Dataset Information

Efficacy of the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate in patients hospitalized with Covid-19-a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The trans-membrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) is essential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cell entry and infection. Efficacy and safety of TMPRSS2 inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not been evaluated in randomized trials.

Methods

We conducted an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from April 4, to December 31, 2020. Within 48 h of admission, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate 200 mg three times daily for 5 days or placebo. The primary outcome was time to discharge or clinical improvement measured as ≥2 points improvement on a 7-point ordinal scale. Other outcomes included 30-day mortality, safety and change in oropharyngeal viral load.

Findings

137 patients were assigned to receive camostat mesilate and 68 to placebo. Median time to clinical improvement was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) in the camostat group and 5 days (IQR, 2 to 10) in the placebo group (P = 0·31). The hazard ratio for 30-day mortality in the camostat compared with the placebo group was 0·82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0·24 to 2·79; P = 0·75). The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Median change in viral load from baseline to day 5 in the camostat group was -0·22 log₁₀ copies/mL (p <0·05) and -0·82 log₁₀ in the placebo group (P <0·05).

Interpretation

Under this protocol, camostat mesilate treatment was not associated with increased adverse events during hospitalization for Covid-19 and did not affect time to clinical improvement, progression to ICU admission or mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04321096. EudraCT Number: 2020-001200-42.

SUBMITTER: Gunst JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8060682 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a common disorder among hospitalized older patients and results in increased morbidity and mortality. The prevention of delirium is still challenging in older patient care. The role of antipsychotics in delirium prevention has been limited. Therefore, we conducted a trial to investigate the efficacy of quetiapine use to prevent delirium in hospitalized older medical patients.MethodsThis study was a randomized double-blind controlled trial conducted at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized in the internal medicine service were randomized to quetiapine 12.5 mg or placebo once daily at bedtime for a maximum 7-day duration. The primary end point was delirium incidence. Secondary end points were delirium duration, length of hospital stay, ICU admission, rehospitalization and mortality within 30 and 90 days.ResultsA total of 122 patients were enrolled in the study. Eight (6.6%) left the trial before receiving the first dose of the intervention, whereas 114 (93.4%) were included in an intention-to-treat analysis allocated to the quetiapine or placebo group (n = 57 each). The delirium incidence rates in the quetiapine and placebo groups were 14.0 and 8.8% (OR = 1.698, 95% CI 0.520-5.545, P = 0.381), respectively. Other endpoints in the quetiapine and placebo groups were the median length of hospital stay, 6 (4-8) days versus 5 (4-8) days (P = 0.133), respectively; delirium duration, 4 (2.3-6.5) versus 3 (1.5-4.0) days (P = 0.557), respectively; ICU admission, 3 (5.3%) patients from both groups (P = 1.000); and mortality in the quetiapine and placebo groups, 1 (1.8%) versus 2 (3.5%) at 30 days (P = 0.566) and 7 (12.3%) versus 9 (15.8%) days at 90 days (P = 0.591). There were no significant differences in other outcomes. None of the participants reported adverse events.ConclusionsQuetiapine prophylaxis did not reduce delirium incidence in hospitalized older medical patients. The use of quetiapine to prevent delirium in this population group should not be recommended.Trial registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered with the Thai clinical trials registry (TCTR) at clinicaltrials.in.th (TCTR20190927001) on September 26, 2019.

Project description:IntroductionVidofludimus calcium has shown anti-inflammatory effects in clinical trials of autoimmune diseases and recently demonstrated antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vidofludimus calcium in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Europe and the USA.MethodsPatients aged 18 years or older who positive for COVID-19 were randomized (1:1) to receive placebo or 45 mg vidofludimus calcium for 14 days with both groups receiving standard-of-care treatment. The primary endpoint was the need for invasive ventilation after 28 days (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04379271; EudraCT 2020-001264-28).ResultsBetween June 12, 2020 and December 10, 2020, a total of 223 were randomized to receive either placebo (n = 112) or vidofludimus calcium (n = 111); three patients withdrew consent and were not treated. Eight (9%) patients in the placebo group and 12 (11%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group needed invasive ventilation during the 28-day study period, which was lower than the assumed rate of 40%. Time to clinical improvement was shorter by approximately 1 day in the vidofludimus calcium group (15.0 days [90% CI 14.8-15.9]) compared to the placebo group (15.9 days [90% CI 14.9-19.9]). This effect was greatest in patients who initiated therapy within 9 days of symptom onset (3.8 days shorter in the vidofludimus calcium group). Higher trough concentrations of vidofludimus calcium were associated with quicker time to clinical recovery. The rate and timing of appearance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were not different between groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 (4%) patients in the placebo group and 2 (2%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group; treatment-emergent adverse events of increased severity related to COVID-19 occurred in 13 (12%) patients in the placebo group and 8 (7%) patients in the vidofludimus calcium group. Overall mortality was low (2%).ConclusionsThese findings support vidofludimus calcium being safe and well tolerated in patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BACKGROUND:PQ912 is an inhibitor of the glutaminyl cyclase enzyme that plays a central role in the formation of synaptotoxic pyroglutamate-A-beta oligomers. We report on the first clinical study with PQ912 in subjects with biomarker-proven Alzheimer's disease (AD). The aim was to determine the maximal tolerated dose, target occupancy and treatment-related pharmacodynamic effects. The exploratory efficacy readouts selected were tailored to the patient population with early AD. The therapeutic approach focuses on synaptic dysfunction as captured by various measures such as electroencephalography (EEG), synaptic biomarkers and sensitive cognitive tests. METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of PQ912 800 mg twice daily (bid) for 12 weeks in subjects with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to AD. The 120 enrolled subjects were treatment-naïve at the start of the study, had confirmed AD biomarkers in their cerebrospinal fluid at screening and had a Mini Mental State Examination score between 21 and 30. After 1 week of treatment with 400 mg bid, patients were up-titrated to 800 mg bid for 11 weeks. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either PQ912 or placebo. The primary composite endpoints were to assess safety and tolerability based on the number of patients who discontinued due to (serious) adverse events (safety), and based on dose adjustment during the treatment period and/or nonadherence to randomized treatment (tolerability). All randomized subjects who took at least one dose of the study treatment or placebo were used for safety analyses. RESULTS:There was no significant difference between treatments in the number of subjects with (serious) adverse events, although there were slightly more patients with a serious adverse event in the PQ912 group compared to placebo. More subjects treated with PQ912 discontinued treatment due to adverse events, mostly related to gastrointestinal and skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders. PQ912 treatment resulted in a significant reduction in glutaminyl cyclase activity, which resulted in an average target occupancy of >?90%. A significant reduction of theta power in the EEG frequency analysis and a significant improvement in the One Back test of our Neuropsychological Test Battery was observed. The exploratory biomarker readouts, neurogranin for synaptic toxicity and YKL-40 as a marker of inflammation, appear to be sensitive enough to serve as efficacy markers in the next phase 2b study. CONCLUSIONS:The maximal tolerated dose of PQ912 has been identified and the results support future studies at still lower doses reaching >?50% target occupancy, a longer up-titration phase to potentially induce adaptation and longer treatment periods to confirm the early signals of efficacy as seen in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT 02389413 . Registered on 17 March 2015.

Project description:BackgroundSevere COVID-19 pneumonia results from a hyperinflammatory immune response (cytokine storm, CS), characterized by GM-CSF mediated activation and trafficking of myeloid cells, leading to elevation of downstream inflammatory chemokines (MCP-1, IL-8, IP-10), cytokines (IL-6, IL-1), and other markers of systemic inflammation (CRP, D-dimer, ferritin). CS leads to fever, hypotension, coagulopathy, respiratory failure, ARDS, and death. Lenzilumab is a novel Humaneered ® anti-human GM-CSF monoclonal antibody that directly binds GM-CSF and prevents signaling through its receptor. The LIVE-AIR Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab to assess the potential for lenzilumab to improve the likelihood of ventilator-free survival (referred to herein as survival without ventilation, SWOV), beyond standard supportive care, in hospitalized subjects with severe COVID-19.MethodsSubjects with COVID-19 (n=520), ≥18 years, and ≤94% oxygen saturation on room air and/or requiring supplemental oxygen, but not invasive mechanical ventilation, were randomized to receive lenzilumab (600 mg, n=261) or placebo (n=259) via three intravenous infusions administered 8 hours apart. Subjects were followed through Day 28 following treatment.ResultsBaseline demographics were comparable between the two treatment groups: male, 64.7%; mean age, 60.5 years; mean BMI, 32.5 kg/m 2 ; mean CRP, 98.36 mg/L; CRP was <150 mg/L in 77.9% of subjects. The most common comorbidities were obesity (55.1%), diabetes (53.4%), chronic kidney disease (14.0%), and coronary artery disease (13.6%). Subjects received steroids (93.7%), remdesivir (72.4%), or both (69.1%). Lenzilumab improved the likelihood of SWOV by 54% in the mITT population (HR: 1.54; 95%CI: 1.02-2.31, p=0.041) and by 90% in the ITT population (HR: 1.90; 1.02-3.52, nominal p=0.043) compared to placebo. SWOV also relatively improved by 92% in subjects who received both corticosteroids and remdesivir (1.92; 1.20-3.07, nominal p=0.0067); by 2.96-fold in subjects with CRP<150 mg/L and age <85 years (2.96; 1.63-5.37, nominal p=0.0003); and by 88% in subjects hospitalized ≤2 days prior to randomization (1.88; 1.13-3.12, nominal p=0.015). Survival was improved by 2.17-fold in subjects with CRP<150 mg/L and age <85 years (2.17; 1.04-4.54, nominal p=0.040).ConclusionLenzilumab significantly improved SWOV in hospitalized, hypoxic subjects with COVID-19 pneumonia over and above treatment with remdesivir and/or corticosteroids. Subjects with CRP<150 mg/L and age <85 years demonstrated an improvement in survival and had the greatest benefit from lenzilumab. NCT04351152.

Project description:Gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility is a common complication in acute, critically ill, postoperative, and chronic patients that may lead to impaired nutrient delivery, poor clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to treat GI dysmotility were investigated in dozens of clinical studies. However, they often yielded conflicting results, at least in part, because various (nonstandardized) definitions of GI dysmotility were used and methodological quality of studies was poor. While a universally accepted definition of GI dysmotility is yet to be developed, a systematic analysis of data derived from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials may provide robust data on absolute and relative effectiveness of various interventions as the study outcome (GI motility) was assessed in the least biased manner.To systematically review data from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials to determine and compare the effectiveness of interventions that affect GI motility.Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) were searched. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The summary estimates were reported as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).A total of 38 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 2371 patients were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. These studies investigated a total of 20 different interventions, of which 6 interventions were meta-analyzed. Of them, the use of dopamine receptor antagonists (MD, -8.99; 95% CI, -17.72 to -0.27; P = 0.04) and macrolides (MD, -26.04; 95% CI, -51.25 to -0.82; P = 0.04) significantly improved GI motility compared with the placebo group. The use of botulism toxin significantly impaired GI motility compared with the placebo group (MD, 5.31; 95% CI, -0.04 to 10.67; P = 0.05). Other interventions (dietary factors, probiotics, hormones) did not affect GI motility.Based on the best available data and taking into account the safety profile of each class of intervention, dopamine receptor antagonists and macrolides significantly improve GI motility and are medications of choice in treating GI dysmotility.