Efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide plus atazanavir/ritonavir for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 (NACOVID): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Olagunju A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7780204 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of the antiviral therapy in treatment of COVID-19 is still a matter to be investigated. Also efficacy and safety of antiviral regimens were not compared according severity of the disease. In this study the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir was compared in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. METHODS:We prospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 213 patients with COVID-19 during the hospitalization course and up to 56 days after the hospital discharge. The disease was categorized to moderate and severe based on the severity of pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). The patients received the national treatment protocol containing hydroxychloroquine (400 mg BD in first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg daily) for 7 days. Main outcomes included discharge rates at day 7, 14 and 28, 28-day mortality, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, length of hospital and ICU stay and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS:The mean (SD) age of patients was 60(14) years and 53% were male. According to WHO definition, 51.64% and 48.36% of the patients had moderate (SpO2???90%) and severe disease (SpO2?<?90%) at baseline, respectively. The discharge rate of the moderate group was significantly higher than the severe group at day 7, 14 and 28 (HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.69, p?=?< 0.001 at day 7, HR?=?0.48; 95% CI: 0.35-0.66, p?=?< 0.001 at day 14 and HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, p?=?< 0.001at day 28). The 28-day mortality of the severe group was six times higher than the moderate group (HR?=?6.00; 95% CI: 2.50-14.44), p?=?< 0.001). The need of admission in ICU for the severe group and the moderate group was 37.86% and 18.18% of the patients. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the moderate group in comparison with the severe group (5?±?4 vs. 8?±?6 days, p?<?0.001). Patients in the moderate group experienced the serious adverse events and complications less than the severe group. The discharged patients were followed up to 56 days after discharge. Some of the patients complained of symptoms such as exertional dyspnea, weakness and new-onset hair loss. CONCLUSION:Our study did not support the use of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir in patients who had SpO2?<?90% at the time of hospital admission. SpO2 was the only predictor of clinical outcomes (duration of hospital stay, discharge from the hospital and mortality) in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir.
| S-EPMC7453126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe nitazoxanide plus atazanavir/ritonavir for COVID-19 (NACOVID) trial investigated the efficacy and safety of repurposed nitazoxanide combined with atazanavir/ritonavir for COVID-19.MethodsThis is a pilot, randomized, open-label multicenter trial conducted in Nigeria. Mild to moderate COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard of care (SoC) or SoC plus a 14-day course of nitazoxanide (1,000 mg b.i.d.) and atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg od) and followed through day 28. Study endpoints included time to clinical improvement, SARS-CoV-2 viral load change, and time to complete symptom resolution. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04459286).ResultsThere was no difference in time to clinical improvement between the SoC (n = 26) and SoC plus intervention arms (n = 31; Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 0.898, 95% CI: 0.492-1.638, p = 0.725). No difference was observed in the pattern of saliva SARS-CoV-2 viral load changes from days 2-28 in the 35% of patients with detectable virus at baseline (20/57) (aHR = 0.948, 95% CI: 0.341-2.636, p = 0.919). There was no significant difference in time to complete symptom resolution (aHR = 0.535, 95% CI: 0.251-1.140, p = 0.105). Atazanavir/ritonavir increased tizoxanide plasma exposure by 68% and median trough plasma concentration was 1,546 ng/ml (95% CI: 797-2,557), above its putative EC90 in 54% of patients. Tizoxanide was undetectable in saliva.ConclusionNitazoxanide co-administered with atazanavir/ritonavir was safe but not better than standard of care in treating COVID-19. These findings should be interpreted in the context of incomplete enrollment (64%) and the limited number of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 in saliva at baseline in this trial.Clinical trial registration[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04459286], identifier [NCT04459286].
| S-EPMC9493023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpecific antiretroviral therapy (ART) medications and the severity of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease before treatment contribute to bone mineral density (BMD) loss after ART initiation.MethodsWe compared the percentage change in BMD over 96 weeks in 328 HIV-infected, treatment-naive individuals randomized equally to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r), or raltegravir (RAL). We also determined whether baseline levels of inflammation markers and immune activation were independently associated with BMD loss.ResultsAt week 96, the mean percentage changes from baseline in spine and hip BMDs were similar in the protease inhibitor (PI) arms (spine: -4.0% in the ATV/r group vs -3.6% in the DRV/r [P = .42]; hip: -3.9% in the ATV/r group vs -3.4% in the DRV/r group [P = .36]) but were greater in the combined PI arms than in the RAL arm (spine: -3.8% vs -1.8% [P < .001]; hip: -3.7% vs -2.4% [P = .005]). In multivariable analyses, higher baseline concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, and soluble CD14 were associated with greater total hip BMD loss, whereas markers of CD4(+) T-cell senescence and exhaustion (CD4(+)CD28(-)CD57(+)PD1(+)) and CD4(+) T-cell activation (CD4(+)CD38(+)HLA-DR(+)) were associated with lumbar spine BMD loss.ConclusionsBMD losses 96 weeks after ART initiation were similar in magnitude among patients receiving PIs, ATV/r, or DRV/r but lowest among those receiving RAL. Inflammation and immune activation/senescence before ART initiation independently predicted subsequent BMD loss.
| S-EPMC4577040 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7812339 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7602769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether the overall results of the CASTLE study pertain to both genders, we analysed the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in 277 female and 606 male patients in the open-label, multinational trial over 96 weeks. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779.MethodsTreatment-naive patients aged ≥ 18 years with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 5000 copies/mL were randomized to receive either atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily.ResultsAt week 96, confirmed virological response rates (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL; intent-to-treat analysis) were higher in women and men receiving atazanavir/ritonavir than those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and lower in women than men in both treatment arms (67% of women and 77% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 63% of women and 71% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). These differences were not observed in the on-treatment analysis. Mean change in CD4 cell count from baseline to week 96 was 265 cells/mm(3) for women and 269 cells/mm(3) for men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 298 cells/mm(3) for women and 286 cells/mm(3) for men on lopinavir/ritonavir. Discontinuation rates were higher in women than men in each treatment arm (22% of women and 15% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 29% of women and 18% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). In women and men, grade 2-4 nausea and diarrhoea were more frequent in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; jaundice and hyperbilirubinaemia occurred more frequently in the atazanavir/ritonavir group.ConclusionsOnce-daily atazanavir/ritonavir is an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for women and men with HIV-1 infection. The sex-based differences in response may be due to higher discontinuation rates in women.
| S-EPMC3019087 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5910198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:We aimed to evaluate treatment responses to atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV/r) or efavirenz (EFV) in initial antiretroviral regimens among women and men, and determine if treatment outcomes differ by sex. METHODS:We performed a randomized trial of open-label ATV/r or EFV combined with abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) or tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in 1857 human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected, treatment-naive persons enrolled between September 2005 and November 2007 at 59 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. Associations of sex with 3 primary study endpoints of time to virologic failure, safety, and tolerability events were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. Model-based population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed effects modeling (NONMEM version VII). RESULTS:Of 1857 participants, 322 were women. Women assigned to ATV/r had a higher risk of virologic failure with either nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone than women assigned to EFV, or men assigned to ATV/r. The effects of ATV/r and EFV upon safety and tolerability risk did not differ significantly by sex. With ABC/3TC, women had a significantly higher (32%) safety risk compared to men; with TDF/FTC, the safety risk was 20% larger for women compared to men, but not statistically significant. Women had slower ATV clearance and higher predose levels of ATV compared to men. Self-reported adherence did not differ significantly by sex. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first randomized clinical trial to identify a significantly earlier time to virologic failure in women randomized to ATV/r compared to women randomized to EFV. This finding has important clinical implications given that boosted protease inhibitors are often favored over EFV in women of childbearing potential. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION:NCT00118898.
| S-EPMC3905755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited data compare once-daily options for initial therapy for HIV-1.ObjectiveTo compare time to virologic failure; first grade-3 or -4 sign, symptom, or laboratory abnormality (safety); and change or discontinuation of regimen (tolerability) for atazanavir plus ritonavir with efavirenz-containing initial therapy for HIV-1.DesignA randomized equivalence trial accrued from September 2005 to November 2007, with median follow-up of 138 weeks. Regimens were assigned by using a central computer, stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA level less than 100 000 copies/mL or 100 000 copies/mL or greater; blinding was known only to the site pharmacist. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00118898)Setting59 AIDS Clinical Trials Group sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.PatientsAntiretroviral-naive patients.InterventionOpen-label atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz, each given with with placebo-controlled abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine.MeasurementsPrimary outcomes were time to virologic failure, safety, and tolerability events. Secondary end points included proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA level less than 50 copies/mL, emergence of drug resistance, changes in CD4 cell counts, calculated creatinine clearance, and lipid levels.Results463 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir plus ritonavir and 465 were assigned to receive efavirenz, both with abacavir-lamivudine; 322 (70%) and 324 (70%), respectively, completed follow-up. The respective numbers of participants in each group who received tenofovir DF-emtricitabine were 465 and 464; 342 (74%) and 343 (74%) completed follow-up. Primary efficacy was similar in the group that received atazanavir plus ritonavir and and the group that received efavirenz and did not differ according to whether abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine was also given. Hazard ratios for time to virologic failure were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.56) and 1.01 (CI, 0.70 to 1.46), respectively, although CIs did not meet prespecified criteria for equivalence. The time to safety (P = 0.048) and tolerability (P < 0.001) events was longer in persons given atazanavir plus ritonavir than in those given efavirenz with abacavir-lamivudine but not with tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.LimitationsNeither HLA-B*5701 nor resistance testing was the standard of care when A5202 enrolled patients. The third drugs, atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz, were open-label; the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were prematurely unblinded in the high viral load stratum; and 32% of patients modified or discontinued treatment with their third drug.ConclusionAtazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz have similar antiviral activity when used with abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC3430716 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7480631 | biostudies-literature