Dataset Information

Progesterone in Addition to Standard of Care vs Standard of Care Alone in the Treatment of Men Hospitalized With Moderate to Severe COVID-19: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Severity of illness in COVID-19 is consistently lower in women. A focus on sex as a biological factor may suggest a potential therapeutic intervention for this disease. We assessed whether adding progesterone to standard of care (SOC) would improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized men with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Research question

Does short-term subcutaneous administration of progesterone safely improve clinical outcome in hypoxemic men hospitalized with COVID-19?

Study design and methods

We conducted a pilot, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of subcutaneous progesterone in men hospitalized with confirmed moderate to severe COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC plus progesterone (100 mg subcutaneously twice daily for up to 5 days) or SOC alone. In addition to assessment of safety, the primary outcome was change in clinical status on day 7. Length of hospital stay and number of days on supplemental oxygen were key secondary outcomes.

Results

Forty-two patients were enrolled from April 2020 to August 2020; 22 were randomized to the control group and 20 to the progesterone group. Two patients from the progesterone group withdrew from the study before receiving progesterone. There was a 1.5-point overall improvement in median clinical status score on a seven-point ordinal scale from baseline to day 7 in patients in the progesterone group as compared with control subjects (95% CI, 0.0-2.0; P = .024). There were no serious adverse events attributable to progesterone. Patients treated with progesterone required three fewer days of supplemental oxygen (median, 4.5 vs 7.5 days) and were hospitalized for 2.5 fewer days (median, 7.0 vs 9.5 days) as compared with control subjects.

Interpretation

Progesterone at a dose of 100 mg, twice daily by subcutaneous injection in addition to SOC, may represent a safe and effective approach for treatment in hypoxemic men with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Trial registry

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04365127; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

SUBMITTER: Ghandehari S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7896492 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Severe lung injury is triggered by both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the subsequent host-immune response in some COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, single-center, open-label, phase II trial with the aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC alone, in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome was time to clinical stability within 56 days after randomization. Results: From April 1 to May 2, 2020, 55 patients were prospectively included for subsequent randomization; 27 were assigned to the experimental group and 28 to the control group. The experimental treatment was not associated with a difference in time to clinical stability (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.37]) nor most secondary outcomes. Median methylprednisolone cumulative doses were significantly lower (360 mg [IQR 360-842] vs. 870 mg [IQR 364-1451]; p = 0.007), and administered for a shorter time (median of 4.00 days [3.00-17.5] vs. 18.5 days [3.00-53.2]; p = 0.011) in the experimental group than in the control group. Although not statistically significant, those receiving the experimental therapy showed a numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, especially at day 10 [2 (7.41%) vs. 5 (17.9%); OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.05-2.1); p = 0.282]. The total number of non-serious adverse events was 42 in each the two groups. Those receiving experimental treatment had a numerically higher rate of non-serious infectious adverse events [16 (38%) vs. 10 (24%)] and serious infectious adverse events [7 (35%) vs. 3 (23%)] than those receiving SoC. Conclusions: The combined use of methylprednisolone pulses plus tacrolimus, in addition to the SoC, did not significantly improve the time to clinical stability or other secondary outcomes compared with the SoC alone in severe COVID-19. Although not statistically significant, patients receiving the experimental therapy had numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, supporting recent non-randomized studies with calcineurin inhibitors. It is noteworthy that the present trial had a limited sample size and several other limitations. Therefore, further RCTs should be done to assess the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus to tackle the inflammatory stages of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier [NCT04341038/EudraCT: 2020-001445-39].

Project description:Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report safety of RDV in patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) in hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned to receive RDV (5 or 10 days) or standard of care (SOC). RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated through the day 11 data cut; safety data through day 28 will be presented at the meeting. Results 584 patients were randomized and treated (5d RDV: n=191; 10d RDV, n=193; SOC: n=200). Baseline characteristics were balanced among groups; median (range) age was 57y (12-95y), 39% were female and 19% Black, 39% had arterial hypertension, 15% hyperlipidemia, 11% asthma. Briefly, across both the 5d and 10d arms, RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of Grade 3 or 4 AEs and fewer SAEs compared to SOC (Table). AEs more common with RDV vs SOC included nausea, headache, and hypokalemia. Overall, across the 3 arms, incidence of AEs leading to discontinuation and death were low and no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters were observed. In addition, median changes in renal and liver function tests from baseline were not statistically significant between the RDV 5d and RDV 10d groups compared to the SOC only group at d14 (Table 1). Table 1. Conclusion RDV given for 5d or 10d was well tolerated in patients with moderate COVID-19. No clinically significant safety signals were observed with RDV vs SOC. Disclosures Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Mi Young Ahn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gregory Huhn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Proteus (Grant/Research Support)US National Institutes of Health (Grant/Research Support)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Aruna Subramanian, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Stefan Schmiedel, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Vithika Suri, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Huldrych Günthard, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) D Jose Sanz-Moreno, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Emanuele Nicastri, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA

Project description:BackgroundThe use of IL-6 blockers in COVID-19 hospitalized patients has been associated with a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. However, many uncertainties remain pertaining to optimal intervention time, administration schedule, and predictors of response. To date, data on the use of subcutaneous sarilumab is limited and no randomized trial results are available.MethodsOpen label randomized controlled trial at a single center in Spain. We included adult patients admitted with microbiology documented COVID-19 infection, imaging confirmed pneumonia, fever and/or laboratory evidence of inflammatory phenotype, and no need for invasive ventilation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive sarilumab, a single 400 mg dose in two 200 mg subcutaneous injections, added to standard care or standard care, in a 2:1 proportion. Primary endpoints included 30-day mortality, mean change in clinical status at day 7 scored in a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharge (category 7), and duration of hospitalization. The primary efficacy analysis was conducted on the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 30 patients underwent randomization: 20 to sarilumab and 10 to standard care. Most patients were male (20/30, 67%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 61.5 years (56-72). At day 30, 2/20 (10%) patients died in the sarilumab arm vs. none (0/10) in standard care (Log HR 15.11, SE 22.64; p = 0.54). At day 7, no significant differences were observed in the median change in clinical status (2 [0-3]) vs. 3 [0-3], p = 0.32). Median time to discharge (days) was similar (7 [6-11] vs. 6 [4-12]; HR 0.65, SE 0.26; p = 0.27). No significant differences were detected in the rate of progression to invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation.Conclusions and relevanceOur pragmatic pilot study has failed to demonstrate the benefit of adding subcutaneous sarilumab to standard care for mortality by 30 days, functional status at day 7, or hospital stay. Findings herein do not exclude a potential effect of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 but adequately powered blinded randomized phase III trials are warranted to assess the impact of the subcutaneous route and a more selected target population.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04357808.

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes is a serious clinical problem in both India and the UK. Adoption of a healthy lifestyle through dietary and physical activity modification can help prevent type 2 diabetes. However, implementing lifestyle modification programmes to high risk groups is expensive and alternative cheaper methods are needed. We are using a short messaging service (SMS) programme in our study as a tool to provide healthy lifestyle advice and an aid to motivation. The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy and user acceptability of text messaging employed in this way for people with pre-diabetes (HbA1c 6.0% to ≤6.4%; 42-47 mmol/mol) in the UK and India.Methods/designThis is a randomised, controlled trial with participants followed up for 2 years. After being screened and receiving a structured education programme for prediabetes, participants are randomised to a control or intervention group. In the intervention group, text messages are delivered 2-3 times weekly and contain educational, motivational and supportive content on diet, physical activity, lifestyle and smoking. The control group undergoes monitoring only. In India, the trial involves 5 visits after screening (0, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months). In the UK there are 4 visits after screening (0, 6, 12 and 24 months). Questionnaires (EQ-5D, RPAQ, Transtheoretical Model of Behavioural Change, and food frequency (UK)/24 h dietary recall (India)) and physical activity monitors (Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometers) are assessed at baseline and all follow-up visits. The SMS acceptability questionnaires are evaluated in all follow-up visits. The primary outcome is progression to type 2 diabetes as defined by an HbA1c of 6.5% or over(India) and by any WHO criterion(UK). Secondary outcomes are the changes in body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose; lipids; proportion of participants achieving HbA1c ≤6.0%; HOMA-IR; HOMA-β; acceptability of SMS; dietary parameters; physical activity and quality of life.DiscussionThe study is designed to assess the efficacy of tailored text messaging in addition to standard lifestyle advice to reduce the progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes in the two different countries.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT01570946 , 4th April 2012 (India); NCT01795833 , 21st February 2013 (UK).