Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection carries a substantial risk of severe and prolonged illness; treatment options are currently limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

Methods

We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 pilot trial at nine UK sites. Adults aged 18 years or older and admitted to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms, with a positive RT-PCR or point-of-care test, or both, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive SNG001 (6 MIU) or placebo by inhalation via a mouthpiece daily for 14 days. The primary outcome was the change in clinical condition on the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI) during the dosing period in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study drug). The OSCI is a 9-point scale, where 0 corresponds to no infection and 8 corresponds to death. Multiple analyses were done to identify the most suitable statistical method for future clinical trials. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events for 28 days. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrialsregister.eu (2020-001023-14) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04385095); the pilot trial of inpatients with COVID-19 is now completed.

Findings

Between March 30 and May 30, 2020, 101 patients were randomly assigned to SNG001 (n=50) or placebo (n=51). 48 received SNG001 and 50 received placebo and were included in the intention-to-treat population. 66 (67%) patients required oxygen supplementation at baseline: 29 in the placebo group and 37 in the SNG001 group. Patients receiving SNG001 had greater odds of improvement on the OSCI scale (odds ratio 2·32 [95% CI 1·07-5·04]; p=0·033) on day 15 or 16 and were more likely than those receiving placebo to recover to an OSCI score of 1 (no limitation of activities) during treatment (hazard ratio 2·19 [95% CI 1·03-4·69]; p=0·043). SNG001 was well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event was headache (seven [15%] patients in the SNG001 group and five [10%] in the placebo group). There were three deaths in the placebo group and none in the SNG001 group.

Interpretation

Patients who received SNG001 had greater odds of improvement and recovered more rapidly from SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients who received placebo, providing a strong rationale for further trials.

Funding

Synairgen Research.

SUBMITTER: Monk PD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7836724 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Monk Phillip D PD Marsden Richard J RJ Tear Victoria J VJ Brookes Jody J Batten Toby N TN Mankowski Marcin M Gabbay Felicity J FJ Davies Donna E DE Holgate Stephen T ST Ho Ling-Pei LP Clark Tristan T Djukanovic Ratko R Wilkinson Tom M A TMA

The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20201112 2

<h4>Background</h4>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection carries a substantial risk of severe and prolonged illness; treatment options are currently limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 pilot trial at nine UK sites. Adults aged 18 years or older and admitted to hosp ...[more]

PMID: 33189161

Similar Datasets

Project description:No available treatments slow or halt progression of multiple system atrophy, which is a rare, progressive, fatal neurological disorder. In a mouse model of multiple system atrophy, rifampicin inhibited formation of ?-synuclein fibrils, the neuropathological hallmark of the disease. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of rifampicin in patients with multiple system atrophy.In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial we recruited participants aged 30-80 years with possible or probable multiple system atrophy from ten US medical centres. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated permuted block randomisation to rifampicin 300 mg twice daily or matching placebo (50 mg riboflavin capsules), stratified by subtype (parkinsonian vs cerebellar), with a block size of four. The primary outcome was rate of change (slope analysis) from baseline to 12 months in Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale (UMSARS) I score, analysed in all participants with at least one post-baseline measurement. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01287221.Between April 22, 2011, and April 19, 2012, we randomly assigned 100 participants (50 to rifampicin and 50 to placebo). Four participants in the rifampicin group and five in the placebo group withdrew from study prematurely. Results of the preplanned interim analysis (n=15 in each group) of the primary endpoint showed that futility criteria had been met, and the trial was stopped (the mean rate of change [slope analysis] of UMSARS I score was 0.62 points [SD 0.85] per month in the rifampicin group vs 0.47 points [0.48] per month in the placebo group; futility p=0.032; efficacy p=0.76). At the time of study termination, 49 participants in the rifampicin group and 50 in the placebo group had follow-up data and were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was 0.5 points (SD 0.7) per month for rifampicin and 0.5 points (0.5) per month for placebo (difference 0.0, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.24; p=0.82). Three (6%) of 50 participants in the rifampicin group and 12 (24%) of 50 in the placebo group had one or more serious adverse events; none was thought to be related to treatment.Our results show that rifampicin does not slow or halt progression of multiple system atrophy. Despite the negative result, the trial does provide information that could be useful in the design of future studies assessing potential disease modifying therapies in patients with multiple system atrophy.National Institutes of Health, Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science Activities, and Mayo Funds.

Project description:BackgroundFunctional constipation (FC) is an intractable disease that carries large financial burden as well as emotional and physical stress. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the newly developed smartphone-controlled vibrating capsule (VC) in patients with FC.MethodsFrom December 2018 to February 2020, we did a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial in six top general hospitals in China focusing on patients aged 18 to 80 with FC. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive VCs or placebo treatment for six weeks (two capsules per week) after a two-week baseline period. The primary outcome was the responder rate, defined as the proportion of patients with an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) per week during treatment compared to baseline in the full analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04671264, and is completed.Findings107 patients aged from 18 to 74 were randomly assigned to receive VC (n = 53) or placebo treatment (n = 54). The responder rate in the VC group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (64·2% vs. 35·8%; difference, 27·7% [95% CI, 10·4-45·1]; P = 0·005). More patients in the VC group reported weekly CSBMs ≥ 1 for at least four weeks during treatment (difference, 22·7% [95% CI, 8-46]; P = 0·022) and follow-up period (difference, 17.3% [95% CI, 0-35]; P = 0·048). The mean Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms score and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life score differed significantly from the baseline in both groups (all P < 0·0001). The most common adverse event associated with VC was abdominal discomfort (3·7%).InterpretationVCs can promote defecation, as well as ameliorating symptoms and improving the quality of life in patients with FC with sustained efficacy. VC appears to be a potential alternative physical treatment for FC with the exact mechanism and parameters warranting further investigation.FundingThe study was supported by "One hundred leading scientists for 21st century" of Health Department of Shanghai Municipal Government (to ZL, No.2017BR005).

Project description:BackgroundGlutamate excitotoxicity might contribute to the pathophysiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In animal models, decreased excitatory aminoacid transporter 2 (EAAT2) overexpression delays disease onset and prolongs survival, and ceftriaxone increases EAAT2 activity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftriaxone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in a combined phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trial.MethodsThis three-stage randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was done at 59 clinical sites in the USA and Canada between Sept 4, 2006, and July 30, 2012. Eligible adult patients had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a vital capacity of more than 60% of that predicted for age and height, and symptom duration of less than 3 years. In stages 1 (pharmacokinetics) and 2 (safety), participants were randomly allocated (2:1) to ceftriaxone (2 g or 4 g per day) or placebo. In stage 3 (efficacy), participants assigned to ceftriaxone in stage 2 received 4 g ceftriaxone, participants assigned to placebo in stage 2 received placebo, and new participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to 4 g ceftriaxone or placebo. Participants, family members, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. Randomisation was done by a computerised randomisation sequence with permuted blocks of 3. Participants received 2 g ceftriaxone or placebo twice daily through a central venous catheter administered at home by a trained caregiver. To minimise biliary side-effects, participants assigned to ceftriaxone also received 300 mg ursodeoxycholic acid twice daily and those assigned to placebo received matched placebo capsules. The coprimary efficacy outcomes were survival and functional decline, measured as the slope of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) scores. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00349622.FindingsStage 3 included 66 participants from stages 1 and 2 and 448 new participants. In total, 340 participants were randomly allocated to ceftriaxone and 173 to placebo. During stages 1 and 2, mean ALSFRS-R declined more slowly in participants who received 4 g ceftriaxone than in those on placebo (difference 0·51 units per month, 95% CI 0·02 to 1·00; p=0·0416), but in stage 3 functional decline between the treatment groups did not differ (0·09, -0·06 to 0·24; p=0·2370). No significant differences in survival between the groups were recorded in stage 3 (HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·71 to 1·15; p=0·4146). Gastrointestinal adverse events and hepatobiliary adverse events were more common in the ceftriaxone group than in the placebo group (gastrointestinal, 245 of 340 [72%] ceftriaxone vs 97 of 173 [56%] placebo, p=0·0004; hepatobiliary, 211 [62%] vs 19 [11%], p<0·0001). Significantly more participants who received ceftriaxone had serious hepatobiliary serious adverse events (41 participants [12%]) than did those who received placebo (0 participants).InterpretationDespite promising stage 2 data, stage 3 of this trial of ceftriaxone in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis did not show clinical efficacy. The adaptive design allowed for seamless transition from one phase to another, and central venous catheter use in the home setting was shown to be feasible.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Project description:BackgroundNon-antiviral therapeutic options are required for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. CD24Fc is an immunomodulator with potential to reduce the exaggerated inflammatory response to tissue injuries. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CD24Fc in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen support.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study at nine medical centres in the USA. Hospitalised patients (age ≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were receiving oxygen support and standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) by site-stratified block randomisation to receive a single intravenous infusion of CD24Fc 480 mg or placebo. The study funder, investigators, and patients were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement over 28 days, defined as time that elapsed between a baseline National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale score of 2-4 and reaching a score of 5 or higher or hospital discharge. The prespecified primary interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04317040.FindingsBetween April 24 and Sept 22, 2020, 243 hospitalised patients were assessed for eligibility and 234 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive CD24Fc (n=116) or placebo (n=118). The prespecified interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint among 197 randomised participants. In the interim analysis, the 28-day clinical improvement rate was 82% (81 of 99) for CD24Fc versus 66% (65 of 98) for placebo; median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-8·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·0 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·61, 95% CI 1·16-2·23; log-rank p=0·0028, which crossed the prespecified efficacy boundary [α=0·0147]). 37 participants were randomly assigned after the interim analysis data cutoff date; among the 234 randomised participants, median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-9·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·5 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (HR 1·40, 95% CI 1·02-1·92; log-rank p=0·037). The proportion of participants with disease progression within 28 days was 19% (22 of 116) in the CD24Fc group versus 31% (36 of 118) in the placebo group (HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·33-0·95; unadjusted p=0·031). The incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. No treatment-related adverse events were observed.InterpretationCD24Fc is generally well tolerated and accelerates clinical improvement of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who are receiving oxygen support. These data suggest that targeting inflammation in response to tissue injuries might provide a therapeutic option for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingMerck & Co, National Cancer Institute, OncoImmune.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets