Dataset Information

Hydroxychloroquine in mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019: a placebo-controlled double blind trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine whether hydroxychloroquine decreases the risk of adverse outcome in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at high risk of worsening.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients with at least one of the following risk factors for worsening: need for supplemental oxygen, age ≥75 years, age between 60 and 74 years and presence of at least one co-morbidity. Severely ill patients requiring oxygen therapy >3 L/min or intensive care were excluded. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg hydroxychloroquine on day 0 followed by 400 mg per day for 8 days or a placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death or start of invasive mechanical ventilation within 14 days following randomization. Secondary end points included mortality and clinical evolution at days 14 and 28, and viral shedding at days 5 and 10.

Results

The trial was stopped after 250 patients were included because of a slowing down of the pandemic in France. The intention-to-treat population comprised 123 and 124 patients in the placebo and hydroxychloroquine groups, respectively. The median age was 77 years (interquartile range 58-86 years) and 151/250 (60.4%) patients required oxygen therapy. The primary end point occurred in 9/124 (7.3%) patients in the hydroxychloroquine group and 8/123 (6.5%) patients in the placebo group (relative risk 1.12; 95% CI 0.45-2.80). The rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests at days 5 and 10 were 72.8% (75/103) and 57.1% (52/91) in the hydroxychloroquine group, versus 73.0% (73/100) and 56.6% (47/83) in the placebo group, respectively. No difference was observed between the two groups in any of the other secondary end points.

Conclusion

In this underpowered trial involving mainly older patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, patients treated with hydroxychloroquine did not experience better clinical or virological outcomes than those receiving the placebo.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04325893 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04325893).

SUBMITTER: Dubee V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015393 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.Setting16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020.Participants150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone).InterventionsHydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively).Main outcome measureNegative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.ResultsOf 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsAdministration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.Trial registrationChiCTR2000029868.

Project description:BackgroundDespite improvements in prevention and treatment, severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high mortality. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways contribute to cytokine and cell-mediated lung inflammation. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial to determine the feasibility, safety, and preliminary activity of duvelisib, a PI3Kδγ inhibitor, for the treatment of COVID-19 critical illness.MethodsWe enrolled adults aged ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 with hypoxic respiratory failure, shock, and/or new cardiac disease, without improvement after at least 48 hours of corticosteroid. Participants received duvelisib (25 mg) or placebo for up to 10 days. Participants had daily semi-quantitative viral load measurements performed. Dose modifications were protocol driven due to adverse events (AEs) or logarithmic change in viral load. The primary endpoint was 28-day overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, 60-day OS, and duration of critical care interventions. Safety endpoints included viral kinetics and AEs. Exploratory endpoints included serial cytokine measurements and cytometric analysis.ResultsFifteen patients were treated in the duvelisib cohort, and 13 in the placebo cohort. OS at 28 days was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38%-88%) compared to 62% (95% CI, 32%-86%) for placebo (P = .544). Sixty-day OS was 60% versus 46%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, .22-1.96]; P = .454). Other secondary outcomes were comparable. Duvelisib was associated with lower inflammatory cytokines.ConclusionsIn this pilot study, duvelisib did not significantly improve 28-day OS compared to placebo for severe COVID-19. Duvelisib appeared safe in this critically ill population and was associated with reduction in cytokines implicated in COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome, supporting further investigation.Clinical trials registrationNCT04372602.

Project description:Importance: Owing to its anti-inflammatory properties and antiviral "in vitro" effect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), cannabidiol (CBD) has been proposed as a potential treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To investigate the safety and efficacy of CBD for treating patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design: Randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted between July 7 and October 16, 2020, in two sites in Brazil. Setting: Patients were recruited in an emergency room. Participants: Block randomized patients (1:1 allocation ratio-by a researcher not directly involved in data collection) with mild and moderate COVID-19 living in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, seeking medical consultation, and those who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Interventions: Patients received 300 mg of CBD or placebo added to standard symptomatic care during 14 days. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was reduction or prevention of the deterioration in clinical status from mild/moderate to severe/critical measured with the COVID-19 Scale or the natural course of the resolution of typical clinical symptoms. Primary study outcome was assessed on days 14, 21, and 28 after enrollment. Results: A total of 321 patients were recruited and assessed for eligibility, and 105 were randomly allocated either in CBD (n=49) or in placebo (n=42) group. Ninety-one participants were included in the analysis of efficacy. There were no baseline between-group differences regarding disease severity (χ2=0.025, p=0.988) and median time to symptom resolution (12 days [95% confidence interval, CI, 6.5-17.5] in the CBD group, 9 days [95% CI, 4.8-13.2] in the placebo group [χ2=1.6, p=0.205 by log-rank test]). By day 28, 83.3% in the CBD group and 90.2% in the placebo group had resolved symptoms. There were no between-group differences on secondary measures. CBD was well tolerated, producing mostly mild and transient side effects (e.g., somnolence, fatigue, changes in appetite, lethargy, nausea, diarrhea, and fever), with no significant differences between CBD and placebo treatment groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Daily administration of 300 mg CBD for 14 days failed to alter the clinical evolution of COVID-19. Further trials should explore the therapeutic effect of CBD in patients with severe COVID-19, possibly trying higher doses than the used in our study. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04467918 (date of registration: July 13, 2020).

Project description:Three small trials suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin can affect biomarkers and symptoms of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. We tested the safety, effective dose, and infusion interval of intravenous immunoglobulin in such patients.We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at seven sites in the USA and five in Germany. Participants with probable Alzheimer's disease aged 50-85 years were randomly assigned (by a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with block sizes of eight) to infusions every 4 weeks (0·2, 0·5, or 0·8 g intravenous immunoglobulin per kg bodyweight, or placebo) or infusions every 2 weeks (0·1, 0·25, or 0·4 g/kg, or placebo). Patients, caregivers, investigators assessing outcomes, and staff at imaging facilities and the clinical research organisation were masked to treatment allocation, but dispensing pharmacists, the statistician, and the person responsible for final PET analyses were not. Treatment was masked with opaque pouches and infusion lines. The primary endpoint was median area under the curve (AUC) of plasma amyloid ? (A?)(1-40) between the last infusion and the final visit (2 weeks or 4 weeks depending on infusion interval) in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00812565) and controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN64846759).89 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 58 were enrolled and 55 included in the primary analysis. Median AUC of plasma A?(1-40) was not significantly different for intravenous immunoglobulin compared with placebo for five of the six intervention groups (-18·0 [range -1347·0 to 1068·5] for 0·2 g/kg, -364·3 [-5834·5 to 1953·5] for 0·5 g/kg, and -351·8 [-1084·0 to 936·5] for 0·8 g/kg every 4 weeks vs -116·3 [-1379·0 to 5266·0] for placebo; and -13·8 [-1729·0 to 307·0] for 0·1 g/kg, and -32·5 [-1102·5 to 451·5] for 0·25 g/kg every 2 weeks vs 159·5 [51·5 to 303·0] for placebo; p>0·05 for all). The difference in median AUC of plasma A?(1-40) between the 0·4 g/kg every 2 weeks group (47·0 [range -341·0 to 72·5]) and the placebo group was significant (p=0·0216). 25 of 42 (60%) patients in the intervention group versus nine of 14 (64%) receiving placebo had an adverse event. Four of 42 (10%) patients in the intravenous immunoglobulin group versus four of 14 (29%) receiving placebo had a serious adverse event, including one stroke in the intervention group.Intravenous immunoglobulin may have an acceptable safety profile. Our results did not accord with those from previous studies. Longer trials with greater power are needed to assess the cognitive and functional effects of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with Alzheimer's disease.