Dataset Information

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited.

Methods

In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581.

Findings

From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77-1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66-1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14-4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29-0·90; p_interaction=0·001).

Interpretation

When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health.

SUBMITTER: ITAC (INSIGHT 013) Study Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8797010 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-antiviral therapeutic options are required for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. CD24Fc is an immunomodulator with potential to reduce the exaggerated inflammatory response to tissue injuries. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CD24Fc in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen support.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study at nine medical centres in the USA. Hospitalised patients (age ≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were receiving oxygen support and standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) by site-stratified block randomisation to receive a single intravenous infusion of CD24Fc 480 mg or placebo. The study funder, investigators, and patients were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement over 28 days, defined as time that elapsed between a baseline National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale score of 2-4 and reaching a score of 5 or higher or hospital discharge. The prespecified primary interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04317040.FindingsBetween April 24 and Sept 22, 2020, 243 hospitalised patients were assessed for eligibility and 234 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive CD24Fc (n=116) or placebo (n=118). The prespecified interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint among 197 randomised participants. In the interim analysis, the 28-day clinical improvement rate was 82% (81 of 99) for CD24Fc versus 66% (65 of 98) for placebo; median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-8·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·0 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·61, 95% CI 1·16-2·23; log-rank p=0·0028, which crossed the prespecified efficacy boundary [α=0·0147]). 37 participants were randomly assigned after the interim analysis data cutoff date; among the 234 randomised participants, median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-9·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·5 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (HR 1·40, 95% CI 1·02-1·92; log-rank p=0·037). The proportion of participants with disease progression within 28 days was 19% (22 of 116) in the CD24Fc group versus 31% (36 of 118) in the placebo group (HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·33-0·95; unadjusted p=0·031). The incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. No treatment-related adverse events were observed.InterpretationCD24Fc is generally well tolerated and accelerates clinical improvement of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who are receiving oxygen support. These data suggest that targeting inflammation in response to tissue injuries might provide a therapeutic option for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingMerck & Co, National Cancer Institute, OncoImmune.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 can lead to multiorgan failure. Dapagliflozin, a SGLT2 inhibitor, has significant protective benefits for the heart and kidney. We aimed to see whether this agent might provide organ protection in patients with COVID-19 by affecting processes dysregulated during acute illness.MethodsDARE-19 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and with at least one cardiometabolic risk factor (ie, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease). Patients critically ill at screening were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to dapagliflozin (10 mg daily orally) or matched placebo for 30 days. Dual primary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population: the outcome of prevention (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death), and the hierarchial composite outcome of recovery (change in clinical status by day 30). Safety outcomes, in patients who received at least one study medication dose, included serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and adverse events of interest. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350593.FindingsBetween April 22, 2020 and Jan 1, 2021, 1250 patients were randomly assigned with 625 in each group. The primary composite outcome of prevention showed organ dysfunction or death occurred in 70 patients (11·2%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 86 (13·8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·58-1·10; p=0·17). For the primary outcome of recovery, 547 patients (87·5%) in the dapagliflozin group and 532 (85·1%) in the placebo group showed clinical status improvement, although this was not statistically significant (win ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·97-1·22; p=0·14). There were 41 deaths (6·6%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 54 (8·6%) in the placebo group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·52-1·16). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (10·6%) of 613 patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 82 (13·3%) of 616 patients given the placebo.InterpretationIn patients with cardiometabolic risk factors who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin did not result in a statistically significant risk reduction in organ dysfunction or death, or improvement in clinical recovery, but was well tolerated.FundingAstraZeneca.

Project description:Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Funding Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.

Project description:BackgroundZapnometinib is an oral, non-ATP-competitive, small-molecule inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2 with immunomodulatory and antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of zapnometinib in patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial, we recruited hospitalised adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 from 18 hospitals in Germany, India, Romania, South Africa, and Spain. Those requiring ICU admission or ventilator support at screening or randomisation were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral zapnometinib (900 mg on Day 1; 600 mg on Days 2-6) or matching placebo, on top of standard of care. Randomisation, stratified by baseline clinical severity status (CSS 3 or 4, measured on a 7-point ordinal scale), was done using Interactive Response Technology. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was CSS at Day 15 and was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS: all patients who were randomised to the study, received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-dose assessment of CSS, as randomised). Safety analyses were conducted on the safety analysis set (all study participants who received at least one dose of study medication, as treated). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04776044) and EudraCT (2020-004206-59).FindingsThe trial was terminated early as the emergence of the Omicron variant impacted recruitment. Between 12th April 2021 and 9th August 2022, 104 of the planned 220 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 103 were treated, and 101 were included in the FAS (zapnometinib: n = 50; placebo: n = 51). The primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients on zapnometinib had higher odds of improved CSS versus placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.54 [95% CI 0.72-3.33]; p = 0.26). Predefined subgroup analyses identified trends for improved CSS in patients with severe disease at baseline (OR 2.57 [0.76-8.88]; p = 0.13) and non-Omicron variants (OR 2.36 [0.85-6.71]; p = 0.10); the p value of the CSS subgroup by Treatment interaction term in the model was p = 0.28. The frequency and intensity of adverse events was low and similar between arms. Twenty (39.2%) patients treated with zapnometinib experienced adverse events compared with eighteen (34.6%) patients treated with placebo. One patient receiving zapnometinib and two patients receiving placebo died during the study. None of the deaths were considered related to study medication.InterpretationThese results provide proof-of-concept for the innovative approach of targeting the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in patients with hospitalised moderate/severe COVID-19. Further clinical studies will be required to evaluate the clinical benefit of zapnometinib in this and other indications.FundingAtriva Therapeutics GmbH and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.

Project description:IntroductionSulforaphane can induce the transcription factor, Nrf2, promoting antioxidant and anti-inflammatory responses. In this study, hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were treated with stabilised synthetic sulforaphane (SFX-01) to evaluate impact on clinical status and inflammation.MethodsDouble-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of SFX-01 (300 mg oral capsule, once daily for 14 days) conducted in Dundee, UK, between November 2020 and May 2021. Patients had radiologically confirmed CAP and CURB-65 (confusion, urea >7 mmol·L-1, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths·min-1, blood pressure <90 mmHg (systolic) or ≤60 mmHg (diastolic), age ≥65 years) score ≥1. The primary outcome was the seven-point World Health Organization clinical status scale at day 15. Secondary outcomes included time to clinical improvement, length of stay and mortality. Effects on Nrf2 activity and inflammation were evaluated on days 1, 8 and 15 by measurement of 45 serum cytokines and mRNA sequencing of peripheral blood leukocytes.ResultsThe trial was terminated prematurely due to futility with 133 patients enrolled. 65 patients were randomised to SFX-01 treatment and 68 patients to placebo. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was the cause of CAP in 103 (77%) cases. SFX-01 treatment did not improve clinical status at day 15 (adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.41-1.83; p=0.71), time to clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.49), length of stay (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56-1.26) or 28-day mortality (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 0.67-3.16). The expression of Nrf2 targets and pro-inflammatory genes, including interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β and tumour necrosis factor-α, was not significantly changed by SFX-01 treatment. At days 8 and 15, respectively, 310 and 42 significant differentially expressed genes were identified between groups (false discovery rate adjusted p<0.05, log2FC >1).ConclusionSFX-01 treatment did not improve clinical status or modulate key Nrf2 targets in patients with CAP primarily due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.