Dataset Information

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of a novel prophylactic nasal spray in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multi-centre, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to devastate communities all over the world. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the test agent as a prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a population of high-risk healthcare workers. Methods The study was a multi-centre, prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Key eligibility criteria included absence of significant co-morbidity and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Participants were randomised to either the active agent nasal spray or placebo using computer generated random number tables. The nasal spray was administered 3 times daily over a 45 day course. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects who tested positive for IgGS (anti-spike, immunoglobulin G specific to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2) at day 45. Results Between 16th April 2021 and 26th July 2021, 556 participants were analysed for the primary endpoint (275 Test; 281 Placebo). The test agent significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to placebo [36 cases (13.1%) Vs 97 cases (34.5%); OR 0.29 (95% CI; 0.18-0.45), p<0.0001]. Fewer clinical symptoms were also seen in the test group [57 cases (17.6%) vs 112 cases (34.6%); OR 0.40, (95% CI; 0.27-0.59),p<0.0001]. No harmful effects were associated with taking the test agent. Conclusion The test agent significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers, with 62% fewer infections when compared to placebo. It was found to be safe and well tolerated and offers a novel treatment option for prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SUBMITTER: Balmforth D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9313533 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveEvaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zavegepant nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine.BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting agents are a novel class of therapeutics for migraine, but none are currently available as a nonoral option for acute treatment. Zavegepant, a high-affinity, selective, and structurally unique calcitonin gene-related peptide-receptor antagonist in late-stage development, is formulated as a nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsThis randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, Phase 2/3 trial in adults aged ≥18 years with migraine (NCT03872453) was conducted at US study sites. Participants were randomized by an interactive web response system and treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain intensity with zavegepant nasal spray 5, 10, 20 mg, or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose.ResultsOf the 1673 participants aged 18 to 79 years who were randomized, 1588 were treated with study medication, and 1581 (mean age 40.8 years, 85.5% female) were analyzed for efficacy: zavegepant 5 mg (n = 387), 10 mg (n = 391), 20 mg (n = 402), and placebo (n = 401). Zavegepant 10 and 20 mg were more effective than placebo on the coprimary endpoints of pain freedom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 15.5% [98.3% confidence interval (CI), 11.1, 19.8]; 10 mg: 22.5% [98.3% CI, 17.5, 27.6; p = 0.0113]; 20 mg: 23.1% [98.3% CI, 18.1, 28.2; p = 0.0055]) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 33.7% [98.3% CI, 28.0, 39.3]; 10 mg: 41.9% [98.3% CI, 36.0, 47.9; p = 0.0155]; 20 mg: 42.5% [98.3% CI, 36.6, 48.4; p = 0.0094]). Findings for the 5 mg dose were not significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with zavegepant 10 and 20 mg and placebo were dysgeusia (13.5% to 16.1% vs. 3.5%), nausea (2.7% to 4.1% vs. 0.5%), and nasal discomfort (1.3% to 5.2% vs. 0.2%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. There was no signal of hepatotoxicity.ConclusionZavegepant nasal spray, in single doses of 10 or 20 mg, was effective for the acute treatment of migraine, with a favorable safety profile. Additional research is needed to confirm its potential as a nonoral medication for the acute treatment of migraine.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel formulation of midazolam administered as a single-dose nasal spray (MDZ-NS) in the outpatient treatment of patients experiencing seizure clusters (SCs).MethodsThis was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01390220) with patients age ≥12 years on a stable regimen of antiepileptic drugs. Following an in-clinic test dose phase (TDP), patients entered an outpatient comparative phase (CP) and were randomized (2:1) to receive double-blind MDZ-NS 5 mg or placebo nasal spray, administered by caregivers when they experienced an SC. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success (seizure termination within 10 minutes and no recurrence 10 minutes to 6 hours after trial drug administration). Secondary efficacy end points were proportion of patients with seizure recurrence 10 minutes to 4 hours, and time-to-next seizure >10 minutes after double-blind drug administration. Safety was monitored throughout.ResultsOf 292 patients administered a test dose, 262 patients were randomized, and 201 received double-blind treatment for an SC (n = 134 MDZ-NS, n = 67 placebo, modified intent-to-treat population). A significantly greater proportion of MDZ-NS- than placebo-treated patients achieved treatment success (53.7% vs 34.4%; P = 0.0109). Significantly, fewer MDZ-NS- than placebo-treated patients experienced seizure recurrence (38.1% vs 59.7%; P = 0.0043). Time-to-next seizure analysis showed early separation (within 30 minutes) between MDZ-NS and placebo that was maintained throughout the 24-hour observation period (21% difference at 24 hours; P = 0.0124). Sixteen patients (5.5%) discontinued because of a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the TDP and none during the CP. During the CP, 27.6% and 22.4% of patients in the MDZ-NS and placebo groups, respectively, experienced ≥1 TEAE.SignificanceMDZ-NS was superior to placebo in providing rapid, sustained seizure control when administered to patients experiencing an SC in the outpatient setting and was associated with a favorable safety profile.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) is frequently performed in single-lung and double-lung transplant recipients for evaluation of clinical and radiological findings as well as routine surveillance for acute cellular rejection. While rates of clinically significant TBLB-related haemorrhage are <1% for all comers, the incidence in lung transplant recipients is reported to be higher, presumably due to persistent allograft inflammation and alterations in allograft blood flow. While routinely performed by some bronchoscopists, the efficacy and safety profile of prophylactic administration of topical intrabronchial diluted epinephrine for the prevention of TBLB-related haemorrhage has not been explored in a prospective manner. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trial (PROPHET Study), single-lung and double-lung transplant adult recipients from participating institutions who are scheduled for bronchoscopy with TBLB for clinical indications will be identified. Potential participants who meet inclusion and exclusion criteria and sign an informed consent will be randomised to receive either diluted epinephrine or placebo prior to performance of TBLB. The degree of TBLB-related haemorrhage will be graded by the performing bronchoscopist as well as independent observers. The primary analysis will compare the rates of severe and very severe bleeding in participants treated with epinephrine or placebo. The study will also evaluate the safety profile of prophylactic topical epinephrine including the occurrence of serious cardiovascular and haemodynamic adverse events. Additional secondary outcomes to be explored include rates of non-severe TBLB-related haemorrhage, overall yield of the bronchoscopic procedure and non-serious cardiovascular and haemodynamic adverse effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study procedures were reviewed and approved by institutional review boards in participating institutions. This study is being externally monitored, and a data and safety monitoring committee has been assembled to monitor patient safety and to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at relevant academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03126968; Pre-results.

Project description:Trial designWe present a study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial that seeks to test the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a 52-week period of treatment with the first-in-class co-stimulatory blocker abatacept for preventing or delaying the onset of inflammatory arthritis.MethodsThe study aimed to recruit 206 male or female subjects from the secondary care hospital setting across the UK and the Netherlands. Participants who were at least 18 years old, who reported inflammatory sounding joint pain (clinically suspicious arthralgia) and who were found to be positive for serum autoantibodies associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were eligible for enrolment. All study subjects were randomly assigned to receive weekly injections of investigational medicinal product, either abatacept or placebo treatment over the course of a 52-week period. Participants were followed up for a further 52?weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to development of at least three swollen joints or to the fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for RA using swollen but not tender joints, whichever endpoint was met first. In either case, swollen joints were confirmed by ultrasonography. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes were all blinded to group assignment. Clinical assessors and ultrasonographers were also blinded to each other's assessments for the duration of the study.ConclusionsThere is limited experience of the design and implementation of trials for the prevention of inflammatory joint diseases. We discuss the rationale behind choice and duration of treatment and the challenges associated with defining the "at risk" state and offer pragmatic solutions in the protocol to enrolling subjects at risk of RA.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN46017566 . Registered on 4 July 2014.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of a novel prophylactic nasal spray in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multi-centre, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets