Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in patients with COVID19 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Phase III Clinical Trial (SARTRE Study).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is often associated with hyper-inflammation. The cytokine-storm-like is one of the targets of current therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). High Interleukin-6 (IL6) blood levels have been identified in severe COVID-19 disease, but there are still uncertainties regarding the actual role of anti-IL6 antagonists in COVID-19 management. Our hypothesis was that the use of sarilumab plus corticosteroids at an early stage of the hyper-inflammatory syndrome would be beneficial and prevent progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

We randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized patients under standard oxygen therapy and laboratory evidence of hyper-inflammation to receive sarilumab plus usual care (experimental group) or usual care alone (control group). Corticosteroids were given to all patients at a 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (defined as a score in the Brescia-COVID19 scale ≥ 3) up to day 15.

Results

A total of 201 patients underwent randomization: 99 patients in the sarilumab group and 102 patients in the control group. The rate of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (Brescia-COVID scale score ≥ 3) up to day 15 was 16.16% in the Sarilumab group versus 15.69% in the control group (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48-2.20). No relevant safety issues were identified.

Conclusions

In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia, who were under standard oxygen therapy and who presented analytical inflammatory parameters, an early therapeutic intervention with sarilumab plus standard of care (including corticosteroids) was not shown to be more effective than current standard of care alone. The study was registered at EudraCT with number: 2020-002037-15.

SUBMITTER: Sancho-Lopez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8520759 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus. Favipiravir is an orally administrable antiviral drug whose mechanism of action is to selectively inhibit RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. A preliminary trial in COVID-19 patients reported significant improvements across a multitude of clinical parameters, but these findings have not been confirmed in an adequate well-controlled trial. We conducted a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial assessing the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in patients with moderate pneumonia not requiring oxygen therapy.MethodsCOVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia (SpO2 ≥ 94%) within 10 days of onset of fever (temperature ≥ 37.5 °C) were assigned to receive either placebo or favipiravir (1800 mg twice a day on Day 1, followed by 800 mg twice a day for up to 13 days) in a ratio of 1:2. An adaptive design was used to re-estimate the sample size. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome defined as the time to improvement in temperature, oxygen saturation levels (SpO2), and findings on chest imaging, and recovery to SARS-CoV-2-negative. This endpoint was re-examined by the Central Committee under blinded conditions.ResultsA total of 156 patients were randomized. The median time of the primary endpoint was 11.9 days in the favipiravir group and 14.7 days in the placebo group, with a significant difference (p = 0.0136). Favipiravir-treated patients with known risk factors such as obesity or coexisting conditions provided better effects. Furthermore, patients with early-onset in the favipiravir group showed higher odds ratio. No deaths were documented. Although adverse events in the favipiravir group were predominantly transient, the incidence was significantly higher.ConclusionsThe results suggested favipiravir may be one of options for moderate COVID-19 pneumonia treatment. However, the risk of adverse events, including hyperuricemia, should be carefully considered.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.jp number: JapicCTI-205238.

Project description:BackgroundOral finasteride is a well-established treatment for men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA), but long-term therapy is not always acceptable to patients. A topical finasteride formulation has been developed to minimize systemic exposure by acting specifically on hair follicles.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical finasteride compared with placebo, and to analyse systemic exposure and overall benefit compared with oral finasteride.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, double dummy, parallel-group, 24-week study was conducted in adult male outpatients with AGA at 45 sites in Europe. Efficacy and safety were evaluated. Finasteride, testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) concentrations were measured.ResultsOf 458 randomized patients, 323 completed the study and 446 were evaluated for safety. Change from baseline in target area hair count (TAHC) at week 24 (primary efficacy endpoint) was significantly greater with topical finasteride than placebo (adjusted mean change 20.2 vs. 6.7 hairs; P < 0.001), and numerically similar between topical and oral finasteride. Statistically significant differences favouring topical finasteride over placebo were observed for change from baseline in TAHC at week 12 and investigator-assessed change from baseline in patient hair growth/loss at week 24. Incidence and type of adverse events, and cause of discontinuation, did not differ meaningfully between topical finasteride and placebo. No serious adverse events were treatment related. As maximum plasma finasteride concentrations were >100 times lower, and reduction from baseline in mean serum DHT concentration was lower (34.5 vs. 55.6%), with topical vs. oral finasteride, there is less likelihood of systemic adverse reactions of a sexual nature related to a decrease in DHT with topical finasteride.ConclusionTopical finasteride significantly improves hair count compared to placebo and is well tolerated. Its effect is similar to that of oral finasteride, but with markedly lower systemic exposure and less impact on serum DHT concentrations.

Project description:Importance and objectiveThe aim of this pragmatic, embedded, adaptive trial was to measure the effectiveness of the subcutaneous anti-IL-6R antibody sarilumab, when added to an evolving standard of care (SOC), for clinical management of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease.DesignTwo-arm, randomized, open-label controlled trial comparing SOC alone to SOC plus sarilumab. The trial used a randomized play-the-winner design and was fully embedded within the electronic health record (EHR) system.Setting5 VA Medical Centers.ParticipantsHospitalized patients with clinical criteria for moderate to severe COVID-19 but not requiring mechanical ventilation, and a diagnostic test positive for SARS-CoV-2.InterventionsSarilumab, 200 or 400 mg subcutaneous injection. SOC was not pre-specified and could vary over time, e.g., to include antiviral or other anti-inflammatory drugs.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was intubation or death within 14 days of randomization. All data were extracted remotely from the EHR.ResultsAmong 162 eligible patients, 53 consented, and 50 were evaluated for the primary endpoint of intubation or death. This occurred in 5/20 and 1/30 of participants in the sarilumab and SOC arms respectively, with the majority occurring in the initial 9 participants (3/4 in the sarilumab and 1/5 in the SOC) before the sarilumab dose was increased to 400 mg and before remdesivir and dexamethasone were widely adopted. After interim review, the unblinded Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the study be stopped due to concern for safety: a high probability that rates of intubation or death were higher with addition of sarilumab to SOC (92.6%), and a very low probability (3.4%) that sarilumab would be found to be superior.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized trial of patients hospitalized due to respiratory compromise from COVID-19 but not mechanical ventilation found no benefit from subcutaneous sarilumab when added to an evolving SOC. The numbers of patients and events were too low to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn, but this study contributes valuable information about the role of subcutaneous IL-6R inhibition in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods developed and piloted during this trial will be useful in conducting future studies more efficiently.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov-NCT04359901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04359901?cond=NCT04359901&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:ObjectiveTo prospectively assess the efficacy, general safety, and joint safety of fasinumab, an anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in osteoarthritis (OA) hip and/or knee pain.MethodsPatients with moderate-to-severe OA pain (knee or hip) and history of inadequate response or intolerance to analgesics were randomized to receive fasinumab (at 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, or 9 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks over 16 weeks and were followed up to week 36. Efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 16 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and patient global assessment (PGA) of OA. Joints were monitored at scheduled assessments (by plain film radiography and magnetic resonance imaging) during treatment and follow-up, and if prompted, at the time of active joint symptoms.ResultsOf the 421 patients randomized, 342 completed the 36-week study. All doses of fasinumab yielded statistically significant and clinically important reductions in pain compared to placebo (least squares mean difference in WOMAC pain subscale scores at week 16 ranging -0.78 to -1.40), without any clear dose dependence. Physical function and PGA scores improved in parallel. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 17% with fasinumab and 10% with placebo, and 4% and 1% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment. Arthropathies (25 in total, 7% of fasinumab-treated patients and 1% of placebo-treated patients) occurred in a dose-dependent manner, with 2 occurring in patients receiving the lowest dose of fasinumab and 10 in patients receiving the highest dose. Most of the arthropathies (16 of 25) were discovered with scheduled radiographs and not based on symptoms. Destructive arthropathy (in 1 of 337 treated patients) occurred in 1 patient who was receiving 6 mg fasimumab.ConclusionFasinumab provided improvements in OA pain and function, even in those benefitting little from previous analgesics. The observed benefit-to-risk relationship favors further clinical development to explore the lowest doses of fasinumab in patients with knee or hip OA.

Project description:Abstract Background The aim of this pragmatic, embedded adaptive trial was to measure the effectiveness of subcutaneous sarilumab in addition to an evolving standard of care for clinical management of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease (NCT04359901). The study is also a real-world demonstration of the realization of a prospective learning healthcare system. Methods Two-arm, randomized, open-label controlled 5-center trial comparing standard care alone to standard care (SOC), which evolved over time, with addition of subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg or 400 mg anti-IL6R) among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was 14-day incidence of intubation or death. The trial used a randomized play-the-winner design and was fully embedded within the EHR system, including the adaptive randomization process. Results Among 417 patients screened, 162 were eligible based on chart review, 53 consented, and 50 were evaluated for the primary endpoint of intubation or death ( >30% of eligible patients enrolled) (Figure 1). After the second interim review, the unblinded Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the study be stopped due to concern for safety: a high probability that rates of intubation or death were higher with addition of sarilumab to SOC (92.6%), and a very low probability (3.4%) that sarilumab would be found to be superior. Figure 1. Key Study Milestones, Outcomes, and Adaptations Conclusion This randomized trial of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and requiring supplemental oxygen but not mechanical ventilation found no evidence of benefit from subcutaneous sarilumab in addition to an evolving standard-of-care. The numbers of patients and events were too low to allow independent conclusions to be drawn, but this study contributes valuable information about the role of subcutaneous IL-6 inhibition in the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The major innovation of this trial was the advancement of embedded, point-of-care clinical trials for FDA-approved drugs; this represents a realization of the learning healthcare system. Methods developed and piloted during the conduct of this trial can be used in future investigations to speed the advancement of clinical science. Disclosures Nishant Shah, MD, General Electric (Shareholder)Pfizer, Inc. (Research Grant or Support) Karen Visnaw, RN, Liquidia (Shareholder) Paul Monach, MD,PhD, Celgene (Consultant)ChemoCentryx (Consultant)Kiniksa (Advisor or Review Panel member)

Project description:Despite the availability of numerous treatment options, many patients with gastritis experience only partial symptom relief. CKD-495, a newly developed product with the active ingredient extracted from Cinnamomum cassia Presl., has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activity in vitro and an in vivo protective effect against gastric damage by stimulating mucus secretion. This study compared the efficacy and safety of CKD-495 with Artemisiae argyi folium (AAF) for the treatment of acute and chronic gastritis. AAF, a gastric mucosa protective agent that promotes gastric mucosa regeneration, has been used clinically for about 20 years. This phase III multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04255589) assigned 242 patients with endoscopically-proven gastric mucosal erosions to receive CKD-495 75 mg (n = 122) or AAF 60 mg (n = 120), respectively, with placebo (for double-blind purposes) 3 times a day for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the erosion improvement rate. Secondary endpoints included erosion cure rates, and improvement rates for edema, redness, hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Drug-related adverse events were evaluated. The erosion improvement rate was significantly higher in the CKD-495 group than in the AAF group for both the full analysis set (55.9% vs 39.4%, P = .0063) and per-protocol set (54.6% vs 38.2%, P = .0084). In addition, the erosion improvement rate in patients with acute or chronic gastritis showed that the CKD-495 group had better improvement of erosion than the AAF group, especially in patients with chronic gastritis. Analysis of secondary endpoints, which included erosion cure rate and the improvement rates of edema, redness, hemorrhage, and GI symptoms, showed that the CKD-495 group was more effective than the AAF group. There were no significant between-group differences in safety profiles. No serious adverse events or adverse drug reactions occurred. These results demonstrate that CKD-495 75 mg is superior to AAF 60 mg in terms of the endoscopic improvement rate of erosions in patients with acute or chronic gastritis. This new mucoprotective agent, CKD-495, can be considered the therapy of choice for symptomatic relief and healing of gastritis.