Dataset Information

Assessing the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as outpatient treatment of COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Identification of therapies to prevent severe COVID-19 remains a priority. We sought to determine whether hydroxychloroquine treatment for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection could prevent hospitalization, mechanical ventilation or death.

Methods

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in Alberta during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic without direct contact with participants. Community-dwelling individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] viral ribonucleic acid test) within the previous 4 days, and symptom onset within the previous 12 days, were randomly assigned to oral hydroxychloroquine or matching placebo for 5 days. Enrolment began Apr. 15, 2020. The primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included symptom duration and disposition at 30 days. Safety outcomes, such as serious adverse events and mortality, were also ascertained. Outcomes were determined by telephone follow-up and administrative data.

Results

Among 4919 individuals with a positive RT-PCR test, 148 (10.2% of a planned 1446 patients) were randomly assigned, 111 to hydroxychloroquine and 37 to placebo. Of the 148 participants, 24 (16.2%) did not start the study drug. Four participants in the hydroxychloroquine group met the primary outcome (4 hospitalizations, 0 mechanical ventilation, 4 survived to 30 days) and none in the placebo group. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce symptom duration (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.21). Recruitment was paused on May 22, 2020, when a since-retracted publication raised concerns about the safety of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Although we had not identified concerns in a safety review, enrolment was slower than expected among those eligible for the study, and cases within the community were decreasing. Recruitment goals were deemed to be unattainable and the trial was not resumed, resulting in a study underpowered to assess the effect of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and safety.

Interpretation

There was no evidence that hydroxychloroquine reduced symptom duration or prevented severe outcomes among outpatients with proven COVID-19, but the early termination of our study meant that it was underpowered.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04329611.

SUBMITTER: Schwartz I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8248582 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite several studies designed to evaluate the efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is still doubt about the effects of these drugs, especially in patients with severe forms of the disease. This randomized, open-label, controlled, phase III trial assessed the efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for five days in combination with standard care compared to standard care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Chloroquine 450 mg BID on day 1 and 450 mg once daily from days 2 to 5 or hydroxychloroquine 400 mg BID on day 1 and 400 mg once daily from days 2 to 5 were administered in the intervention group. Patients were enrolled from April 16 to August 06, 2020, in 6 hospitals in southern Brazil. The primary outcome was the clinical status measured on day 14 after randomization with a 9-point ordinal scale. The main secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality; invasive mechanical ventilation use; the incidence of acute renal dysfunction in 28 days; and the clinical status of patients on days 5, 7, 10 and 28. All patients with a positive RT-PCR result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were analyzed (modified intention to treat (mITT) population). Arrythmias and cardiovascular complications were assessed as safety outcomes. A total of 105 patients were enrolled and followed for 28 days. The trial was stopped before reaching the planned sample size due to harmful effects. Patients in the intervention group had a worse clinical outcome on the 14th day (odds ratio (OR) 2.45 [1.17 to 4.93], p = 0.016) and on the 28th day (OR 2.47 [1.15 to 5.30], p = 0.020). Moreover, the intervention group had higher incidences of invasive mechanical ventilation use (risk ratio (RR) 2.15 [1.05 to 4.40], p = 0.030) and severe renal dysfunction (KDIGO stage 3) (RR 2.24 [1.01 to 4.99], p = 0.042) until the 28th day of follow-up. No significant arrythmia was noted. In patients with severe COVID-19, the use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine added to standard treatment resulted in a significant worsening of clinical status, an increased risk of renal dysfunction and an increased need for invasive mechanical ventilation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04420247. Registered 09 June 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04420247 .

Project description:BackgroundEnsovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.ObjectiveTo investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone.DesignDouble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978).SettingMultinational, multicenter trial.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionIntravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo.MeasurementsEnsovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90.ResultsAn independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep).LimitationThe trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome.ConclusionCompared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundHydroxychloroquine has shown potential to block viral replication of SARS-CoV-2 in some in vitro studies. This randomised, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ/AZT) in reducing viral loads in patients with early and mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsA single-centre randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with outpatients with early and mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 18-65 years with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 for < 5 days, no significant comorbidities, and positive nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab screening tests (POCT-PCR). Randomised patients received either hydroxychloroquine for 7 days plus azithromycin for 5 days or placebo. The primary endpoint was viral clearance within a 9-day period. Secondary endpoints included viral load reduction, clinical evolution, hospitalization rates, chest computed tomography evolution, and adverse effects.ResultsFrom 107 potential trial participants, 84 were enrolled following predetermined criteria. Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat (N = 84) and per-protocol (PP) basis (N = 70). On the PP analysis, the treatment (N = 36) and placebo (N = 34) groups displayed similar demographic characteristics. At 95% CI, no statistically significant between-group differences were found in viral clearance rates within 9 days following enrolment (P = 0.26).ConclusionsThis randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating outpatients with early and mild COVID-19 showed that viral clearance rates within a 9-day period from enrolment did not change with HCQ/AZT treatment compared with placebo, although no major cardiovascular events were observed in participants without comorbidities. Secondary outcomes were also not significantly improved with HCQ/AZT treatment compared with placebo. These findings do not support use of HCQ/AZT in this setting.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and an effective treatment is needed. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 which causes the disease, but the evidence from in vivo studies so far has been inconclusive.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19.Data sourcesWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for all articles published between 01 January 2020 to 15 September 2020 on CQ/HCQ and COVID-19 using a predefined search protocol; without any language restrictions. A search of grey literature repositories (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature and Open Grey), and pre-publication server deposits (medRxIV and bioRxIV) was also performed.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared CQ/HCQ to standard supportive therapy in treating COVID-19 were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted from original publications by four independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effect models. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The primary prespecified efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse effect attributed to use of CQ/HCQ.ResultsEight RCTs were included and pooled in the mortality meta-analysis (6,592 unique participants; mean age = 59.4 years; 42% women). CQ/HCQ did not show any mortality benefit when compared to standard supportive therapy (Pooled Relative Risk [RR] 1.07; 95% CI = 0.97-1.18; I2 statistic = 0.00%). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses showed similar findings. Any adverse event was significantly higher in patients randomized to CQ/HCQ (RR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818 patients), but the risk of developing severe adverse event was not statistically significant (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456 patients).Conclusions and relevanceEvidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Project description:BackgroundSome studies suggested that adequate levels of vitamin D (VD) decrease the risk of severe COVID-19. Information about the effectiveness of VD supplementation in children is scarce.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of VD supplementation compared to the standard of care in hospitalized children with COVID-19.Patients and methodsAn open-label randomized controlled single-blind clinical trial was carried out. We included patients from 1 month to 17 years, with moderate COVID-19, who required hospitalization and supplemental oxygen. They were randomized into two groups: the VD group, which received doses of 1,000 (children < 1 year) or 2,000 IU/day (from 1 to 17 years) and the group without VD (control). The outcome variables were the progression of oxygen requirement, the development of complications, and death.Statistical analysisFor comparison between groups, we used the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsFrom 24 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, 87 patients were eligible to participate in the trial; 45 patients were randomized: 20 to the VD group and 25 to the control group. There was no difference in general characteristics at baseline, including serum VD levels (median 13.8 ng/ml in the VD group and 11.4 ng/ml in the control group).Outcomes2/20 (10%) in the VD group vs. 9/25 (36%) in the control group progressed to a superior ventilation modality (p = 0.10); one patient in the VD group died (5%) compared to 6 (24%) patients in the control group (p = 0.23). ARR was 26% (95% CI 8.8 to 60.2%) and NNT was 3 (2 to 11) for progression and ARR was 19% (95% CI -3.9 to 42.8%) and NNT was 6 (2 to 26) for death. None of the patients receiving VD had adverse effects. The trial was stopped for ethical reasons; since after receiving the results of the basal VD values, none of the patients had normal levels.ConclusionIn this trial, VD supplementation in pediatric patients seems to decrease the risk of COVID-19 progression and death. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.Clinical trial registrationThis protocol was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT04502667.