scholarly journals Proxalutamide (GT0918) Reduces the Rate of Hospitalization and Death in COVID-19 Male Patients: A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Trial.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flavio Adsuara Cadegiani ◽  
John McCoy ◽  
Carlos Gustavo Wambier ◽  
Maja Kovacevic ◽  
Jerry Shapiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Androgen Treatment ◽  
Reductase Inhibitors ◽  
Double Blinded

Abstract Importance: Previously, we have reported a retrospective cohort analysis demonstrating the protective effect of anti-androgens (5-alpha-reductase inhibitors) in COVID-19. Objective: To determine if the anti-androgen proxalutimide is an effective treatment for men with ambulatory mild COVID-19 disease.Design: A double-blinded, randomized, prospective, investigational study of proxalutamide for the treatment men with ambulatory mild COVID-19 disease.Setting: Outpatient centers (Brasilia, Brazil) from July 15 to December 1, 2020. Participants: Men with ambulatory mild COVID-19 disease (WHO ordinal scale ≤3).Interventions: Proxalutimide 200mg/day, or standard of care for 30 days or until full COVID-19 remission. Main Outcome and Measures: Percentage of subjects hospitalized due to COVID-19 [Time Frame: 30 days].Results: A total of 214 men were included and completed the trial; 114 men were randomized to the proxalutamide group, and 100 men were randomized to the control group. A statistically significant reduction in the percentage of subjects hospitalized due to COVID-19 was observed in men taking proxalutamide (0%) compared to the standard of care (27%), (p<0.001). The percentage of men requiring mechanical ventilation was reduced in the proxalutamide group (0%) compared to control (9%), (p<0.001). Zero fatalities occurred in the proxalutamide group, versus 2 in the control group.Conclusions and Relevance: Men with ambulatory mild COVID-19 disease (WHO ordinal scale ≤3) receiving anti-androgen treatment with proxalutamide, had significantly reduced rate of hospitalization compared to men not receiving anti-androgen treatment. Trial Registration: NCT04446429

scholarly journals Chemical, Mechanical, and Heat Cleaning to Decontaminate Hospital Drains Harboring Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriales

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s466-s467
Author(s):  
Alainna Juliette Jamal ◽  
Rajni Pantelidis ◽  
Rachael Sawicki ◽  
Angel Li ◽  
Wayne Chiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Brain Heart Infusion ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Comparator Group ◽  
Carbapenemase Gene ◽  
Cleaning Intervention

Background: Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriales (CPE) outbreaks have been linked to contaminated wastewater drainage systems in hospitals. The optimal strategy for CPE decontamination of drains is unknown. In this randomized controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether combining chemical, mechanical, and heat cleaning was superior to routine cleaning for drain decontamination. Methods: We enrolled CPE-contaminated hospital drains at 2 geographic locations. Eligible drains were those initially found to be culture positive in a 2017 study and that remained positive (by RT-PCR) when retested twice in August 2018. Drains were stratified by type (sink versus shower) and randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio (as per computer-generated randomization) to standard-of-care cleaning (comparator) or combined chemical, mechanical, and heat cleaning (intervention) on day 0. Drain tail pieces were swabbed on days 0 (before administration of the intervention), 1, 2, 3, 7, and 14, and at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Swabs were placed into brain heart infusion with 10% Dey-Engley neutralizing broth and incubated overnight. Direct RT-PCR was performed to detect KPC, VIM, NDM, OXA-48–like, IMP, GES, and SME genes. The primary outcome was drain decontamination, defined as no detectable carbapenemase gene in the drain from day 1 to 7 (inclusive). Results: Overall, 33 CPE-contaminated drains were enrolled (7 sink and 26 shower); 17 and 16 drains were randomized to the intervention and comparator, respectively. Moreover, 12 (36%) drains met the primary outcome of decontamination, 18 (55%) remained contaminated, and 3 (9%) could not be assessed. Among drains that could be assessed, 11 of 15 (74%) in the intervention group met the primary outcome of decontamination compared to 1 of 15 (7%) in the comparator group (P = .0005). Of the 11 drains in the intervention group that were decontaminated, the carbapenemase gene present at enrollment was subsequently detected in 10 (91%): 1 (10%) at day 14, 3 (30%) at month 1, 4 (40%) at month 3, 1 (10%) at month 4, and 1 (10%) at month 6. The median time to a swab yielding CPE was 1 day in the comparator group versus 14 days in the intervention group (Fig. 1). Overall, 24 drains (73%) had a carbapenemase gene (that was not detectable at enrollment) appear in the follow-up. Of patients identified as CPE colonized or infected during this study, none occupied rooms with these drains. Conclusions: Chemical, mechanical, and heat cleaning were superior to standard cleaning for CPE decontamination of hospital drains at 7 days, but these trends were not sustained. Such cleaning may be useful if applied repeatedly.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Allison McGeer reports funds to her institution for studies for which she is the principal investigator from Pfizer and Merck as well as consulting fees from Sanofi-Pasteur, Sunovion, GSK, Pfizer, and Cidara.

scholarly journals Mobile Health to Improve Adherence and Patient Experience in Heart Transplantation Recipients: The mHeart Trial

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
Mar Gomis-Pastor ◽  
Sonia Mirabet Perez ◽  
Eulalia Roig Minguell ◽  
Vicenç Brossa Loidi ◽  
Laura Lopez Lopez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Transplantation ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Mobile Application ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Adherence Score

Non-adherence after heart transplantation (HTx) is a significant problem. The main objective of this study was to evaluate if a mHealth strategy is more effective than standard care in improving adherence and patients’ experience in heart transplant recipients. Methods: This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adult recipients >1.5 years post-HTx. Participants were randomized to standard care (control group) or to the mHeart Strategy (intervention group). For patients randomized to the mHeart strategy, multifaceted theory-based interventions were provided during the study period to optimize therapy management using the mHeart mobile application. Patient experience regarding their medication regimens were evaluated in a face-to-face interview. Medication adherence was assessed by performing self-reported questionnaires. A composite adherence score that included the SMAQ questionnaire, the coefficient of variation of drug levels and missing visits was also reported. Results: A total of 134 HTx recipients were randomized (intervention N = 71; control N = 63). Mean follow-up was 1.6 (SD 0.6) years. Improvement in adherence from baseline was significantly higher in the intervention group versus the control group according to the SMAQ questionnaire (85% vs. 46%, OR = 6.7 (2.9; 15.8), p-value < 0.001) and the composite score (51% vs. 23%, OR = 0.3 (0.1; 0.6), p-value = 0.001). Patients’ experiences with their drug therapy including knowledge of their medication timing intakes (p-value = 0.019) and the drug indications or uses that they remembered (p-value = 0.003) significantly improved in the intervention versus the control group. Conclusions: In our study, the mHealth-based strategy significantly improved adherence and patient beliefs regarding their medication regimens among the HTx population. The mHeart mobile application was used as a feasible tool for providing long-term, tailor-made interventions to HTx recipients to improve the goals assessed.

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 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.

Impact of a 12-month web and smartphone-based intervention initiated during spa therapy to improve long-term physical activity of patients with chronic diseases: randomized controlled trial. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florie FILLOL ◽  
Ludivine PARIS ◽  
Sébastien PASCAL ◽  
Aurélien MULLIEZ ◽  
Christian-François ROQUES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Waist Circumference ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Spa Therapy

BACKGROUND Lack of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviors are leading risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCD). Web-based interventions are effective in increasing PA in older adults and in NCD patients. In many countries a course of spa therapy is commonly prescribed to NCD patients and represents an ideal context to initiating lifestyle changes. OBJECTIVE The main objective of this study was to evaluate in NCD patients the effectiveness of an intervention combining an individual face-to-face coaching during spa therapy and, when returning home, a web- and smartphone-based PA program including a connected wrist pedometer and a connected weighing scale, on the achievement of physical activity guidelines (PAG) 12 months after the end of spa therapy. METHODS This was a 12-month, prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Patients were enrolled during spa therapy and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control group who received usual advices about PA. From the end of spa therapy, PA, weight, waist circumference, and quality of life of the participants in both groups, were assessed by phone every 2 months. Primary outcome was meeting PAG (PA≥600 METs) at 12 months after the end of spa therapy. Secondary outcomes were: meeting current PAG at 6 months of follow-up; sedentary time, weight and waist circumference, PA and quality of life, at 6 and 12 months. Objective use data of the web-and smartphone-based PA program were collected. Analytic methods include intention-to-treat and constrained longitudinal data analyses. RESULTS The study sample was 228 patients (female : 77.2% (176/228), mean age: 62.4 years (SD 6.7), retired: 53.9% (123/228), mean BMI = 28.2 kg.m-2 (SD 4.2)). No group differences were found for any baseline variable. At 12 months, the proportion of patients achieving PAG was significantly higher in intervention group versus control group (81% vs 67% respectively, OR = 2.34 (95% CI 1.02- 5.38; P=.045). No difference between intervention and control group was found neither in achieving PAG at 6 months nor for sedentary time, weight and waist circumference, at 6 and 12 months. Regarding quality of life, the physical component subscale score was significantly higher at 12 months in intervention group versus control group (mean difference: 4.1 (95% CI 1.9-6.3; P<.001). The mean duration use of the program was 7.1 months (SD 4.5). Attrition rate during the first 2 months of the program was 20.4% (23/113) whereas 39.8% (45/113) of the participants used the program for at least 10 months. CONCLUSIONS The results showed significantly more participants meeting PAG at one year in the intervention group compared to controls. A course of spa therapy offers the ideal time and setting to implement education in PA. Digital coaching seems to be more efficient than usual coaching for increasing the level of PA and decreasing sedentariness on the long term. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02694796; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02694796.

scholarly journals Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Avendano-Sola ◽  
Antonio Ramos-Martinez ◽  
Elena Munez-Rubio ◽  
Belen Ruiz-Antoran ◽  
Rosa Malo de Molina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Strong Dependence ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Standard Of Care Treatment ◽  
And Control ◽  
To Receive

Background: Passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 for which evidence from controlled clinical trials is lacking. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, randomized clinical trial in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. All patients received standard of care treatment, including off-label use of marketed medicines, and were randomized 1:1 to receive one dose (250-300 mL) of CP from donors with IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5, 6 or 7 of the COVID-19 ordinal scale at day 15. Results: The trial was stopped after first interim analysis due to the fall in recruitment related to pandemic control. With 81 patients randomized, there were no patients progressing to mechanical ventilation or death among the 38 patients assigned to receive plasma (0%) versus 6 out of 43 patients (14%) progressing in control arm. Mortality rates were 0% vs 9.3% at days 15 and 29 for the active and control groups, respectively. No significant differences were found in secondary endpoints. At inclusion, patients had a median time of 8 days (IQR, 6-9) of symptoms and 49,4% of them were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma could be superior to standard of care in avoiding progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The strong dependence of results on a limited number of events in the control group prevents drawing firm conclusions about CP efficacy from this trial. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III; NCT04345523).

scholarly journals Azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19–a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 2100752
Author(s):  
Pradeesh Sivapalan ◽  
Charlotte Suppli Ulrik ◽  
Therese Sophie Lapperre ◽  
Rasmus Dahlin Bojesen ◽  
Josefin Eklöf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety Outcome ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Double Blinded ◽  
Combined Intervention

BackgroundCombining the antibiotic azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine induces airway immunomodulatory effects, with the latter also having in vitro antiviral properties. This may improve outcomes in patients hospitalised for COVID-19.MethodsPlacebo-controlled double-blind randomised multicentre trial. Patients ≥18 years, admitted to hospital for≤48 h (not intensive care) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test, were recruited. The intervention was 500 mg daily azithromycin for 3 days followed by 250 mg daily azithromycin for 12 days combined with 200 mg twice daily hydroxychloroquine for all 15 days. The control group received placebo/placebo. The primary outcome was days alive and discharged from hospital within 14 days (DAOH14).ResultsAfter randomisation of 117 patients, at the first planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment due to futility, based on pre-specified criteria. Consequently, the trial was terminated on February 1, 2021. A total of 61 patients received the combined intervention and 56 patients received placebo. In the intervention group, patients had a median of 9.0 DAOH14 (IQR, 3–11) versus. 9.0 DAOH14 (IQR, 7–10) in the placebo group (p=0.90). The primary safety outcome, death from all causes on day 30, occurred for 1 patient in the intervention group versus. 2 patients receiving placebo (p=0.52), and readmittance or death within 30 days occurred for 9 patients in the intervention group versus. 6 patients receiving placebo (p=0.57).ConclusionsThe combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine did not improve survival or length of hospitalisation in patients with COVID-19.

Ketamine as an Analgesic Adjuvant in Adult Trauma Intensive Care Unit Patients With Rib Fracture

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 849-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary K. Walters ◽  
Joseph Farhat ◽  
James Bischoff ◽  
Mary Foss ◽  
Cory Evans
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Rib Fracture ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Opioid Use

Background: Rib fracture associated pain is difficult to control. There are no published studies that use ketamine as a therapeutic modality to reduce the amount of opioid to control rib fracture pain. Objective: To examine the analgesic effects of adjuvant ketamine on pain scale scores in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) rib fracture. Methods: This retrospective, case-control cohort chart review evaluated ICU adult patients with a diagnosis of ≥1 rib fracture and an Injury Severity Score >15 during 2016. Patients received standard-of-care pain management with the physician’s choice analgesics with or without ketamine as a continuous, fixed, intravenous infusion at 0.1 mg/kg/h. Results: A total of 15 ketamine treatment patients were matched with 15 control standard-of-care patients. Efficacy was measured via Numeric Pain Scale (NPS)/Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) scores, opioid use, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Safety of ketamine was measured by changes in vital signs, adverse effects, and mortality. Average NPS/BPS, severest NPS/BPS, and opioid use were lower in the ketamine group than in controls (NPS: 4.1 vs 5.8, P < 0.001; severest NPS: 7.0 vs 8.9, P = 0.004; opioid use: 2.5 vs 3.5 mg morphine equivalents/h/d, P = 0.015). No difference was found between the cohort’s length of stay or mortality. Average diastolic blood pressure was higher in the treatment group versus the control group (75.3 vs 64.6 mm Hg, P = 0.014). Conclusion: Low-dose ketamine appears to be a safe and effective adjuvant option to reduce pain and decrease opioid use in rib fracture.

scholarly journals Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced T4 Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity-Score Matched Cohort Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Marie de Gooyer ◽  
Marlies G. Verstegen ◽  
Jorine ’t Lam-Boer ◽  
Sandra A. Radema ◽  
Rob H.A. Verhoeven ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
T4 Colon Cancer

Introduction: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) could potentially lead to tumor shrinkage, eradication of micrometastases, and prevention of tumor cell shedding during surgery. This retrospective study investigates the surgical and oncological outcomes of preoperative CT for LACC. Methods: Using the Netherlands Cancer Registry, data of patients with stage II or III colon cancer, diagnosed between 2008 and 2016 was collected. A propensity score matching (PSM; 1:2) was performed and compared patients with clinical tumor (cT) 4 colon cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant CT to patients with cT4 colon cancer treated with adjuvant CT (Fig. 1). Results: A total of 192 patients treated with neoadjuvant CT were compared to 1,954 patients that received adjuvant CT. After PSM, 149 patients in the neoadjuvant group were compared to 298 patients in the control group. No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics after PSM. After neoadjuvant CT, a significant response was observed in 13 (9%) patients with 5 (4%) patients showing a complete response. Complete resection margins (R0) were achieved in 77% in the neoadjuvant group versus 86% in the adjuvant treated group (p = 0.037). Significantly less tumor positive lymph nodes were found in the neoadjuvant group (median 0 vs. 2, p < 0.001). Major complication rates and 5-year overall survival did not differ between both groups (67–65%, p = 0.87). Conclusion: Neoadjuvant CT seems safe and feasible with similar long-term survival compared to patients who are treated with adjuvant CT.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document