Dataset Information

Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown.

Objective

To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment.

Design, setting, and participants

Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020.

Interventions

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group.

Results

Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care.

Conclusions and relevance

Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.

SUBMITTER: Spinner CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7442954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report safety of RDV in patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) in hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned to receive RDV (5 or 10 days) or standard of care (SOC). RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated through the day 11 data cut; safety data through day 28 will be presented at the meeting. Results 584 patients were randomized and treated (5d RDV: n=191; 10d RDV, n=193; SOC: n=200). Baseline characteristics were balanced among groups; median (range) age was 57y (12-95y), 39% were female and 19% Black, 39% had arterial hypertension, 15% hyperlipidemia, 11% asthma. Briefly, across both the 5d and 10d arms, RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of Grade 3 or 4 AEs and fewer SAEs compared to SOC (Table). AEs more common with RDV vs SOC included nausea, headache, and hypokalemia. Overall, across the 3 arms, incidence of AEs leading to discontinuation and death were low and no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters were observed. In addition, median changes in renal and liver function tests from baseline were not statistically significant between the RDV 5d and RDV 10d groups compared to the SOC only group at d14 (Table 1). Table 1. Conclusion RDV given for 5d or 10d was well tolerated in patients with moderate COVID-19. No clinically significant safety signals were observed with RDV vs SOC. Disclosures Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Mi Young Ahn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gregory Huhn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Proteus (Grant/Research Support)US National Institutes of Health (Grant/Research Support)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Aruna Subramanian, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Stefan Schmiedel, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Vithika Suri, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Huldrych Günthard, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) D Jose Sanz-Moreno, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Emanuele Nicastri, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA

Project description:BackgroundThe use of IL-6 blockers in COVID-19 hospitalized patients has been associated with a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. However, many uncertainties remain pertaining to optimal intervention time, administration schedule, and predictors of response. To date, data on the use of subcutaneous sarilumab is limited and no randomized trial results are available.MethodsOpen label randomized controlled trial at a single center in Spain. We included adult patients admitted with microbiology documented COVID-19 infection, imaging confirmed pneumonia, fever and/or laboratory evidence of inflammatory phenotype, and no need for invasive ventilation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive sarilumab, a single 400 mg dose in two 200 mg subcutaneous injections, added to standard care or standard care, in a 2:1 proportion. Primary endpoints included 30-day mortality, mean change in clinical status at day 7 scored in a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharge (category 7), and duration of hospitalization. The primary efficacy analysis was conducted on the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 30 patients underwent randomization: 20 to sarilumab and 10 to standard care. Most patients were male (20/30, 67%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 61.5 years (56-72). At day 30, 2/20 (10%) patients died in the sarilumab arm vs. none (0/10) in standard care (Log HR 15.11, SE 22.64; p = 0.54). At day 7, no significant differences were observed in the median change in clinical status (2 [0-3]) vs. 3 [0-3], p = 0.32). Median time to discharge (days) was similar (7 [6-11] vs. 6 [4-12]; HR 0.65, SE 0.26; p = 0.27). No significant differences were detected in the rate of progression to invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation.Conclusions and relevanceOur pragmatic pilot study has failed to demonstrate the benefit of adding subcutaneous sarilumab to standard care for mortality by 30 days, functional status at day 7, or hospital stay. Findings herein do not exclude a potential effect of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 but adequately powered blinded randomized phase III trials are warranted to assess the impact of the subcutaneous route and a more selected target population.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04357808.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough international guidelines recommend use of the Global Registries of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) to guide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment decisions, the prospective utility of the GRS in improving care and outcomes is unproven.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of routine GRS implementation on guideline-indicated treatments and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with ACS.Design, setting, and participantsProspective cluster (hospital-level) randomized open-label blinded end point (PROBE) clinical trial using a multicenter ACS registry of acute care cardiology services. Fixed sampling of the first 10 patients within calendar month, with either ST-segment elevation or non-ST-segment elevation ACS. The study enrolled patients from June 2014 to March 2018, and data were analyzed between February 2020 and April 2020.InterventionsImplementation of routine risk stratification using the GRS and guideline recommendations.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a performance score based on receipt of early invasive treatment, discharge prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies, and cardiac rehabilitation referral. Clinical outcomes included a composite of all-cause death and/or myocardial infarction (MI) within 1 year.ResultsThis study enrolled 2318 patients from 24 hospitals and was stopped prematurely owing to futility. Of the patients enrolled, median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-74 years), 29.5% were women (n = 684), and 62.9% were considered high risk (n = 1433). Provision of all 3 measures among high-risk patients did not differ between the randomized arms (GRS: 424 of 717 [59.9%] vs control: 376 of 681 [55.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.71; P = .88). The provision of early invasive treatment was increased compared with the control arm (GRS: 1042 of 1135 [91.8%] vs control: 989 of 1183 [83.6%]; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.30-3.96; P = .004). Prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies (GRS: 864 of 1135 [76.7%] vs control: 893 of 1183 [77.5%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38) and cardiac rehabilitation (GRS: 855 of 1135 [75.1%] vs control: 861 of 1183 [72.8%]; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.44) were not different. By 12 months, GRS intervention was not associated with a significant reduction in death or MI compared with the control group (GRS: 96 of 1044 [9.2%] vs control: 146 of 1087 [13.4%]; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-1.14).Conclusions and relevanceRoutine GRS implementation in cardiology services with high levels of clinical care was associated with an increase in early invasive treatment but not other aspects of care. Low event rates and premature study discontinuation indicates the need for further, larger scale randomized studies.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614000550606.

Project description:BackgroundSeverity of illness in COVID-19 is consistently lower in women. A focus on sex as a biological factor may suggest a potential therapeutic intervention for this disease. We assessed whether adding progesterone to standard of care (SOC) would improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Research questionDoes short-term subcutaneous administration of progesterone safely improve clinical outcome in hypoxemic men hospitalized with COVID-19?Study design and methodsWe conducted a pilot, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of subcutaneous progesterone in men hospitalized with confirmed moderate to severe COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC plus progesterone (100 mg subcutaneously twice daily for up to 5 days) or SOC alone. In addition to assessment of safety, the primary outcome was change in clinical status on day 7. Length of hospital stay and number of days on supplemental oxygen were key secondary outcomes.ResultsForty-two patients were enrolled from April 2020 to August 2020; 22 were randomized to the control group and 20 to the progesterone group. Two patients from the progesterone group withdrew from the study before receiving progesterone. There was a 1.5-point overall improvement in median clinical status score on a seven-point ordinal scale from baseline to day 7 in patients in the progesterone group as compared with control subjects (95% CI, 0.0-2.0; P = .024). There were no serious adverse events attributable to progesterone. Patients treated with progesterone required three fewer days of supplemental oxygen (median, 4.5 vs 7.5 days) and were hospitalized for 2.5 fewer days (median, 7.0 vs 9.5 days) as compared with control subjects.InterpretationProgesterone at a dose of 100 mg, twice daily by subcutaneous injection in addition to SOC, may represent a safe and effective approach for treatment in hypoxemic men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04365127; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundThe initial insights from the studies on COVID-19 had been disappointing, indicating the necessity of an aggravated search for alternative strategies. In this regard, the adjunct potential of yoga has been proposed for enhancing the effectiveness of the standard of care with respect to COVID-19 management. We tested whether a telemodel of yoga intervention could aid in better clinical management for hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 when complemented with the standard of care.MethodsThis was a randomized controlled trial conducted at the Narayana Hrudyalaya, Bengaluru, India, on hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection enrolled between 31 May and 22 July 2021. The patients (n = 225) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio [adjunct tele-yoga (n = 113) or standard of care]. The adjunct yoga group received intervention in tele-mode within 4-h post-randomization until 14 days along with the standard of care. The primary outcome was the clinical status on day 14 post-randomization, assessed with a seven-category ordinal scale. The secondary outcome set included scores on the COVID Outcomes Scale on day 7, follow-up for clinical status and all-cause mortality on day 28, post-randomization, duration of days at the hospital, 5th-day changes post-randomization for viral load expressed as cyclic threshold (Ct), and inflammatory markers and perceived stress scores on day 14.ResultsAs compared with the standard of care alone, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the 7-point ordinal scale on day 14 were ~1.8 for the adjunct tele-yoga group (OR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.11-3.03). On day 5, there were significant reductions in CRP (P = 0.001) and LDH levels (P = 0.029) in the adjunct yoga group compared to the standard of care alone. CRP reduction was also observed as a potential mediator for the yoga-induced improvement of clinical outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of all-cause mortality on day 28 was the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.05-1.30).ConclusionThe observed 1.8-fold improvement in the clinical status on day 14 of patients of COVID-19 with adjunct use of tele-yoga contests its use as a complementary treatment in hospital settings.

Project description:ImportanceThere are few data on remote postdischarge treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of allied health care practitioner-led remote intensive management (RIM) with cardiologist-led standard care (SC).Design, setting, and participantsThis intention-to-treat feasibility trial randomized patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization and with N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration more than 300 pg/mL to RIM or SC across 3 hospitals in Singapore from July 8, 2015, to March 29, 2019. RIM participants underwent 6 months of remote consultations that included β-blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB) dose adjustment by a centralized nurse practitioner team while SC participants were treated face-to-face by their cardiologists.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary safety end point was a composite of hypotension, bradycardia, hyperkalemia, or acute kidney injury requiring hospitalization. To assess the efficacy of RIM in dose adjustment of β-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs compared with SC, dose intensity scores were derived by converting comparable doses of different β-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs to a scale from 0 to 5. The primary efficacy end point was the 6-month indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) adjusted for baseline LVESV.ResultsOf 301 participants, 149 (49.5%) were randomized to RIM and 152 (50.5%) to SC. RIM and SC participants had similar mean (SD) age (55.3 [8.5] vs 54.7 [9.1] years), median (interquartile range) N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (807 [524-1360] vs 819 [485-1320] pg/mL), mean (SD) baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (57.4% [11.1%] vs 58.1% [10.3%]), and mean (SD) indexed LVESV (32.4 [14.1] vs 30.6 [11.7] mL/m2); 15 patients [5.9%] had a left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. The primary safety end point occurred in 0 RIM vs 2 SC participants (1.4%) (P = .50). The mean β-blocker and ACE-I/ARB dose intensity score at 6 months was 3.03 vs 2.91 (adjusted mean difference, 0.12 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.26; P = .10]) and 2.96 vs 2.77 (adjusted mean difference, 0.19 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.40; P = .07]), respectively. The 6-month indexed LVESV was 28.9 vs 29.7 mL/m2 (adjusted mean difference, -0.80 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.20 to 1.60; P = .51]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong low-risk patients with revascularization after myocardial infarction, RIM by allied health care professionals was feasible and safe. There were no differences in achieved medication doses or indices of left ventricular remodeling. Further studies of RIM in higher-risk cohorts are warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02468349.

Project description:ImportanceThe potential benefit of novel skeletal muscle anabolic agents to improve physical function in people with sarcopenia and other muscle wasting diseases is unknown.ObjectiveTo confirm the safety and efficacy of bimagrumab plus the new standard of care on skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical function compared with standard of care alone in community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 38 sites in 13 countries among community-dwelling men and women aged 70 years and older meeting gait speed and skeletal muscle criteria for sarcopenia. The study was conducted from December 2014 to June 2018, and analyses were conducted from August to November 2018.InterventionsBimagrumab 700 mg or placebo monthly for 6 months with adequate diet and home-based exercise.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included 6-minute walk distance, usual gait speed, handgrip strength, lean body mass, fat body mass, and standard safety parameters.ResultsA total of 180 participants were recruited, with 113 randomized to bimagrumab and 67 randomized to placebo. Among these, 159 participants (88.3%; mean [SD] age, 79.1 [5.3] years; 109 [60.6%] women) completed the study. The mean SPPB score increased by a mean of 1.34 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.77) with bimagrumab vs 1.03 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.52) with placebo (P = .13); 6-minute walk distance increased by a mean of 24.60 (95% CI, 7.65 to 41.56) m with bimagrumab vs 14.30 (95% CI, -4.64 to 33.23) m with placebo (P = .16); and gait speed increased by a mean of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.18) m/s with bimagrumab vs 0.11 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.16) m/s with placebo (P = .16). Bimagrumab was safe and well-tolerated and increased lean body mass by 7% (95% CI, 6% to 8%) vs 1% (95% CI, 0% to 2%) with placebo, resulting in difference of 6% (95% CI, 4% to 7%) (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found no significant difference between participants treated with bimagrumab vs placebo among older adults with sarcopenia who had 6 months of adequate nutrition and light exercise, with physical function improving in both groups. Bimagrumab treatment was safe, well-tolerated, increased lean body mass, and decreased fat body mass. The effects of sarcopenia, an increasing cause of disability in older adults, can be reduced with proper diet and exercise.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02333331; EudraCT number: 2014-003482-25.