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:BackgroundThe use of IL-6 blockers in COVID-19 hospitalized patients has been associated with a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. However, many uncertainties remain pertaining to optimal intervention time, administration schedule, and predictors of response. To date, data on the use of subcutaneous sarilumab is limited and no randomized trial results are available.MethodsOpen label randomized controlled trial at a single center in Spain. We included adult patients admitted with microbiology documented COVID-19 infection, imaging confirmed pneumonia, fever and/or laboratory evidence of inflammatory phenotype, and no need for invasive ventilation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive sarilumab, a single 400 mg dose in two 200 mg subcutaneous injections, added to standard care or standard care, in a 2:1 proportion. Primary endpoints included 30-day mortality, mean change in clinical status at day 7 scored in a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharge (category 7), and duration of hospitalization. The primary efficacy analysis was conducted on the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 30 patients underwent randomization: 20 to sarilumab and 10 to standard care. Most patients were male (20/30, 67%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 61.5 years (56-72). At day 30, 2/20 (10%) patients died in the sarilumab arm vs. none (0/10) in standard care (Log HR 15.11, SE 22.64; p = 0.54). At day 7, no significant differences were observed in the median change in clinical status (2 [0-3]) vs. 3 [0-3], p = 0.32). Median time to discharge (days) was similar (7 [6-11] vs. 6 [4-12]; HR 0.65, SE 0.26; p = 0.27). No significant differences were detected in the rate of progression to invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation.Conclusions and relevanceOur pragmatic pilot study has failed to demonstrate the benefit of adding subcutaneous sarilumab to standard care for mortality by 30 days, functional status at day 7, or hospital stay. Findings herein do not exclude a potential effect of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 but adequately powered blinded randomized phase III trials are warranted to assess the impact of the subcutaneous route and a more selected target population.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04357808.

Project description:ImportanceSevere pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectiveTo determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, setting, and particpantsThis cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.ResultsOf 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], -21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI -28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04331808.

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:BackgroundThe initial insights from the studies on COVID-19 had been disappointing, indicating the necessity of an aggravated search for alternative strategies. In this regard, the adjunct potential of yoga has been proposed for enhancing the effectiveness of the standard of care with respect to COVID-19 management. We tested whether a telemodel of yoga intervention could aid in better clinical management for hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 when complemented with the standard of care.MethodsThis was a randomized controlled trial conducted at the Narayana Hrudyalaya, Bengaluru, India, on hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection enrolled between 31 May and 22 July 2021. The patients (n = 225) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio [adjunct tele-yoga (n = 113) or standard of care]. The adjunct yoga group received intervention in tele-mode within 4-h post-randomization until 14 days along with the standard of care. The primary outcome was the clinical status on day 14 post-randomization, assessed with a seven-category ordinal scale. The secondary outcome set included scores on the COVID Outcomes Scale on day 7, follow-up for clinical status and all-cause mortality on day 28, post-randomization, duration of days at the hospital, 5th-day changes post-randomization for viral load expressed as cyclic threshold (Ct), and inflammatory markers and perceived stress scores on day 14.ResultsAs compared with the standard of care alone, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the 7-point ordinal scale on day 14 were ~1.8 for the adjunct tele-yoga group (OR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.11-3.03). On day 5, there were significant reductions in CRP (P = 0.001) and LDH levels (P = 0.029) in the adjunct yoga group compared to the standard of care alone. CRP reduction was also observed as a potential mediator for the yoga-induced improvement of clinical outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of all-cause mortality on day 28 was the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.05-1.30).ConclusionThe observed 1.8-fold improvement in the clinical status on day 14 of patients of COVID-19 with adjunct use of tele-yoga contests its use as a complementary treatment in hospital settings.