Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Aman J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8232929 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.
| S-EPMC7190303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe therapeutic effectiveness of interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor in critically ill hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain.MethodsTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the outcome as recovery or death of tocilizumab for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in critically ill COVID-19 adult patients. The patients were randomly assigned in a 4:1 ratio to receive standard medical treatment plus the recommended dose of either tocilizumab or the placebo drug. Randomization was stratified. The primary outcome was the recovery or death after administration of tocilizumab or a placebo drug. The secondary outcomes were clinical recovery or worsening of the patients' symptoms and inflammatory markers and discharge from the hospital.ResultsOf 190 patients included in this study, 152 received tocilizumab, and 38 received a placebo. The duration of hospital stay of the interventional group was 12.9 ± 9.2, while the placebo group had a more extended hospital stay (15.6 ± 8.8). The mortality ratio for the primary outcome, ie, mortality or recovery in the tocilizumab group was 17.8%; p = 0.58 by log-rank test). The mortality ratio in the placebo group was 76.3%; p = 0.32 by log-rank test). The inflammatory markers in the tocilizumab group significantly declined by day 16 compared to the placebo group.ConclusionsThe use of tocilizumab was associated with decreased mortality, earlier improvement of inflammatory markers, and reduced hospital stay in patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9161690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationalePulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival.ResultsOverall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups.ConclusionsMethylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
| S-EPMC8971731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperprolactinaemia is a troublesome side-effect of treatment with antipsychotics.This double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed at examining the effect of adjunctive treatment with 10?mg aripiprazole on prolactin levels and sexual side-effects in patients with schizophrenia symptomatically maintained on risperidone.Thirty patients taking risperidone were enrolled into the trial (CTRI/2012/11/003114). Aripiprazole was administered at a fixed daily dose of 10?mg/day for 8 weeks. Serum prolactin was measured at baseline and at 8 weeks. Hyperprolactinaemia-related problems, psychopathology and side-effects were evaluated every 2 weeks.Prolactin levels decreased by 58% in the aripiprazole group compared with an increase by 22% in the placebo group. Prolactin levels normalised in 46% of patients in the aripiprazole group (number needed to treat, NNT=2). Aripiprazole improved erectile dysfunction in five out of six patients. There were no significant differences in change in psychopathology or side-effects between groups.Adjunctive aripiprazole reduced prolactin levels in those treated with risperidone, with no effect on psychopathology and extrapyramidal symptoms. This is a potential treatment for hyperprolactinaemia observed during treatment with second-generation antipsychotics.None.© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.
| S-EPMC4998932 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeA hallmark of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to pulmonary vascular hyperpermeability. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib reversed pulmonary capillary leak in preclinical studies and improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We investigated the effect of intravenous (IV) imatinib on pulmonary edema in COVID-19 ARDS.MethodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Invasively ventilated patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS were randomized to 200 mg IV imatinib or placebo twice daily for a maximum of seven days. The primary outcome was the change in extravascular lung water index (∆EVLWi) between days 1 and 4. Secondary outcomes included safety, duration of invasive ventilation, ventilator-free days (VFD) and 28-day mortality. Posthoc analyses were performed in previously identified biological subphenotypes.Results66 patients were randomized to imatinib (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33). There was no difference in ∆EVLWi between the groups (0.19 ml/kg, 95% CI - 3.16 to 2.77, p = 0.89). Imatinib treatment did not affect duration of invasive ventilation (p = 0.29), VFD (p = 0.29) or 28-day mortality (p = 0.79). IV imatinib was well-tolerated and appeared safe. In a subgroup of patients characterized by high IL-6, TNFR1 and SP-D levels (n = 20), imatinib significantly decreased EVLWi per treatment day (- 1.17 ml/kg, 95% CI - 1.87 to - 0.44).ConclusionsIV imatinib did not reduce pulmonary edema or improve clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. While this trial does not support the use of imatinib in the general COVID-19 ARDS population, imatinib reduced pulmonary edema in a subgroup of patients, underscoring the potential value of predictive enrichment in ARDS trials. Trial registration NCT04794088 , registered 11 March 2021. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number: 2020-005447-23).
| S-EPMC10249575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19.MethodsWe did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021.FindingsBetween March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference -1·7 [-9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [-6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI -7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group.InterpretationThis trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19.FundingSanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
| S-EPMC8078879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with COVID-19, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) might be a mediator of the hyperactive inflammatory response associated with respiratory failure and death. We aimed to evaluate whether mavrilimumab, a monoclonal antibody to the GM-CSF receptor, would improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.MethodsThis investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial was done at seven hospitals in the USA. Inclusion required hospitalisation, COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxaemia, and a C-reactive protein concentration of more than 5 mg/dL. Patients were excluded if they required mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, with stratification by hospital site, to receive mavrilimumab 6 mg/kg as a single intravenous infusion, or placebo. Participants and all clinical and research personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy at day 14. The primary outcome and safety were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04399980, NCT04463004, and NCT04492514.FindingsBetween May 28 and Sept 15, 2020, 40 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to mavrilimumab (n=21) or placebo (n=19). A trial of 60 patients was planned, but given slow enrolment, the study was stopped early to inform the natural history and potential treatment effect. At day 14, 12 (57%) patients in the mavrilimumab group were alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy compared with nine (47%) patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 1·48 [95% CI 0·43-5·16]; p=0·76). There were no treatment-related deaths, and adverse events were similar between groups.InterpretationThere was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and off oxygen therapy at day 14, although benefit or harm of mavrilimumab therapy in this patient population remains possible given the wide confidence intervals, and larger trials should be completed.FundingKiniksa Pharmaceuticals.
| S-EPMC7969143 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9126560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal stromal tumour is the most common sarcoma of the intestinal tract. Imatinib mesylate is a small molecule that inhibits activation of the KIT and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha proteins, and is effective in first-line treatment of metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour. We postulated that adjuvant treatment with imatinib would improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo after resection of localised, primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour.MethodsWe undertook a randomised phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Eligible patients had complete gross resection of a primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour at least 3 cm in size and positive for the KIT protein by immunohistochemistry. Patients were randomly assigned, by a stratified biased coin design, to imatinib 400 mg (n=359) or to placebo (n=354) daily for 1 year after surgical resection. Patients and investigators were blinded to the treatment group. Patients assigned to placebo were eligible to crossover to imatinib treatment in the event of tumour recurrence. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival, and analysis was by intention to treat. Accrual was stopped early because the trial results crossed the interim analysis efficacy boundary for recurrence-free survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00041197.FindingsAll randomised patients were included in the analysis. At median follow-up of 19.7 months (minimum-maximum 0-56.4), 30 (8%) patients in the imatinib group and 70 (20%) in the placebo group had had tumour recurrence or had died. Imatinib significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with placebo (98% [95% CI 96-100] vs 83% [78-88] at 1 year; hazard ratio [HR] 0.35 [0.22-0.53]; one-sided p<0.0001). Adjuvant imatinib was well tolerated, with the most common serious events being dermatitis (11 [3%] vs 0), abdominal pain (12 [3%] vs six [1%]), and diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs five [1%]) in the imatinib group and hyperglycaemia (two [<1%] vs seven [2%]) in the placebo group.InterpretationAdjuvant imatinib therapy is safe and seems to improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo after the resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
| S-EPMC2915459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo confirm the rapid onset anti-suicidal benefits of ketamine in the short term and at six weeks, overall and according to diagnostic group.DesignProspective, double blind, superiority, randomised placebo controlled trial.SettingSeven French teaching hospitals between 13 April 2015 and 12 March 2019.Eligibility criteria for participantsAged 18 or older with current suicidal ideation, admitted to hospital voluntarily. Exclusion criteria included a history of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, substance dependence, and contraindications for ketamine.Participants156 participants were recruited and randomised to placebo (n=83) or ketamine (n=73), stratified by centre and diagnosis: bipolar, depressive, or other disorders.InterventionTwo 40 minute intravenous infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) were administered at baseline and 24 hours, in addition to usual treatment.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the rate of patients in full suicidal remission at day 3, according to the scale for suicidal ideation total score ≤3. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.ResultsMore participants receiving ketamine reached full remission of suicidal ideas at day 3 than those receiving placebo: 46 (63.0%) of 83 participants in the ketamine arm and 25 (31.6%) of 73 in the placebo arm (odds ratio 3.7 (95% confidence interval 1.9 to 7.3), P<0.001). This effect differed according to the diagnosis (treatment: P<0.001; interaction: P=0.02): bipolar (odds ratio 14.1 (95% confidence interval 3.0 to 92.2), P<0.001), depressive (1.3 (0.3 to 5.2), P=0.6), or other disorders (3.7 (0.9 to 17.3, P=0.07)). Side effects were limited. No manic or psychotic symptom was seen. Moreover, a mediating effect of mental pain was found. At week 6, remission in the ketamine arm remained high, although non-significantly versus placebo (69.5% v 56.3%; odds ratio 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.5), P=0.7).ConclusionsThe findings indicate that ketamine is rapid, safe in the short term, and has persistent benefits for acute care in suicidal patients. Comorbid mental disorders appear to be important moderators. An analgesic effect on mental pain might explain the anti-suicidal effects of ketamine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02299440.
| S-EPMC8808464 | biostudies-literature