Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22280247

RESUMO

BackgroundWe investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. MethodsWe conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. ResultsBetween October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). ConclusionsAddition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).

2.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22280245

RESUMO

BackgroundImmune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care. MethodsWe conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. ResultsA total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections. ConclusionsInfliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).

3.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22276088

RESUMO

RationaleThere are few treatment options for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Opaganib is an oral treatment under investigation. ObjectiveEvaluate opaganib treatment in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. MethodsA randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2/3 trial was conducted in 60 sites worldwide from August 2020 to July 2021. Patients received either opaganib (n=230; 500mg twice daily) or matching placebo (n=233) for 14 days. Main Outcome MeasurementsPrimary outcome was the proportion of patients no longer requiring supplemental oxygen by day 14. Secondary outcomes included changes in the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement, viral clearance, intubation, and mortality at 28- and 42-days. Main ResultsPre-specified primary and secondary outcome analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant benefit (except for time to viral clearance). Post-hoc analysis revealed the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at baseline was prognostic for opaganib treatment responsiveness and corresponded to disease severity markers. Patients with FiO2 levels at or below the median value ([≤]60%) had better outcomes after opaganib treatment (n=117) compared to placebo (n=134). The proportion of patients with [≤]60% FIO2 at baseline that no longer required supplemental oxygen ([≥]24 hours) by day 14 of opaganib treatment increased (76.9% vs 63.4%: p-value =0.033). There was a 62.6% reduction in intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.84% vs 17.91%; p-value=0.012) and a clinically meaningful 62% reduction in mortality (5.98% vs 16.7%; p-value=0.019) by day 42. No new safety concerns observed. ConclusionsPost-hoc analysis supports opaganib benefit in COVID-19 severe pneumonia patients that require lower supplemental oxygen ([≤]60% FiO2). Further studies are warranted. Trial registration numberNCT04467840

4.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22275010

RESUMO

BackgroundOngoing outbreaks of COVID-19 are driven by waning immunity following primary immunizations and emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants which escape vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. It has been suggested that heterologous boosters could enhance and potentially maintain population immunity. MethodsWe assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity of booster doses of different formulations of alum-adjuvanted SCB-2019 vaccine (9 g SCB-2019 with or without CpG-1018 adjuvant, or 30 g SCB-2019 with CpG-1018) in Brazilian adults primed with ChAdOx1-S vector vaccine. S-protein antibodies and ACE2-binding inhibition were measured by ELISA on Days 1, 15 and 29. Participants self-reported solicited adverse events and reactions. ResultsAll SCB-2019 formulations increased S-protein ELISA antibodies and ACE2 binding inhibition to a greater extent than ChAdOx1-S. After 30 g SCB-2019+CpG+alum titers against wild-type S-protein were significantly higher than after ChAdOx1-S on Days 15 and 29, as were titers of neutralizing antibodies against wild-type strain and Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants. Boosting with SCB-2019 or ChAdOx1-S was well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious or severe adverse events. ConclusionsBoosting ChAdOx1-S-primed adults with SCB-2019 induced higher levels of antibodies against a wild-type strain and SARS-CoV-2 variants than a homologous ChAdOx1-S booster, highest responses being with the 30 g SCB-2019+CpG+alum formulation.

5.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21255475

RESUMO

BACKGROUNDIncreasing age is a risk factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality; emerging science implicates GM-CSF and dysregulated myeloid cell responses in the pathophysiology of severe COVID-19. METHODSWe conducted a large, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating a single 90 mg infusion of otilimab (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal) plus standard of care in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 respiratory failure and systemic inflammation, stratified by age and clinical status. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28; secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality at Day 60. RESULTSOverall, 806 patients were randomized (1:1); 71% of patients receiving otilimab were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% receiving placebo, although this did not reach statistical significance (model-adjusted difference 5.3% [95% CI -0.8, 11.4]; p=0.09). However, there was a benefit in the pre-defined [≥]70-year age group (model-adjusted difference 19.1% [95% CI 5.2, 33.1]; nominal p=0.009); these patients also had a reduction of 14.4% (95% CI 0.9, 27.9%; nominal p=0.04) in model-adjusted all-cause mortality at Day 60. Safety findings were comparable between otilimab and placebo, and consistent with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONSAlthough not statistically significant in the overall population, otilimab demonstrated a substantial benefit in patients aged [≥]70, possibly reflecting a population that could benefit from therapeutic blocking of GM-CSF in severe COVID-19 where myeloid cell dysregulation is predominant. These findings are being confirmed in a further cohort of patients aged [≥]70 in Part 2 of this study. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04376684).

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA