Dataset Information

Randomized controlled open label trial on the use of favipiravir combined with inhaled interferon beta-1b in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of favipiravir combined with inhaled interferon beta-1b in adult patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

A randomized, open-label controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia from June 22nd 2020 to August 13th 2020 was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a combination of favipiravir with interferon beta-1b by inhalation aerosol or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The outcome endpoints included improvement in inflammatory markers, lower length of hospital stay (LOS), discharges and lower overall 14-day mortality.

Results

A total of 89 patients underwent randomization with 49% (n = 44) assigned to favipiravir and 51% (n = 45) assigned HCQ. The overall mean age was 55 ± 14 years and 58% (n = 52) were males. There were no significant differences in the inflammatory biomarkers at hospital discharge between the two groups; C-reactive protein (p = 0.413), ferritin (p = 0.968), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.259) and interleukin 6 (p = 0.410). There were also no significant differences between the two groups with regards to the overall LOS (7 vs 7 days; p = 0.948), transfers to the ICU (18.2% vs 17.8%; p = 0.960), discharges (65.9% vs 68.9%; p = 0.764) and overall mortality (11.4% vs 13.3%; p = 0.778).

Conclusions

No differences in clinical outcomes were found between favipiravir plus inhaled interferon beta-1b and hydroxychloroquine in adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

SUBMITTER: Khamis F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833906 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The only treatment currently available for patients with severe infantile osteopetrosis is hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). HCT-related toxicity and mortality risks typically preclude its use in non-infantile patients, and other therapies are needed for these patients who have significant disease-related morbidity. Interferon gamma-1b is currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of severe infantile osteopetrosis (autosomal recessive osteopetrosis [ARO]). However, little is known about the effects of interferon gamma-1b in non-infantile osteopetrosis. Thus, this pilot study aimed at testing the safety and tolerability of interferon gamma-1b in patients with non-infantile osteopetrosis and assessing the clinical effects. We performed a 12-month, open-label, multi-center pilot study involving patients >1 year-old diagnosed radiographically with osteopetrosis. Patients were initiated on interferon gamma-1b subcutaneously 15 μg/m2 three times weekly, to be titrated over 3 weeks to a goal of 100 μg/m2 three times weekly. The primary aim was safety and tolerability. The secondary aims were to assess changes in peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mineral density (BMD) Z-scores, bone biomarkers, and quality-of-life (QOL) measures. Four of the five participants enrolled withdrew from the study between 3 and 9 months due to intolerability of interferon gamma-1b-related flu-like symptoms. The last participant completed the study with the addition of prednisone on days of interferon gamma-1b administration. DXA and pQCT outcomes were stable over 6-12 months, and there were no clear trends in bone biomarkers or QOL measures. No serious drug-related adverse events were reported during this study. Interferon gamma-1b was only tolerable in one of five participants with the addition of prednisone. The stabilization of BMD and other measures of bone health during this study suggest possible positive effects of interferon gamma-1b on osteopetrosis; however, additional data are needed before conclusions on treatment efficacy can be made. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:IntroductionAntiviral drugs have shown limited effectiveness in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to assess the effects of a favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine combination on treating moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients.MethodsAn investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial at nine hospitals. Eligible patients were adults with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 defined as oxygen saturation (SaO2) of ≤ 94% while breathing ambient air or significant clinical symptoms with chest x-ray changes requiring hospital admission. Randomization was in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care (control group) or standard care plus favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine. The primary outcome was time to clinical improvement of two points (from the status at randomization) on a seven-category ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital within 14 days. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population.ResultsFrom May 2020 to Jan 2021, 254 patients were enrolled; 129 were assigned to standard of care and 125 to the treatment. The mean age was 52 (± 13) years, and 103 (41%) were women. At randomization, six patients were on invasive mechanical ventilation, 229 (90.15%) were requiring supplemental oxygen only (with or without non-invasive ventilation), and 19 (7.48%) were receiving neither. The time to clinical improvement was not significantly different between the groups: median of 9 days in the treatment group and 7 days in the control group (HR: 0.845; 95% CI 0.617-1.157; p-value = 0.29). The 28-day mortality was not significantly different between the groups (7.63% treatment) vs. (10.32% control); p-value = 0.45. The most prevalent adverse events were headache, elevation in ALT, and the prolonged QTc interval in the treatment group.ConclusionThe combination of favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine did not result in a statistically significant clinical benefit in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04392973).

Project description:BackgroundThe role of ivermectin in the treatment of moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial. We performed an open label randomized controlled trial to evaluate the role of ivermectin plus favipiravir-based standard of care versus favipiravir-based standard of care for the treatment of moderate COVID-19 infection.Materials and methodsAn open-label randomized control trial was performed at Thammasat Field Hospital and Thammasat University Hospital from October 1st, 2021 to May 31st, 2022. Patients with moderate COVID-19 infections were randomized to the intervention (ivermectin plus favipiravir-based standard of care) or control group (favipiravir-based standard of care alone). Patients were followed up to 21 days. The primary outcome was the improvement in World Health Organization (WHO) category ordinal scale by 2 points. Secondary outcomes included duration of illness, development of severe COVID-19, and adverse reactions.ResultsThere were 157 patients in the intervention and 160 patients in the control group. Characteristics, underlying diseases, and risk factors for severe COVID-19 were comparable in both groups. Improvement in the WHO-category ordinal scale by 2 points was achieved in 98.7% of the intervention group and in 99.4% of the control group (relative risk [RR]: 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.044-5.430). The median illness duration was 5.0 days (range, 3 - 28 days) in intervention group versus 5.2 days (range, 3 - 28 days) in control group (P = 0.630). Severe COVID-19 that required intensive care occurred in 2 patients (1.3%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.6%) in the control group (RR: 2.052; 95% CI: 0.184 - 22.857). No significant difference in serious drug adverse events was seen.ConclusionIn this study ivermectin plus standard of care was not associated with improvement in the WHO-category ordinal scale, reduced illness duration, or development of severe COVID-19 in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: TCTR20220427005.

Project description:Background: In addition to supportive therapy, antiviral therapy is an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg*3/day) or favipiravir (1600 mg*2/first day followed by 600 mg*2/day) for 7 days. The primary outcome was the clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration (relief for pyrexia and cough, respiratory frequency ≤24 times/min; oxygen saturation ≥98%). Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough and the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV)/mechanical ventilation (MV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days. Results: A total of 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 patients were assigned to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). The clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration did not significantly differ between the favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (p = 0.1396, difference in recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: -0.0305∼0.2213). Favipiravir contributed to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, p < 0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the AOT or NMV/MV rate (both p > 0.05). The most frequently observed favipiravir-associated adverse event was increased serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, p = 0.0014). Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinical recovery rate at day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relieve pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused by favipiravir are mild and manageable.