Dataset Information

Umifenovir in hospitalized moderate to severe COVID-19 patients: A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The effectiveness of umifenovir against COVID-19 is controversial; therefore, clinical trials are crucial to evaluate its efficacy.

Methods

The study was conducted as a single-center, randomized, open-label clinical trial. Eligible moderate-severe hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection were randomly segregated into intervention and control groups. The intervention group were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg bid for 10-14 days) + hydroxychloroquine (400 mg single dose) + interferon-β1a (Subcutaneous injections of 44 µg (12,000 IU) on days 1, 3, 5) + umifenovir (200 mg trice daily for 10 days), and the control group received lopinavir/ritonavir (same dose) + hydroxychloroquine (same dose) + interferon-β1a (same dose).

Results

Of 1180 patients with positive RT-PCRs and positive chest CT scans, 101 patients were finally included in the trial; 50 were assigned to receive IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir group and 51 were managed to treat with IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir + umifenovir. Since all patients received the intended treatment as scheduled, the analysis just included as the ITT population. Time to clinical improvement (TTCI) did not hold a statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups (median, 9 days for intervention group versus 7 days for the control group; P: 0.22). Besides, Hazard Ratio for TTCI in the Cox regression model was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45-1.23, P:0.25) which also confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (38% in controls vs 33.3% treatment group).

Conclusions

Our findings shed new lights on the facts that additional umifenovir has not been found to be effective in shortening the duration of SARS-CoV-2 in severe patients and improving the prognosis in non-ICU patients and mortality.

Trial registration

The trial was confirmed by the Ethics in Medical Research Committee of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. signed informed consents were obtained from all the participants or their legally authorized representatives. This trial has been registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350684.

SUBMITTER: Alavi Darazam I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270750 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNafamostat, a serine protease inhibitor, has been used for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation and pancreatitis. In vitro studies and clinical reports suggest its beneficial effect in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsThis phase 2 open-label, randomised, multicentre, controlled trial evaluated nafamostat (4.8 mg/kg/day) plus standard-of-care (SOC) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (i.e., those requiring nasal high-flow oxygen therapy and/or non-invasive mechanical ventilation). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcomes included the time to recovery, rates of recovery and National Early Warning Score (NEWS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04623021.FindingsA total of 104 patients, mean age 58.6 years were enrolled in 13 clinical centres in Russia between 25/9/2020 and 14/11/2020 and randomised to nafamostat plus SOC (n=53) or SOC alone (n=51). There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement (primary endpoint) between the nafamostat and SOC groups (median 11 [interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 14) vs 11 [IQR 9 to 14] days; Rate Ratio [RR; the ratio for clinical improvement], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.57; p=0.953). In 36 patients with baseline NEWS ≥7, nafamostat was superior to SOC alone in median time to clinical improvement (11 vs 14 days; RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.17 to 7.14; p=0.012). Patients receiving nafamostat in this subgroup had a significantly higher recovery rate compared with SOC alone (61.1% (11/18) vs 11.1 % (2/18) by Day 11, p=0.002). The 28-day mortality was 1.9% (1/52) for nafamostat and 8.0% (4/50) for SOC (95% CI, -17.0 to 3.4; p=0.155). No case of COVID-19 related serious adverse events leading to death was recorded in the patients receiving nafamostat.InterpretationOur study found no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between the nafamostat and SOC groups, but a shorter median time to clinical improvement in a small group of high-risk COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen treatment. To assess the efficacy further, a larger Phase 3 clinical trial is warranted.FundingKorea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology [2020M3A9H5108928] and Chong Kun Dang (CKD) Pharm (Seoul, Korea).

Project description:Recent evidence points to a potential therapeutic role for glycyrrhizin(GR) and boswellic acids (BA) in the treatment of COVID-19 but conclusive evidence is lacking. Our aim is to investigate the efficacy of GR + BA versus placebo for the treatment of hospitalized patients with moderate SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 variants infection. The current study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center trial. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 variants diagnosed by PCR test who were admitted to Sohag University hospital were eligible if they were at least 18 years of age and had moderate symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral GR capsule (60 mg) and BA (200 mg) twice daily for 14 days or a matching placebo. All patients also received treatment with the institutional protocol for COVID-19. The primary outcome was mortality and time to recovery. Secondary outcome was clinical status score, 14 days after receiving study drugs. Adverse events from use of study drugs have been evaluated for up to 14 days. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT04487964). During the 6-month enrollment period (June-November, 2021) only 50 patients (54% women; median age 60 years, IQR 54-65) met eligibility and were randomly assigned. Evaluation of the primary outcome at 14 days showed that there were five deaths in the placebo group and no deaths in the GR + BA group. With regard to recovery time, it was significantly shorter (p = 0.0001) in the group receiving GR + BA capsule compared to the placebo group (median 7.0; IQR 6.0-8.0 days vs. median 12.5; IQR 12-20 days). Clinical status on the ordinal score scale as a secondary outcome showed a significant difference between the GR + BA group (median (IQR) score, 2 [2-3]) and placebo groups (mean (IQR) score, 3 [3-5.5]). There was a significant decrease in CRB (p = 0.000041) in GR + BA compared with the placebo group. In conclusion, this safe, inexpensive, antiviral, immunomodulating and anti-inflammatory combination may be considered for use in mild to moderate infections of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 variants. The study is limited by the small sample size; therefore, larger randomized trials are required.

Project description:BackgroundRegular physical activity (PA) has been postulated to improve, or at least maintain, immunity across the life span. However, the link between physical (in)activity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be established. This small-scale prospective cohort study is nested within a randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the possible associations between PA levels and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.MethodsHospitalized patients with COVID-19 (mean age: 54.9 years) were recruited from the Clinical Hospital of the School of Medicine of the University of Sao Paulo (a quaternary referral teaching hospital) and from Ibirapuera Field Hospital, both located in Sao Paulo, Brazil. PA level was assessed using the Baecke Questionnaire of Habitual Physical Activity. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. The secondary outcomes were mortality, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation requirement.ResultsThe median hospital length of stay was 7.0 ± 4.0 days, median ± IQR; 3.3% of patients died, 13.8% were admitted to the ICU, and 8.6% required mechanical ventilation. Adjusted linear regression models showed that PA indices were not associated with hospital length of stay (work index: β = -0.57 (95% confidence interval (95%CI): -1.80 to 0.65), p = 0.355; sport index: β = 0.43 (95%CI: -0.94 to 1.80), p = 0.536; leisure-time index: β = 1.18 (95%CI: -0.22 to 2.59), p = 0.099; and total activity index: β = 0.20 (95%CI: -0.48 to 0.87), p = 0.563). None of the PA indices were associated with mortality, admission to the ICU, or mechanical ventilation requirement (all p > 0.050).ConclusionAmong hospitalized patients with COVID-19, PA did not independently associate with hospital length of stay or any other clinically relevant outcomes. These findings should be interpreted as meaning that, among already hospitalized patients with more severe forms of COVID-19, being active is a potential protective factor likely outweighed by a cluster of comorbidities (e.g., type 2 diabetes, hypertension, weight excess) and older age, suggesting that the benefit of PA against the worsening of COVID-19 may vary across stages of the disease.

Project description:ImportanceThere is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen.Design, setting, and participantsCONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation.InterventionsA unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8.ResultsOf 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06).Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

Project description:Background: In addition to supportive therapy, antiviral therapy is an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg*3/day) or favipiravir (1600 mg*2/first day followed by 600 mg*2/day) for 7 days. The primary outcome was the clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration (relief for pyrexia and cough, respiratory frequency ≤24 times/min; oxygen saturation ≥98%). Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough and the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV)/mechanical ventilation (MV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days. Results: A total of 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 patients were assigned to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). The clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration did not significantly differ between the favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (p = 0.1396, difference in recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: -0.0305∼0.2213). Favipiravir contributed to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, p < 0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the AOT or NMV/MV rate (both p > 0.05). The most frequently observed favipiravir-associated adverse event was increased serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, p = 0.0014). Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinical recovery rate at day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relieve pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused by favipiravir are mild and manageable.