Dataset Information

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540.

Findings

From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]).

Interpretation

In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Funding

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

SUBMITTER: Avezum A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8968238 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Avezum Álvaro Á Oliveira Gustavo B F GBF Oliveira Haliton H Lucchetta Rosa C RC Pereira Valéria F A VFA Dabarian André L AL D O Vieira Ricardo R Silva Daniel V DV Kormann Adrian P M APM Tognon Alexandre P AP De Gasperi Ricardo R Hernandes Mauro E ME Feitosa Audes D M ADM Piscopo Agnaldo A Souza André S AS Miguel Carlos H CH Nogueira Vinicius O VO Minelli César C Magalhães Carlos C CC Morejon Karen M L KML Bicudo Letícia S LS Souza Germano E C GEC Gomes Marco A M MAM Fo José J F Raposo JJFR Schwarzbold Alexandre V AV Zilli Alexandre A Amazonas Roberto B RB Moreira Frederico R FR Alves Lucas B O LBO Assis Silvia R L SRL Neves Precil D M M PDMM Matuoka Jessica Y JY Boszczowski Icaro I Catarino Daniela G M DGM Veiga Viviane C VC Azevedo Luciano C P LCP Rosa Regis G RG Lopes Renato D RD Cavalcanti Alexandre B AB Berwanger Otavio O

Lancet regional health. Americas 20220331

<h4>Background</h4>Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk fa ...[more]

PMID: 35378952

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeutrophil 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsBetween 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.InterpretationBrensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingSponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.

Project description:BackgroundNo phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.MethodsThis was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.FindingsBetween May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group.InterpretationNivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.FundingStand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Project description:IntroductionBronchiolitis is an acute viral infection of the lower respiratory tract. It is most commonly caused by respiratory syncytial virus. Being a common reason for hospitalisation, it affects 13-17% of all hospitalised children younger than 2 years. Only supportive therapy, including suctioning nasal secretions, water-electrolyte balance maintenance and oxygen supplementation when needed, is recommended. However, non-evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, including the use of inhaled bronchodilators, nebulised epinephrine, and nebulised and systemic steroids, are common. The inhalation of 3% hypertonic saline is not recommended in bronchiolitis management. However, a recently published meta-analysis revealed that the inhalation of hypertonic saline can reduce the risk of hospitalisation for outpatients with bronchiolitis, while resulting in a shorter length of hospital stay and reduced severity of respiratory distress for inpatients, although the evidence is of low certainty. We aim to assess the efficacy of nebulised hypertonic saline for the treatment of children hospitalised with bronchiolitis.Methods and analysisThis will be a randomised, double-blinded, parallel-group, controlled trial. Children younger than 2 years who are hospitalised due to bronchiolitis will be recruited from at least three paediatric departments in Poland. Bronchiolitis is defined as an apparent viral respiratory tract infection associated with airway obstruction that is manifested by at least one of following symptoms: tachypnoea, increased respiratory effort, crackles and/or wheezing. A total of 140 children will be randomised (1:1) to receive either hypertonic saline nebulisation (5 mL, three times a day) or normal saline at the same dose. The primary outcome measure will be the duration of hospitalisation.Ethics and disseminationThe Bioethics Committee of the Lower Silesia Medical Chamber in Wroclaw approved the study protocol (4/PNDR/2023). Caregivers will receive oral and written information about the study and written informed consent will be obtained by the study physicians. The findings of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international conferences.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT06069336).

Project description:BackgroundUp to 60% of patients with Crohn's disease need intestinal resection within the first 10 years of diagnosis, and postoperative recurrence is common. We investigated whether mercaptopurine can prevent or delay postoperative clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease.MethodsWe did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial at 29 UK secondary and tertiary hospitals of patients (aged >16 years in Scotland or >18 years in England and Wales) who had a confirmed diagnosis of Crohn's disease and had undergone intestinal resection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated web-based randomisation system to oral daily mercaptopurine at a dose of 1 mg/kg bodyweight rounded to the nearest 25 mg or placebo; patients with low thiopurine methyltransferase activity received half the normal dose. Patients and their carers and physicians were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were followed up for 3 years. The primary endpoint was clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index >150 plus 100-point increase in score) and the need for anti-inflammatory rescue treatment or primary surgical intervention. Primary and safety analyses were by intention to treat. Subgroup analyses by smoking status, previous thiopurines, previous infliximab or methotrexate, previous surgery, duration of disease, or age at diagnosis were also done. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN89489788) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2006-005800-15).FindingsBetween June 6, 2008, and April 23, 2012, 240 patients with Crohn's disease were randomly assigned: 128 to mercaptopurine and 112 to placebo. All patients received at least one dose of study drug, and no randomly assigned patients were excluded from the analysis. 16 (13%) of patients in the mercaptopurine group versus 26 (23%) patients in the placebo group had a clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease and needed anti-inflammatory rescue treatment or primary surgical intervention (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·27-1·06; p=0·07; unadjusted HR 0·53, 95% CI 0·28-0·99; p=0·046). In a subgroup analysis, three (10%) of 29 smokers in the mercaptopurine group and 12 (46%) of 26 in the placebo group had a clinical recurrence that needed treatment (HR 0·13, 95% CI 0·04-0·46), compared with 13 (13%) of 99 non-smokers in the mercaptopurine group and 14 (16%) of 86 in the placebo group (0·90, 0·42-1·94; pinteraction=0·018). The effect of mercaptopurine did not significantly differ from placebo for any of the other planned subgroup analyses (previous thiopurines, previous infliximab or methotrexate, previous surgery, duration of disease, or age at diagnosis). The incidence and types of adverse events were similar in the mercaptopurine and placebo groups. One patient on placebo died of ischaemic heart disease. Adverse events caused discontinuation of treatment in 39 (30%) of 128 patients in the mercaptopurine group versus 41 (37%) of 112 in the placebo group.InterpretationMercaptopurine is effective in preventing postoperative clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease, but only in patients who are smokers. Thus, in smokers, thiopurine treatment seems to be justified in the postoperative period, although smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged given that smoking increases the risk of recurrence.FundingMedical Research Council.

Dataset Information

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets