Clinical trial protocols of repurposed prophylaxis for COVID-19: A review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sallard E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7532748 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical trial protocols of repurposed prophylaxis for COVID-19: A review.
Sallard E E Belhadi D D Lescure F-X FX Yazdanpanah Y Y Peiffer-Smadja N N
Infectious diseases now 20201003 1
Efficient therapeutic strategies are needed to counter the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In a context where specific vaccines are not yet available, the containment of the pandemic would be facilitated with efficient prophylaxis. We screened several clinical trials repositories and platforms in search of the prophylactic strategies being investigated against COVID-19 in July 2020. Up to July 5, 2020, only one clinical trial result was published, although we found 112 clinica ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents an unprecedented challenge to identify effective drugs for prevention and treatment. While the world's attention is focused on news of COVID-19 vaccine updates, clinical management still requires improvement. Due to the similarity of cancer-induced inflammation, immune dysfunction, and coagulopathy to COVID-19, anticancer drugs, such as Interferon, Pembrolizumab or Bicalutamide, are already being tested in clinical trials for repurposing, alone or in combination. Given the rapid pace of scientific discovery and clinical data generated by the large number of people rapidly infected, clinicians need effective medical treatments for this infection.
| S-EPMC8229933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates remain unexplored.ObjectivesTo map pre- and postexposure prophylactic (PrEP and PEP) candidate for COVID-19.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform clinical trial registries and medRxiv.Study eligibility criteria and participantsAll studies in humans or animals and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans reporting primary data on prophylactic candidates against COVID-19, excluding studies focused on key populations.InterventionsPrEP and PEP candidate for COVID-19.MethodsSystematic review and qualitative synthesis of COVID-19 PrEP and PEP studies and RCTs complemented by search of medRxiv and PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RCT outcomes since systematic review search completion.ResultsWe identified 13 studies (from 2119 database records) and 117 RCTs (from 5565 RCTs listed in the registries) that met the inclusion criteria. Non-RCT studies reported on cross-sectional studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in humans (n = 2) or reported on animal studies (n = 7), most of which used antibodies. All five completed RCTs focused on the use of HCQ as either PrEP or PEP, and these and the cross-sectional studies reported no prophylactic effect. The majority of ongoing RCTs evaluated HCQ or other existing candidates including non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, anti(retro)virals or use of vitamins and supplements.ConclusionsThe key message from completed studies and RCTs seems to be that HCQ does not work. There is little evidence regarding other compounds, with all RCTs using candidates other than HCQ still ongoing. It remains to be seen if the portfolio of existing molecules being evaluated in RCTs will identify successful prophylaxis against COVID-19 or if there is a need for the development of new candidates.
| S-EPMC7813508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWorld Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).MethodsWe randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry.ResultsAt 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration.ConclusionsThese remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).
| S-EPMC7727327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide has led to a desperate search for effective drugs and vaccines. There are still no approved agents for disease prophylaxis. We thus decided to use a drug repositioning strategy to perform a state-of-the-art review of a promising but controversial drug, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in an effort to provide an objective, scientific and methodologically correct overview of its potential prophylactic role. The advantage of using known drugs is that their toxicity profile is well known and there are fewer commercial interests (e.g., expired patents), thus allowing the scientific community to be freer of constraints. The main disadvantage is that the economic resources are almost always insufficient to promote large multinational clinical trials. In the present study, we reviewed the literature and available data on the prophylactic use of HCQ. We also took an in-depth look at all the published clinical data on the drug and examined ongoing clinical trials (CTs) from the most important CT repositories to identify a supporting rationale for HCQ prophylactic use. Our search revealed a substantial amount of preclinical data but a lack of clinical data, highlighting the need to further assess the translational impact of in vitro data in a clinical setting. We identified 77 CTs using a multiplicity of HCQ schedules, which clearly indicates that we are still far from reaching a standard of care. The majority of the CTs (92%) are randomized and 53% are being conducted in a phase 3 or 2/3 setting. The comparator is placebo or control in 55 (77%) of the randomized studies. Forty-eight (62%) CTs expect to enroll up to 1,000 subjects and 50 (71%) plan to recruit healthcare workers (HCW). With regard to drug schedules, 45 (58.5%) CTs have planned a loading dose, while 18 (23.4%) have not; the loading dose is 800 mg in 19 trials (42.2%), 400 mg in 19 (42.2%), 600 mg in 4 (8.9%) and 1,200 mg in 1 (2.2%). Forty trials include at least one daily schedule, while 19 have at least one weekly schedule. Forty-one (53.2%) will have a treatment duration of more than 30 days. Awaiting further developments that can only derive from the results of these prospective randomized CTs, the take-home message of our review is that a correct methodological approach is the key to understanding whether prophylactic HCQ can really represent an effective strategy in preventing COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7744418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Research collaboration of registered clinical trials for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze research collaboration and distribution of outcome measures in registered interventional clinical trials (ICTs) of COVID-19 conducted in China. Methods: The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, China Clinical Trials Registry, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched to obtain COVID-19-registered ICTs up to May 25, 2020. Excel 2016 was used to perform a descriptive statistical analysis of the extracted information. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for provinces and institutions and create density maps for outcomes. Results: A total of 390 ICTs were included, and the number of daily registrations fluctuated greatly. From 29 provinces in China, 430 institutions contributed to the registration of ICTs. The top three productive provinces were Hubei (160/390, 41.03%), Shanghai (60/390, 15.38%), and Beijing (59/390, 15.13%). The top three productive institutions were Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (30/390, 7.69%), Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (18/390, 4.62%), and Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital (18/390, 4.62%). Collaborations between provinces and institutions were not close enough. There were many interventions, but many trials did not provide specific drugs and their dosage and treatment duration. The most frequently used primary outcome was Chest/lung CT (53/390, 13.59%), and the most frequently used secondary outcome was hospital stay (33/390, 8.46%). There was a large difference in the number of outcomes, the expression of some outcomes was not standardized, the measurement time and tools for some outcomes were not clear, and there was a lack of special outcomes for trials of traditional Chinese medicine. Conclusions: Although there were some collaborations between provinces and institutions of the current COVID-19 ICT protocols in China, cooperation between regions should be further strengthened. The identified deficiencies in interventions and outcome measures should be given more attention by future researchers of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7492615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus 2 (CoV) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV2) is causing a highly infectious pandemic pneumonia. Coronaviruses are positive sense single-stranded RNA viruses that infect several animal species, causing symptoms that range from those similar to the common cold to severe respiratory syndrome. The Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the SARS-CoV2 functional receptor. Measures are currently undertaken worldwide to control the infection to avoid disruption of the social and economic equilibrium, especially in countries with poor healthcare resources. In a guarded optimistic view, we hope that the undertaken preventive and treatment measures will at least contribute to contain viral diffusion, attenuate activity, or even eliminate SARS-CoV2. In this review, we discuss emerging perspectives for prevention/treatment of COVID-19 infection. In addition to vaccines under development, passive immunization is an open opportunity since patients develop neutralizing antibodies. A full spectrum of potential drugs for COVID-19 infections could in turn affect virus binding or enzymatic activities involved in viral replication and transcription. Furthermore, clinical trials are currently evaluating the safety and efficacy of anti-inflammatory drugs, such as tocilizumab. Bioinformatics may allow characterization of specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cell responses; thus, CoV2 T cells' frequency can be correlated with the disease severity and outcome. Combinatorial antibody phage display may be empowered to identify the immune repertoire of CoV2-specific neutralizing antibodies.
| S-EPMC7404132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The predicament arising from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become one of the most significant modern public health challenges. Despite uncertainties in the viral determinants and pathogenesis, it is crucial to accurately inspect all available evidence to construct accurate clinical guidelines for optimised patient care. This study aims to discuss the available evidence for the use of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against COVID-19. Early in vitro studies of CQ/HCQ against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are convincing. But contradictory evidence exists on the clinical use of CQ/HCQ, either alone or in combination with azithromycin. As of now, there is no compelling clinical evidence on CQ, HCQ, and azithromycin in COVID-19 and the available evidence is limited to methodologically inferior non-randomised studies. Studies have also shown detrimental drug reactions to CQ and 'HCQ plus azithromycin', mainly cardiac side effects in hospitalised patients with coexisting cardiovascular comorbidities. Therefore, we recommend that physicians avoid high doses and exercise extreme caution in the compassionate use of CQ/HCQ, either alone or in combination with other antiviral drugs.
| S-EPMC7404096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into an emergent global pandemic. Many drugs without established efficacy are being used to treat COVID-19 patients either as an offlabel/compassionate use or as a clinical trial. Although drug repurposing is an attractive approach with reduced time and cost, there is a need to make predictions on success before the start of therapy. For the optimum use of these repurposed drugs, many factors should be considered such as drug-gene or dug-drug interactions, drug toxicity, and patient co-morbidity. There is limited data on the pharmacogenomics of these agents and this may constitute an obstacle for successful COVID-19 therapy. This article reviewed the available human genome interactions with some promising repurposed drugs for COVID-19 management. These drugs include chloroquine (CQ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), atazanavir (ATV), favipiravir (FVP), nevirapine (NVP), efavirenz (EFV), oseltamivir, remdesivir, anakinra, tocilizumab (TCZ), eculizumab, heme oxygenase 1 (HO-1) regulators, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, ivermectin, and nitazoxanide. Drug-gene variant pairs that may alter the therapeutic outcomes in COVID-19 patients are presented. The major drug variant pairs that associated with variations in clinical efficacy include CQ/HCQ (CYP2C8, CYP2D6, ACE2, and HO-1); azithromycin (ABCB1); LPV/r (SLCO1B1, ABCB1, ABCC2 and CYP3A); NVP (ABCC10); oseltamivir (CES1 and ABCB1); remdesivir (CYP2C8, CYP2D6, CYP3A4, and OATP1B1); anakinra (IL-1a); and TCZ (IL6R and FCGR3A). The major drug variant pairs that associated with variations in adverse effects include CQ/HCQ (G6PD; hemolysis and ABCA4; retinopathy), ATV (MDR1 and UGT1A1*28; hyperbilirubinemia; and APOA5; dyslipidemia), NVP (HLA-DRB1*01, HLA-B*3505 and CYP2B6; skin rash and MDR1; hepatotoxicity), and EFV (CYP2B6; depression and suicidal tendencies).
| S-EPMC7859465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising strategy to break COVID-19 transmission. Although hydroxychloroquine was evaluated for treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis, it is not evaluated for COVID-19 PrEP yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PrEP with hydroxychloroquine against placebo in healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during an epidemic period.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in three hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. From 350 adult healthcare workers screened, we included 269 participants with no active or past SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by a negative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and a negative serology against SARS-CoV-2). Participants allocated in the intervention arm (PrEP) received 400 mg of hydroxychloroquine daily for the first four consecutive days and subsequently, 400 mg weekly during the study period. Participants in the control group followed the same treatment schedule with placebo tablets.Results52.8% (142/269) of participants were in the hydroxychloroquine arm and 47.2% (127/269) in the placebo arm. Given the national epidemic incidence decay, only one participant in each group was diagnosed with COVID-19. The trial was stopped due to futility and our study design was deemed underpowered to evaluate any benefit regarding PrEP efficacy. Both groups showed a similar proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse event (AE) (p=0.548). No serious AEs were reported. Almost all AEs (96.4%, 106/110) were mild. Only mild gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly higher in the hydroxychloroquine arm compared to the placebo arm (27.4% (39/142) vs 15.7% (20/127), p=0.041).ConclusionsAlthough the efficacy of PrEP with hydroxychloroquine for preventing COVID-19 could not be evaluated, our study showed that PrEP with hydroxychloroquine at low doses is safe.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04331834 . Registered on April 2, 2020.
| S-EPMC8591593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, a strong response from the research community has been observed with the proliferation of independent clinical trials assessing diagnostic methods, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. While there is no intervention for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 with proven clinical efficacy to date, tools to distil the current research landscape by intervention, level of evidence and those studies likely powered to address future research questions is essential. This living systematic review aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Weekly search updates of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and source registries will be conducted. Data extraction by two independent reviewers of trial characteristic variables including categorisation of trial design, geographic location, intervention type and targets, level of evidence and intervention adaptability to low resource settings will be completed. Descriptive and thematic synthesis will be conducted. A searchable and interactive visualisation of the results database will be created, and made openly available online. Weekly results from the continued search updates will be published and made available on the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) website ( COVID-19 website). This living systematic review will provide a useful resource of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations for researchers in a rapidly evolving context. In the future, this sustained review will allow prioritisation of research targets for individual patient data meta-analysis.
| S-EPMC7141164 | biostudies-literature