Efficacy and Safety of Regdanvimab (CT-P59): A Phase 2/3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Outpatients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Regdanvimab (CT-P59) is a monoclonal antibody with neutralizing activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We report on part 1 of a 2-part randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study for patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Methods
Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 received a single dose of regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 100), regdanvimab 80 mg/kg (n = 103), or placebo (n = 104). The primary end points were time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swab based on quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) up to day 28 and time to clinical recovery up to day 14. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients requiring hospitalization, oxygen therapy, or mortality due to COVID-19.Results
Median (95% CI) time to negative conversion of RT-qPCR was 12.8 (9.0-12.9) days with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg, 11.9 (8.9-12.9) days with regdanvimab 80 mg/kg, and 12.9 (12.7-13.9) days with placebo. Median (95% CI) time to clinical recovery was 5.3 (4.0-6.8) days with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg, 6.2 (5.5-7.9) days with regdanvimab 80 mg/kg, and 8.8 (6.8-11.6) days with placebo. The proportion (95% CI) of patients requiring hospitalization or oxygen therapy was lower with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (4.0% [1.6%-9.8%]) and regdanvimab 80 mg/kg (4.9% [2.1%-10.9%]) vs placebo (8.7% [4.6%-15.6%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events or deaths occurred.Conclusions
Regdanvimab showed a trend toward a minor decrease in time to negative conversion of RT-qPCR results compared with placebo and reduced the need for hospitalization and oxygen therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.Clinical trial registration
NCT04602000 and EudraCT 2020-003369-20.
SUBMITTER: Streinu-Cercel A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8903348 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine decreases the risk of adverse outcome in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at high risk of worsening.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients with at least one of the following risk factors for worsening: need for supplemental oxygen, age ≥75 years, age between 60 and 74 years and presence of at least one co-morbidity. Severely ill patients requiring oxygen therapy >3 L/min or intensive care were excluded. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg hydroxychloroquine on day 0 followed by 400 mg per day for 8 days or a placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death or start of invasive mechanical ventilation within 14 days following randomization. Secondary end points included mortality and clinical evolution at days 14 and 28, and viral shedding at days 5 and 10.ResultsThe trial was stopped after 250 patients were included because of a slowing down of the pandemic in France. The intention-to-treat population comprised 123 and 124 patients in the placebo and hydroxychloroquine groups, respectively. The median age was 77 years (interquartile range 58-86 years) and 151/250 (60.4%) patients required oxygen therapy. The primary end point occurred in 9/124 (7.3%) patients in the hydroxychloroquine group and 8/123 (6.5%) patients in the placebo group (relative risk 1.12; 95% CI 0.45-2.80). The rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests at days 5 and 10 were 72.8% (75/103) and 57.1% (52/91) in the hydroxychloroquine group, versus 73.0% (73/100) and 56.6% (47/83) in the placebo group, respectively. No difference was observed between the two groups in any of the other secondary end points.ConclusionIn this underpowered trial involving mainly older patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, patients treated with hydroxychloroquine did not experience better clinical or virological outcomes than those receiving the placebo.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04325893 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04325893).
| S-EPMC8015393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe evaluated clinical effectiveness of regdanvimab (CT-P59), a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time in patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), primarily Alpha variant.MethodsThis was phase 3 of a phase 2/3 parallel-group, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomized to single-dose regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 656) or placebo (n = 659), alongside standard of care. The primary endpoint was COVID-19 disease progression up to day 28 among "high-risk" patients. Key secondary endpoints were disease progression (all randomized patients) and time to recovery (high-risk and all randomized patients).ResultsOf 1315 randomized patients, 880 were high risk; the majority were infected with Alpha variant. The proportion with disease progression was lower (14/446, 3.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.9%-5.2%] vs 48/434, 11.1% [95% CI, 8.4%-14.4%]; P < .001) and time to recovery was shorter (median, 9.27 days [95% CI, 8.27-11.05 days] vs not reached [95% CI, 12.35-not calculable]; P < .001) with regdanvimab than placebo. Consistent improvements were seen in all randomized and non-high-risk patients who received regdanvimab. Viral load reductions were more rapid with regdanvimab. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 11 patients (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab, 7/650 [1.1%] placebo). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 5 of (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab and 1/650 [0.2%] placebo).ConclusionsRegdanvimab was an effective treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time without notable safety concerns prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant.Clinical trials registrationNCT04602000; 2020-003369-20 (EudraCT).
| S-EPMC9384635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn a randomized trial, Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) capsule was effective for accelerating symptom recovery among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the lack of blinding and limited sample sizes decreased the level of clinical evidence.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of LHQW capsule in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (17 sites from China, Thailand, Philippine and Vietnam). Patients received standard-of-care alone or plus LHQW capsules (4 capsules, thrice daily) for 14 days. The primary endpoint was the median time to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of nine major symptoms.ResultsThe full-analysis set consisted of 410 patients in LHQW capsules and 405 in placebo group. LHQW significantly shortened the primary endpoint in the full-analysis set (4.0 vs. 6.7 days, hazards ratio: 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.39-1.90). LHQW capsules shortened the median time to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of stuffy or runny nose (2.8 vs. 3.7 days), sore throat (2.0 vs. 2.6 days), cough (3.2 vs. 4.9 days), feeling hot or feverish (1.0 vs. 1.3 days), low energy or tiredness (1.3 vs. 1.9 days), and myalgia (1.5 vs. 2.0 days). The duration to sustained clinical improvement or resolution of shortness of breath, headache, and chills or shivering did not differ significantly between the two groups. Safety was comparable between the two groups. No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationLHQW capsules promote recovery of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 via accelerating symptom resolution and were well tolerated. Trial registration ChiCTR2200056727 .
| S-EPMC10685492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsRecently, several therapeutic agents have decreased the progression to critical disease in patients with mild/moderate COVID-19. However, their use is limited to patients with ≥1 clinical risk factor. We aimed to evaluate echocardiographic features that may aid in risk stratification for patients with mild/moderate COVID-19.Methods278 consecutive patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 underwent prospective clinical and echocardiographic examination, ≤7 days of symptoms, as part of a predefined protocol. Analysis to identify echocardiographic predictors of outcome was performed.ResultsIn the multivariable risk model, E/e', TAPSE, and pulmonary acceleration time (PAT) were associated with the composite outcome (p = 0.01, 0.005, 0.05, respectively). Stepwise analyses showed that the addition of echocardiography on top of having ≥1 clinical risk factor and even using each parameter separately improved the prediction of outcomes. If patients were re-categorized as high risk only if having both ≥1 clinical and ≥ 1 echocardiography risk parameter (E/e' > 8, TAPSE<1.8 cm, PAT<90 msec), or even one echo parameter separately, then specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy improved. If patients were re-classified as high risk if having either ≥1 clinical risk factor or ≥ 1 high-risk echocardiography parameter, all five individuals who were missed by the ≥1 risk factor "rule", were correctly diagnosed as high risk. Similar analyses, including only patients with mild disease, showed that the addition of TAPSE improved the prediction of outcomes.ConclusionsIn patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, a very limited echocardiographic exam is sufficient for improved outcome prediction, and may improve resource allocation for new anti-COVID-19 agents.Translational aspect of the workWe show that among patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, several easily obtained echocardiographic findings are strongly correlated with mortality or progression to the need for invasive/non-invasive mechanical ventilation, even when adjusted for the presence or absence of ≥1 clinical risk factor. Furthermore, even a limited echocardiographic exam is sufficient to develop a strategy of risk stratification. We believe that our data have important implications for the clinicians involved in the acute treatment of patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9533646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.Setting16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020.Participants150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone).InterventionsHydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively).Main outcome measureNegative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.ResultsOf 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsAdministration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.Trial registrationChiCTR2000029868.
| S-EPMC7221473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimWe aimed to identify clinical features that suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) should be a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with a chief complaint of fever and abnormal liver function.MethodsWe retrospectively studied the presence or absence of abnormal liver function in 216 patients diagnosed with mild-moderate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection between February and September 2020.ResultsAbnormal liver function was observed in 51 patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. The median peak aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were 57.5, 75.5, and 332.5 U/L, respectively. The median number of days from symptom onset to peak AST, ALT, and LDH were 8.5, 9, and 8.5, respectively. The median peak LDH/AST ratio was 9.0. Low lymphocyte-to-white blood cell ratio and elevated LDH were found to be independent contributing factors for intensive care unit (ICU) admission on a multivariate analysis.ConclusionsAST-predominant AST/ALT/LDH elevation peaking 8-9 days after symptom onset and not accompanied by elevated alkaline phosphatase or gamma-glutamyl transferase may be a useful clinical feature for differentiating COVID-19 from other diseases. Since the median LDH/AST ratio was 9.0, it seems that the abnormal liver function caused by SARS-CoV-2 is an indirect damage to liver cells due to elevated cytokine levels caused by liver-infiltrating lymphocytes. SARS-CoV-2 infection should be considered in patients presenting with a chief complaint of fever and liver injury; those with a high lymphocyte-to-white blood cell ratio or and a high LDH/AST ratio may be admitted to the ICU.
| S-EPMC8341189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegdanvimab (CT-P59) is a neutralizing antibody authorized in Republic of Korea for the treatment of adult patients with moderate or mild-COVID-19 who are not on supplemental oxygen and have high risk of progressing to severe disease (age ≥ 50 years or comorbidities). This study evaluated the clinical efficacy, safety and medical utilization/costs associated with real-world regdanvimab therapy.MethodsThis non-interventional, retrospective cohort study included adult patients with confirmed mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients treated with regdanvimab were compared with controls who had received other therapies. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients progressing to severe/critical COVID-19 or death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection up to Day 28. Propensity score matching was applied to efficacy analyses.ResultsOverall, 552 patients were included in the Safety and Efficacy Sets (regdanvimab, n = 156; control, n = 396) and 274 patients in the propensity score-matched (PSM) Efficacy Set (regdanvimab, n = 113; control, n = 161). In the PSM Set, the risk of severe/critical COVID-19 or death was significantly lower in the regdanvimab group (7.1% vs 16.1%, P = 0.0263); supplemental oxygen was required by 8.0% and 18.6% of patients in the regdanvimab and control groups, respectively (P = 0.0128). There were no unexpected safety findings in the regdanvimab group. Medical utilization analysis showed an overall cost reduction with regdanvimab compared with control treatments.ConclusionsRegdanvimab significantly reduced the proportion of patients progressing to severe/critical disease or dying of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study shows the potential benefits of regdanvimab in reducing disease severity and improving medical utility in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8813598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis phase 2b part of a randomized phase 2/3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ensitrelvir for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the Omicron epidemic.MethodsPatients were randomized (1:1:1) to orally receive ensitrelvir fumaric acid 125 mg (375 mg on day 1) or 250 mg (750 mg on day 1) or placebo once daily for 5 days. The co-primary endpoints were the change from baseline in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) titer on day 4 and time-weighted average change from baseline up to 120 hours in the total score of predefined 12 COVID-19 symptoms. Safety was assessed through adverse events.ResultsA total of 341 patients (ensitrelvir 125-mg group: 114; ensitrelvir 250-mg group: 116; and placebo group: 111; male: 53.5-64.9%; mean age: 35.3-37.3 years) were included in the efficacy analyses. The change from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 titer on day 4 was significantly greater with both ensitrelvir doses than with placebo (differences from placebo: -0.41 log10 50% tissue-culture infectious dose/mL; P < .0001 for both). The total score of the 12 COVID-19 symptoms did not show a significant difference between the ensitrelvir groups and placebo group. The time-weighted average change from baseline up to 120 hours was significantly greater with ensitrelvir versus placebo in several subtotal scores, including acute symptoms and respiratory symptoms. Most adverse events were mild in severity.ConclusionsEnsitrelvir treatment demonstrated a favorable antiviral efficacy and potential clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile.Clinical trials registrationJapan Registry of Clinical Trials: jRCT2031210350 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2031210350).
| S-EPMC10110269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:This study is a European multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of nilvadipine as a disease course modifying treatment for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a phase III study that will run for a period of 82?weeks with a treatment period of 78?weeks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Adult patients, males and females over 50?years with mild-to-moderate AD as defined by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria, will be included in the study. It aims to recruit a total of 500 patients with AD; 250 in the nilvadipine group and 250 in the placebo group. Participants will be randomised to receive nilvadipine, an 8?mg overencapsulated, sustained release capsule, or a matching overencapsulated placebo (sugar pill) for a period of 78?weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy outcome measure in this study is the change in cognitive function as assessed by the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog 12) from baseline to the end of treatment duration (78?weeks). There are two key secondary outcome measures, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD). If a statistically significant effect is seen in the primary outcome, CDR-sb will be considered to be a coprimary end point and only the DAD will contribute to the secondary outcome analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study and all subsequent amendments have received ethical approval within each participating country according to national regulations. Each participant will provide written consent to participate in the study. All participants will remain anonymised throughout and the results of the study will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:EUDRACT Reference Number: 2012-002764-27.
| S-EPMC4194801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an urgent need for treatments of mild or moderate COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.MethodsA randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in 36 centers in the U.S. between August 2020 and February 2021 investigated the safety and effectiveness of oral nitazoxanide 600 mg twice daily for five days in outpatients with symptoms of mild or moderate COVID-19 enrolled within 72 h of symptom onset (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04486313). Efficacy endpoints were time to sustained clinical recovery (TSR, a novel primary endpoint) and proportion of participants progressing to severe illness within 28 days (key secondary).Findings1092 participants were enrolled. 379 with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were analyzed. In the primary analysis, median (IQR) TSR were 13·3 (6·3, >21) and 12·4 (7·2, >21) days for the nitazoxanide and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0·88). 1 of 184 (0·5%) treated with nitazoxanide progressed to severe illness compared to 7 of 195 (3·6%) treated with placebo (key secondary analysis, odds ratio 5·6 [95% CI 0·7 - 46·1], relative risk reduction 85%, p = 0·07). In the pre-defined stratum with mild illness at baseline, nitazoxanide-treated participants experienced reductions in median TSR (3·1 days, p = 0·09) and usual health (5·2 days, p < 0·01) compared to placebo. Nitazoxanide was safe and well tolerated.InterpretationFurther trials with larger numbers are warranted to evaluate efficacy of nitazoxanide therapy in preventing progression to severe illness in patients at high risk of severe illness and reducing TSR in patients with mild illness.
| S-EPMC8883002 | biostudies-literature