Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Métodos Terapéuticos y Terapias MTCI
Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e222735, 2022 03 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35294537

RESUMEN

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed. Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021. Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants. Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009.


Asunto(s)
Bloqueadores del Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19/complicaciones , Losartán/uso terapéutico , Lesión Pulmonar/prevención & control , Lesión Pulmonar/virología , Adulto , Anciano , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Lesión Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Puntuaciones en la Disfunción de Órganos , Pruebas de Función Respiratoria , Estados Unidos
2.
Biometrics ; 74(3): 1095-1103, 2018 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29359314

RESUMEN

A design is proposed for randomized comparative trials with ordinal outcomes and prognostic subgroups. The design accounts for patient heterogeneity by allowing possibly different comparative conclusions within subgroups. The comparative testing criterion is based on utilities for the levels of the ordinal outcome and a Bayesian probability model. Designs based on two alternative models that include treatment-subgroup interactions are considered, the proportional odds model and a non-proportional odds model with a hierarchical prior that shrinks toward the proportional odds model. A third design that assumes homogeneity and ignores possible treatment-subgroup interactions also is considered. The three approaches are applied to construct group sequential designs for a trial of nutritional prehabilitation versus standard of care for esophageal cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation and surgery, including both untreated patients and salvage patients whose disease has recurred following previous therapy. A simulation study is presented that compares the three designs, including evaluation of within-subgroup type I and II error probabilities under a variety of scenarios including different combinations of treatment-subgroup interactions.


Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Terapia Combinada , Simulación por Computador , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Humanos , Terapia Nutricional , Medicina de Precisión/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA