Dataset Information

Use of an antiviral mouthwash as a barrier measure in the SARS-CoV-2 transmission in adults with asymptomatic to mild COVID-19: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine if commercially available mouthwash with β-cyclodextrin and citrox (bioflavonoids) (CDCM) could decrease the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) salivary viral load.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR-positive patients aged 18-85 years with asymptomatic to mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms for <8 days were recruited. A total of 176 eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to CDCM or placebo. Three rinses daily were performed for 7 days. Saliva sampling was performed on day 1 at 09.00 (T1), 13.00 (T2) and 18.00 (T3). On the following 6 days, one sample was taken at 15.00. Quantitative RT-PCR was used to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Results

The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that, over the course of 1 day, CDCM was significantly more effective than placebo 4 hours after the first dose (p 0.036), with a median percentage (log₁₀ copies/mL) decrease T1-T2 of -12.58% (IQR -29.55% to -0.16%). The second dose maintained the low median value for the CDCM (3.08 log₁₀ copies/mL; IQR 0-4.19), compared with placebo (3.31 log₁₀ copies/mL; IQR 1.18-4.75). At day 7, there was still a greater median percentage (log₁₀ copies/mL) decrease in salivary viral load over time in the CDCM group (-58.62%; IQR -100% to -34.36%) compared with the placebo group (-50.62%; IQR -100% to -27.66%). These results were confirmed by the per-protocol analysis.

Conclusions

This trial supports the relevance of using CDCM on day 1 (4 hours after the initial dose) to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva. For long-term effect (7 days), CDMC appears to provide a modest benefit compared with placebo in reducing viral load in saliva.

SUBMITTER: Carrouel F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8142805 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether favipiravir reduces the time to viral clearance as documented by negative RT-PCR results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to placebo.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, and placebo-controlled trial, adults with PCR-confirmed mild COVID-19 were recruited in an outpatient setting at seven medical facilities across Saudi Arabia. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either favipiravir 1800 mg by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 800 mg twice daily (n = 112) or a matching placebo (n = 119) for a total of 5 to 7 days. The primary outcome was the effect of favipiravir on reducing the time to viral clearance (by PCR test) within 15 days of starting the treatment compared to the placebo group. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: symptom resolution, hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, adverse events, and 28-day mortality.ResultsTwo hundred thirty-one patients were randomized and began the study (median age, 37 years; interquartile range (IQR): 32-44 years; 155 [67%] male), and 112 (48.5%) were assigned to the treatment group and 119 (51.5%) into the placebo group. The data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment because of futility at the interim analysis. The median time to viral clearance was 10 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the favipiravir group and 8 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.87 for the favipiravir group (95% CI 0.571-1.326; p = 0.51). The median time to clinical recovery was 7 days (IQR: 4-11 days) in the favipiravir group and 7 days (IQR: 5-10 days) in the placebo group. There was no difference between the two groups in the secondary outcome of hospital admission. There were no drug-related severe adverse events.ConclusionIn this clinical trial, favipiravir therapy in mild COVID-19 patients did not reduce the time to viral clearance within 15 days of starting the treatment.

Project description:BackgroundBGB-DXP593, a neutralising monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2, has demonstrated strong activity in reducing viral RNA copy number in SARS-CoV-2-infected animal models. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of BGB-DXP593 in ambulatory patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis global, randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04551898) screened patients from 20 sites in Australia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and the USA from December 2, 2020, through January 25, 2021. Patients with a first-positive SARS-CoV-2 test (positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test or authorised antigen test) ≤3 days before screening and mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days before treatment were randomised 1:1:1:1 to receive a single intravenous infusion of BGB-DXP593 5, 15, or 30 mg/kg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Day 8 in viral RNA copies/mL as measured in nasopharyngeal swabs. Secondary endpoints were hospitalisation rate due to worsening COVID-19 and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). A prespecified exploratory endpoint was change in viral RNA copy number in saliva.FindingsRelative to the natural rate of clearance as assessed in placebo-exposed patients (-3.12 log10 copies/mL), no significant differences in nasopharygneal viral RNA copy number changes were observed (-2.93 to -3.63 log10 copies/mL) by Day 8 in BGB-DXP593-treated patients. Reductions from baseline to Day 8 in saliva viral RNA copy number were larger with BGB-DXP593 5 mg/kg (-1.37 log10 copies/mL [90% confidence interval -2.14, -0.61]; nominal p = 0.003) and 15 mg/kg (-1.26 [-2.06, -0.46]; nominal p = 0.01) vs placebo, and differences favoring BGB-DXP593 were observed by Day 3, although not statistically significant; no difference from placebo was observed for BGB-DXP593 30 mg/kg (-0.71 [-1.45, 0.04]; nominal p = 0.12). Hospitalisation rate due to COVID-19 was numerically lower with BGB-DXP593 (pooled: 2/134 patients; 1.5%) vs placebo (2/47 patients; 4.3%), although not statistically significant. Incidence of TEAEs was similar across treatment groups. No TEAE led to treatment discontinuation. Five serious TEAEs occurred, all attributed to COVID-19 pneumonia.InterpretationBGB-DXP593 was well tolerated. Although nasopharyngeal swab SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA copy number was not significantly decreased compared with placebo, viral RNA copy number was inconsistently reduced by Day 8 in saliva at some doses as low as 5 mg/kg.FundingBeiGene, Ltd.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Psoriasis vulgaris is a common skin disease that is characterised by persistent localised erythematous scaly plaques. Yinxieling is a Chinese herbal formula for psoriasis that has been used for more than 20 years in China. To facilitate application, PSORI-CM01 was developed based on the optimisation and simplification of Yinxieling tablets performed in a previous study and in clinical practice. However, the scientific evidence regarding whether PSORI-CM01 is more effective for psoriasis than the original Yinxieling remains insufficient. Therefore, we designed a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effect, safety and cost-effectiveness of PSORI-CM01 granules compared with those of Yinxieling tablets for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This ongoing study is a two-arm parallel, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Five hundred and fifty-six participants with psoriasis will be recruited and then randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in PSORI-CM01 group will receive a 5.5?g granule of PSORI-CM01 two times daily and five placebo tablets three times daily for 12 weeks. The participants in the Yinxieling group will receive five Yinxieling tablets three times daily and a placebo granule two times daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. The secondary outcomes include relapse rate, Visual Analogue Scale scores, body surface area and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a health and community care provider perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research protocol had been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of three trial centres (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (B2014-026-01), Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin Chinese Medicine Academy (2014-KY-001) and Third Hospital of Hangzhou (B2014-026-01)). The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-14005185); Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967.FindingsBetween March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention.InterpretationAlthough combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Project description:A systematic assessment of potential disease-modifying compounds for Parkinson's disease concluded that pioglitazone could hold promise for the treatment of patients with this disease. We assessed the effect of pioglitazone on the progression of Parkinson's disease in a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, futility clinical trial.Participants with the diagnosis of early Parkinson's disease on a stable regimen of 1 mg/day rasagiline or 10 mg/day selegiline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 15 mg/day pioglitazone, 45 mg/day pioglitazone, or placebo. Investigators were masked to the treatment assignment. Only the statistical centre and the central pharmacy knew the treatment name associated with the randomisation number. The primary outcome was the change in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score between the baseline and 44 weeks, analysed by intention to treat. The primary null hypothesis for each dose group was that the mean change in UPDRS was 3 points less than the mean change in the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (of futility) was that pioglitazone is not meaningfully different from placebo. We rejected the null if there was significant evidence of futility at the one-sided alpha level of 0·10. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01280123.210 patients from 35 sites in the USA were enrolled between May 10, 2011, and July 31, 2013. The primary analysis included 72 patients in the 15 mg group, 67 in the 45 mg group, and 71 in the placebo group. The mean total UPDRS change at 44 weeks was 4·42 (95% CI 2·55-6·28) for 15 mg pioglitazone, 5·13 (95% CI 3·17-7·08) for 45 mg pioglitazone, and 6·25 (95% CI 4·35-8·15) for placebo (higher change scores are worse). The mean difference between the 15 mg and placebo groups was -1·83 (80% CI -3·56 to -0·10) and the null hypothesis could not be rejected (p=0·19). The mean difference between the 45 mg and placebo groups was -1·12 (80% CI -2·93 to 0·69) and the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of futility (p=0·09). Planned sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome, using last value carried forward (LVCF) to handle missing data and using the completers' only sample, suggested that the 15 mg dose is also futile (p=0·09 for LVCF, p=0·09 for completers) but failed to reject the null hypothesis for the 45 mg dose (p=0·12 for LVCF, p=0·19 for completers). Six serious adverse events occurred in the 15 mg group, nine in the 45 mg group, and three in the placebo group; none were thought to be definitely or probably related to the study interventions.These findings suggest that pioglitazone at the doses studied here is unlikely to modify progression in early Parkinson's disease. Further study of pioglitazone in a larger trial in patients with Parkinson's disease is not recommended.National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.