Treating COVID-19 With Hydroxychloroquine (TEACH): A Multicenter, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial in Hospitalized Patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Effective therapies to combat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the clinical benefit of HCQ in treating COVID-19 is unclear. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Methods
We conducted a multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial of HCQ among patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or placebo for 5 days and followed for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a severe disease progression composite end point (death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and/or vasopressor use) at day 14.Results
A total of 128 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were similar between the HCQ (n = 67) and placebo (n = 61) arms. At day 14, 11 (16.4%) subjects assigned to HCQ and 6 (9.8%) subjects assigned to placebo met the severe disease progression end point, but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .350). There were no significant differences in COVID-19 clinical scores, number of oxygen-free days, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, or adverse events between HCQ and placebo. HCQ was associated with a slight increase in mean corrected QT interval, an increased D-dimer, and a trend toward an increased length of stay.Conclusions
In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that HCQ does not prevent severe outcomes or improve clinical scores. However, our conclusions are limited by a relatively small sample size, and larger randomized controlled trials or pooled analyses are needed.
SUBMITTER: Ulrich RJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7543602 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux is considered to cause sleep disturbance, whereas proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration is reported to improve insomnia associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux are asymptomatic and a significant number with erosive esophagitis are also reported to be asymptomatic. We examined whether PPI administration has a therapeutic effect for improving insomnia in patients without reflux symptoms in the same manner as patients with reflux symptoms. METHODS: We performed a randomized multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial using 176 patients with insomnia regardless of the presence of reflux symptoms. The patients were divided into those administered omeprazole (20 mg) or a placebo for 14 days. Four self-reporting questionnaires, QOLRAD-J (Japanese translation of Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and a sleep diary, were used for evaluating GERD-related quality of life (QOL) and sleep disturbance. RESULTS: We evaluated 171 patients with insomnia, of whom 69 had typical reflux symptoms. Omeprazole statistically significantly improved GERD-related QOL from 30.8±0.7 to 33.0±0.5 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, total) and from 6.0±0.2 to 6.6±0.1 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, sleep-related) when administrated to patients with reflux symptoms. Omeprazole also improved insomnia significantly better than the placebo in patients with reflux symptoms; PSQI, from 9.3±0.5 to 7.9±0.5 (P<0.01) and sleep diary, from 2.1±0.1 to 1.8±0.1 (P<0.01). On the other hand, the therapeutic effects of omeprazole and the placebo were not different in patients without reflux symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that PPI administration is effective only for insomnia in patients with reflux symptoms.
| S-EPMC4077042 | biostudies-other
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:BACKGROUND:Impulsivity and compulsivity are related to emotional and social maladjustment and often underlie psychiatric disorders. Recently, alterations in microbiota composition have been shown to have implications for brain development and social behavior via the microbiota-gut-brain axis. However, the exact mechanisms are not fully identified. Recent evidence suggests the modulatory effect of synbiotics on gut microbiota and the contribution of these agents in ameliorating symptoms of many psychiatric diseases. To date, no randomized controlled trial has been performed to establish the feasibility and efficacy of this intervention targeting the reduction of impulsivity and compulsivity. We hypothesize that supplementation with synbiotics may be an effective treatment in adults with high levels of impulsivity and/or compulsivity. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with two arms: treatment with a synbiotic formula versus placebo treatment. The primary outcome is the response rate at the end of the placebo-controlled phase (response defined as a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale score of 1 or 2?=?very much improved or much improved, plus a reduction in the Affective Reactivity Index total score of at least 30% compared with baseline). A total of 180 participants with highly impulsive behavior and a diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and/or borderline personality disorder, aged 18-65?years old, will be screened at three study centers. Secondary outcome measures, including changes in general psychopathology, ADHD symptoms, neurocognitive function, somatic parameters, physical activity, nutritional intake, and health-related quality of life, will be explored at assessments before, during, and at the end of the intervention. The effect of the intervention on genetics, microbiota, and several blood biomarkers will also be assessed. Gastrointestinal symptoms and somatic complaints will additionally be explored at 1-week follow-up. DISCUSSION:This is the first randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of supplementation with synbiotics on reducing impulsive and compulsive behavior. This clinical trial can contribute to explaining the mechanisms involved in the crosstalk between the intestinal microbiome and the brain. If effects can be established by reducing impulsive and compulsive behavior, new cost-effective treatments might become available to these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03495375. Registered on 26 February 2018.
| S-EPMC7014653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background There is no clear evidence-based medicine that points to the most effective drug treatments for the common cold. In view of its ability to relieve symptoms and shorten the disease course, as well as its minimal side effects, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been widely used to treat the common cold. However, there is a lack of strong evidence to support the clinical efficacy of TCM. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ganduqing granules in the treatment of the common cold based on the network pharmacology analysis. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 60 eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the placebo group. The intervention group will be treated with Ganduqing granules, while the placebo group will be treated with placebo. After 5 days of intervention, the efficacy and safety of Ganduqing granules in the treatment of the common cold will be observed. The primary outcome is the time to clearance of all symptoms. The secondary outcomes included the levels of IL-6, TNF-α, SOD, and MDA in the peripheral blood, time to disappearance of primary symptoms and secondary symptoms, clinical symptom remission rate, and change in TCM syndrome score. Results Sixty participants completed the study. Ganduqing granules showed a greater effect on the time to clearance of all symptoms (P < 0.0001), nasal discharge (P=0.0124), fatigue and lack of strength (P=0.0138), dryness of the pharynx (P < 0.0001), pharyngalgia or dysphagia (P < 0.0001), and expectoration (P < 0.0431) compared with the placebo group. Participants in the intervention group had a greater decrease of IL-6 levels compared with the placebo group (P < 0.007); similar results were observed for the SOD (P < 0.033). However, the change in TNF-α and MDA levels in the intervention group was not significantly different from the placebo group. In addition, participants in the intervention group had a greater decrease of TCM syndrome score compared with the placebo group (P < 0.040). Conclusion Ganduqing granules could improve common cold symptoms, shorten the disease course, attenuated inflammation and oxidative stress, and provided objective evidence for the efficacy and safety of a Chinese herbal medicine in treating the common cold.
| S-EPMC9203204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RETRACTED ARTICLE: The COVID-19 pandemic is showing an exponential growth, mandating an urgent need to develop an effective treatment. Indeed, to date, a well-established therapy is still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) added to standard care in patients with COVID-19. This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted at three major university hospitals in Egypt. One hundred ninety-four patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in the study after signing informed consent. They were equally randomized into two arms: 97 patients administrated HCQ plus standard care (HCQ group) and 97 patients administered only standard care as a control arm (control group). The primary endpoints were recovery within 28 days, need for mechanical ventilation, or death. The two groups were matched for age and gender. There was no significant difference between them regarding any of the baseline characteristics or laboratory parameters. Four patients (4.1%) in the HCQ group and 5 (5.2%) patients in the control group needed mechanical ventilation (P = 0.75). The overall mortality did not differ between the two groups, as six patients (6.2%) died in the HCQ group and 5 (5.2%) died in the control group (P = 0.77). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that HCQ treatment was not significantly associated with decreased mortality in COVID-19 patients. So, adding HCQ to standard care did not add significant benefit, did not decrease the need for ventilation, and did not reduce mortality rates in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7543820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used successfully to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Qingre Huoxue treatment (Qingre Huoxue decoction (QRHXD)/Qingre Huoxue external preparation (QRHXEP)) is a therapeutic scheme of TCM for RA. To date, there have been few studies comparing the efficacy and safety of QRHXD and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for the treatment of active RA. This was investigated in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving 468 Chinese patients with active RA [disease activity score (DAS)-28 > 3.2] treated with QRHXD/QRHXEP (TCM group), methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine [Western medicine (WM) group], or both [integrative medicine (IM) group]. Patients were followed up for 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the change in DAS-28 from baseline to 24 weeks. The secondary outcome measures were treatment response rate according to American College of Rheumatology 20, 50, and 70% improvement criteria (ACR-20/50/70) and the rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02551575). DAS-28 decreased in all three groups after treatment (p < 0.0001); the score was lowest in the TCM group (p < 0.05), while no difference was observed between the WM and IM groups (p > 0.05). At week 24, ACR-20 response was 73.04% with TCM, 80.17% with WM, and 73.95% with IM (based on the full analysis set [FAS], p > 0.05); ACR-50 responses were 40.87, 47.93, and 51.26%, respectively, (FAS, p > 0.05); and ACR-70 responses were 20.87, 22.31, and 25.21%, respectively, (FAS, p > 0.05). Thus, treatment efficacy was similar across groups based on ACR criteria. On the other hand, the rate of TRAEs was significantly lower in the TCM group compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). Thus, QRHXD/QRHXEP was effective in alleviating the symptoms of active RA-albeit to a lesser degree than csDMARDs-with fewer side effects. Importantly, combination with QRHXD enhanced the efficacy of csDMARDs. These results provide evidence that QRHXD can be used as an adjunct to csDMARDs for the management of RA, especially in patients who experience TRAEs with standard drugs. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCTNCT025515.
| S-EPMC8186316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Retrospective studies showed a relationship between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity and mortality, with an inverse relation between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and circulating calcifediol levels. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the length of hospital stay and clinical improvement in patients with vitamin D deficiency hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was randomized, double blind and placebo controlled. A total of 50 subjects were enrolled and received, in addition to the best available COVID therapy, either vitamin D (25,000 IU per day over 4 consecutive days, followed by 25,000 IU per week up to 6 weeks) or placebo. The length of hospital stay decreased significantly in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo group (4 days vs. 8 days; p = 0.003). At Day 7, a significantly lower percentage of patients were still hospitalized in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo group (19% vs. 54%; p = 0.0161), and none of the patients treated with vitamin D were hospitalized after 21 days compared to 14% of the patients treated with placebo. Vitamin D significantly reduced the duration of supplemental oxygen among the patients who needed it (4 days vs. 7 days in the placebo group; p = 0.012) and significantly improved the clinical recovery of the patients, as assessed by the WHO scale (p = 0.0048). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization was improved by administration of vitamin D.
| S-EPMC9330587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe trans-membrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) is essential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cell entry and infection. Efficacy and safety of TMPRSS2 inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not been evaluated in randomized trials.MethodsWe conducted an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from April 4, to December 31, 2020. Within 48 h of admission, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate 200 mg three times daily for 5 days or placebo. The primary outcome was time to discharge or clinical improvement measured as ≥2 points improvement on a 7-point ordinal scale. Other outcomes included 30-day mortality, safety and change in oropharyngeal viral load.Findings137 patients were assigned to receive camostat mesilate and 68 to placebo. Median time to clinical improvement was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) in the camostat group and 5 days (IQR, 2 to 10) in the placebo group (P = 0·31). The hazard ratio for 30-day mortality in the camostat compared with the placebo group was 0·82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0·24 to 2·79; P = 0·75). The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Median change in viral load from baseline to day 5 in the camostat group was -0·22 log10 copies/mL (p <0·05) and -0·82 log10 in the placebo group (P <0·05).InterpretationUnder this protocol, camostat mesilate treatment was not associated with increased adverse events during hospitalization for Covid-19 and did not affect time to clinical improvement, progression to ICU admission or mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04321096. EudraCT Number: 2020-001200-42.
| S-EPMC8060682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are presently no available therapeutic options for patients with peanut allergy.ObjectiveWe sought to investigate the safety, efficacy, and immunologic effects of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).MethodsAfter a baseline oral food challenge (OFC) of up to 2 g of peanut powder (approximately 50% protein; median successfully consumed dose [SCD], 46 mg), 40 subjects, aged 12 to 37 years (median, 15 years), were randomized 1:1 across 5 sites to daily peanut or placebo SLIT. A 5-g OFC was performed after 44 weeks, followed by unblinding; placebo-treated subjects then crossed over to higher dose peanut SLIT, followed by a subsequent crossover Week 44 5-g OFC. Week 44 OFCs from both groups were compared with baseline OFCs; subjects successfully consuming 5 g or at least 10-fold more peanut powder than the baseline OFC threshold were considered responders.ResultsAfter 44 weeks of SLIT, 14 (70%) of 20 subjects receiving peanut SLIT were responders compared with 3 (15%) of 20 subjects receiving placebo (P < .001). In peanut SLIT responders, median SCD increased from 3.5 to 496 mg. After 68 weeks of SLIT, median SCD significantly increased to 996 mg (compared with Week 44, P = .05). The median SCD at the Week 44 Crossover OFC was significantly higher than baseline (603 vs 71 mg, P = .02). Seven (44%) of 16 crossover subjects were responders; median SCD increased from 21 to 496 mg among responders. Of 10,855 peanut doses through the Week 44 OFCs, 63.1% were symptom free; excluding oral-pharyngeal symptoms, 95.2% were symptom free.ConclusionsPeanut SLIT safely induced a modest level of desensitization in a majority of subjects compared with placebo. Longer duration of therapy showed statistically significant increases in the SCD.
| S-EPMC3550002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral uncontrolled studies of hyperbaric treatment in children with autism have reported clinical improvements; however, this treatment has not been evaluated to date with a controlled study. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial to assess the efficacy of hyperbaric treatment in children with autism.Methods62 children with autism recruited from 6 centers, ages 2-7 years (mean 4.92 +/- 1.21), were randomly assigned to 40 hourly treatments of either hyperbaric treatment at 1.3 atmosphere (atm) and 24% oxygen ("treatment group", n = 33) or slightly pressurized room air at 1.03 atm and 21% oxygen ("control group", n = 29). Outcome measures included Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), and Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC).ResultsAfter 40 sessions, mean physician CGI scores significantly improved in the treatment group compared to controls in overall functioning (p = 0.0008), receptive language (p < 0.0001), social interaction (p = 0.0473), and eye contact (p = 0.0102); 9/30 children (30%) in the treatment group were rated as "very much improved" or "much improved" compared to 2/26 (8%) of controls (p = 0.0471); 24/30 (80%) in the treatment group improved compared to 10/26 (38%) of controls (p = 0.0024). Mean parental CGI scores significantly improved in the treatment group compared to controls in overall functioning (p = 0.0336), receptive language (p = 0.0168), and eye contact (p = 0.0322). On the ABC, significant improvements were observed in the treatment group in total score, irritability, stereotypy, hyperactivity, and speech (p < 0.03 for each), but not in the control group. In the treatment group compared to the control group, mean changes on the ABC total score and subscales were similar except a greater number of children improved in irritability (p = 0.0311). On the ATEC, sensory/cognitive awareness significantly improved (p = 0.0367) in the treatment group compared to the control group. Post-hoc analysis indicated that children over age 5 and children with lower initial autism severity had the most robust improvements. Hyperbaric treatment was safe and well-tolerated.ConclusionChildren with autism who received hyperbaric treatment at 1.3 atm and 24% oxygen for 40 hourly sessions had significant improvements in overall functioning, receptive language, social interaction, eye contact, and sensory/cognitive awareness compared to children who received slightly pressurized room air.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT00335790.
| S-EPMC2662857 | biostudies-literature