Dataset Information

Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine Combination Therapy in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 (FACCT Trial): An Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Antiviral drugs have shown limited effectiveness in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to assess the effects of a favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine combination on treating moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients.

Methods

An investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial at nine hospitals. Eligible patients were adults with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 defined as oxygen saturation (SaO₂) of ≤ 94% while breathing ambient air or significant clinical symptoms with chest x-ray changes requiring hospital admission. Randomization was in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care (control group) or standard care plus favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine. The primary outcome was time to clinical improvement of two points (from the status at randomization) on a seven-category ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital within 14 days. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population.

Results

From May 2020 to Jan 2021, 254 patients were enrolled; 129 were assigned to standard of care and 125 to the treatment. The mean age was 52 (± 13) years, and 103 (41%) were women. At randomization, six patients were on invasive mechanical ventilation, 229 (90.15%) were requiring supplemental oxygen only (with or without non-invasive ventilation), and 19 (7.48%) were receiving neither. The time to clinical improvement was not significantly different between the groups: median of 9 days in the treatment group and 7 days in the control group (HR: 0.845; 95% CI 0.617-1.157; p-value = 0.29). The 28-day mortality was not significantly different between the groups (7.63% treatment) vs. (10.32% control); p-value = 0.45. The most prevalent adverse events were headache, elevation in ALT, and the prolonged QTc interval in the treatment group.

Conclusion

The combination of favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine did not result in a statistically significant clinical benefit in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04392973).

SUBMITTER: Bosaeed M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8316887 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN:Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020. PARTICIPANTS:150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone). INTERVENTIONS:Hydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Negative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone. RESULTS:Of 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ChiCTR2000029868.

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:BackgroundPatients with COVID-19 pneumonia can have increased inflammation and elevated cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-6, which might be deleterious. Thus, sarilumab, a high-affinity anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, might improve the outcome of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe did a multicentric, open-label, Bayesian randomised, adaptive, phase 2/3 clinical trial, nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, to test a superiority hypothesis. Patients 18 years or older hospitalised with COVID-19 in six French centres, requiring at least 3L/min of oxygen but without ventilation assistance and a WHO Clinical Progression Scale [CPS] score of 5 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based system, according to a randomisation list stratified on centre and with blocks randomly selected among 2 and 4, to receive usual care plus 400 mg of sarilumab intravenously on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (sarilumab group) or usual care alone (usual care group). Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with WHO-CPS scores greater than 5 on the 10-point scale on day 4 and survival without invasive or non-invasive ventilation at day 14. This completed trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324073.Findings165 patients were recruited from March 27 to April 6, 2020, and 148 patients were randomised (68 patients to the sarilumab group and 80 to the usual care group) and followed up for 90 days. Median age was 61·7 years [IQR 53·0-71·1] in the sarilumab group and 62·8 years [56·0-71·7] in the usual care group. In the sarilumab group 49 (72%) of 68 were men and in the usual care group 59 (78%) of 76 were men. Four patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. 18 (26%) of 68 patients in the sarilumab group had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 versus 20 (26%) of 76 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference 0·2%; 90% credible interval [CrI] -11·7 to 12·2), with a posterior probability of absolute risk difference greater than 0 of 48·9%. At day 14, 25 (37%) patients in the sarilumab and 26 (34%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, (median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 1·10; 90% CrI 0·69-1·74) with a posterior probability HR greater than 1 of 37·4%. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (40%) patients in the sarilumab group and 28 (37%) patients in the usual care group (p=0·73).InterpretationSarilumab treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of sarilumab on long-term survival.FundingAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.