Dataset Information

517. Subcutaneous Sarilumab for the Treatment of Hospitalized patients with Moderate to Severe COVID19 Disease: A Pragmatic, Embedded, Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial

ABSTRACT: 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)

SUBMITTER: Branch-Elliman W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8690689 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the interleukin-6 receptor alpha (IL-6R?). The phase 3 SARIL-RA-EASY study (EASY) assessed the robustness of an autoinjector (pen) for administering sarilumab when used by adults with active moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are candidates for anti-IL-6R therapy in an unsupervised real-world setting. METHODS:EASY was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group usability study of the sarilumab pen and prefilled syringe. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to sarilumab 150 or 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) administered via pen or syringe, plus background disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Patients reported their ability to remove the pen cap and initiate and complete injections; negative responses were defined as product technical complaints (PTCs). The primary endpoint was the number of validated product technical failures (PTFs; PTC with a validated technical cause). This study was not powered to demonstrate bioequivalence or differences in efficacy among groups. RESULTS:A total of 217 patients were randomized. There were 600 successful injections with the sarilumab pen in 108 patients and no pen-associated PTFs. One PTC was observed (the pen was mistakenly activated before injection). At week 12, 88% of patients indicated the pen was "easy" to use, and 98% reported they were "satisfied" with the pen. Proportions of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response and a 28-joint disease activity score by C-reactive protein < 2.6 were similar at each dose between the pen and syringe groups, as were the pharmacokinetics. There were no clinically meaningful differences in adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation in the pen and syringe groups. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were infections and neutropenia. CONCLUSION:This study demonstrated the ease of use and robustness of the sarilumab pen when used by patients with RA in an unsupervised setting. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy were generally similar for the pen and syringe groups (NCT02057250). FUNDING:Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT02057250.

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.

Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of umifenovir against COVID-19 is controversial; therefore, clinical trials are crucial to evaluate its efficacy.MethodsThe 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).ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsOur 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 registrationThe 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.

Project description:BackgroundWhen multiple treatments are available, network meta-analysis can synthesize evidence and rank their relative profile in terms of effectiveness and/or safety. We applied this approach to the safety of subcutaneous biologicals used in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.MethodsOur literature search covered the articles published from January 2000 to September 2014 and was restricted to randomized controlled trials. The agents eligible for our analysis were subcutaneous biological drugs used in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. A network meta-analysis was conducted using the Bayesian model. The analysis was aimed to compare the safety of these treatments based on 95 % credible intervals and to consequently generate a ranking in safety across the treatments. Two safety end-points were considered: any serious adverse events (AE) and any infectious AE. Risk difference was the outcome measure. The analysis estimated 95 % credible intervals for all direct and indirect comparisons as well as the ranking histogram across the treatments which was determined according to model-based probabilistic analysis.ResultsOur literature search selected a total of 13 randomized controlled trials of which three evaluated adalimumab, five ustekinumab (45 and 90 mg), four etanercept (both high-dose and low-dose) and one high-dose etanercept and ustekinumab (45 and 90 mg). For both end-points of any serious AE and any infectious AE, the Bayesian analysis showed no significant difference in all indirect head-to-head comparisons between active agents. For the end-point of any serious AE, the ranking was ustekinumab 45 mg and ustekinumab 90 mg (at the same rank), followed by placebo and by adalimumab and high-dose etanercept (at the same rank). For any infectious AE, the ranking was: low-dose etanercept, placebo, ustekinumab 45 mg and ustekinumab 90 mg, adalimumab and high-dose etanercept.ConclusionOur analysis synthesized the current evidence on the safety of subcutaneous biological treatments for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and was successful in defining their respective rankings.