Effect of high versus low dose of dexamethasone on clinical worsening in patients hospitalised with moderate or severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: an open-label, randomised clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Low dose dexamethasone demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) needing oxygen therapy; however, evidence on the efficacy of high dose of dexamethasone is limited.Methods
We performed a randomised, open-label, controlled trial involving hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia needing oxygen therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive low dose dexamethasone (6 mg once daily for 10 days) or high dose dexamethasone (20 mg once daily for 5 days, followed by 10 mg once daily for additional 5 days). The primary outcome was clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to recovery, and clinical status at day 5, 11, 14 and 28 on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (discharged) to 7 (death).Results
A total of 200 patients (mean (sd) age, 64 (14) years; 62% male) were enrolled. Thirty-two patients of 102 (31.4%) enrolled in the low dose group and 16 of 98 (16.3%) in the high dose group showed clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation (rate ratio, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.216-0.842; p=0.014). The 28-day mortality was 5.9% in the low dose group and 6.1% in the high dose group (p=0.844). There was no significant difference in time to recovery, and in the 7-point ordinal scale at day 5, 11, 14 and 28.Conclusions
Among hospitalised COVID-19 patients needing oxygen therapy, high dose of dexamethasone reduced clinical worsening within 11 days after randomisation as compared with low dose.
SUBMITTER: Taboada M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8678498 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8598187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effects of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. This study investigates the effect CP on clinical improvement in these patients.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated, randomised, parallel arm, open-label, superiority clinical trial. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to two infusions of CP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement 28 days after enrolment.ResultsA total of 160 (80 in each arm) patients (66.3% were critically ill and 33.7%, severe) completed the trial. The median age was 60.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 48-68), 58.1% were men and the median time from symptom onset to randomisation was 10 days (IQR, 8-12). Neutralising antibodies titres >1:80 were present in 133 (83.1%) patients at baseline. The proportion of patients with clinical improvement on day 28 was 61.3% in the CP+SOC and 65.0% in the SOC group (difference, -3.7%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -18.8%-11.3%). The results were similar in the subgroups of severe and critically ill. There was no significant difference between CP+SOC and SOC groups in prespecified secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality, days alive and free of respiratory support and duration of invasive ventilatory support. Inflammatory and other laboratorial markers values on days 3, 7 and 14 were similar between groups.ConclusionsCP+SOC did not result in a higher proportion of clinical improvement on at day 28 in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 compared to SOC alone.
| S-EPMC8287736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-dose dexamethasone is a mainstay of therapy for multiple myeloma. We studied whether low-dose dexamethasone in combination with lenalidomide is non-inferior to and has lower toxicity than high-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide.MethodsPatients with untreated symptomatic myeloma were randomly assigned in this open-label non-inferiority trial to lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 of a 28-day cycle (high dose), or lenalidomide given on the same schedule with dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle (low dose). After four cycles, patients could discontinue therapy to pursue stem-cell transplantation or continue treatment until disease progression. The primary endpoint was response rate after four cycles assessed with European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant criteria. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 15% in response rate. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00098475.Findings445 patients were randomly assigned: 223 to high-dose and 222 to low-dose regimens. 169 (79%) of 214 patients receiving high-dose therapy and 142 (68%) of 205 patients on low-dose therapy had complete or partial response within four cycles (odds ratio 1.75, 80% CI 1.30-2.32; p=0.008). However, at the second interim analysis at 1 year, overall survival was 96% (95% CI 94-99) in the low-dose dexamethasone group compared with 87% (82-92) in the high-dose group (p=0.0002). As a result, the trial was stopped and patients on high-dose therapy were crossed over to low-dose therapy. 117 patients (52%) on the high-dose regimen had grade three or worse toxic effects in the first 4 months, compared with 76 (35%) of the 220 on the low-dose regimen for whom toxicity data were available (p=0.0001), 12 of 222 on high dose and one of 220 on low-dose dexamethasone died in the first 4 months (p=0.003). The three most common grade three or higher toxicities were deep-vein thrombosis, 57 (26%) of 223 versus 27 (12%) of 220 (p=0.0003); infections including pneumonia, 35 (16%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0.04), and fatigue 33 (15%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0.08), respectively.InterpretationLenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is associated with better short-term overall survival and with lower toxicity than lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.FundingNational Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
| S-EPMC3042271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat COVID-19 early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Methods In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicenter clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel Coronavirus [DAWn]), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 patients were allocated 2:1 to receive standard of care plus azithromycin or standard of care alone. The primary outcome was time to live discharge or sustained clinical improvement, defined as a two-point improvement on the WHO ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days. Results Patients were included between April 22 and December 17, 2020. When 15-day follow-up data were available for 160 patients (56% of preset cohort), an interim analysis was performed at request of the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Subsequently, DAWn-AZITHRO was stopped for futility. In total, 121 patients were allocated to the treatment arm and 64 patients to the standard of care arm. We found no effect of azithromycin on the primary outcome with Hazard ratio of 1.044 (95% confidence interval, 0.772–1.413; p=0.7798). None of the predefined subgroups showed significant interaction as covariates in the Fine-Gray regression analysis. No benefit of azithromycin was found on any of the short- and longer-term secondary outcomes. Conclusion Time to clinical improvement is not influenced by azithromycin in patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8801156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dexamethasone (DEX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) reduce the occurrence of death and ventilatory support. We investigated the efficacy and safety of DEX+TCZ in an open randomized clinical trial.MethodsFrom July 24, 2020, through May 18, 2021, patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen (>3 L/min) were randomly assigned to receive DEX (10 mg/d 5 days tapering up to 10 days) alone or combined with TCZ (8 mg/kg IV) at day 1, possibly repeated with a fixed dose of 400 mg i.v. at day 3. The primary outcome was time from randomization to mechanical ventilation support or death up to day 14, analysed on an intent-to-treat basis using a Bayesian approach. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04476979.FindingsA total of 453 patients were randomized, 3 withdrew consent, 450 were analysed, of whom 226 and 224 patients were assigned to receive DEX or TCZ+DEX, respectively. At day 14, mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 32/226 (14%) and 27/224 (12%) in the DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 90% credible interval [CrI] 0·55 to 1·31). At day 14, the World health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale (CPS) was significantly improved in the TCZ+DEX arm (OR 0·69, 95% CrI, 0·49 to 0.97). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of oxygen supply independency was 82% in the TCZ+DEX arms and 72% in the DEX arm (HR 1·36, 95% CI 1·11 to 1·67). On day 90, 24 deaths (11%) were observed in the DEX arm and 18 (8%) in the TCZ+DEX arm (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·42-1·41). Serious adverse events were observed in 25% and 21% in DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively.InterpretationMechanical ventilation need and mortality were not improved with TCZ+DEX compared with DEX alone. The safety of both treatments was similar. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, definitive interpretation cannot be drawn.FundingProgramme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique [PHRC COVID-19-20-0151, PHRC COVID-19-20-0029], Fondation de l'Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (Alliance Tous Unis Contre le Virus) and from Fédération pour la Recherche Médicale" (FRM). Tocilizumab was provided by Roche.
| S-EPMC8949640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent hyponatraemia guidelines are divided on the use of tolvaptan in hospitalised patients with moderate to severe hyponatraemia, due to an uncertain risk-benefit ratio. We will conduct a randomised trial to test the hypothesis that early use of tolvaptan improves the rate of serum sodium correction and clinical outcomes compared with current standard first-line therapy, restriction of fluid intake, without increasing the risk of serum sodium overcorrection.MethodsWe will enrol hospitalised patients with euvolaemic or hypervolaemic hyponatraemia and serum sodium of 115-130 mmol/L at Austin Health, a tertiary care centre in Melbourne, Australia. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive either tolvaptan (initial dose 7.5 mg) or fluid restriction (initial limit 1000 ml per 24 h), with titration of therapy based on serum sodium response according to a pre-determined protocol over a 72-h intervention period. The primary endpoint will be the between-group change in serum sodium over time, from study day 1 to day 4. Secondary endpoints include serum sodium increment in the first 24 and 48 h, proportion of participants with normalised serum sodium, length of hospital stay, requirement for serum sodium re-lowering with intravenous dextrose or desmopressin, cognitive and functional measures (Confusion Assessment Method Short form, Timed Up and Go test, hyponatraemia symptom questionnaire), 30-day readmission rate, treatment satisfaction score and serum sodium 30 days after discharge. The trial will be overseen by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board. Serum sodium will be monitored every 6-12 h throughout the study period, with pre-specified thresholds for commencing intravenous 5% dextrose if serum sodium rise targets are exceeded.DiscussionWe seek to inform future international guidelines with high-quality data regarding the utility and safety of tolvaptan compared to standard therapy fluid restriction in patients with moderate-severe hyponatraemia in hospital. If tolvaptan use in this patient group is endorsed by our findings, we will have established an evidence-based framework for tolvaptan initiation and monitoring to guide its use.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001683123 . Registered on December 2 2019.
| S-EPMC9028077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the duration of oxygen therapy (an indicator of time to clinical improvement) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.Setting9 hospitals (3 academic hospitals and 6 non-academic hospitals) in Sweden between 1 June 2020 and 17 May 2021.ParticipantsAdults hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving oxygen therapy.InterventionInhaled ciclesonide 320 µg two times a day for 14 days versus standard care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was duration of oxygen therapy, an indicator of time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcome was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation/death.ResultsData from 98 participants were analysed (48 receiving ciclesonide and 50 receiving standard care; median (IQR) age, 59.5 (49-67) years; 67 (68%) men). Median (IQR) duration of oxygen therapy was 5.5 (3-9) days in the ciclesonide group and 4 (2-7) days in the standard care group (HR for termination of oxygen therapy 0.73 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.11), with the upper 95% CI being compatible with a 10% relative reduction in oxygen therapy duration, corresponding to a <1 day absolute reduction in a post-hoc calculation). Three participants in each group died/received invasive mechanical ventilation (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.15 to 5.32)). The trial was discontinued early due to slow enrolment.ConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving oxygen therapy, this trial ruled out, with 0.95 confidence, a treatment effect of ciclesonide corresponding to more than a 1 day reduction in duration of oxygen therapy. Ciclesonide is unlikely to improve this outcome meaningfully.Trial registration numberNCT04381364.
| S-EPMC9950582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days is the recommended treatment for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The evidence on the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone is limited. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of 6 mg daily vs. 20 mg daily of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe conducted a single-center, randomized, clinical trial involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Participants were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone 6 mg daily or dexamethasone 20 mg daily, and were stratified by the WHO-Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI). The primary outcome was clinical improvement equal to or greater than 2 points by OSCI on day 28. Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, intensive care unit-free days, and ventilator-free days on day 28.ResultsOf the 107 patients who enrolled and completed the follow up, 55 patients enrolled in the low-dose group and 52 patients enrolled in the high-dose group. Treatment with dexamethasone 20 mg daily compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily did not result in better clinical improvement based on OSCI on day 28 (71.2% vs. 78.2%; odds ratio, 1.45 [0.55-3.86]; p = 0.403). For participants who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization, the 6-mg group had better survival than the 20-mg group on day 28 (100% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.025). Although more participants in the 6-mg group received immune modulators (40% vs. 21.2%; p = 0.035), 50% of death cases in the 20-mg group who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization received immune modulators.ConclusionsDexamethasone 20 mg daily did not result in better clinical outcome improvement, and was probably associated with higher 28-day mortality in patients on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation, compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily.Trial registrationClinialtrials.gov number, NCT04707534, registered January 13, 2021.
| S-EPMC9529091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn adults with primary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), daily prednisone may induce complete remissions (CR) and partial remissions (PR), but relapses are frequent and adverse events are common.MethodsWe carried out 2 open-label, uncontrolled trials to explore the efficacy and tolerability of pulse oral dexamethasone as an alternative to daily prednisone. We enrolled adult patients with proteinuria > 3.5 g/day despite the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade. In the first trial, we enrolled 14 subjects with FSGS and administered 4 dexamethasone doses (25 mg/m2) daily for 4 days, repeated every 28 days over 32 weeks. The second trial involved a more intensive regimen. Eight subjects received 4 dexamethasone doses of 50 mg/m2 every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by 4 doses of 25 mg/m2 every 4 weeks for 36 weeks; subjects were randomized to 2 doses every 2 weeks or 4 doses every 4 weeks.ResultsIn the first trial, we enrolled 13 subjects with FSGS and 1 with minimal change disease and found a combined CR and PR rate of 36%. In the second trial, we enrolled 8 subjects. The combined CR and PR rate was 29%. Analysis combining both trials showed a combined CR and PR rate of 33%. Adverse events were observed in 32% of subjects, with mood symptoms being most common. There were no serious adverse events related to the study.ConclusionWe conclude that high dose oral dexamethasone is well tolerated by adults with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome and may have some efficacy.
| S-EPMC6677391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMore than 2 million individuals in the USA have an opioid use disorder (OUD). Methadone maintenance treatment is the gold standard of medication-based treatment for OUD, but high-dose methadone is associated with cardiotoxicity and respiratory complications, among other side effects. These adverse effects make enhancing the effectiveness of lower doses of methadone an attractive therapeutic goal. Long recognised for its capacity to enhance treatment outcomes for a wide range of neuropsychiatric disorders including pain, the placebo effect offers an as-yet untested avenue to such an enhancement. This approach is particularly compelling given that individuals with substance use disorder tend to have higher salience attribution and may thereby be more sensitive to placebo effects. Our study combines two promising clinical methodologies-conditioning/dose-extension and open-label placebo-to investigate whether placebo effects can increase the effective potency of methadone in treatment-seeking OUD patients.Methods and analysisA total of 120 newly enrolled treatment-seeking OUD patients will be randomly assigned to one of two different groups: either methadone plus daily placebo dose-extension (PDE; treatment group) or methadone/treatment as usual (control). Participants will meet with study team members five times over the course of 3 months of treatment with methadone (baseline, 2 weeks, and 1, 2 and 3 months postbaseline). Throughout this study time period, methadone dosages will be adjusted by an addiction clinician blind to patient assignment, per standard clinical methods. The primary outcome is methadone dose at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include self-report of drug use; 3-month urine toxicology screen results; and treatment retention. Exploratory outcomes include several environmental as well as personality factors associated with OUD and with propensity to demonstrate a placebo effect.Ethics and disseminationHuman subjects oversight for this study is provided by the University of Maryland, Baltimore and University of Maryland, College Park Institutional Review Boards. Additionally, the study protocol is reviewed annually by an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Study results will be disseminated via research conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT02941809.
| S-EPMC6596949 | biostudies-literature