Recovery Rate Ratio Research Articles

SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Nucleocapsid Antigen Are Blood Biomarkers Associated With Severe Disease Outcomes That Improve in Response to Remdesivir.

Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1, which randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo. Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 patients with COVID-19 were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed. Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95% CI, 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/mL vs 1.04 (95% CI, .76-1.42) for levels <245 pg/mL. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive. Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy. NCT04280705 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia

Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multi-center trial of the clinical and biological effects of anti-CD14 treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Severe COVID-19 is associated with innate immunopathology, and CD14, a proximal activator of innate immunity, has been suggested as a potential therapeutic target. We conducted the COVID-19 anti-CD14 Treatment Trial (CaTT), a Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 5 US-sites between April 12, 2021 and November 30, 2021 (NCT04391309). Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen (<30 LPM) were randomized 1:1 to receive 4 daily doses of intravenous IC14, an anti-CD14 monoclonal antibody, or placebo. All participants received remdesivir. The primary outcome was time-to-resolution of illness, defined as improvement on the 8-point NIH-Ordinal COVID-19 Scale to category ≤3. Secondary endpoints were safety and exploratory endpoints were pro-inflammatory and antiviral mediators in serum on days 0-5 & 7. The trial was stopped after 40 patients were randomized and treated due to slow enrollment. 40 participants were randomized and treated with IC14 (n=20) or placebo (n=20). The median time-to-recovery was 6 days (95% CI, 5-11) in the IC14 group vs. 5 days (95% CI, 4-10) in the Placebo group (recovery rate ratio: 0.77 (95% CI, 0.40, 1.48) (log-rank p=0.435). The number of adverse events was similar in each group, and no IC14-attributable secondary infections occurred. In repeated-measures mixed-effects analyses, IC14 treatment increased serum sCD14 concentrations, an expected pharmacodynamic effect. Pre-planned, exploratory analyses suggested that IC14 treatment decreased the trajectories of circulating MIP-1β and TNF-α. IC14 treatment did not improve time-to-resolution of illness in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 in this small trial. Results of exploratory analyses suggested IC14 had biologic effects that warrant future clinical investigation. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

LB1531. Administration of Abatacept or Infliximab Reduces Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: Results from the ACTIV-1 IM Master Protocol

Abstract Background Severe COVID-19 infection is characterized by a dysregulated hyperinflammatory state that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has been shown to improve outcomes. We investigated if abatacept, CTLA-4-Ig, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard of care. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating abatacept (given as a single infusion of 10mg/kg, to a maximum of 1000 mg) compared to standard of care (including remdesivir and dexamethasone) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was median time to recovery by day 29. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results A total of 1019 patients received an infusion (509 assigned to abatacept and 510 to placebo), constituting the analyzed modified intention-to-treat cohort. The mean age 54.9 years (SD 14.65), 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic or Latino and 13.7% black. Patients were evenly matched in terms of severity of illness, and comorbidities. Participants randomized to abatacept did not show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with a recovery rate ratio of 1.135 (95% CI 0.996-1.294, p=0.057) compared to placebo. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 9 days (8, 10) for both groups. The 28-day mortality in the abatacept arm was 11.0% and in control arm 15.0% (OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.41, 0.94)), with a 37.8% lower odds of dying in patients receiving abatacept. The improvement in mortality was demonstrated for patients requiring low or high flow O2 at baseline but was not seen in patients who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at time of randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline CRP &amp;gt;75mg/L, age &amp;gt;65 and diabetics. Safety data demonstrated slightly lower risk of adverse events. Rates of secondary infections were similar (abatacept 16.1% and placebo 14.3%). Conclusion Although single-dose IV abatacept did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery, it did show a substantial reduction in 28-day mortality compared to standard of care. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

LB1531B. Administration of the TNF-alpha inhibitor, infliximab, reduces mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID pneumonia. Results of a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Severe COVID-19 infection is characterized by a dysregulated hyperinflammatory state that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has been shown to improve outcomes. We investigated if the TNF-alpha inhibitor, infliximab (IFX), provides additional benefit over standard of care. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of IFX (single infusion of 5 mg/kg) compared to standard of care (including remdesivir and dexamethasone) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29. Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. Results A total of 1033 patients received study agent (517 assigned to IFX, 516 to common placebo), constituting the analyzed modified intention-to-treat cohort. Mean age 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic/Latino and 14% Black. Randomization was balanced for severity of illness and comorbidities. Participants randomized to IFX did not show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with a recovery rate ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.99-1.27, p=0.0631) compared to placebo. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for IFX and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Patients assigned to IFX were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.05, 1.66). The 28-day mortality was 10.1% in the IFX arm and 14.5% in the placebo (OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.39, 0.90)), with a 40.7% lower odds of dying in patients receiving IFX. The improvement in mortality was demonstrated in patients requiring low- or high-flow O2 at baseline but not in those requiring mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline CRP &amp;gt;75mg/ml. There was no imbalances in serious adverse events. Secondary infections were similar between groups (IFX 18.0%, placebo 16.5%). Conclusion Although single-dose IV IFX did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery, it was associated with improvement in clinical status at day 14 and showed a substantial reduction in 28 day mortality compared to standard of care. Disclosures Jane A. O'Halloran, MD PhD, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Grant/Research Support Richard Melsheimer, n/a, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson &amp; Johnson Company: Employee of Janssen/J&amp;J|Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson &amp; Johnson Company: Stocks/Bonds William G. Powderly, MD, Merck: Advisor/Consultant.

LB1531A. Administration of abatacept, reduces mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID pneumonia. Results of a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract Background Severe COVID-19 infection is characterized by a dysregulated hyperinflammatory state that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has been shown to improve outcomes. We investigated if abatacept, CTLA-4-Ig, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard of care. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating abatacept (given as a single infusion of 10mg/kg, to a maximum of 1000 mg) compared to standard of care (including remdesivir and dexamethasone) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was median time to recovery by day 29. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results A total of 1019 patients received an infusion (509 assigned to abatacept and 510 to placebo), constituting the analyzed modified intention-to-treat cohort. The mean age 54.9 years (SD 14.65), 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic or Latino and 13.7% black. Patients were evenly matched in terms of severity of illness, and comorbidities. Participants randomized to abatacept did not show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with a recovery rate ratio of 1.135 (95% CI 0.996-1.294, p=0.057) compared to placebo. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 9 days (8, 10) for both groups. The 28-day mortality in the abatacept arm was 11.0% and in control arm 15.0% (OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.41, 0.94)), with a 37.8% lower odds of dying in patients receiving abatacept. The improvement in mortality was demonstrated for patients requiring low or high flow O2 at baseline but was not seen in patients who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at time of randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline CRP &amp;gt;75mg/L, age &amp;gt;65 and diabetics. Safety data demonstrated slightly lower risk of adverse events. Rates of secondary infections were similar (abatacept 16.1% and placebo 14.3%). Conclusion Although single-dose IV abatacept did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery, it did show a substantial reduction in 28-day mortality compared to standard of care. Disclosures Reynold Panettieri, Jr., MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|AstraZeneca: Honoraria|Equillium: Grant/Research Support|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Grant/Research Support|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|MedImmune: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Honoraria|Novartis: Grant/Research Support|Origo: Grant/Research Support|RIFM: Advisor/Consultant|RIFM: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi: Honoraria|Vault Health: Grant/Research Support Jane A. O'Halloran, MD PhD, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Grant/Research Support Michael A. Maldonado, MD, Bristol Myers Squibb: Employee|Bristol Myers Squibb: Stocks/Bonds William G. Powderly, MD, Merck: Advisor/Consultant.

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BackgroundTixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care.MethodsIn a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing.FindingsFrom Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group.InterpretationAmong patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower.FundingUS National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed.

Efficacy of the combination of baricitinib, remdesivir, and dexamethasone in hypoxic adults with COVID-19: A retrospective study

BackgroundRemdesivir with dexamethasone and remdesivir with baricitinib are effective in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, there has been few evidence regarding the efficacy of the combination of baricitinib, remdesivir, and dexamethasone in hypoxic COVID-19 patients. MethodsConsecutive patients who required oxygen therapy at the time of admission and received remdesivir and dexamethasone at Kishiwada City Hospital between March 1, 2021 and May 31, 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. ResultsA total of 90 patients were investigated, including 30 receiving a combination of remdesivir, dexamethasone, and baricitinib (baricitinib group) and 60 receiving remdesivir and dexamethasone (control group). The use of direct oral anticoagulants, the level of C-reactive protein, and chest X-ray abnormalities were significantly higher in the baricitinib group than in the control group. Patients in the baricitinib group recovered a median of four days faster than those in the control group (median, 7 days vs. 11 days; Gray's test, p < 0.001). The recovery rate was 90.0% in the baricitinib group and 63.3% in the control group (p = 0.011). Fine and Gray regression analysis showed that adjusted rate ratio for recovery with the baricitinib combination therapy was 5.26 (95% confidential interval, 1.99–13.9; p < 0.001). The incidence of new onset of bacterial infection was 6.7% in the baricitinib group and 16.7% in the control group (p = 0.324). ConclusionsOur study suggests that the combination of baricitinib, dexamethasone, and remdesivir is effective and tolerable in hypoxic patients with COVID-19.

Association Between CD4/CD8 Ratio Recovery and Chronic Kidney Disease Among Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy: A 17-Year Observational Cohort Study.

Background:CD4/CD8 ratio is considered as an emerging biomarker for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related diseases. However, the relationship of CD4/CD8 ratio recovery and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and whether cumulative antiretroviral therapy (ART) is effective in the CD4/CD8 ratio recovery and in reducing CKD incidence among HIV patients remain unclear.MethodsA 17-year observational cohort study was conducted on all HIV-infected patients receiving ART in Guangxi, China. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to investigate the cumulative CKD incidence. Cox regression and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to evaluate the association between CD4/CD8 ratio recovery and CKD incidence, and the effect of ART regimens on CD4/CD8 ratio recovery and CKD incidence.ResultsA total of 59,268 eligible individuals contributing 285,143 person-years of follow-up, with an overall CKD incidence of 9.65%. After ART, patients who developed CKD showed higher mortality than those with normal kidney function (12.48 vs. 7.57%, p < 0.001). Patients whose CD4/CD8 ratio did not recover to 0.7 had a higher CKD incidence than the patients who recovered (aHR = 2.84, 95% CI 2.63–3.07), similar to the PSM analysis (aHR = 3.13, 95% CI 2.85–3.45). Compared with the PI-based and INSTI-based regimens, NNRTI-based regimen had a better CD4/CD8 ratio recovery rate (27.04, 16.16, and 29.66%, respectively) and a lower CKD incidence (17.43, 16.16, and 7.31%, respectively).ConclusionThis large-scale real-world setting provide new evidence that the CD4/CD8 ratio recovery is associated with lower CKD incidence in HIV-infected patients receiving ART. NNRTI-based is a better choice for CD4/CD8 ratio recovery and reducing the risk of CKD.

Double-blind randomized proof-of-concept trial of canakinumab in patients with COVID-19 associated cardiac injury and heightened inflammation.

AimsIn coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), myocardial injury is associated with systemic inflammation and higher mortality. Our aim was to perform a proof of concept trial with canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody to interleukin-1β, in patients with COVID-19, myocardial injury, and heightened inflammation.Methods and resultsThis trial required hospitalization due to COVID-19, elevated troponin, and a C-reactive protein concentration more than 50 mg/L. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement at Day 14, defined as either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital. The secondary endpoint was mortality at Day 28. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab 600 mg (n = 15), canakinumab 300 mg (n = 14), or placebo (n = 16). There was no difference in time to clinical improvement compared to placebo [recovery rate ratio (RRR) for canakinumab 600 mg 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–2.91; RRR for canakinumab 300 mg 0.61, 95% CI 0.23–1.64]. At Day 28, 3 (18.8%) of 15 patients had died in the placebo group, compared with 3 (21.4%) of 14 patients with 300 mg canakinumab, and 1 (6.7%) of 15 patients with 600 mg canakinumab. There were no treatment-related deaths, and adverse events were similar between groups.ConclusionThere was no difference in time to clinical improvement at Day 14 in patients treated with canakinumab, and no safety concerns were identified. Future studies could focus on high dose canakinumab in the treatment arm and assess efficacy outcomes at Day 28.

Etiology-associated heterogeneity in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundHeterogeneity in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has led to many statistically negative clinical trials. Etiology is considered an important source of pathogenesis heterogeneity in ARDS but previous studies have usually adopted a dichotomous classification, such as pulmonary versus extrapulmonary ARDS, to evaluate it. Etiology-associated heterogeneity in ARDS remains poorly described.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we described etiology-associated heterogeneity in gas exchange abnormality (PaO2/FiO2 [P/F] and ventilatory ratios), hemodynamic instability, non-pulmonary organ dysfunction as measured by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, biomarkers of inflammation and coagulation, and 30-day mortality. Linear regression was used to model the trajectory of P/F ratios over time. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Kruskal–Wallis rank tests and Chi-squared tests were used to compare between-etiology differences.ResultsFrom 1725 mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, we identified 258 (15%) with ARDS. Pneumonia (48.4%) and non-pulmonary sepsis (11.6%) were the two leading causes of ARDS. Compared with pneumonia associated ARDS, extra-pulmonary sepsis associated ARDS had a greater P/F ratio recovery rate (difference = 13 mmHg/day, p = 0.01), more shock (48% versus 73%, p = 0.01), higher non-pulmonary SOFA scores (6 versus 9 points, p < 0.001), higher d-dimer levels (4.2 versus 9.7 mg/L, p = 0.02) and higher mortality (43% versus 67%, p = 0.02). In pneumonia associated ARDS, there was significant difference in proportion of shock (p = 0.005) between bacterial and non-bacterial pneumonia.ConclusionThis study showed that there was remarkable etiology-associated heterogeneity in ARDS. Heterogeneity was also observed within pneumonia associated ARDS when bacterial pneumonia was compared with other non-bacterial pneumonia. Future studies on ARDS should consider reporting etiology-specific data and exploring possible effect modification associated with etiology.

Frailty subtypes and recovery in older survivors of acute respiratory failure: a pilot study

BackgroundIdentifying subtypes of acute respiratory failure survivors may facilitate patient selection for post-intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up clinics and trials.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre prospective cohort study of 185 acute respiratory...

Study of shear thickening behavior using experimental, mathematical modeling and numerical simulation studies

In this paper, the effect of increasing shear rate was studied on the viscosity of shear thickening fluid (STF). It was observed that the viscosity as well as the severity of shear thickening increased with the shear rate. The recovery rate ratio for STF at 25 °C was measured as 88.54% after 30 s, in three interval thixotropy test. Mathematical modeling was also done with the existing viscosity function of STF at 25 °C. It was observed that the viscosity obtained from mathematical model was in good match with the experimental data. For the validation of numerical simulation results, a 3D model of cone and plate was generated in ANSYS FLUENT. A user defined function (UDF) with all the chemical and physical properties of STF was used in 3D model at 25 °C. It was found that STF with UDF depicted similar results as obtained from experimental results, showing shear thinning at low shear rates and shear thickening beyond the critical shear rate. Critical viscosity obtained from experimental, mathematical model and numerical simulation was 0.653 Pa.s at critical shear rate of 10 s −1 . Post shear thickening viscosity of 30.017 Pa.s was achieved for experimental and mathematical model and 30 Pa.s for numerical simulation.

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19

BackgroundSevere coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15.ResultsA total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P=0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, −5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, −9.8 to −0.3; P=0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, −5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −8.7 to −1.9; P=0.003).ConclusionsBaricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.)

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report

BackgroundAlthough several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only.ResultsA total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%).ConclusionsOur data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.)

Auxora versus standard of care for the treatment of severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia: results from a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCalcium release-activated calcium (CRAC) channel inhibitors stabilize the pulmonary endothelium and block proinflammatory cytokine release, potentially mitigating respiratory complications observed in patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of Auxora, a novel, intravenously administered CRAC channel inhibitor, in adults with severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsA randomized, controlled, open-label study of Auxora was conducted in adults with severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive three doses of once-daily Auxora versus standard of care (SOC) alone. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of Auxora. Following FDA guidance, study enrollment was halted early to allow for transition to a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study.ResultsIn total, 17 patients with severe and three with critical COVID-19 pneumonia were randomized to Auxora and nine with severe and one with critical COVID-19 pneumonia to SOC. Similar proportions of patients receiving Auxora and SOC experienced ≥ 1 adverse event (75% versus 80%, respectively). Fewer patients receiving Auxora experienced serious adverse events versus SOC (30% versus 50%, respectively). Two patients (10%) receiving Auxora and two (20%) receiving SOC died during the 30 days after randomization. Among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, the median time to recovery with Auxora was 5 days versus 12 days with SOC; the recovery rate ratio was 1.87 (95% CI, 0.72, 4.89). Invasive mechanical ventilation was needed in 18% of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia receiving Auxora versus 50% receiving SOC (absolute risk reduction = 32%; 95% CI, − 0.07, 0.71). Outcomes measured by an 8-point ordinal scale were significantly improved for patients receiving Auxora, especially for patients with a baseline PaO2/FiO2 = 101–200.ConclusionsAuxora demonstrated a favorable safety profile in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia and improved outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. These results, however, are limited by the open-label study design and small patient population resulting from the early cessation of enrollment in response to regulatory guidance. The impact of Auxora on respiratory complications in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia will be further assessed in a planned randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04345614. Submitted on 7 April 2020.Graphical abstract

Statistical Issues and Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Clinical Trials With Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Remdesivir.

BackgroundRecently, three randomized clinical trials on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatments were completed: one for lopinavir-ritonavir and two for remdesivir. One trial reported that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery, while the other two showed no benefit of the treatment under investigation.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to, from a statistical perspective, identify several key issues in the design and analysis of three COVID-19 trials and reanalyze the data from the cumulative incidence curves in the three trials using more appropriate statistical methods.MethodsThe lopinavir-ritonavir trial enrolled 39 additional patients due to insignificant results after the sample size reached the planned number, which led to inflation of the type I error rate. The remdesivir trial of Wang et al failed to reach the planned sample size due to a lack of eligible patients, and the bootstrap method was used to predict the quantity of clinical interest conditionally and unconditionally if the trial had continued to reach the originally planned sample size. Moreover, we used a terminal (or cure) rate model and a model-free metric known as the restricted mean survival time or the restricted mean time to improvement (RMTI) to analyze the reconstructed data. The remdesivir trial of Beigel et al reported the median recovery time of the remdesivir and placebo groups, and the rate ratio for recovery, while both quantities depend on a particular time point representing local information. We use the restricted mean time to recovery (RMTR) as a global and robust measure for efficacy.ResultsFor the lopinavir-ritonavir trial, with the increase of sample size from 160 to 199, the type I error rate was inflated from 0.05 to 0.071. The difference of RMTIs between the two groups evaluated at day 28 was –1.67 days (95% CI –3.62 to 0.28; P=.09) in favor of lopinavir-ritonavir but not statistically significant. For the remdesivir trial of Wang et al, the difference of RMTIs at day 28 was –0.89 days (95% CI –2.84 to 1.06; P=.37). The planned sample size was 453, yet only 236 patients were enrolled. The conditional prediction shows that the hazard ratio estimates would reach statistical significance if the target sample size had been maintained. For the remdesivir trial of Beigel et al, the difference of RMTRs between the remdesivir and placebo groups at day 30 was –2.7 days (95% CI –4.0 to –1.2; P<.001), confirming the superiority of remdesivir. The difference in the recovery time at the 25th percentile (95% CI –3 to 0; P=.65) was insignificant, while the differences became more statistically significant at larger percentiles.ConclusionsBased on the statistical issues and lessons learned from the recent three clinical trials on COVID-19 treatments, we suggest more appropriate approaches for the design and analysis of ongoing and future COVID-19 trials.

Differences of Recovery from Rocuronium-induced Deep Paralysis in Response to Small Doses of Sugammadex between Elderly and Nonelderly Patients.

WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Complete recovery from rocuronium-induced muscle paralysis with sugammadex is reported to be delayed in elderly patients. The authors tested a hypothesis that recovery from deep neuromuscular block with low-dose sugammadex is slower (primary hypothesis) and incidence of recurarization is higher (secondary hypothesis) in elderly patients than in nonelderly patients. In anesthetized elderly (n = 20; 76.9 ± 5.0 yr of age) and nonelderly patients (n = 20; 53.7 ± 12.8 yr of age) under deep paralysis with rocuronium, change of train-of-four ratio per minute (primary outcome variable) was measured with an acceleromyograph neuromuscular monitor during spontaneous recovery from rocuronium-induced muscle paralysis (0.6 mg/kg) and after infusion of low-dose sugammadex (50 µg · kg · min). Recurarization was defined as the negative change of train-of-four ratio. Spontaneous train-of-four ratio recovery rate was significantly slower in the elderly group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile]: 1.89 [1.22, 2.90] %/min) than in the nonelderly group (3.45 [1.96, 4.25] %/min, P = 0.024). Train-of-four ratio change rate in response to low-dose sugammadex was significantly slower in elderly (0.55 [-0.29, 1.54] %/min) than in the nonelderly group (1.68 [0.73, 3.13] %/min, P = 0.024). Incidence of recurarization was significantly higher in the elderly group than in the nonelderly group (35% vs. 5%, P = 0.044). Multiple linear regression analyses indicate that slower spontaneous train-of-four ratio recovery rate and impaired renal function are two major contributing factors that decrease train-of-four ratio change rate in response to low-dose sugammadex. Elderly patients are at greater risk for recurarization and residual muscle paralysis when low-dose sugammadex is administered.

Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions as a Prognostic Factor for Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

We investigated distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) as a prognostic factor in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) patients with the time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards model. We also compared the importance of the prognostic factors that are reported in the literature. 108 patients with ISSHL were included. Both DPOAE and pure tone audiometry were performed everyday for a maximum of 7 days during admission and followed every other week or monthly after discharge. All DPOAE amplitudes were analyzed at 2f1-f2 – namely 1093, 1375, 1750, 2187, 2781, 3500, 4375, and 5500 Hz. The average of two series of DPOAE intensity corrected for the noise level in eight frequencies was coded as dichotomous at ≧6 or <6 dB. We selected the most updated DPOAE at 3 days or more before the assessment of recovery into the analysis. The potential confounders including age, sex, history of vertigo at onset, history of hypertension, diabetes, coronary arterial disease, and stroke, configuration and severity of initial pure tone audiometry, the duration from onset to treatment, auditory brainstem response (ABR), vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP), and plasma triglyceride and cholesterol levels, hemoglobin level, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were collected for evaluation. The results showed that a better DPOAE amplitude was a significantly good prognostic indicator both in univariate analysis (recovery rate ratio = 3.626, 95% CI = 2.119–6.205, p < 0.0001) and multivariate analysis (recovery rate ratio = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.537–5.624, p = 0.0011). The Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that the younger age group (≤40 years) with better initial pure tone audiometry (<65 dB) represented a better prognosis that was compatible with previous literature (log-rank test, p = 0.0297 and p = 0.0019 respectively). In the univariate analysis, normal ABR and VEMP waveforms were associated with a better prognosis (ABR: recovery rate ratio = 2.984, 95% CI = 1.742–5.112, p < 0.0001; VEMP: recovery rate ratio = 1.978, 95% CI = 1.183–3.305, p = 0.0093). The configuration of initial audiometry was also a significant prognostic factor that patients with scale-out type (recovery rate ratio = 0.228, 95% CI = 0.089–0.584, p = 0.002) and tent type (recovery rate ratio = 0.081, 95% CI = 0.008–0.778, p = 0.0295) were associated with a poorer prognosis than those with the flat type in the multivariate analysis. In this study, the time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards model established the prognostic value of DPOAE for ISSHL patients. This model can also be used for comparison of different treatment protocols. In addition, the further development of a predictive model based on this method is worthy of being investigated.

Performance of a constant torque pedal device.

A constant-torque oscillatory pedal-crank device using vertical movement of the feet is described and its performance compared to a conventional rotational cycle. Using a generator to measure the power output the constant-torque device produced 33% less power and thus has no practical value as an alternative to the conventional pedal-crank system.