Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of CD24Fc in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Non-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.

Methods

We 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.

Findings

Between 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.

Interpretation

CD24Fc 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.

Funding

Merck & Co, National Cancer Institute, OncoImmune.

SUBMITTER: Welker J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8916779 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of CD24Fc in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

Welker James J Pulido Juan D JD Catanzaro Andrew T AT Malvestutto Carlos D CD Li Zihai Z Cohen Jonathan B JB Whitman Eric D ED Byrne Dana D Giddings Olivia K OK Lake Jordan E JE Chua Joel V JV Li Ella E Chen Jian J Zhou Xiang X He Kun K Gates Davis D Kaur Amarjot A Chen Jamie J Chou Hung-Yen HY Devenport Martin M Touomou Raymond R Kottilil Shyamasundaran S Liu Yang Y Zheng Pan P

The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20220311 5

<h4>Background</h4>Non-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.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study at nine medical centres in the USA. Hospitalised patient ...[more]

PMID: 35286843

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundBaricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19.MethodsIn this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027.FindingsBetween June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups.InterpretationAlthough there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19.FundingEli Lilly and Company.TranslationsFor the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:BackgroundPassive 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsFrom 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; pinteraction=0·001).InterpretationWhen 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.FundingUS National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 infections still have a significant impact on the global population. The existing vaccinations have contributed to reducing the severe disease courses, decreasing hospitalisations, and lowering the mortality rate. However, due to the variability of COVID-19 symptoms, the emergence of new variants and the uneven global distribution of vaccines there is still a great need for new therapy options. One promising approach is provided by host-directed therapies. We assessed here the efficacy and safety of MP1032, a host-directed anti-viral/anti-inflammatory drug in hospitalised patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.MethodsIn a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase IIa study, patients were randomised 2:1 to receive either 300 mg MP032 bid + Standard-of-Care (SoC) or placebo bid + SoC for 28 days. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and had moderate to severe COVID-19 symptoms. The study spanned 20 sites in six countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Spain), assessing disease progression according the NIAID scale as the primary outcome on day 14. Secondary objectives included disease progression (day 28), disease resolution (days 14 and 28), mortality rate, COVID-19 related parameters and safety. Exposure-response analyses were performed, linking MP1032 to COVID-19 biomarkers (eGFR, D-dimer).Findings132 patients were enrolled to receive MP1032 + SoC (n = 87) or placebo + SoC (n = 45). The patients were all white or Caucasian with a mean (median) age of 60.5 (63) years. Overall, only 10 patients were vaccinated, 5 in each group. No significant risk difference of disease progression could be detected between groups on both day 14 (9.8% MP1032 vs. 11.6% placebo) and day 28 with MH common risk differences of -0.276% (95% CI, -11.634 to 11.081; p = 0.962) and 1.722% (95% CI, -4.576 to 8.019; p = 0.592), respectively.The treatment with MP1032 + SoC was safe and well-tolerated. Overall, 182 TEAEs including 10 SAEs were reported in 53.5% (46/86) of patients of the verum group and in 57.8% (26/45) of patients of the placebo group; the SAEs occurred in 5.8% (5/86) and 6.7% (3/45) of verum and placebo patients, respectively. None of the SAEs was considered as related.InterpretationDespite the study's limitation in size and the variation in concurrent SoCs, these findings warrant further investigation of MP1032 as a host-directed anti-viral drug candidate.FundingThe study was funded by the COVID-19 Horizon Europe work programme and MetrioPharm AG.

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:IntroductionCOVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, remains a global pandemic that has affected more than 100 million people worldwide with over 4.8 million deaths as of October 2021. Patients with diabetes have both an increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, enhanced disease severity and increased risk of mortality. The challenge presented in these patients is both to improve glycaemic control-which itself may confer a survival advantage-and to help maintain or restore immunological homeostasis. The specific glucokinase activator AZD1656 may address both of these challenges via its glucose-lowering effect and its immunological mechanism of action. The aim of the Alleviation of cardioRespiratory complications in patients with COVID-19 And DIAbetes (ARCADIA) trial is to investigate this hypothesis and determine whether AZD1656 can improve clinical outcomes for these patients.Methods and analysisARCADIA is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, interventional study of AZD1656 in 150 patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes who have been admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Eligible, consented patients will be randomised in a 1:1 manner to receive either active drug or matched placebo tablets while they are in hospital. All patients will receive the usual and current standard of care for patients with COVID-19 in that hospital. Clinical and laboratory data will be collected and assessed at baseline and throughout their participation in the study. Data will be captured in the case report form, which will be electronically archived at the end of the trial in the trial master file. The WHO 8-point Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement will be used to measure clinical outcome for the primary endpoint of the trial.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the East Midlands-Leicester South Ethics Committee (REC 20/EM/0198) in the UK, from the National Bioethics Committee of Medicines and Medical Devices in Bucharest, Romania, and from the Ethics Committee IKEM a TN in Prague, Czech Republic. All study-related data will be used by the sponsor in accordance with local data protection law. In the UK, all patient identifiable data will be stored on a password-protected National Health Service N3 network with full audit trail. Anonymised data will be stored in an ISO27001 certificated data warehouse.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2020-002211-21, NCT04516759.

Project description:BackgroundTrimodulin (human polyvalent immunoglobulin [Ig] M ~ 23%, IgA ~ 21%, IgG ~ 56% preparation) has previously been associated with a lower mortality rate in a subpopulation of patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and with clear signs of inflammation. The hypothesis for the ESsCOVID trial was that trimodulin may prevent inflammation-driven progression of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to critical disease or even death.MethodsAdults with severe COVID-19 were randomised to receive intravenous infusions of trimodulin or placebo for 5 consecutive days in addition to standard of care. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of clinical deterioration (Days 6-29) and 28-day all-cause mortality (Days 1-29).ResultsOne-hundred-and-sixty-six patients received trimodulin (n = 84) or placebo (n = 82). Thirty-three patients died, nine during the treatment phase. Overall, 84.9% and 76.5% of patients completed treatment and follow-up, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was reported in 33.3% of patients on trimodulin and 34.1% of patients on placebo (P = 0.912). No differences were observed in the proportion of patients recovered on Day 29, days of invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit-free days. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable. A post hoc analysis was conducted in patients with early systemic inflammation by excluding those with high CRP (> 150 mg/L) and/or D-dimer (≥ 3 mg/L) and/or low platelet counts (< 130 × 109/L) at baseline. Forty-seven patients in the trimodulin group and 49 in the placebo group met these criteria. A difference of 15.5 percentage points in clinical deterioration and mortality was observed in favour of trimodulin (95% confidence interval: -4.46, 34.78; P = 0.096).ConclusionAlthough there was no difference in the primary outcome in the overall population, observations in a subgroup of patients with early systemic inflammation suggest that trimodulin may have potential in this setting that warrants further investigation. ESSCOVID WAS REGISTERED PROSPECTIVELY AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ON OCTOBER 6, 2020.: NCT04576728.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of CD24Fc in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Efficacy and safety of CD24Fc in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets