Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Varenicline for long term smoking cessation in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Quitting smoking is key for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Standard recommendations for quitting smoking are implemented for COPD as well. Varenicline Tartrate (VT) is the most effective drug to help quit smoking, but few studies have analysed its effectiveness. AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the Abstinence Rate (AR) at 12 months, in COPD and non-COPD smokers. METHODS: Observational study in 31 COPD (post bronchodilator-BD FEV1/FVC <0.70) and in 63 non-COPD smokers, were invited to receive treatment with Varenicline Tartrate (VT). Fourteen subjects with COPD and 46 non-COPD subjects received additionally Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Abstinence rate (AR) was validated by exhaled carbon monoxide CO (COe), in addition to a phone or face-to-face interview. Motivation score was measured with a visual analogue scale (MS). RESULTS: Differences between COPD and non-COPD, mean FEV1/FVC ratio 0.52 ±â€¯0.10 vs. 0.90 ±â€¯0.15, age 60 ±â€¯10 vs. 47 ±â€¯10 years, smoking pack-years 37 ±â€¯3.5 vs. 22 ±â€¯12, and COe 16 ±â€¯11 vs. 12 ±â€¯9 ppm were statistically significant (p < 0.05); for MS the score was 93 ±â€¯11 vs. 93 ±â€¯11 and for attempts to quit (AQ) 2 ±â€¯2 vs. 2 ±â€¯3 were not. AR was not significantly different at 12 months (61.2 vs. 42.8% p = 0.072). Motivation was the only significant one-year AR predictor. CONCLUSIONS: COPD smokers had a similar response (higher tendency) to VT regardless of the presence of airflow obstruction and stronger nicotine addiction.