  
Nikola Perkovic ◽  
Josko Bozic ◽  
Mirela Pavicic Ivelja ◽  
Jonatan Vukovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Helicobacter Pylori ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Hybrid Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background The primary objective of this study was to compare concomitant and hybrid therapy in the first line eradication treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in Split-Dalmatia County, Croatia, in which clarithromycin resistance is above 20%. The secondary objective of the study was to determine and compare compliance and adverse events rate between these therapeutic protocols. Materials and methods In an open-label, randomised clinical trial 140 patients total with H. pylori infection were randomly assigned to either concomitant (esomeprazole 40 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, metronidazole 500 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, twice daily for 14 days) or hybrid (esomeprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1 g twice daily during 14 days with adding metronidazole 500 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, in the last 7 days,) treatment group. Results Eradication rates for concomitant group and hybrid therapy group were 84.1% (58/69) and 83.1% (59/71) respectively in the intention-to-treat analysis and 96.7% (58/60) and 95.2% (59/62) in per-protocol analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups (ITT analysis: P = 0.878; PP analysis: P = 0.675). Adverse events were more frequent in the concomitant group (33.3% vs 18.3%, P = 0.043). There was no difference among groups regarding compliance rate. Conclusion Hybrid therapy has similar eradication rate as concomitant therapy, with lower adverse events rate. In the era of increasing antibiotic resistance, eradication regime with less antibiotic’s usage, as hybrid therapy, should be reasonable first line treatment choice for H. pylori infection. Clinical Trials, gov: NCT03572777.

scholarly journals Direct antivirals working against the novel coronavirus: azithromycin (DAWn-AZITHRO), a randomized, multicenter, open-label, adaptive, proof-of-concept clinical trial of new antivirals working against SARS-CoV-2—azithromycin trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iwein Gyselinck ◽  
◽  
Laurens Liesenborghs ◽  
Ewout Landeloos ◽  
Ann Belmans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Cytokine Signaling ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

Abstract Background The rapid emergence and the high disease burden of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 have created a medical need for readily available drugs that can decrease viral replication or blunt the hyperinflammatory state leading to severe COVID-19 disease. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic, known for its immunomodulatory properties. It has shown antiviral effect specifically against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and acts on cytokine signaling pathways that have been implicated in COVID-19. Methods DAWn-AZITHRO is a randomized, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicenter clinical trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of azithromycin for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19. It is part of a series of trials testing promising interventions for COVID-19, running in parallel and grouped under the name DAWn-studies. Patients hospitalized on dedicated COVID wards are eligible for study inclusion when they are symptomatic (i.e., clinical or radiological signs) and have been diagnosed with COVID-19 within the last 72 h through PCR (nasopharyngeal swab or bronchoalveolar lavage) or chest CT scan showing typical features of COVID-19 and without alternate diagnosis. Patients are block-randomized (9 patients) with a 2:1 allocation to receive azithromycin plus standard of care versus standard of care alone. Standard of care is mostly supportive, but may comprise hydroxychloroquine, up to the treating physician’s discretion and depending on local policy and national health regulations. The treatment group receives azithromycin qd 500 mg during the first 5 consecutive days after inclusion. The trial will include 284 patients and recruits from 15 centers across Belgium. The primary outcome is time from admission (day 0) to life discharge or to sustained clinical improvement, defined as an improvement of two points on the WHO 7-category ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days. Discussion The trial investigates the urgent and still unmet global need for drugs that may impact the disease course of COVID-19. It will either provide support or else justify the discouragement of the current widespread, uncontrolled use of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19. The analogous design of other parallel trials of the DAWN consortium will amplify the chance of identifying successful treatment strategies and allow comparison of treatment effects within an identical clinical context. Trial registration EU Clinical trials register EudraCT Nb 2020-001614-38. Registered on 22 April 2020

scholarly journals Protocol for a randomised clinical trial of multimodal postconcussion symptom treatment and recovery: the Concussion Essentials study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e041458
Author(s):  
Vicki Anderson ◽  
Vanessa C Rausa ◽  
Nicholas Anderson ◽  
Georgia Parkin ◽  
Cathriona Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Normal Activity ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Postconcussive Symptoms ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Initial Injury

IntroductionWhile most children recover from a concussion shortly after injury, approximately 30% experience persistent postconcussive symptoms (pPCS) beyond 1-month postinjury. Existing research into the treatment of pPCS have evaluated unimodal approaches, despite evidence suggesting that pPCS likely represent an interaction across various symptom clusters. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal, symptom-tailored intervention to accelerate symptom recovery and increase the proportion of children with resolved symptoms at 3 months postconcussion.Methods and analysisIn this open-label, assessor-blinded, randomised clinical trial, children with concussion aged 8–18 years will be recruited from The Royal Children’s Hospital (The RCH) emergency department, or referred by a clinician, within 17 days of initial injury. Based on parent ratings of their child’s PCS at ~10 days postinjury, symptomatic children (≥2 symptoms at least 1-point above those endorsed preinjury) will undergo a baseline assessment at 3 weeks postinjury and randomised into either Concussion Essentials (CE, n=108), a multimodal, interdisciplinary delivered, symptom-tailored treatment involving physiotherapy, psychology and education, or usual care (UC, n=108) study arms. CE participants will receive 1 hour of intervention each week, for up to 8 weeks or until pPCS resolve. A postprogramme assessment will be conducted at 3 months postinjury for all participants. Effectiveness of the CE intervention will be determined by the proportion of participants for whom pPCS have resolved at the postprogramme assessment (primary outcome) relative to the UC group. Secondary outcome analyses will examine whether children receiving CE are more likely to demonstrate resolution of pPCS, earlier return to normal activity, higher quality of life and a lower rate of utilisation of health services, compared with the UC group.Ethics and disseminationEthics were approved by The RCH Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC: 37100). Parent, and for mature minors, participant consent, will be obtained prior to commencement of the trial. Study results will be disseminated at international conferences and international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberACTRN12617000418370; pre-results.

scholarly journals Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manaf AlQahtani ◽  
Abdulkarim Abdulrahman ◽  
Abdulrahman Almadani ◽  
Salman Yousif Alali ◽  
Alaa Mahmood Al Zamrooni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Plasma Therapy

AbstractConvalescent plasma (CP) therapy in COVID-19 disease may improve clinical outcome in severe disease. This pilot study was undertaken to inform feasibility and safety of further definitive studies. This was a prospective, interventional and randomized open label pilot trial in patients with severe COVID-19. Twenty COVID-19 patients received two 200 ml transfusions of convalescent patient CP over 24-h compared with 20 who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the requirement for ventilation (non-invasive or mechanical ventilation). The secondary outcomes were biochemical parameters and mortality at 28 days. The CP group were a higher risk group with higher ferritin levels (p < 0.05) though respiratory indices did not differ. The primary outcome measure was required in 6 controls and 4 patients on CP (risk ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.22–2.0, p = 0.72); mean time on ventilation (NIV or MV) did not differ. There were no differences in secondary measures at the end of the study. Two patients died in the control and one patient in the CP arm. There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcome measures between CP and standard therapy, although a larger definitive study is needed for confirmation. However, the study did show that CP therapy appears to be safe in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxia.Clinical trials registration NCT04356534: 22/04/2020.

scholarly journals Prone positioning of patients with moderate hypoxia due to COVID-19: A multicenter pragmatic randomized trial [COVID-PRONE]

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Fralick ◽  
Michael Colacci ◽  
Laveena Munshi ◽  
Kevin Venus ◽  
Lee Fidler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
High Flow Oxygen

What is already known on this topic: Prone positioning is considered standard of care for mechanically ventilated patients who have severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recent data suggest prone positioning is beneficial for patients with COVID-19 who are requiring high flow oxygen. It is unknown of prone positioning is beneficial for patients not on high flow oxygen. What this study adds: Prone positioning is generally not well tolerated and innovative approaches are needed to improve adherence. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were not improved with prone positioning among hypoxic but not critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Design: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial of prone positioning of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. Settings: Patients were eligible is they had a laboratory-confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of COVID-19, required supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2]), and were able to independently prone with verbal instruction. (NCT04383613). Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as requiring at least 60% FiO2 for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to FiO2 (S/F ratio). Results: A total of 248 patients were included. The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomization was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 45,65), 36% were female, and 90% of patients were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomization. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 hours total (IQR 1.5,12.8) for the prone arm compared to 0 hours (0,2) in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 [14.3%] events) and the standard care group (17 [13.9%] events), odds ratio 0.92 (95% CI 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the S/F ratio after 72 hours was similar for patients randomized to prone compared to standard of care. Conclusion: Among hypoxic but not critically patients with COVID-19 in hospital, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning.

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 An open label trial of anakinra to prevent respiratory failure in COVID-19

eLife ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou ◽  
Periklis Panagopoulos ◽  
Symeon Metallidis ◽  
George N Dalekos ◽  
Garyphallia Poulakou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Open Label Trial ◽  
Anakinra Treatment

Background It was studied if early suPAR-guided anakinra treatment can prevent severe respiratory failure (SRF) of COVID-19.Methods 130 patients with suPAR ≥6 ng/ml were assigned to subcutaneous anakinra 100mg once daily for 10 days. Primary outcome was SRF incidence by day 14 defined as any respiratory ratio below 150 mmHg necessitating mechanical or non-invasive ventilation. Main secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and inflammatory mediators; 28-day WHO-CPS was explored. Propensity-matched standard-of care comparators were studied.Results 22.3% with anakinra treatment and 59.2% comparators (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95%CI, 0.20-0.46) progressed into SRF; 30-day mortality was 11.5% and 22.3% respectively (hazard ratio 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.97). Anakinra was associated with decrease in circulating interleukin (IL)-6, sCD163 and sIL2-R; IL-10/IL-6 ratio on day 7 was inversely associated with SOFA score; patients were allocated to less severe WHO-CPS strata.Conclusions Early suPAR-guided anakinra decreased SRF and restored the pro-/anti-inflammatory balance.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357366

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document