Showing papers on "Randomized controlled trial published in 2021"

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia.

Abstract: Background Convalescent plasma is frequently administered to patients with Covid-19 and has been reported, largely on the basis of observational data, to improve clinical outcomes. Minimal data are available from adequately powered randomized, controlled trials. Methods We randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. The primary outcome was the patient's clinical status 30 days after the intervention, as measured on a six-point ordinal scale ranging from total recovery to death. Results A total of 228 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 105 to receive placebo. The median time from the onset of symptoms to enrollment in the trial was 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), and hypoxemia was the most frequent severity criterion for enrollment. The infused convalescent plasma had a median titer of 1:3200 of total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (interquartile range, 1:800 to 1:3200]. No patients were lost to follow-up. At day 30 day, no significant difference was noted between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in the distribution of clinical outcomes according to the ordinal scale (odds ratio, 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.35; P = 0.46). Overall mortality was 10.96% in the convalescent plasma group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of -0.46 percentage points (95% CI, -7.8 to 6.8). Total SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers tended to be higher in the convalescent plasma group at day 2 after the intervention. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo. (PlasmAr ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04383535.).

Effect of Bamlanivimab as Monotherapy or in Combination With Etesevimab on Viral Load in Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread rapidly worldwide. Neutralizing antibodies are a potential treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To determine the effect of bamlanivimab monotherapy and combination therapy with bamlanivimab and etesevimab on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The BLAZE-1 study is a randomized phase 2/3 trial at 49 US centers including ambulatory patients (N = 613) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and had 1 or more mild to moderate symptoms. Patients who received bamlanivimab monotherapy or placebo were enrolled first (June 17-August 21, 2020) followed by patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab or placebo (August 22-September 3). These are the final analyses and represent findings through October 6, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive a single infusion of bamlanivimab (700 mg [n = 101], 2800 mg [n = 107], or 7000 mg [n = 101]), the combination treatment (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab [n = 112]), or placebo (n = 156). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in SARS-CoV-2 log viral load at day 11 (±4 days). Nine prespecified secondary outcome measures were evaluated with comparisons between each treatment group and placebo, and included 3 other measures of viral load, 5 on symptoms, and 1 measure of clinical outcome (the proportion of patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalization, an emergency department [ED] visit, or death at day 29). Results: Among the 577 patients who were randomized and received an infusion (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 15.7] years; 315 [54.6%] women), 533 (92.4%) completed the efficacy evaluation period (day 29). The change in log viral load from baseline at day 11 was -3.72 for 700 mg, -4.08 for 2800 mg, -3.49 for 7000 mg, -4.37 for combination treatment, and -3.80 for placebo. Compared with placebo, the differences in the change in log viral load at day 11 were 0.09 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.52; P = .69) for 700 mg, -0.27 (95% CI, -0.71 to 0.16; P = .21) for 2800 mg, 0.31 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.76; P = .16) for 7000 mg, and -0.57 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.14; P = .01) for combination treatment. Among the secondary outcome measures, differences between each treatment group vs the placebo group were statistically significant for 10 of 84 end points. The proportion of patients with COVID-19-related hospitalizations or ED visits was 5.8% (9 events) for placebo, 1.0% (1 event) for 700 mg, 1.9% (2 events) for 2800 mg, 2.0% (2 events) for 7000 mg, and 0.9% (1 event) for combination treatment. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 9 patients (6 bamlanivimab, 2 combination treatment, and 1 placebo). No deaths occurred during the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness, treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, compared with placebo, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load at day 11; no significant difference in viral load reduction was observed for bamlanivimab monotherapy. Further ongoing clinical trials will focus on assessing the clinical benefit of antispike neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 as a primary end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04427501.

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Usual Care in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Moderate or Severe Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, setting, and particpants This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants. Main outcomes and measures Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events. Results Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], -21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI -28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21). Conclusions and relevance In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04331808.

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Standard Care on Clinical Worsening in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening billions of people worldwide. Tocilizumab has shown promising results in retrospective studies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with a good safety profile. Objective To evaluate the effect of early tocilizumab administration vs standard therapy in preventing clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial that randomized patients hospitalized between March 31 and June 11, 2020, with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive tocilizumab or standard of care in 24 hospitals in Italy. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction method with nasopharyngeal swab. Eligibility criteria included COVID-19 pneumonia documented by radiologic imaging, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg, and an inflammatory phenotype defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein. Interventions Patients in the experimental arm received intravenous tocilizumab within 8 hours from randomization (8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg), followed by a second dose after 12 hours. Patients in the control arm received supportive care following the protocols of each clinical center until clinical worsening and then could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy. Main Outcome and Measures The primary composite outcome was defined as entry into the intensive care unit with invasive mechanical ventilation, death from all causes, or clinical aggravation documented by the finding of a Pao2/Fio2ratio less than 150 mm Hg, whichever came first. Results A total of 126 patients were randomized (60 to the tocilizumab group; 66 to the control group). The median (interquartile range) age was 60.0 (53.0-72.0) years, and the majority of patients were male (77 of 126, 61.1%). Three patients withdrew from the study, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses. Seventeen patients of 60 (28.3%) in the tocilizumab arm and 17 of 63 (27.0%) in the standard care group showed clinical worsening within 14 days since randomization (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59-1.86). Two patients in the experimental group and 1 in the control group died before 30 days from randomization, and 6 and 5 patients were intubated in the 2 groups, respectively. The trial was prematurely interrupted after an interim analysis for futility. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and Pao2/Fio2ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg who received tocilizumab, no benefit on disease progression was observed compared with standard care. Further blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and to evaluate possible applications of tocilizumab in different stages of the disease. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04346355; EudraCT Identifier:2020-001386-37

Effect of 2 Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines on Symptomatic COVID-19 Infection in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Although effective vaccines against COVID-19 have been developed, additional vaccines are still needed. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of 2 inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. Design, setting, and participants Prespecified interim analysis of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain among adults 18 years and older without known history of COVID-19. Study enrollment began on July 16, 2020. Data sets used for the interim analysis of efficacy and adverse events were locked on December 20, 2020, and December 31, 2020, respectively. Interventions Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 2 inactivated vaccines developed from SARS-CoV-2 WIV04 (5 µg/dose; n = 13 459) and HB02 (4 µg/dose; n = 13 465) strains or an aluminum hydroxide (alum)-only control (n = 13 458); they received 2 intramuscular injections 21 days apart. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome was efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 14 days following a second vaccine dose among participants who had no virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomization. The secondary outcome was efficacy against severe COVID-19. Incidence of adverse events and reactions was collected among participants who received at least 1 dose. Results Among 40 382 participants randomized to receive at least 1 dose of the 2 vaccines or alum-only control (mean age, 36.1 years; 32 261 [84.4%] men), 38 206 (94.6%) who received 2 doses, contributed at least 1 follow-up measure after day 14 following the second dose, and had negative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test results at enrollment were included in the primary efficacy analysis. During a median (range) follow-up duration of 77 (1-121) days, symptomatic COVID-19 was identified in 26 participants in the WIV04 group (12.1 [95% CI, 8.3-17.8] per 1000 person-years), 21 in the HB02 group (9.8 [95% CI, 6.4-15.0] per 1000 person-years), and 95 in the alum-only group (44.7 [95% CI, 36.6-54.6] per 1000 person-years), resulting in a vaccine efficacy, compared with alum-only, of 72.8% (95% CI, 58.1%-82.4%) for WIV04 and 78.1% (95% CI, 64.8%-86.3%) for HB02 (P Conclusions and relevance In this prespecified interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial, treatment of adults with either of 2 inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic COVID-19, and serious adverse events were rare. Data collection for final analysis is pending. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510207; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000034780.

Effects of Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy on Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Importance Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a substantial public health burden, but current treatments have limited effectiveness and adherence. Recent evidence suggests that 1 or 2 administrations of psilocybin with psychological support produces antidepressant effects in patients with cancer and in those with treatment-resistant depression. Objective To investigate the effect of psilocybin therapy in patients with MDD. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized, waiting list–controlled clinical trial was conducted at the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland. Adults aged 21 to 75 years with an MDD diagnosis, not currently using antidepressant medications, and without histories of psychotic disorder, serious suicide attempt, or hospitalization were eligible to participate. Enrollment occurred between August 2017 and April 2019, and the 4-week primary outcome assessments were completed in July 2019. A total of 27 participants were randomized to an immediate treatment condition group (n = 15) or delayed treatment condition group (waiting list control condition; n = 12). Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, and included participants who completed the intervention (evaluable population). Interventions Two psilocybin sessions (session 1: 20 mg/70 kg; session 2: 30 mg/70 kg) were given (administered in opaque gelatin capsules with approximately 100 mL of water) in the context of supportive psychotherapy (approximately 11 hours). Participants were randomized to begin treatment immediately or after an 8-week delay. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome, depression severity was assessed with the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD) scores at baseline (score of ≥17 required for enrollment) and weeks 5 and 8 after enrollment for the delayed treatment group, which corresponded to weeks 1 and 4 after the intervention for the immediate treatment group. Secondary outcomes included the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Rated (QIDS-SR). Results Of the randomized participants, 24 of 27 (89%) completed the intervention and the week 1 and week 4 postsession assessments. This population had a mean (SD) age of 39.8 (12.2) years, was composed of 16 women (67%), and had a mean (SD) baseline GRID-HAMD score of 22.8 (3.9). The mean (SD) GRID-HAMD scores at weeks 1 and 4 (8.0 [7.1] and 8.5 [5.7]) in the immediate treatment group were statistically significantly lower than the scores at the comparable time points of weeks 5 and 8 (23.8 [5.4] and 23.5 [6.0]) in the delayed treatment group. The effect sizes were large at week 5 (Cohend = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5;P Conclusions and Relevance Findings suggest that psilocybin with therapy is efficacious in treating MDD, thus extending the results of previous studies of this intervention in patients with cancer and depression and of a nonrandomized study in patients with treatment-resistant depression. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03181529

Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count Results Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, −6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48];P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, −∞ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (Pfor noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%];P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04486508

Randomized Trial of a Third Dose of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Transplant Recipients.

Abstract: A Third Vaccine Dose in Organ-Transplant Recipients It is known that people receiving immune suppressive therapy, such as recipients of solid-organ transplants, have a suboptimal response to SARS-C...

Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Placebo as an Adjunct to Intensive Behavioral Therapy on Body Weight in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: The STEP 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Weight loss improves cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight or obesity. Intensive lifestyle intervention and pharmacotherapy are the most effective noninvasive weight loss approaches. Objective To compare the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg vs placebo for weight management as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy with initial low-calorie diet in adults with overweight or obesity. Design, setting, and participants Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 68-week, phase 3a study (STEP 3) conducted at 41 sites in the US from August 2018 to April 2020 in adults without diabetes (N = 611) and with either overweight (body mass index ≥27) plus at least 1 comorbidity or obesity (body mass index ≥30). Interventions Participants were randomized (2:1) to semaglutide, 2.4 mg (n = 407) or placebo (n = 204), both combined with a low-calorie diet for the first 8 weeks and intensive behavioral therapy (ie, 30 counseling visits) during 68 weeks. Main outcomes and measures The co-primary end points were percentage change in body weight and the loss of 5% or more of baseline weight by week 68. Confirmatory secondary end points included losses of at least 10% or 15% of baseline weight. Results Of 611 randomized participants (495 women [81.0%], mean age 46 years [SD, 13], body weight 105.8 kg [SD, 22.9], and body mass index 38.0 [SD, 6.7]), 567 (92.8%) completed the trial, and 505 (82.7%) were receiving treatment at trial end. At week 68, the estimated mean body weight change from baseline was -16.0% for semaglutide vs -5.7% for placebo (difference, -10.3 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -8.6]; P Conclusions and relevance Among adults with overweight or obesity, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with placebo, used as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy and initial low-calorie diet, resulted in significantly greater weight loss during 68 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the durability of these findings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611582.

MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study

Abstract: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) presents a major public health problem for which currently available treatments are modestly effective. We report the findings of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-site phase 3 clinical trial (NCT03537014) to test the efficacy and safety of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted therapy for the treatment of patients with severe PTSD, including those with common comorbidities such as dissociation, depression, a history of alcohol and substance use disorders, and childhood trauma. After psychiatric medication washout, participants (n = 90) were randomized 1:1 to receive manualized therapy with MDMA or with placebo, combined with three preparatory and nine integrative therapy sessions. PTSD symptoms, measured with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5, the primary endpoint), and functional impairment, measured with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS, the secondary endpoint) were assessed at baseline and at 2 months after the last experimental session. Adverse events and suicidality were tracked throughout the study. MDMA was found to induce significant and robust attenuation in CAPS-5 score compared with placebo (P < 0.0001, d = 0.91) and to significantly decrease the SDS total score (P = 0.0116, d = 0.43). The mean change in CAPS-5 scores in participants completing treatment was −24.4 (s.d. 11.6) in the MDMA group and −13.9 (s.d. 11.5) in the placebo group. MDMA did not induce adverse events of abuse potential, suicidality or QT prolongation. These data indicate that, compared with manualized therapy with inactive placebo, MDMA-assisted therapy is highly efficacious in individuals with severe PTSD, and treatment is safe and well-tolerated, even in those with comorbidities. We conclude that MDMA-assisted therapy represents a potential breakthrough treatment that merits expedited clinical evaluation. Results from a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial demonstrate that MDMA-assisted therapy is safe and effective in treating severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial.

Abstract: Objective To determine whether tocilizumab improves clinical outcomes for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Randomised, open label trial. Setting Nine hospitals in Brazil, 8 May to 17 July 2020. Participants Adults with confirmed covid-19 who were receiving supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and had abnormal levels of at least two serum biomarkers (C reactive protein, D dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, or ferritin). The data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early, after 129 patients had been enrolled, because of an increased number of deaths at 15 days in the tocilizumab group. Interventions Tocilizumab (single intravenous infusion of 8 mg/kg) plus standard care (n=65) versus standard care alone (n=64). Main outcome measure The primary outcome, clinical status measured at 15 days using a seven level ordinal scale, was analysed as a composite of death or mechanical ventilation because the assumption of odds proportionality was not met. Results A total of 129 patients were enrolled (mean age 57 (SD 14) years; 68% men) and all completed follow-up. All patients in the tocilizumab group and two in the standard care group received tocilizumab. 18 of 65 (28%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 of 64 (20%) in the standard care group were receiving mechanical ventilation or died at day 15 (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.66; P=0.32). Death at 15 days occurred in 11 (17%) patients in the tocilizumab group compared with 2 (3%) in the standard care group (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 43.2). Adverse events were reported in 29 of 67 (43%) patients who received tocilizumab and 21 of 62 (34%) who did not receive tocilizumab. Conclusions In patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab plus standard care was not superior to standard care alone in improving clinical outcomes at 15 days, and it might increase mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04403685.

Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Network Meta-analysis.

Abstract: Importance Personalized treatment choices would increase the effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for depression to the extent that patients differ in interventions that better suit them. Objective To provide personalized estimates of short-term and long-term relative efficacy of guided and unguided iCBT for depression using patient-level information. Data Sources We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published up to January 1, 2019. Study Selection Eligible RCTs were those comparing guided or unguided iCBT against each other or against any control intervention in individuals with depression. Available individual patient data (IPD) was collected from all eligible studies. Depression symptom severity was assessed after treatment, 6 months, and 12 months after randomization. Data Extraction and Synthesis We conducted a systematic review and IPD network meta-analysis and estimated relative treatment effect sizes across different patient characteristics through IPD network meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) scores. Results Of 42 eligible RCTs, 39 studies comprising 9751 participants with depression contributed IPD to the IPD network meta-analysis, of which 8107 IPD were synthesized. Overall, both guided and unguided iCBT were associated with more effectiveness as measured by PHQ-9 scores than control treatments over the short term and the long term. Guided iCBT was associated with more effectiveness than unguided iCBT (mean difference [MD] in posttreatment PHQ-9 scores, −0.8; 95% CI, −1.4 to −0.2), but we found no evidence of a difference at 6 or 12 months following randomization. Baseline depression was found to be the most important modifier of the relative association for efficacy of guided vs unguided iCBT. Differences between unguided and guided iCBT in people with baseline symptoms of subthreshold depression (PHQ-9 scores 5-9) were small, while guided iCBT was associated with overall better outcomes in patients with baseline PHQ-9 greater than 9. Conclusions and Relevance In this network meta-analysis with IPD, guided iCBT was associated with more effectiveness than unguided iCBT for individuals with depression, benefits were more substantial in individuals with moderate to severe depression. Unguided iCBT was associated with similar effectiveness among individuals with symptoms of mild/subthreshold depression. Personalized treatment selection is entirely possible and necessary to ensure the best allocation of treatment resources for depression.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin vs Standard Prophylactic or Intermediate-Dose Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in High-risk Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: The HEP-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, setting, and participants The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main outcomes and measures The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P Conclusions and relevance In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

Effect of Endovascular Treatment Alone vs Intravenous Alteplase Plus Endovascular Treatment on Functional Independence in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: The DEVT Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Importance For patients with large vessel occlusion strokes, it is unknown whether endovascular treatment alone compared with intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment (standard treatment) can achieve similar functional outcomes. Objective To investigate whether endovascular thrombectomy alone is noninferior to intravenous alteplase followed by endovascular thrombectomy for achieving functional independence at 90 days among patients with large vessel occlusion stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 33 stroke centers in China. Patients (n = 234) were 18 years or older with proximal anterior circulation intracranial occlusion strokes within 4.5 hours from symptoms onset and eligible for intravenous thrombolysis. Enrollment took place from May 20, 2018, to May 2, 2020. Patients were enrolled and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up was July 22, 2020). Interventions A total of 116 patients were randomized to the endovascular thrombectomy alone group and 118 patients to combined intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy group. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving functional independence at 90 days (defined as score 0-2 on the modified Rankin Scale; range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). The noninferiority margin was −10%. Safety outcomes included the incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage within 48 hours and 90-day mortality. Results The trial was stopped early because of efficacy when 234 of a planned 970 patients had undergone randomization. All 234 patients who were randomized (mean age, 68 years; 102 women [43.6%]) completed the trial. At the 90-day follow-up, 63 patients (54.3%) in the endovascular thrombectomy alone group vs 55 (46.6%) in the combined treatment group achieved functional independence at the 90-day follow-up (difference, 7.7%, 1-sided 97.5% CI, −5.1% to ∞)Pfor noninferiority = .003). No significant between-group differences were detected in symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (6.1% vs 6.8%; difference, −0.8%; 95% CI, −7.1% to 5.6%) and 90-day mortality (17.2% vs 17.8%; difference, −0.5%; 95% CI, −10.3% to 9.2%). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with ischemic stroke due to proximal anterior circulation occlusion within 4.5 hours from onset, endovascular treatment alone, compared with intravenous alteplase plus endovascular treatment, met the prespecified statistical threshold for noninferiority for the outcome of 90-day functional independence. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the clinical acceptability of the selected noninferiority threshold. Trial Registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry:ChiCTR-IOR-17013568

Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Ivermectin is widely prescribed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 despite uncertainty about its clinical benefit. Objective To determine whether ivermectin is an efficacious treatment for mild COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants Double-blind, randomized trial conducted at a single site in Cali, Colombia. Potential study participants were identified by simple random sampling from the state’s health department electronic database of patients with symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. A total of 476 adult patients with mild disease and symptoms for 7 days or fewer (at home or hospitalized) were enrolled between July 15 and November 30, 2020, and followed up through December 21, 2020. Intervention Patients were randomized to receive ivermectin, 300 μg/kg of body weight per day for 5 days (n = 200) or placebo (n = 200). Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was time to resolution of symptoms within a 21-day follow-up period. Solicited adverse events and serious adverse events were also collected. Results Among 400 patients who were randomized in the primary analysis population (median age, 37 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 29-48]; 231 women [58%]), 398 (99.5%) completed the trial. The median time to resolution of symptoms was 10 days (IQR, 9-13) in the ivermectin group compared with 12 days (IQR, 9-13) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.32];P = .53 by log-rank test). By day 21, 82% in the ivermectin group and 79% in the placebo group had resolved symptoms. The most common solicited adverse event was headache, reported by 104 patients (52%) given ivermectin and 111 (56%) who received placebo. The most common serious adverse event was multiorgan failure, occurring in 4 patients (2 in each group). Conclusion and Relevance Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04405843

Trial of Intensive Blood-Pressure Control in Older Patients with Hypertension.

Abstract: Background The appropriate target for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular risk in older patients with hypertension remains unclear. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, co...

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Efpeglenatide in Type 2 Diabetes.

Abstract: Background Four glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that are structurally similar to human GLP-1 have been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events among per...

Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A double-blind, phase 1/2a, randomized controlled trial.

Abstract: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19 is associated with high mortality. Mesenchymal stem cells are known to exert immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects and could yield beneficial effects in COVID-19 ARDS. The objective of this study was to determine safety and explore efficacy of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell (UC-MSC) infusions in subjects with COVID-19 ARDS. A double-blind, phase 1/2a, randomized, controlled trial was performed. Randomization and stratification by ARDS severity was used to foster balance among groups. All subjects were analyzed under intention to treat design. Twenty-four subjects were randomized 1:1 to either UC-MSC treatment (n = 12) or the control group (n = 12). Subjects in the UC-MSC treatment group received two intravenous infusions (at day 0 and 3) of 100 ± 20 × 106 UC-MSCs; controls received two infusions of vehicle solution. Both groups received best standard of care. Primary endpoint was safety (adverse events [AEs]) within 6 hours; cardiac arrest or death within 24 hours postinfusion). Secondary endpoints included patient survival at 31 days after the first infusion and time to recovery. No difference was observed between groups in infusion-associated AEs. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed related to UC-MSC infusions. UC-MSC infusions in COVID-19 ARDS were found to be safe. Inflammatory cytokines were significantly decreased in UC-MSC-treated subjects at day 6. Treatment was associated with significantly improved patient survival (91% vs 42%, P = .015), SAE-free survival (P = .008), and time to recovery (P = .03). UC-MSC infusions are safe and could be beneficial in treating subjects with COVID-19 ARDS.

Effect of High-Dose Zinc and Ascorbic Acid Supplementation vs Usual Care on Symptom Length and Reduction Among Ambulatory Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: The COVID A to Z Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance There is limited evidence regarding early treatment of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection to mitigate symptom progression. Objective To examine whether high-dose zinc and/or high-dose ascorbic acid reduce the severity or duration of symptoms compared with usual care among ambulatory patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, single health system randomized clinical factorial open-label trial enrolled 214 adult patients with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed with a polymerase chain reaction assay who received outpatient care in sites in Ohio and Florida. The trial was conducted from April 27, 2020, to October 14, 2020. Intervention Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio to receive either 10 days of zinc gluconate (50 mg), ascorbic acid (8000 mg), both agents, or standard of care. Outcomes The primary end point was the number of days required to reach a 50% reduction in symptoms, including severity of fever, cough, shortness of breath, and fatigue (rated on a 4-point scale for each symptom). Secondary end points included days required to reach a total symptom severity score of 0, cumulative severity score at day 5, hospitalizations, deaths, adjunctive prescribed medications, and adverse effects of the study supplements. Results A total of 214 patients were randomized, with a mean (SD) age of 45.2 (14.6) years and 132 (61.7%) women. The study was stopped for a low conditional power for benefit with no significant difference among the 4 groups for the primary end point. Patients who received usual care without supplementation achieved a 50% reduction in symptoms at a mean (SD) of 6.7 (4.4) days compared with 5.5 (3.7) days for the ascorbic acid group, 5.9 (4.9) days for the zinc gluconate group, and 5.5 (3.4) days for the group receiving both (overallP = .45). There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes among the treatment groups. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of ambulatory patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, treatment with high-dose zinc gluconate, ascorbic acid, or a combination of the 2 supplements did not significantly decrease the duration of symptoms compared with standard of care. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04342728

Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.

Abstract: Summary Background The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. Methods DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir–ritonavir, lopinavir–ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. Findings Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77–1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). Interpretation No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. Funding European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'interet majeur One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Translation For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.