Colchicine in Recently Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial (COL-COVID).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Colchicine has been proposed as a potential therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to their anti-inflammatory actions.Methods
The COL-COVID study was a prospective, randomized, controlled and open-label clinical trial that compared colchicine added to standard treatment vs standard treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients that do not need mechanical ventilatory support. Colchicine was initiated within the first 48 hours of admission at a 1.5 mg loading dose, followed by 0.5 mg b.i.d. for one week and 0.5 mg per day for 28 days. The study endpoints were clinical status (7-points WHO ordinal scale) and inflammatory biomarkers (IL-6 and CRP).Results
A total of 103 patients (51±12 years, 52% male) were randomly allocated to colchicine arm (n=52) and control arm (n=51). At day 28, all patients in the colchicine group were alive and discharged, whereas in the control group, two patients died in-hospital and one patient remained hospitalized. Clinical improvement in terms of changes on WHO scale at day 14 and 28 and time to 1-point clinical improvement did not differ between the two groups. Clinical deterioration (increase of at least 1-point in WHO scale) was observed in a higher proportion of cases in colchicine group (13.8%) vs control group (5.8%) (p=0.303); after adjustment by baseline risk factors and concomitant therapies, colchicine therapy was associated with a lower risk of clinical deterioration (p=0.030). Inflammatory biomarkers CRP and IL-6 concentrations course did not differ between the two arms.Conclusion
In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, colchicine treatment neither improved the clinical status, nor the inflammatory response, over the standard treatment. Nevertheless, a preventive effect for further clinical deterioration might be possible.Trial registration
NCT04350320.
SUBMITTER: Pascual-Figal DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8445096 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionColchicine acts upstream in the cytokines cascade by inhibiting the nod-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome while interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists, such as tocilizumab, block the end result of the cytokines cascade. Hence, adding colchicine to tocilizumab with the aim of blocking the early and end products of the cytokines cascade, might reduce the risk of developing cytokine storm.Methods and analysisWe aim to conduct an open-label randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding colchicine to tocilizumab among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia to reduce the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. We will include patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who received tocilizumab according to our local guidelines. Enrolled patients will be then randomized in 1:1 to colchicine versus no colchicine. Patients will be followed up for 30 days. The primary outcome is the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and will be determined using Cox proportional hazard model.DiscussionGiven colchicine's ease of use, low cost, good safety profile, and having different anti-inflammatory mechanism of action than other IL-6 blockade, colchicine might serve as a potential anti-inflammatory agent among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This study will provide valuable insights on the use of colchicine in severe COVID-19 when added to IL-6 antagonists.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Research Center and Institutional Review Board at Hamad Medical Corporation in Qatar approved the study protocol (MRC-01-21-299). Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
| S-EPMC9524530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether the addition of colchicine to standard of care (SOC) results in better outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.DesignThis interventional, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study, evaluated colchicine 1.5 mg/day added to SOC in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (COLVID-19 trial) and 227 patients were recruited. The primary outcome was the rate of critical disease in 30 days defined as need of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU), or death.Results152 non-anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated patients (colchicine vs controls: 77vs75, mean age 69.1±13.1 vs 67.9±15 years, 39% vs 33.3% females, respectively) were analyzed. There was no difference in co-primary end-points between patients treated with colchicine compared to controls (mechanical ventilation 5.2% vs 4%, ICU 1.3% vs 5.3%, death 9.1% vs 6.7%, overall 11 (14.3%) vs 10 (13.3%) patients, P=ns, respectively). Mean time to discharge was similar (colchicine vs controls 14.1±10.4 vs 14.7±8.1 days). Older age (>60 years, P=0.025), P/F<275 mmHg (P=0.005), AST>40 U/L (P<0.001), pre-existent heart (P=0.02), lung (P=0.003), upper-gastrointestinal (P=0.014), lower-gastrointestinal diseases (P=0.009) and cancer (P=0.008) were predictive of achieving the primary outcome. Diarrhoea (9.1% vs 0%, p=0.0031) and increased levels of AST at 6 days (76.9±91.8 vs 33.5±20.7 U/l, P=0.016) were more frequent in the colchicine group.ConclusionColchicine did not reduce the rate and the time to the critical stage. Colchicine was relatively safe although adverse hepatic effects require caution. We confirm that older (>60 years) patients with comorbidities are characterized by worse outcome.
| S-EPMC9618432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may cause severe life-threatening diseases called acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) owing to cytokine storms. The mortality rate of COVID-19-related ARDS is as high as 40% to 50%. However, effective treatment for the extensive release of acute inflammatory mediators induced by hyperactive and inappropriate immune responses is very limited. Many anti-inflammatory drugs with variable efficacies have been investigated. Colchicine inhibits interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and its subsequent inflammatory cascade by primarily blocking pyrin and nucleotide-binding domain leucine-rich repeat and pyrin domain containing receptor 3 (NLRP3) activation. Therefore, this cheap, widely available, oral drug might provide an added benefit in combating the cytokine storm in COVID-19. Here, we sought to determine whether adding colchicine to other standards of care could be beneficial for moderate COVID-19 pneumonia in terms of the requirement for advanced respiratory support and mortality.Methods and findingsThis blinded placebo-controlled drug trial was conducted at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. A total of 300 patients with moderate COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR result were enrolled based on strict selection criteria from June 2020 to November 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group in a 1:1 ratio. Patients were administered 1.2 mg of colchicine on day 1 followed by daily treatment with 0.6 mg of colchicine for 13 days or placebo along with the standard of care. The primary outcome was the time to clinical deterioration from randomization to two or more points on a seven-category ordinal scale within the 14 days post-randomization. Clinical outcomes were also recorded on day 28. The primary endpoint was met by 9 (6.2%) patients in the placebo group and 4 (2.7%) patients in the colchicine group (P = 0.171), which corresponds to a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.44 (0.13-1.43). Additional analysis of the outcomes on day 28 revealed significantly lower clinical deterioration (defined as a decrease by two or more points) in the colchicine group, with a hazard ratio [95%CI] of 0.29 [0.098-0.917], (P = 0.035). Despite a 56% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation and death with colchicine treatment on day 14, the reduction was not statistically significant. On day 28, colchicine significantly reduced clinical deterioration measured as the need for mechanical ventilation and all-cause mortality.ConclusionColchicine was not found to have a significant beneficial effect on reducing mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation. However, a delayed beneficial effect was observed. Therefore, further studies should be conducted to evaluate the late benefits of colchicine.Clinical trial registrationClinical trial registration no: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04527562 https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=NCT04527562.
| S-EPMC9668149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset ( NCT04348656 ). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm-relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.
| S-EPMC8604729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCorticosteroids are the cornerstone of the treatment of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. However, whether corticosteroids can prevent respiratory worsening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without oxygen requirements is currently unknown.AimsTo assess the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulses (MPP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with increased levels of inflammatory markers not requiring oxygen at baseline.MethodsMulticenter, parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Spain. Patients admitted for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with raised inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein >60 mg/L, interleukin-6 >40 pg/ml, or ferritin >1,000 μg/L) but without respiratory failure after the first week of symptom onset were randomized to receive a 3-day course of intravenous MPP (120 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days, a composite variable including mortality, the need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation, and clinical worsening, this last parameter defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio below 300; or a 15% decrease in the PaO2 from baseline, together with an increase in inflammatory markers or radiological progression. If clinical worsening occurred, patients received tocilizumab and unmasked corticosteroids. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, adverse events, need for ICU admission or high-flow oxygen, length of hospital stay, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and changes in laboratory parameters.ResultsA total of 72 patients were randomized and 71 patients were analyzed (34 in the MPP group and 37 in the placebo group). Twenty patients presented with treatment failure (29.4 in the MPP group vs. 27.0% in the placebo group, p = 0.82), with no differences regarding the time to treatment failure between groups. There were no cases of death or mechanical ventilation requirements at 14 days post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were similar in MPP and placebo groups.ConclusionsA 3-day course of MPP after the first week of disease onset did not prevent respiratory deterioration in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an inflammatory phenotype who did not require oxygen.
| S-EPMC8919087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of rosuvastatin plus colchicine and emtricitabine/tenofovir in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) has not been assessed. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of rosuvastatin plus colchicine, emtricitabine/tenofovir, and their combined use in these patients.MethodsThis was a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre, parallel, pragmatic study conducted in six referral hospitals in Bogotá, Colombia. The study enrolled hospitalized patients over 18 years of age with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 complicated with pneumonia, not on chronic treatment with the study medications, and with no contraindications for their use. Patients were assigned 1:1:1:1. 1) emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF, 200/300 mg given orally for 10 days); 2) colchicine plus rosuvastatin (COLCH+ROSU, 0.5 mg and 40 mg given orally for 14 days); 3) emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil plus colchicine and rosuvastatin at the same doses and for the same period of time (FTC/TDF+COLCH+ROSU); or 4) the Colombian consensus standard of care, including a corticosteroid (SOC). The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was used together with a usefulness analysis to determine which could be the best treatment. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359095.FindingsOut of 994 candidates considered between August 2020 and March 2021, 649 (65.3%) patients agreed to participate and were enrolled in this study; among them, 633 (97.5%) were included in the analysis. The mean age was 55.4 years (SD ± 12.8 years), and 428 (68%) were men; 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the FTC/TDF+COLCH+ROSUV group than in the SOC group, 10.7% (17/159) vs. 17.4% (28/161) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96). Mortality in the FTC/TDF group was 13.8% (22/160, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.20) and 14.4% in the COLCH+ROSU group (22/153) (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.36). A lower need for invasive mechanical ventilation was observed in the FTC/TDF+COLCH+ROSUV group than in the SOC group (risk difference [RD] - 0.08, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.04). Three patients presented severe adverse events, one severe diarrhoea in the COLCH+ROSU and one in the FTC/TDF+COLCH+ROSU group and one general exanthema in the FTC/TDF group.InterpretationThe combined use of FTC/TDF+COLCH+ROSU reduces the risk of 28-day mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with pulmonary compromise from COVID-19. More randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the effectiveness and cost of treatment with this combination versus other drugs that have been shown to reduce mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection and its usefulness in patients with chronic statin use.
| S-EPMC8686571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Some patients with COVID-19 pneumonia develop an associated cytokine storm syndrome that aggravates the pulmonary disease. These patients may benefit of anti-inflammatory treatment. The role of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation remains unexplored. In a prospective, randomized controlled, observer-blinded endpoint, investigator-initiated trial, 240 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation were randomly allocated to receive oral colchicine or not. The primary efficacy outcome measure was a composite of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (CPAP or BiPAP), admission to the intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or death. The composite primary outcome occurred in 19.3% of the total study population. The composite primary outcome was similar in the two arms (17% in colchicine group vs. 20.8% in the control group; p = 0.533) and the same applied to each of its individual components. Most patients received steroids (98%) and heparin (99%), with similar doses in both groups. In this trial, including adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and associated hyperinflammation, no clinical benefit was observed with short-course colchicine treatment beyond standard care regarding the combined outcome measurement of CPAP/BiPAP use, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation or death (Funded by the Community of Madrid, EudraCT Number: 2020-001841-38; 26/04/2020).
| S-EPMC9161184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTranilast is a potential NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitor that may relieve progressive inflammation due to COVID-19.Aim of the studyTo evaluate the therapeutic effects of Tranilast in combination with antiviral drugs in non-ICU-admitted hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis study was an open-label clinical trial that included 72 hospitals admitted patients with severe COVID-19 at Razi Hospital, Ahvaz, Iran, from July 2020-August 2020. These patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to control (30) and intervention groups (30). Patients in the control group received antiviral therapy, while patients in the intervention group received Tranilast (300 mg daily) in addition to the antiviral drugs for Seven days. The collected data, including the expression of inflammatory cytokine, laboratory tests, and clinical findings, was used for intragroup comparisons.ResultsThe intervention group showed significantly lower levels of NLR (p = 0.001), q-CRP (p = 0.002), IL-1 (p = 0.001), TNF (p = 0.001), and LDH (p = 0.046) in comparison with the control group. The effect of intervention was significant in increasing the o2 saturation (F = 7.72, p = 0.007). Long hospitalization (four days or above) was 36.6% in the Tranilast and 66.6% in the control group (RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.38-1.06, p = 0.045). In the Tranilst and control groups, one and four deaths or hospitalization in ICU were observed respectively (RR = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.03-2.88, p = 0.20).ConclusionsTranilast might be used as an effective and safe adjuvant therapy and enhance the antiviral therapy's efficacy for managing patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8919799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRandomized controlled trials comparing tocilizumab and baricitinib in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial aiming to address this unmet need.MethodsTo determine whether baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab, we assessed whether the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1.50. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to hospital discharge by day 28 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10.ResultsWe assigned 251 patients with COVID-19 and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of <200 to receive either tocilizumab (n = 126) or baricitinib (n = 125) plus standard of care. Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 (mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received baricitinib, 39.2% [n = 49/125]; mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received tocilizumab, 44.4% [n = 56/126]; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.21; p 0.001 for non-inferiority). Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the time to hospital discharge within 28 days (patients who received baricitinib- discharged alive: 58.4% [n = 73/125] vs. patients who received tocilizumab- discharged alive: 52.4% [n = 66/126]; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61-1.18; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and tocilizumab arms in the change in WHO scale at day 10 (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-1.0]; p 0.83).DiscussionIn the setting of this trial, baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab with regards to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 and the time to discharge by day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9636985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective therapies to combat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the clinical benefit of HCQ in treating COVID-19 is unclear. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial of HCQ among patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or placebo for 5 days and followed for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a severe disease progression composite end point (death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and/or vasopressor use) at day 14.ResultsA total of 128 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were similar between the HCQ (n = 67) and placebo (n = 61) arms. At day 14, 11 (16.4%) subjects assigned to HCQ and 6 (9.8%) subjects assigned to placebo met the severe disease progression end point, but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .350). There were no significant differences in COVID-19 clinical scores, number of oxygen-free days, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, or adverse events between HCQ and placebo. HCQ was associated with a slight increase in mean corrected QT interval, an increased D-dimer, and a trend toward an increased length of stay.ConclusionsIn hospitalized patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that HCQ does not prevent severe outcomes or improve clinical scores. However, our conclusions are limited by a relatively small sample size, and larger randomized controlled trials or pooled analyses are needed.
| S-EPMC7543602 | biostudies-literature