An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir and ritonavir, lopinavir and ritonavir plus interferon-β-1a, and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: final results.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ader F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9076583 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir and ritonavir, lopinavir and ritonavir plus interferon-β-1a, and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: final results.
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 20220507 9
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support.MethodsWe conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely.ResultsThe intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms.ConclusionIn adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.
| S-EPMC8149166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: No specific treatment has been approved for COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been used with poor results, and a trial showed advantages of combined antiviral therapy vs. single antivirals. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the combination of antivirals (LPV/r and HCQ) or their single use in COVID-19 hospitalized patients vs. standard of care (SoC). Methods: Patients ≥18 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as positive RT-PCR from nasal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swab or positive serology, admitted at L. Spallanzani Institute (Italy) were included. Primary endpoint: time to invasive ventilation/death. Secondary endpoint: time to two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 PCRs in NP/OP swabs. In order to control for measured confounders, a marginal Cox regression model with inverse probability weights was used. Results: A total of 590 patients were included in the analysis: 36.3% female, 64 years (IQR 51-76), and 91% with pneumonia. Cumulative probability of invasive ventilation/death at 14 days was 21.2% (95% CI 17.6, 24.7), without difference between SOC, LPV/r, hydroxychloroquine, HCQ + LPV/r, and SoC. The risk of invasive ventilation/death in the groups appeared to vary by baseline ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2). Overall cumulative probability of confirmed negative nasopharyngeal swabs at 14 days was 44.4% (95% CI 38.9, 49.9), without difference between groups. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, we found no difference in the rate of invasive ventilation/death or viral shedding by different strategies, as in randomized trials performed to date. Moreover, even the combination HCQ + LPV/r did not show advantages vs. SoC.
| S-EPMC8100580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: To date, no oral antiviral drug has proven to be beneficial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, open-label, platform trial, we randomly assigned patients ≥18 years hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive either camostat mesylate (CM) (considered standard-of-care) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV). The primary endpoint was time to sustained clinical improvement (≥48 h) of at least one point on the 7-category WHO scale. Secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS), need for mechanical ventilation (MV) or death, and 29-day mortality. Results: 201 patients were included in the study (101 CM and 100 LPV/RTV) between 20 April 2020 and 14 May 2021. Mean age was 58.7 years, and 67% were male. The median time from symptom onset to randomization was 7 days (IQR 5-9). Patients in the CM group had a significantly shorter time to sustained clinical improvement (HR = 0.67, 95%-CI 0.49-0.90; 9 vs. 11 days, p = 0.008) and demonstrated less progression to MV or death [6/101 (5.9%) vs. 15/100 (15%), p = 0.036] and a shorter LOS (12 vs. 14 days, p = 0.023). A statistically nonsignificant trend toward a lower 29-day mortality in the CM group than the LPV/RTV group [2/101 (2%) vs. 7/100 (7%), p = 0.089] was observed. Conclusion: In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of CM was associated with shorter time to clinical improvement, reduced need for MV or death, and shorter LOS than the use of LPV/RTV. Furthermore, research is needed to confirm the efficacy of CM in larger placebo-controlled trials. Systematic Review Registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04351724, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001302-30/AT], identifier [NCT04351724, EUDRACT-NR: 2020-001302-30].
| S-EPMC9354138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Favipiravir (FVP), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV), and interferon-beta (INF-beta) are considered as potential treatments for COVID-19. We examined the efficacy and safety of FVP and INF-beta compared to LPV/RTV and INF-beta combinations for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. It was a single-center randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients were randomized to receive FVP plus INF-beta versus LPV/RTV plus INF-beta. The primary endpoint was the viral clearance after seven days of randomization. ICU admission, length of stay (LOS) in hospital, in-hospital mortality, and the incidence of adverse events were also measured. This trial was registered on the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20200506047323N3). Patients were randomly allocated to the FVP (n = 33) and LPV/RTV (n = 33) groups. The viral clearance on Day seven was not significantly different between the FVP (31.1%) and the LPV/RTV groups (16.1%). The rate of ICU admission and likewise the in-hospital mortality in the FVP group (12.5% and 6.3%, respectively) were similar to the LPV/RTV groups (19.4% and 19.4%, respectively). The median LOS in the hospital was also not different (6.8 days [interquartile range; IQR = 5.0-11.0] in the FVP and (8.0 days [IQR = 5.5-12.5]) in LPV/RTV groups (p = 0.140). Adverse events were observed in 25.0% of FVP and 32.3% of LPV/RTV groups. The combination therapy with FVP did not exert a higher efficacy compared to the combination regimen of LPV/RTV. However, both treatment regimens demonstrated a mild profile of adverse events.
| S-EPMC9088571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLopinavir-ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity, preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir-ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir-ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir-ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91-1·17; p=0·60). Results were consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91-1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99-1·20; p=0·092).InterpretationIn patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir-ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.FundingMedical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research.
| S-EPMC7535623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of the antiviral therapy in treatment of COVID-19 is still a matter to be investigated. Also efficacy and safety of antiviral regimens were not compared according severity of the disease. In this study the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir was compared in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. METHODS:We prospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 213 patients with COVID-19 during the hospitalization course and up to 56 days after the hospital discharge. The disease was categorized to moderate and severe based on the severity of pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). The patients received the national treatment protocol containing hydroxychloroquine (400 mg BD in first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg daily) for 7 days. Main outcomes included discharge rates at day 7, 14 and 28, 28-day mortality, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, length of hospital and ICU stay and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS:The mean (SD) age of patients was 60(14) years and 53% were male. According to WHO definition, 51.64% and 48.36% of the patients had moderate (SpO2???90%) and severe disease (SpO2?<?90%) at baseline, respectively. The discharge rate of the moderate group was significantly higher than the severe group at day 7, 14 and 28 (HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.69, p?=?< 0.001 at day 7, HR?=?0.48; 95% CI: 0.35-0.66, p?=?< 0.001 at day 14 and HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, p?=?< 0.001at day 28). The 28-day mortality of the severe group was six times higher than the moderate group (HR?=?6.00; 95% CI: 2.50-14.44), p?=?< 0.001). The need of admission in ICU for the severe group and the moderate group was 37.86% and 18.18% of the patients. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the moderate group in comparison with the severe group (5?±?4 vs. 8?±?6 days, p?<?0.001). Patients in the moderate group experienced the serious adverse events and complications less than the severe group. The discharged patients were followed up to 56 days after discharge. Some of the patients complained of symptoms such as exertional dyspnea, weakness and new-onset hair loss. CONCLUSION:Our study did not support the use of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir in patients who had SpO2?<?90% at the time of hospital admission. SpO2 was the only predictor of clinical outcomes (duration of hospital stay, discharge from the hospital and mortality) in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir.
| S-EPMC7453126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective antiviral therapy is important for tackling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We assessed the efficacy and safety of combined interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin for treating patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis was a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial in adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to six hospitals in Hong Kong. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to a 14-day combination of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h, ribavirin 400 mg every 12 h, and three doses of 8 million international units of interferon beta-1b on alternate days (combination group) or to 14 days of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h (control group). The primary endpoint was the time to providing a nasopharyngeal swab negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RT-PCR, and was done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04276688.FindingsBetween Feb 10 and March 20, 2020, 127 patients were recruited; 86 were randomly assigned to the combination group and 41 were assigned to the control group. The median number of days from symptom onset to start of study treatment was 5 days (IQR 3-7). The combination group had a significantly shorter median time from start of study treatment to negative nasopharyngeal swab (7 days [IQR 5-11]) than the control group (12 days [8-15]; hazard ratio 4·37 [95% CI 1·86-10·24], p=0·0010). Adverse events included self-limited nausea and diarrhoea with no difference between the two groups. One patient in the control group discontinued lopinavir-ritonavir because of biochemical hepatitis. No patients died during the study.InterpretationEarly triple antiviral therapy was safe and superior to lopinavir-ritonavir alone in alleviating symptoms and shortening the duration of viral shedding and hospital stay in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Future clinical study of a double antiviral therapy with interferon beta-1b as a backbone is warranted.FundingThe Shaw-Foundation, Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, and Sanming Project of Medicine.
| S-EPMC7211500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNo therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first.ResultsA total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events.ConclusionsIn hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).
| S-EPMC7121492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlbuvirtide (ABT), a fusion inhibitor against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, has good efficacy and tolerability for HIV treatment. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ABT-based regimen as second-line therapy. This current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to ABT + ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) treatment in a cohort of HIV-infected individuals who failed initial treatment.MethodsThis retrospective comparative cohort study included patients who failed initial treatment and switched to either ABT + LPV/r (the ABT group) or two nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) + LPV/r (the NRTI group) between November 2019 and December 2020 in the People's Hospital of Zhaojue County in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, China. All individuals were followed up from baseline to 12 weeks after conversion, or until the patient developed unacceptable toxic effects or was loss of follow-up. The proportion of patients who achieved virological suppression (viral load <50 copies/mL) at week 12 was considered a primary efficacy endpoint. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities. All participants underwent resistance testing before regimen conversion. The linear regression model was applied to evaluate the association of CD4+ T cell count with the patient's clinical characteristics.ResultsA total of 71 patients were included in this study, the two groups were comparable at baseline in terms of age, sex, CD4+ T cell count, and viral load. The suppression of HIV-1 RNA to levels <50 copies/mL was achieved in 82.4% (28/31) and 29.7% (11/34) of patients in the ABT group and the NRTI group, respectively (P<0.001). Older age (P=0.016) and higher alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels (P=0.038), but not rescue regimen, were associated with attenuated CD4+ T cell recovery. Most adverse events mild in severity, with abdominal pain as the most reported event in two groups (26.8%, 19/71), and no severe adverse events were detected.ConclusionsConversion to ABT + LPV/r therapy appears to be an effective and safe strategy. This treatment regimen has great potential to be generalized in the HIV-infected population, although further testing in a larger patient population is required to verify these results.
| S-EPMC9652537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOur study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of IFN-based therapy (lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon β-1b) vs. favipiravir (FPV) in a cohort of hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19.MethodsSingle center observational study comparing IFN-based therapy (interferon β-1b, ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) vs. FPV in non-critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Allocation to either treatment group was non-random but based on changes to national treatment protocols rather than physicians' selection (quasi-experimental). We examined the association between IFN-based therapy and 28-day mortality using Cox regression model with treatment as a time-dependent covariate.ResultsThe study cohort included 222 patients, of whom 68 (28%) received IFN-based therapy. Antiviral therapy was started at a median of 5 days (3-6 days) from symptoms onset in the IFN group vs. 6 days (4-7 days) for the FPV group, P <0.0001. IFN-based therapy was associated with a lower 28-day mortality as compared to FPV (6 (9%) vs. 18 (12%)), adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] (95% Cl) = 0.27 (0.08-0.88)). No difference in hospitalization duration between the 2 groups, 9 (7-14) days vs. 9 (7-13) days, P = 0.732 was found. IFN treated group required less use of systemic corticosteroids (57%) as compared to FPV (77%), P = 0.005 after adjusting for disease severity and other confounders. Patients in the IFN treated group were more likely to have nausea and diarrhea as compared to FPV group (13%) vs. (3%), P = 0.013 and (18%) vs. (3%), P<0.0001, respectively.ConclusionEarly IFN-based triple therapy was associated with lower 28-days mortality as compared to FPV.
| S-EPMC8191942 | biostudies-literature