scholarly journals An Open Label Trial to Assess Safety of Losartan for Treating Worsening Respiratory Illness in COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles D. Bengtson ◽  
Robert N. Montgomery ◽  
Usman Nazir ◽  
Lewis Satterwhite ◽  
Michael D. Kim ◽  
...  

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause disruption of the renin-angiotensin system in the lungs, possibly contributing to pulmonary capillary leakage. Thus, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may improve respiratory failure.Objective: Assess safety of losartan for use in respiratory failure related to COVID-19 (NCT04335123).Methods: Single arm, open label trial of losartan in those hospitalized with respiratory failure related to COVID-19. Oral losartan (25 mg daily for 3 days, then 50 mg) was administered from enrollment until day 14 or hospital discharge. A post-hoc external control group with patients who met all inclusion criteria was matched 1:1 to the treatment group using propensity scores for comparison.Measures: Primary outcome was cumulative incidence of any adverse events. Secondary, explorative endpoints included measures of respiratory failure, length of stay and vital status.Results: Of the 34 participants enrolled in the trial, 30 completed the study with a mean age SD of 53.8 ± 17.7 years and 17 males (57%). On losartan, 24/30 (80%) experienced an adverse event as opposed to 29/30 (97%) of controls, with a lower average number of adverse events on losartan relative to control (2.2 vs. 3.3). Using Poisson regression and controlling for age, sex, race, date of enrollment, disease severity at enrollment, and history of high-risk comorbidities, the incidence rate ratio of adverse events on losartan relative to control was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.49–0.97)Conclusions: Losartan appeared safe for COVID-19-related acute respiratory compromise. To assess true efficacy, randomized trials are needed.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Craig M. McDonald ◽  
Perry B. Shieh ◽  
Hoda Z. Abdel-Hamid ◽  
Anne M. Connolly ◽  
Emma Ciafaloni ◽  
...  

Background Eteplirsen received accelerated FDA approval for treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) with mutations amenable to exon 51 skipping, based on demonstrated dystrophin production. Objective To report results from PROMOVI, a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study evaluating efficacy and safety of eteplirsen in a larger cohort. Methods Ambulatory patients aged 7–16 years, with confirmed mutations amenable to exon 51 skipping, received eteplirsen 30 mg/kg/week intravenously for 96 weeks. An untreated cohort with DMD not amenable to exon 51 skipping was also enrolled. Results 78/79 eteplirsen-treated patients completed 96 weeks of treatment. 15/30 untreated patients completed the study; this cohort was considered an inappropriate control group because of genotype-driven differences in clinical trajectory. At Week 96, eteplirsen-treated patients showed increased exon skipping (18.7-fold) and dystrophin protein (7-fold) versus baseline. Post-hoc comparisons with patients from eteplirsen phase 2 studies (4658-201/202) and mutation-matched external natural history controls confirmed previous results, suggesting clinically notable attenuation of decline on the 6-minute walk test over 96 weeks (PROMOVI: –68.9 m; phase 2 studies: –67.3 m; external controls: –133.8 m) and significant attenuation of percent predicted forced vital capacity annual decline (PROMOVI: –3.3%, phase 2 studies: –2.2%, external controls: –6.0%; p <  0.001). Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and unrelated to eteplirsen. Most frequent treatment-related adverse events were headache and vomiting; none led to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions This large, multicenter study contributes to the growing body of evidence for eteplirsen, confirming a positive treatment effect, favorable safety profile, and slowing of disease progression versus natural history.


Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.


eLife ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou ◽  
Periklis Panagopoulos ◽  
Symeon Metallidis ◽  
George N Dalekos ◽  
Garyphallia Poulakou ◽  
...  

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


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theis Skovsgaard Itenov ◽  
Maria Egede Johansen ◽  
Morten Bestle ◽  
Katrin Thormar ◽  
Lars Hein ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (32) ◽  
pp. 3785-3793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramavath D. Naik ◽  
Sreenivas V ◽  
Vishwajeet Singh ◽  
Ashwati S. Pillai ◽  
Deepa Dhawan ◽  
...  

PURPOSE Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of chemotherapy. Olanzapine is recommended in adult patients for the prevention of CINV but has not been prospectively investigated in children. METHODS This investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial evaluated olanzapine in children (ages 5-18 years) scheduled to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All participants received aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone during and 2 days after chemotherapy. Participants in the study group additionally received oral olanzapine 0.14 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 2.5 mg; maximum, 10 mg) during the chemotherapy block and 3 days postchemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates (no vomiting and no rescue medication) between the groups in the acute, delayed, and overall periods. Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary and additional objectives, respectively. The collection of outcomes and adverse events was performed daily until the completion of the overall period. RESULTS A total of 240 patients underwent randomization. We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group). A higher proportion of patients in the olanzapine group achieved CR in the acute period (78% v 59%; P = .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001) and overall period (64% v 38%; P < .001) than in the control group. The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the acute period (74% v 52%; P < .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001), and overall period (64% v 37%; P < .001). Grade 1/2 somnolence was greater in the olanzapine group (35% v 11%; P < .001). There was no grade 3/4 somnolence reported. CONCLUSION Olanzapine significantly improved CR rates for vomiting in children receiving the first cycle of HEC.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (11) ◽  
pp. 705-711
Author(s):  
N.Yu. Pshenichnaya ◽  
◽  
K.V. Zhdanov ◽  

Aim: to assess the efficacy and safety of enisamium iodide (film-coated tablets, 250 mg) for outpatient treatment of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infection. Patients and Methods: this adaptive, randomized, open-label controlled study on the efficacy and safety of enisamium iodide enrolled 194 patients. The study group included 97 patients, and the comparison group included 97 patients. Comparison group patients received standard therapy. Study group patients received orally 500 mg of enisamium iodide three times daily for seven days. In addition, pathogenic and symptomatic treatment was prescribed. The first component of the primary endpoint was composite efficiency parameter. The second component of the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with respiratory failure. Registration of deaths, adverse events and serious adverse events was carried out by standard methods. Results: cohort enrollment into part 1 of the study and treatment of all patients were completed. The mean time of the relief of major COVID-19 symptoms (primary combination endpoint) and differences between the study and comparison groups (8 days and 9 days, respectively, p=0.028) were revealed. The rate of respiratory failure in the study group and comparison group was: 4 (4,12%) versus 8 (8,25%) cases respectively. In addition, the effect of this drug on mortality in the groups was compared (one death in the study group and five deaths in the comparison group). The statistical reliability of these differences will be determined during part 2 of this study that started in September 2021. Conclusions: the efficacy and safety of enisamium iodide (film-coated tablets, 250 mg) for the COVID-19 were evaluated. A significant reduction in the time to clinical recovery (by one day) was reported in patients who received enisamium iodide. In addition, the rate of severe respiratory failure and associated mortality also tends to reduce after therapy that includes enisamium iodide. KEYWORDS: enisamium iodide, antivirals, etiopathogenic treatment, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, viral lung damage, pneumonia, randomized controlled study, adaptive study, open-label study. FOR CITATION: N.Yu. Pshenichnaya, Zhdanov K.V. Preliminary results of an adaptive randomized open-label controlled study on the efficacy and safety of enisamium iodide for outpatient treatment of the COVID-19 infection. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2021;5(11):705–711 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2021-5-11-705-711.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Byakika-Kibwika ◽  
Christine Sekaggya-Wiltshire ◽  
Jerome Roy Semakula ◽  
Jane Nakibuuka ◽  
Joseph Musaazi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Several repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been investigated for treatment of COVID-19, but none was confirmed to be efficacious. While in vitro studies have demonstrated antiviral properties of HCQ, data from clinical trials were conflicting regarding its benefit for COVID-19 treatment. Drugs that limit viral replication may be beneficial in the earlier course of the disease thus slowing progression to severe and critical illness. Design We conducted a randomized open label Phase II clinical trial from October–December 2020. Methods Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were included in the study if they were 18 years and above and had a diagnosis of COVID-19 made in the last 3 days. Patients were randomized in blocks, to receive either HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days plus standard of care (SOC) treatment or SOC treatment alone. SARS COV-2 viral load (CT values) from RT-PCR testing of samples collected using nasal/orapharyngeal swabs was performed at baseline, day 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. The primary outcome was median time from randomization to SARS COV-2 viral clearance by day 6. Results Of the 105 participants enrolled, 55 were assigned to the intervention group (HCQ plus SOC) and 50 to the control group (SOC only). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. Viral clearance did not differ by treatment arm, 20 and 19 participants respectively had SARS COV-2 viral load clearance by day 6 with no significant difference, median (IQR) number of days to viral load clearance between the two groups was 4(3–4) vs 4(2–4): p = 0.457. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes (symptom resolution and adverse events) between the intervention group and the control group. There were no significant differences in specific adverse events such as elevated alkaline phosphatase, prolonged QTc interval on ECG, among patients in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Conclusion Our results show that HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days was safe but not associated with reduction in viral clearance or symptom resolution among adults with COVID-19 in Uganda. Trial registration: NCT04860284.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambudhar Sharma ◽  
Charu Sharma ◽  
Sujeet Raina ◽  
Balraj singh ◽  
Devendra Singh Dadhwal ◽  
...  

Abstract ObjectivesThe pathophysiology of SARS-Cov-2 is characterized by inflammation, immune dysregulation, coagulopathy, and endothelial dysfunction. No single therapeutic agent can target all these pathophysiologic substrates. Moreover, the current therapies are not fully effective in reducing mortality in moderate and severe disease. Hence, we aim to evaluate the combination of drugs (aspirin, atorvastatin, and nicorandil) with anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, immunomodulatory, and vasodilator properties as adjuvant therapy in covid- 19.Trial designSingle-centre, prospective, two-arm parallel design, open-label randomized control superiority trial. ParticipantsThe study will be conducted at the covid centre of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College Tanda Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India. All SARS-CoV-2 infected patients requiring admission to the study centre will be screened for the trial. All patients >18years who are RT-PCR/RAT positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection with pneumonia but without ARDS at presentation (presence of clinical features of dyspnoea hypoxia, fever, cough, spo2 <94% on room air and respiratory rate >24/minute) requiring hospital admission and consenting to participate in the trial will be included.Patients with documented significant liver disease/dysfunction (AST/ALT > 240), myopathy and rhabdomyolysis (CPK > 5x normal), allergy or intolerance to statins, allergy or intolerance to aspirin, patients taking medications with significant interaction with statins, prior statin use (within 30 days), prior aspirin use (within 30 days), history of active GI bleeding in past three months, coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 100000/ dl), pregnancy, active breastfeeding, patient unable to take oral or nasogastric medications, patients in altered mental status, shock, acute renal failure, acute coronary syndrome, sepsis and ARDS at presentation will be excluded. Intervention and comparatorAfter randomization, participants in the intervention group will receive aspirin, atorvastatin, and nicorandil. Atorvastatin will be prescribed as 40 mg starting dose followed by 40 mg oral tablets once daily for ten days or till hospital discharge whichever is later. Aspirin dose will be 325 starting dose followed by 75 mg once daily for ten days or till hospital discharge whichever is later. Nicorandil will be given as 10 mg starting dose followed by 5mg twice daily ten days or till hospital discharge whichever is later. All patients in the intervention and control group will receive a standard of care for covid management as per national guidelines. All patients will receive symptomatic treatment with antipyretics, adequate hydration, anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin, intravenous remdesivir, corticosteroids (intravenous dexamethasone for 5 days or more duration if oxygen requirement increasing or inflammatory markers are raised), and oxygen support. Patients will receive treatment for comorbid conditions as per guidelines.Main outcomesThe patients will be followed up for outcomes during the hospital stay or for ten days whichever is longer. The primary outcome will be in-hospital mortality. Any progression to ARDS, shock, acute kidney injury, impaired consciousness, length of hospital stay, length of mechanical ventilation (invasive plus non-invasive) will be secondary outcomes. Changes in serum markers (CRP, D –dimer, S ferritin) will be other secondary outcomes. The safety endpoints will be hepatotoxicity (ALT/AST > 3x ULN; hyperbilirubinemia), myalgia—muscle ache, or weakness without creatine kinase (CK) elevation, myositis—muscle symptoms with increased CK levels (3-10) ULN, rhabdomyolysis—muscle symptoms with marked CK elevation (typically substantially greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal [ULN]) and with creatinine elevation (usually with brown urine and urinary myoglobin) observed during the hospital stay. RandomizationComputer-generated block randomization will be used to randomize the participants in a 1:1 ratio to the active intervention group A (Aspirin, Atorvastatin, Nicorandil) plus conventional therapy and control group B conventional therapy only. Blinding (masking)The study will be an open-label trial. Numbers to be randomized (sample size)A total of 396 patients will participate in this study, which is randomly divided with 198 participants in each group.Trial statusThe first version of the protocol was approved by the institutional ethical committee on 1st February 2021, IEC /006/2021. The recruitment started on 8/4/2021 and will continue until 08/07/2021. A total of 281 patients have been enrolled till 21/5/2021.Trial registrationThe trial has been prospectively registered in Clinical Trial Registry – India (ICMR- NIMS): CTRI/2021/04/032648 [Registered on: 08/04/2021].Full protocolThe 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. The study protocol has been reported under the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).


Author(s):  
Lan Chen ◽  
Zhen-Yu Zhang ◽  
Jian-Guo Fu ◽  
Zhi-Peng Feng ◽  
Su-Zhen Zhang ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTThe outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic. Drug repurposing may represent a rapid way to fill the urgent need for effective treatment. We evaluated the clinical utility of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19.Forty-eight patients with moderate COVID-19 were randomized to oral treatment with chloroquine (1000 mg QD on Day 1, then 500 mg QD for 9 days; n=18), hydroxychloroquine (200 mg BID for 10 days; n=18), or control treatment (n=12).Adverse events were mild, except for one case of Grade 2 ALT elevation. Adverse events were more commonly observed in the chloroquine group (44.44%) and the hydroxychloroquine group (50.00%) than in the control group (16.67%). The chloroquine group achieved shorter time to clinical recovery (TTCR) than the control group (P=0.019). There was a trend toward reduced TTCR in the hydroxychloroquine group (P=0.049). The time to reach viral RNA negativity was significantly faster in the chloroquine group and the hydroxychloroquine group than in the control group (P=0.006 and P=0.010, respectively). The median numbers of days to reach RNA negativity in the chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and control groups was 2.5 (IQR: 2.0-3.8) days, 2.0 (IQR: 2.0-3.5) days, and 7.0 (IQR: 3.0-10.0) days, respectively. The chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine groups also showed trends toward improvement in the duration of hospitalization and findings on lung computerized tomography (CT). This study provides evidence that (hydroxy)chloroquine may be used effectively in treating moderate COVID-19 and supports larger trials.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubeshan Perumal ◽  
Nesri Padayatchi ◽  
Nonhlanhla Yende-Zuma ◽  
Anushka Naidoo ◽  
Dhineshree Govender ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The substitution of moxifloxacin for ethambutol produced promising results for improved tuberculosis treatment outcomes. Methods We conducted an open-label, randomized trial to test whether a moxifloxacin-containing treatment regimen was superior to the standard regimen for the treatment of recurrent tuberculosis. The primary and secondary outcomes were the sputum culture conversion rate at the end of 8 weeks and the proportion of participants with a favorable outcome, respectively. Results We enrolled 196 participants; 69.9% were male and 70.4% were co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). There was no significant difference between the study groups in the proportion of patients achieving culture conversion at the end of 8 weeks (83.0% [moxifloxacin] vs 78.5% [control]; P = .463); however, the median time to culture conversion was significantly shorter (6.0 weeks, interquartile range [IQR] 4.0–8.3) in the moxifloxacin group than the control group (7.9 weeks, IQR 4.0– 11.4; P = .018). A favorable end-of-treatment outcome was reported in 86 participants (87.8%) in the moxifloxacin group and 93 participants (94.9%) in the control group, for an adjusted absolute risk difference of −5.5 (95% confidence interval −13.8 to 2.8; P = .193) percentage points. There were significantly higher proportions of participants with Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (43.9% [43/98] vs 25.5% [25/98]; P = .01) and serious adverse events (27.6% [27/98] vs 12.2% [12/98]; P = .012) in the moxifloxacin group. Conclusions The replacement of ethambutol with moxifloxacin did not significantly improve either culture conversion rates at the end of 8 weeks or treatment success, and was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02114684.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document