Dataset Information

No Efficacy of the Combination of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Hydroxychloroquine Versus Standard of Care in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Non-Randomized Comparison.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: No specific treatment has been approved for COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been used with poor results, and a trial showed advantages of combined antiviral therapy vs. single antivirals. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the combination of antivirals (LPV/r and HCQ) or their single use in COVID-19 hospitalized patients vs. standard of care (SoC). Methods: Patients ≥18 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as positive RT-PCR from nasal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swab or positive serology, admitted at L. Spallanzani Institute (Italy) were included. Primary endpoint: time to invasive ventilation/death. Secondary endpoint: time to two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 PCRs in NP/OP swabs. In order to control for measured confounders, a marginal Cox regression model with inverse probability weights was used. Results: A total of 590 patients were included in the analysis: 36.3% female, 64 years (IQR 51-76), and 91% with pneumonia. Cumulative probability of invasive ventilation/death at 14 days was 21.2% (95% CI 17.6, 24.7), without difference between SOC, LPV/r, hydroxychloroquine, HCQ + LPV/r, and SoC. The risk of invasive ventilation/death in the groups appeared to vary by baseline ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2). Overall cumulative probability of confirmed negative nasopharyngeal swabs at 14 days was 44.4% (95% CI 38.9, 49.9), without difference between groups. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, we found no difference in the rate of invasive ventilation/death or viral shedding by different strategies, as in randomized trials performed to date. Moreover, even the combination HCQ + LPV/r did not show advantages vs. SoC.

SUBMITTER: Gagliardini R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8100580 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support.MethodsWe conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely.ResultsThe intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms.ConclusionIn adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of the antiviral therapy in treatment of COVID-19 is still a matter to be investigated. Also efficacy and safety of antiviral regimens were not compared according severity of the disease. In this study the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir was compared in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. METHODS:We prospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 213 patients with COVID-19 during the hospitalization course and up to 56 days after the hospital discharge. The disease was categorized to moderate and severe based on the severity of pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). The patients received the national treatment protocol containing hydroxychloroquine (400 mg BD in first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg daily) for 7 days. Main outcomes included discharge rates at day 7, 14 and 28, 28-day mortality, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, length of hospital and ICU stay and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS:The mean (SD) age of patients was 60(14) years and 53% were male. According to WHO definition, 51.64% and 48.36% of the patients had moderate (SpO2???90%) and severe disease (SpO2?<?90%) at baseline, respectively. The discharge rate of the moderate group was significantly higher than the severe group at day 7, 14 and 28 (HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.69, p?=?< 0.001 at day 7, HR?=?0.48; 95% CI: 0.35-0.66, p?=?< 0.001 at day 14 and HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, p?=?< 0.001at day 28). The 28-day mortality of the severe group was six times higher than the moderate group (HR?=?6.00; 95% CI: 2.50-14.44), p?=?< 0.001). The need of admission in ICU for the severe group and the moderate group was 37.86% and 18.18% of the patients. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the moderate group in comparison with the severe group (5?±?4 vs. 8?±?6 days, p?<?0.001). Patients in the moderate group experienced the serious adverse events and complications less than the severe group. The discharged patients were followed up to 56 days after discharge. Some of the patients complained of symptoms such as exertional dyspnea, weakness and new-onset hair loss. CONCLUSION:Our study did not support the use of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir in patients who had SpO2?<?90% at the time of hospital admission. SpO2 was the only predictor of clinical outcomes (duration of hospital stay, discharge from the hospital and mortality) in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Protease inhibitor monotherapy is a simplified treatment strategy for virally suppressed HIV-positive patients that has the potential for cost savings, as fewer drugs are used than with combination therapy. However, evidence for its economic value is limited. OBJECTIVES:We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy followed by treatment intensification in case of viral load rebound versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. METHODS:DREAM was conducted in 36 French Hospitals between 2009 and 2013. For each treatment strategy, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted mean costs (in €, year 2010 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, as well as incremental costs and QALYs per patient. We then assessed uncertainty using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, scenario analyses and cost-effectiveness price-threshold (CEPT) analysis. RESULTS:In the base-case analysis considering 2009-2013 antiretroviral drug (ARV) prices, adjusted incremental costs and QALYs were - €3296 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 5202 to - 1391) and 0.006 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.033), respectively, over 2 years, suggesting that monotherapy was cost-effective with a probability of 100% at various cost-effectiveness thresholds. In scenario analyses considering 2018 ARV prices, monotherapy remained cost-effective but with a lower probability (94% vs. 100% in the base-case analysis). The current price of cART would have to decrease by 34% to be cost-effective with a probability of 95%. CONCLUSION:Monotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared with cART for virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients in France. CEPT analysis is a useful tool to identify the preferred strategy to adopt given that ARV prices change rapidly. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595.

Project description:BackgroundNevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy is the predominant (and often the only) regimen available for children in resource-limited settings. Nevirapine resistance after exposure to the drug for prevention of maternal-to-child human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission is common, a problem that has led to the recommendation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in such settings. Regardless of whether there has been prior exposure to nevirapine, the performance of nevirapine versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in young children has not been rigorously established.MethodsIn a randomized trial conducted in six African countries and India, we compared the initiation of HIV treatment with zidovudine, lamivudine, and either nevirapine or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in HIV-infected children 2 to 36 months of age who had no prior exposure to nevirapine. The primary end point was virologic failure or discontinuation of treatment by study week 24.ResultsA total of 288 children were enrolled; the median percentage of CD4+ T cells was 15%, and the median plasma HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level was 5.7 log(10) copies per milliliter. The percentage of children who reached the primary end point was significantly higher in the nevirapine group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (40.8% vs. 19.3%; P<0.001). Among the nevirapine-treated children with virologic failure for whom data on resistance were available, more than half (19 of 32) had resistance at the time of virologic failure. In addition, the time to a protocol-defined toxicity end point was shorter in the nevirapine group (P=0.04), as was the time to death (P=0.06).ConclusionsOutcomes were superior with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir among young children with no prior exposure to nevirapine. Factors that may have contributed to the suboptimal results with nevirapine include elevated viral load at baseline, selection for nevirapine resistance, background regimen of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, and the standard ramp-up dosing strategy. The results of this trial present policymakers with difficult choices. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; P1060 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307151.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS:We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS:A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).

Dataset Information

No Efficacy of the Combination of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus Hydroxychloroquine Versus Standard of Care in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Non-Randomized Comparison.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets