Dataset Information

Interferons in COVID-19: missed opportunities to prove efficacy in clinical phase III trials?

ABSTRACT: Interferons were repeatedly used in the therapy of COVID-19 due to their antiviral effects. Three recently published randomized controlled clinical phase III trials (WHO SOLIDARITY, ACTT-3, and SPRINTER) missed their primary objectives, i.e., a significant therapeutic effect of interferons was not demonstrated in these studies. In only one randomized controlled phase III trial (TOGETHER), a significant reduction in the hospitalization rate was revealed. Our study analyzes these findings, gives possible explanations for the failure of interferons, provides a proposal on how these agents could be successfully used, and also highlights the limitations of their employment in COVID-19. Interferons are apparently beneficial only if the patients are in the early stage of this disease and when they are usually not hospitalized, i.e., if the patients do not require oxygen support and/or if corticosteroids are not yet indicated. Furthermore, a higher dosage than the one used in the long-term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon beta or of chronic viral hepatitis with interferon alpha or lambda should be employed to achieve a better therapeutic effect in COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Brzoska J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10263057 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interferons in COVID-19: missed opportunities to prove efficacy in clinical phase III trials?

Brzoska Josef J von Eick Harald H Hündgen Manfred M

Frontiers in medicine 20230530

Interferons were repeatedly used in the therapy of COVID-19 due to their antiviral effects. Three recently published randomized controlled clinical phase III trials (WHO SOLIDARITY, ACTT-3, and SPRINTER) missed their primary objectives, i.e., a significant therapeutic effect of interferons was not demonstrated in these studies. In only one randomized controlled phase III trial (TOGETHER), a significant reduction in the hospitalization rate was revealed. Our study analyzes these findings, gives p ...[more]

PMID: 37324124

Similar Datasets

Project description:Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03-2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04-2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02-6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52-9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21-1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84-3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80-1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11-2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundOver a dozen vaccines are in or have completed phase III trials at an unprecedented speed since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic. In this review, we aimed to compare and rank these vaccines indirectly in terms of efficacy and safety using a network meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to September 30, 2023. Two investigators independently selected articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes included efficacy in preventing symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) according to vaccine type and individual vaccines in adults and elderly individuals. The risk ratio and mean differences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 25 RCTs involving 22 vaccines were included in the study. None of vaccines had a higher incidence of SAEs than the placebo. Inactivated virus vaccines might be the safest, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 0.16. BIV1-CovIran showed the highest safety index (SUCRA value: 0.13), followed by BBV152, Soberana, Gam-COVID-Vac, and ZF2001. There were no significant differences among the various types of vaccines regarding the efficacy in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, although there was a trend toward higher efficacy of the mRNA vaccines (SUCRA value: 0.09). BNT162b2 showed the highest efficacy (SUCRA value: 0.02) among the individual vaccines, followed by mRNA-1273, Abdala, Gam-COVID-Vac, and NVX-CoV2373. BNT162b2 had the highest efficacy (SUCRA value: 0.08) in the elderly population, whereas CVnCoV, CoVLP + AS03, and CoronaVac were not significantly different from the placebo.ConclusionsNone of the different types of vaccines were significantly superior in terms of efficacy, while mRNA vaccines were significantly inferior in safety to other types. BNT162b2 had the highest efficacy in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults and the elderly, whereas BIV1-CovIran had the lowest incidence of SAEs in adults.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, has been under-researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands.ResultsWe identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision-making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision-making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered.ConclusionsThe struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision-making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision-making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision-making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role.Patient contributionWe conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co-authored this paper.

Dataset Information

Interferons in COVID-19: missed opportunities to prove efficacy in clinical phase III trials?

Publications

Interferons in COVID-19: missed opportunities to prove efficacy in clinical phase III trials?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets