scholarly journals Personalized dose reduction based on serum TNF-inhibitors concentration do not lead to changes in disease activity in chronic arthritis: A randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mogens Pfeiffer-Jensen ◽  
Donghua Liao ◽  
Ulrik Tarp ◽  
Bent Deleuran ◽  
Christian Stengaard-Pedersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Dose Reduction ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Chronic Arthritis ◽  
Therapeutic Window ◽  
Therapeutic Drug ◽  
Open Label

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) decreased drug consumption or accelerated switch of biologics in chronic arthritis patients undergoing TNF-alpha inhibiting (TNFi)-therapy. Primary outcome was dose reduction, secondary outcomes included clinical scores DAS28-CRP or ASDAS-CRP, self-reported outcome and experienced adverse events. METHODS: 48-week prospective, randomized open-label trial investigating TDM in participants (n=239) treated with infliximab (IFX), etanercept (ETN) or adalimumab (ADA), receiving standard of care or standard of care plus TDM, the latter based on serum-trough concentration measurements of IFX, ETN and ADA. Independent of clinical status, adults treated for their rheumatoid arthritis (41%), psoriatic arthritis (20%), or spondylarthritis (39%), were included in a tertiary outpatient clinic. Serum TNFi trough-values were determined at inclusion and every 16 weeks and used proactively in the TDM-group to evaluate whether participants were within the therapeutic window or not, consequently leading to maintained TNFi-therapy, dose-reduction, or switch to other biologics. RESULTS: In comparison to standard of care, TDM reduced doses for IFX (- 12% [CI: -20; -3] p=0.001); ETN (-15 % [-29; 1]; p=0.01) and prolonged the inter-dosing interval in ETN (+ 235 %;[38;432] p=0.02) and ADA (+ 28%;[6; 51] p = 0.04) and accelerated switch of biologics (χ2= 6.03, p=0.01). No group-differences were shown in clinical assessment CRP, DAS28-CRP or ASDAS-CRP, nor in self-reported outcome or experienced adverse events, indicating sustained disease control. • CONCLUSIONS – TDM improved clinical decision making and caused earlier and targeted dose-reduction and accelerated switch of biologics, thereby preventing over- and under medication.

scholarly journals Blockade of Interleukin Seventeen (IL–17A) with Secukinumab in Hospitalized COVID–19 patients – the BISHOP study.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo Gomes Resende ◽  
Ricardo da Cruz Lage ◽  
Samara Quadros Lobe ◽  
Amanda Fonseca Medeiros ◽  
Alessandra Dias Costa e Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Upper Airways ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Group A ◽  
Expert Input ◽  
Group B

Background: Patients with severe COVID-19 seem to have a compromised antiviral response and hyperinflammation. Neutrophils are critical players in COVID-19 pathogenesis. IL-17A plays a major role in protection against extracellular pathogens and neutrophil attraction and activation. We hypothesized that secukinumab, an anti-IL17A monoclonal antibody, could mitigate the deleterious hyperinflammation in COVID-19. Methods: BISHOP was an open-label, single-center, phase-II controlled trial. Fifty adults hospitalized Covid-19 patients, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, were randomized 1:1 to receive 300mg of secukinumab subcutaneously at day-0 (group A) plus standard of care (SoC: antiviral drugs, antimicrobials, corticosteroids, and/or anticoagulants) or SoC alone (group B). A second dose of 300mg of secukinumab could be administered on day-7, according to staff judgment. The primary endpoint was ventilator-free days at day-28 (VFD-28). Secondary efficacy and safety outcomes were also explored. Findings: An intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in VFD-28: 23.7 (95%CI 19.6-27.8) in group A vs. 23.8 (19.9-27.6) in group B, p=0.62; There was also no difference in hospitalization time, intensive care unit demand, the incidence of circulatory shock, acute kidney injury, fungal or bacterial co-infections, and severe adverse events. Pulmonary thromboembolism was less frequent in group A (4.2% vs. 26.2% p=0.04). There was one death in each group. Viral clearance, defined by the viral load fold change (2-ΔΔCT) in upper airways, between day-0 and day-7, was also similar: 0.17 (0.05-0.56) in group A vs. 0.24 (0.10-0.57) in group B. Interpretation: The efficacy of secukinumab in the treatment of Covid19 was not demonstrated. No difference between groups in adverse events and no unexpected events were observed. Funding: Novartis Brazil supported this research providing expert input in the development of the project, drug supply, data management, and monitoring.

Management of hard-to-heal leg ulcers with an acid-oxidising solution versus standard of care: the MACAN study

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 694-704
Author(s):  
Robert Strohal ◽  
Martina Mittlböck ◽  
Werner Müller ◽  
Gilbert Hämmerle
Keyword(s):  
Wound Healing ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Size Reduction ◽  
Wound Dressings ◽  
Leg Ulcers ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Wound Size

Objective: The efficacy of available wound dressings in the treatment of hard-to-heal wounds is limited. A new therapeutic approach using an acid-oxidising solution (AOS) was developed. Its effect on healing progress, tolerability and safety properties were investigated in a clinical study, and compared with standard of care (SOC) wound dressings. The study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of AOS to SOC in terms of wound healing progress. Method: This open-label, randomised controlled trial was conducted at two study centres in Austria with patients with either infected or non-infected hard-to-heal leg ulcers of different aetiology. Patients were treated for six weeks either with AOS or SOC wound dressings. Outcome assessments included the percentage of granulation and re-epithelialisation tissue, wound size reduction, changes in wound pH, infection control and wound pain, local tolerability and adverse events (AEs). Healing time and rate were also assessed. Results: A total of 50 patients took part. In the AOS group, wounds exhibited higher amounts of granulation and re-epithelialisation tissue, and a faster and more pronounced wound size reduction compared with wounds in the SOC group. In the AOS-treated versus SOC-treated patients, a greater percentage of complete healing of hard-to-heal ulcers was achieved by the end of the study period (32% versus 8%, respectively). Furthermore, the wound pH decreased significantly faster in these wounds (p<0.0001). In all patients with infected leg ulcers, local infection was overcome more rapidly under AOS treatment. In the AOS group, one AE and no serious adverse events (SAEs) were detected versus 24 AEs and two SAEs in the SOC group. Conclusion: In this study, AOS proved to be a highly effective treatment to support wound healing in infected or non-infected hard-to-heal leg ulcers of different aetiology. Efficacy was found to be not only non-inferior but superior to SOC wound dressings. Furthermore, tolerability and safety profiles were favourable for AOS.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m1849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Tang ◽  
Zhujun Cao ◽  
Mingfeng Han ◽  
Zhengyan Wang ◽  
Junwen Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Safety Population ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Negative Conversion

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.Setting16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020.Participants150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone).InterventionsHydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively).Main outcome measureNegative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.ResultsOf 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval –10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsAdministration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.Trial registrationChiCTR2000029868.

scholarly journals The effects of a limited infusion rate of fluid in the early resuscitation of sepsis on glycocalyx shedding measured by plasma syndecan-1: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutamas Saoraya ◽  
Lipda Wongsamita ◽  
Nattachai Srisawat ◽  
Khrongwong Musikatavorn
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Organ Failure ◽  
Fluid Resuscitation ◽  
Infusion Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Endothelial Glycocalyx ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Standard Rate

Abstract Background Aggressive fluid administration is recommended in the resuscitation of septic patients. However, the delivery of a rapid fluid bolus might cause harm by inducing degradation of the endothelial glycocalyx. This research aimed to examine the effects of the limited infusion rate of fluid on glycocalyx shedding as measured by syndecan-1 in patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. Methods A prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial was conducted between November 2018 and February 2020 in an urban academic emergency department. Patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, defined as hypotension or hyperlactatemia, were randomized to receive either the standard rate (30 ml/kg/h) or limited rate (10 ml/kg/h) of fluid for the first 30 ml/kg fluid resuscitation. Subsequently, the fluid rate was adjusted according to the physician’s discretion but not more than that of the designated fluid rate for the total of 6 h. The primary outcome was differences in change of syndecan-1 levels at 6 h compared to baseline between standard and limited rate groups. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, organ failure, and 90-day mortality. Results We included 96 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 48 assigned to the standard-rate strategy and 48 to the limited-rate strategy. The median fluid volume in 6 h in the limited-rate group was 39 ml/kg (interquartile range [IQR] 35–52 ml/kg) vs. 53 ml/kg (IQR 46–64 ml/kg) in the standard-rate group (p < 0.001). Patients in the limited-rate group were less likely to received vasopressors (17% vs 42%; p = 0.007) and mechanical ventilation (20% vs 41%; p = 0.049) during the first 6 h. There were no significantly different changes in syndecan-1 levels at 6 h between the two groups (geometric mean ratio [GMR] in the limited-rate group, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66–1.02; p = 0.07). There were no significant differences in adverse events, organ failure outcomes, or mortality between the two groups. Conclusions In sepsis resuscitation, the limited rate of fluid resuscitation compared to the standard rate did not significantly reduce changes in syndecan-1 at 6 h. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry number: TCTR20181010001. Registered 8 October 2018, http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=4064

scholarly journals High-dose oral and intravenous rifampicin for the treatment of tuberculous meningitis in predominantly HIV-positive Ugandan adults: a phase II open-label randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona V Cresswell ◽  
David B Meya ◽  
Enock Kagimu ◽  
Daniel Grint ◽  
Lindsey te Brake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Tuberculous Meningitis ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hiv Positive ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Dose Oral ◽  
Csf Levels

Abstract Background High-dose rifampicin may improve outcomes of tuberculous meningitis (TBM). Little safety or pharmacokinetic (PK) data exist on high-dose rifampicin in HIV co-infection, and no cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) PK data exist from Africa. We hypothesized that high-dose rifampicin would increase serum and CSF concentrations without excess toxicity. Methods In this phase II open-label trial, Ugandan adults with suspected TBM were randomised to standard-of-care control (PO-10, rifampicin 10mg/kg/day), intravenous rifampicin (IV-20, 20mg/kg/day), or high-dose oral rifampicin (PO-35, 35mg/kg/day). We performed PK sampling on day 2 and 14. The primary outcomes were total exposure (AUC0-24), maximum concentration (Cmax), CSF concentration and grade 3-5 adverse events. Results We enrolled 61 adults, 92% were HIV-positive, median CD4 count was 50cells/µL (IQR 46–56). On day 2, geometric mean plasma AUC0-24hr was 42.9h.mg/L with standard-of-care 10mg/kg dosing, 249h.mg/L for IV-20 and 327h.mg/L for PO-35 (P&lt;0.001). In CSF, standard-of-care achieved undetectable rifampicin concentration in 56% of participants and geometric mean AUC0-24hr 0.27mg/L, compared with 1.74mg/L (95%CI 1.2–2.5) for IV-20 and 2.17mg/L (1.6–2.9) for PO-35 regimens (p&lt;0.001). Achieving CSF concentrations above rifampicin minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) occurred in 11% (2/18) of standard-of-care, 93% (14/15) of IV-20, and 95% (18/19) of PO-35 participants. Higher serum and CSF levels were sustained at day 14. Adverse events did not differ by dose (p=0.34) Conclusion Current international guidelines result in sub-therapeutic CSF rifampicin concentration for 89% of Ugandan TBM patients. High-dose intravenous and oral rifampicin were safe, and respectively resulted in exposures ~6- and ~8-fold higher than standard-of-care, and CSF levels above the MIC

scholarly journals Levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment after diazepam for status epilepticus: study protocol for a multicenter non-inferiority designed randomized control trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kensuke Nakamura ◽  
◽  
Aiki Marushima ◽  
Yuji Takahashi ◽  
Akio Kimura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Status Epilepticus ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Consciousness Disturbance ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Severe Adverse Events

Abstract Background Status epilepticus (SE) is an emergency condition for which rapid and secured cessation is important. Phenytoin and fosphenytoin, the prodrug of phenytoin with less severe adverse effects, have been recommended as second-line treatments. However, fosphenytoin causes severe adverse events, such as hypotension and arrhythmia. Levetiracetam reportedly has similar efficacy and higher safety for SE; however, evidence to support its use for adult SE is lacking. In the present study, a non-inferiority designed multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) is being conducted to compare levetiracetam with fosphenytoin after diazepam as a second-line treatment for SE. Methods This multicenter, prospective, and open-label RCT is conducted in emergency departments. Between December 23, 2019, and March 31, 2023, 176 patients with convulsive SE transported to an emergency room will be randomized into a fosphenytoin group and levetiracetam group at a ratio of 1:1. The definition of SE is “continuous seizures longer than 5 min or discrete seizures longer than 2 min with intervening consciousness disturbance.” In both groups, diazepam is initially administered at 1–20 mg, followed by intravenous fosphenytoin at 22.5 mg/kg or intravenous levetiracetam at 1000–3000 mg. The primary outcome is the seizure cessation rate within 30 min. Seizure recurrence within 24 h, severe adverse events, and intubation rate within 24 h are secondary outcomes. Discussion The present study was approved and conducted as an initiative study of the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine. If non-inferiority is identified, the society will pursue an application for the national health insurance coverage of levetiracetam for SE via a public knowledge-based application. Trial registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs031190160. Registered on December 13, 2019

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 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.

Allopurinol dose escalation to achieve serum urate below 6 mg/dL: an open-label extension study

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 2065-2070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa K Stamp ◽  
Peter T Chapman ◽  
Murray Barclay ◽  
Anne Horne ◽  
Christopher Frampton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Serum Urate ◽  
Extension Study ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Open Label Extension ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Kidney Impairment

ObjectivesTo determine the long-term safety and efficacy of allopurinol dose escalation (DE) to achieve target serum urate (SU) in gout.MethodsPeople, including those with chronic kidney disease, who completed the first 12 months of a randomised controlled trial continued into a 12-month extension study. Participants randomised to continue current dose for the first 12 months began allopurinol DE at month 12 if SU was ≥6 mg/dL (control/DE). Immediate DE participants who achieved target SU maintained allopurinol dose (DE/DE). The primary endpoints were reduction in SU and adverse events (AEs) at month 24.ResultsThe mean (SE) change in SU from month 12 to 24 was −1.1 (0.2) mg/dL in control/DE and 0.1 (0.2) mg/dL in DE/DE group (p<0.001). There was a significant reduction in the percentage of individuals having a gout flare in the month prior to months 12 and 24 compared with baseline in both groups and in mean tophus size over 24 months, but no difference between randomised groups. There were similar numbers of AEs and serious adverse events between groups.ConclusionsThe majority of people with gout tolerate higher than creatinine clearance-based allopurinol dose and achieve and maintain target SU. Slow allopurinol DE may be appropriate in clinical practice even in those with kidney impairment.Trial registration numberACTRN12611000845932

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