scholarly journals Auxora Vs. Placebo for the Treatment of Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author(s):  
Charles Bruen ◽  
Mukhtar Al-Saadi ◽  
Edward Michelson ◽  
Maged Tanios ◽  
Raul Mendoza-Ayala ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Calcium release-activated calcium (CRAC) channel inhibitors block proinflammatory cytokine release, preserve endothelial integrity and may effectively treat patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: CARDEA was a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the addition of Auxora, a CRAC channel inhibitor, to corticosteroids and standard of care in adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary endpoint was time to recovery through Day 60, with secondary endpoints of all-cause mortality at Day 60 and Day 30. Due to declining rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and encroachment of prohibited medications as standard of care, the trial was stopped early. Results: The pre-specified efficacy set consisted of the 261 patients with a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2 £200 with 130 and 131 in the Auxora and placebo groups, respectively. Time to recovery was 7 vs. 10 days (P=0.0979) for patients who received Auxora vs. placebo, respectively. The all-cause mortality rate at Day 60 was 13.8% with Auxora vs. 20.6% with placebo (P=0.1449); Day 30 all-cause mortality was 7.7% and 17.6%, respectively (P=0.0165). Similar trends were noted in patients on high flow nasal cannula at baseline or those with a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2 ≤100. Serious adverse events occurred less frequently in patients treated with Auxora vs. placebo. Conclusions: Auxora was safe and well tolerated with strong signals in both time to recovery and all-cause mortality through Day 60 in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies of Auxora in combination with corticosteroids and other immunomodulatory agents are warranted.Trial registration: NCT04345614

Author(s):  
Jeffrey R Strich ◽  
Xin Tian ◽  
Mohamed Samour ◽  
Christopher S King ◽  
Oksana Shlobin ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) requiring hospitalization is characterized by robust antibody production, dysregulated immune response and immunothrombosis. Fostamatinib, is a novel spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor we hypothesize will ameliorate Fc activation and attenuate harmful effects of the anti-COVID-19 immune response. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in hospitalized adults requiring oxygen with Covid-19 where patients receiving standard of care were randomized to receive fostamatinib or placebo. The primary outcome was serious adverse events by day 29. Results A total of 59 patients underwent randomization (30 to fostamatinib and 29 to placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in 10.5% of patients in the fostamatinib group compared to 22% in placebo (P = .2). Three deaths occurred by day 29, all receiving placebo. The mean change in ordinal score at day 15 was greater in the fostamatinib group (-3.6 ± 0.3 vs. -2.6 ± 0.4, P = .035) and the median length in the ICU was 3 days in the fostamatinib group vs. 7 days in placebo (P = .07). Differences in clinical improvement were most evident in patients with severe or critical disease (median days on oxygen, 10 vs. 28, P = .027). There were trends towards more rapid reductions in C-reactive protein, D-dimer, fibrinogen and ferritin levels in the fostamatinib group. Conclusion For COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the addition of fostamatinib to standard of care was safe and patients were observed to have improved clinical outcomes compared to placebo. These results warrant further validation in larger confirmatory trials.


2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1903-1911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana E Gamiño-Arroyo ◽  
M Lourdes Guerrero ◽  
Sean McCarthy ◽  
Alejandra Ramírez-Venegas ◽  
Beatriz Llamosas-Gallardo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Effective therapeutics for respiratory viruses are needed. Early data suggest that nitazoxanide (NTZ) may be beneficial for treating acute respiratory viral illness. Methods From March 2014 through March 2017, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 260 participants ≥1 year old hospitalized with influenza-like illness at 6 hospitals in Mexico. Participants were randomized 1:1 to NTZ (age ≥12 years, 600 mg twice daily; age 4–11 years and 1–3 years, 200 or 100 mg twice daily, respectively) or placebo for 5 days in addition to standard of care. The primary endpoint was time from first dose to hospital discharge. Influenza reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and Respifinder 22 multiplex test were used for virus detection. Results Of 260 participants enrolled, 257 were randomized and took at least 1 dose of study treatment (intention-to-treat population): 130 in the NTZ group and 127 in the placebo group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median duration of hospitalization was 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 4.0–9.0) days in the NTZ group vs 7.0 (IQR, 4.0–9.0) days in the placebo group (P = .56). Duration of hospitalization between the 2 treatments was similar in children (P = .29) and adults (P = .62), influenza A and B (P = .32), and other respiratory viruses. Seven (5.4%) and 6 (4.7%) participants in the NTZ and placebo groups, respectively, reported serious adverse events. Conclusions Treatment with NTZ did not reduce the duration of hospital stay in severe influenza-like illness. Further analyses based on age and evaluations by virus did not reveal any subgroups that appeared to benefit from NTZ. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02057757.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e045559
Author(s):  
Xuelei Zhang ◽  
Anxin Wang ◽  
Jing Yu Zhang ◽  
Baixue Jia ◽  
Xiaochuan Huo ◽  
...  

IntroductionAs a neuroprotective medication, butylphthalide (NBP) may help protect against cerebral ischaemic injury. However, evidence on whether NBP influences the outcomes of patients who had acute ischaemic stroke who are receiving revascularisation treatment is limited. This study aims to evaluate whether additional NBP therapy can improve the functional outcome of patients who receive intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and/or endovascular treatment (EVT).Methods and analysisThe study will be a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-centre, parallel group trial. The sample size is estimated at 1200 patients. Eligible patients will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to receive either NBP or placebo daily for 90 days, which will include 14 days of injections and 76 days of capsules. The first use of NBP/placebo will be started within 6 hours of onset of ischaemic stroke. The primary outcome is the functional outcome as assessed by the 90-day modified Rankin Scale, adjusted for baseline scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. The primary safety outcome is the percentage of serious adverse events during the 90 days of treatment. This trial will determine whether NBP medication benefits patients who had acute ischaemic stroke who receive intravenous thrombolysis or EVT.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was written according to the general ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University with approval number KY 2018-003-02. Ethics committees of all participating sites have approved the study . Results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and shared in scientific presentations.Trial registration numberNCT03539445.


Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 294-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Messoud Ashina ◽  
Uwe Reuter ◽  
Timothy Smith ◽  
Judith Krikke-Workel ◽  
Suzanne R Klise ◽  
...  

Background We present findings from the multicenter, double-blind Phase 3 study, CENTURION. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of and consistency of response to lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine across four attacks. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups – lasmiditan 200 mg; lasmiditan 100 mg; or a control group that received placebo for three attacks and lasmiditan 50 mg for either the third or fourth attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in ≥2/3 attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom and disability freedom. Statistical testing used a logistic regression model and graphical methodology to control for multiplicity. Results Overall, 1471 patients treated ≥1 migraine attack with the study drug. Both primary endpoints were met for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg ( p < 0.001). All gated secondary endpoints were met. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest during the first attack. The most common TEAEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, and nausea; these were generally mild or moderate in severity. Conclusions These results confirm the early and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg and demonstrate consistency of response across multiple attacks. Trial Registration Number: NCT03670810


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13508-e13508
Author(s):  
Julio Antonio Peguero ◽  
Ahmed Ayad ◽  
Stacia Young-Wesenberg ◽  
Teresa Yang ◽  
Janine North ◽  
...  

e13508 Background: Oncology infusion centers are increasingly focused on improving operational efficiencies and patient satisfaction, while maintaining quality care. One key component is optimizing chair time, which has been especially important for patient safety during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce risk of transmission. Many infusions require antihistamine premedication to reduce the risk of hypersensitivity infusion reactions (IRs). The two IV options are IV diphenhydramine and IV cetirizine, which have a quicker onset than oral options and can be administered IV push. In treating acute urticaria, IV cetirizine was shown to be comparable to IV diphenhydramine, with fewer side effects, and it may be effective for preventing IRs with improved chair time. Methods: A randomized, double-blind phase 2 study evaluating premedication with single dose IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 34 patients receiving paclitaxel, rituximab, its biosimilar or obinutuzumab (first cycle, retreatment after 6 months or with persistent IRs). The primary objective was the incidence of IRs after premedication. Secondary endpoints included sedation due to antihistamines and time to readiness for discharge. Sedation was reported by patients on a scale of 0-4 (0 = none to 4 = extremely severe). No formal statistical analyses were planned given the exploratory nature of the study. Results: Adults primarily with cancer (n = 31 [91%]) were enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 25 to November 23, 2020. The median age was 65 and 67 years in the IV cetirizine and diphenhydramine groups, respectively. The number of patients with IRs was 2/17 (11.8%) with IV cetirizine versus 3/17 (17.6%) with IV diphenhydramine. The mean sedation score in the IV cetirizine group compared to the IV diphenhydramine group was lower at all time points, including at discharge (0.1 vs 0.4, respectively). Mean time to discharge was 24 minutes less with IV cetirizine (4.3 hours [1.5]) versus IV diphenhydramine (4.7 hours [1.2]). This difference was greater (30 minutes less) in those ≥65 years of age (4.4 [1.3] vs 4.9 [1.0] hours). Regardless of whether patients received paclitaxel (n = 9) or an anti-CD20 (n = 25), patients had less chair time when premedicated with IV cetirizine. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with IV cetirizine (2 events) than with IV diphenhydramine (4 events). Conclusions: This was the first randomized, controlled trial evaluating IV antihistamine premedication for IRs and chair time. It was shown that IV cetirizine can prevent IRs, with less sedation, fewer related AEs and reduced chair time compared to IV diphenhydramine. This improves infusion center operations and patient experience. Clinical trial information: NCT04189588.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Stephenson ◽  
Boris Julg ◽  
C. Sabrina Tan ◽  
Rebecca Zash ◽  
Stephen R. Walsh ◽  
...  

AbstractHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1-specific broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are currently under development to treat and prevent HIV-1 infection. We performed a single-center, randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation, placebo-controlled trial of a single administration of the HIV-1 V3-glycan-specific antibody PGT121 at 3, 10 and 30 mg kg–1 in HIV-uninfected adults and HIV-infected adults on antiretroviral therapy (ART), as well as a multicenter, open-label trial of one infusion of PGT121 at 30 mg kg–1 in viremic HIV-infected adults not on ART (no. NCT02960581). The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and antiviral activity in viremic HIV-infected adults not on ART. The secondary endpoints were changes in anti-PGT121 antibody titers and CD4+ T-cell count, and development of HIV-1 sequence variations associated with PGT121 resistance. Among 48 participants enrolled, no treatment-related serious adverse events, potential immune-mediated diseases or Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. The most common reactions among PGT121 recipients were intravenous/injection site tenderness, pain and headache. Absolute and relative CD4+ T-cell counts did not change following PGT121 infusion in HIV-infected participants. Neutralizing anti-drug antibodies were not elicited. PGT121 reduced plasma HIV RNA levels by a median of 1.77 log in viremic participants, with a viral load nadir at a median of 8.5 days. Two individuals with low baseline viral loads experienced ART-free viral suppression for ≥168 days following antibody infusion, and rebound viruses in these individuals demonstrated full or partial PGT121 sensitivity. The trial met the prespecified endpoints. These data suggest that further investigation of the potential of antibody-based therapeutic strategies for long-term suppression of HIV is warranted, including in individuals off ART and with low viral load.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
Sabita Uthaya ◽  
Xinxue Liu ◽  
Daphne Babalis ◽  
Caroline Dore ◽  
Jane Warwick ◽  
...  

Abstract During the uploading of data for submission to the EudraCT results database, a discrepancy was identified. It was noted that the number of deaths per group was not consistent with the number in the final report and trial publication. This discrepancy was found to relate to two randomisation numbers. During the trial, the randomisation database had been held separately from the trial database, with manual transcription of randomisation numbers from the randomisation database to the trial database. Two randomisation numbers had been entered incorrectly into the trial database and, although this was documented at the time, the correction had not been made in the analysis data set. The two infants in question received the correct treatment in accordance with their allocation, but were analysed according to the wrong treatment group. Following the identification of this error, all analyses were repeated. It was confirmed that this error had a negligible impact on the study results. Furthermore, the two infants in question had not been included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses, as one had died and the other had withdrawn prior to the primary end-point assessment, so the key study outcomes remain unchanged. The only changes to the results are in the number of serious adverse events and minor changes to the data in demographics tables mostly affecting decimal points and the CONSORT diagram. Our interpretation of the study results remains unchanged.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy P. M. van Stralen

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release (GXR) versus placebo as adjunct therapy to usual care stimulant therapy in improving executive function in children aged 6 to 12 years diagnosed with ADHD. Method: In this single center, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial, subjects continued to take their psychostimulant and were randomly assigned at baseline to receive active treatment or placebo first. Efficacy measures included Behavioural Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-P), ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS IV), and Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Safety measures included adverse events and vital signs. Results: Significant benefits of GXR plus psychostimulant were observed on BRIEF-P ( p value = .0392), ADHD-RS-IV ( p < .0001), CGI-S ( p = .0007), and CGI-I ( p = .003). There were no serious adverse events and no new safety signals. Conclusion: Use of GXR as adjunctive therapy to stimulant therapy significantly improves executive function in children with ADHD.


Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Crowther ◽  
Alexander M Gold ◽  
Genmin Lu ◽  
Janet M Leeds ◽  
Brian L Wiens ◽  
...  

Introduction: Andexanet alfa (AnXa) is a recombinant modified fXa molecule that acts as a specific antidote for fXa inhibitors. We report clinical results in healthy subjects anticoagulated with apixaban (apix), rivaroxaban (riva), edoxaban (edox), or enoxaparin (enox), demonstrating rapid and sustained reversal of anticoagulation following administration of AnXa. Methods: These were Phase 2/3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in healthy subjects. In Phase 2, about153 subjects age18 - 45 were given one of the fXa inhibitors (apix 5 mg BID, riva 20 mg QD, edox 60 mg QD or enox 40 mg QD) for 6 days. AnXa or placebo (3:1 randomization) was given IV on Day 6, 3hrs after the last inhibitor dose (∼inhibitor Cmax). Safety was followed through Day 48. A range of AnXa doses (bolus or bolus+infusion) was evaluated by correction of biomarkers (anti-fXa activity, free inhibitor concentrations and thrombin generation (TG)). In Phase 3 (ANNEXA™), older subjects age 50 to 75 were dosed with apix (5 mg BID) or riva (20 mg QD) for 4 days. ANNEXA™-A had 63 subjects treated with apix. AnXa (400 mg bolus; 400 mg bolus plus 4 mg/min x 2hr infusion) or placebo (3:1 randomization) was given on Day 4, 3 hrs after the last apix dose. ANNEXA™-R had 82 subjects treated with riva. AnXa (800 mg bolus; 800 mg bolus plus 8 mg/min x 2hr infusion) or placebo (2:1) was given on Day 4, 4 hrs after the last riva dose. Safety was followed through Day 43. Results: About 298 healthy subjects were enrolled in the studies. AnXa demonstrated rapid and sustained reversal of both direct and indirect fXa inhibitors as measured by correction of biomarkers. The ANNEXA™ studies confirmed findings from Phase 2, and met all primary (reversal of anti-fXa) and secondary endpoints (reduction of free inhibitor concentration and restoration of TG) with high statistical significance. AnXa was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events, thrombotic events, or antibodies to fX or fXa reported. Conclusion: AnXa treatment results in rapid and sustained reversal of anticoagulation of fXa inhibitors. A Phase 3b/4 confirmatory study (ANNEXA-4) in patients with acute major bleeds is ongoing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document