38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The efficacy and safety of levilimab in severely ill COVID-19 patients not requiring mechanical ventilation: results of a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase III CORONA clinical study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective and design

          The aim of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III CORONA clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-6 receptor inhibitor levilimab (LVL) in subjects with severe COVID-19.

          Subjects

          The study included 217 patients. The eligible were men and non-pregnant women aged 18 years or older, hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

          Treatment

          206 subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive single subcutaneous administration of LVL 324 mg or placebo, both in combination with standard of care (SOC). 204 patients received allocated therapy. After the LVL/placebo administration in case of deterioration of symptoms, the investigator could perform a single open-label LVL 324 mg administration as the rescue therapy.

          Methods

          The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained clinical improvement on the 7-category ordinal scale on Day 14. All efficacy data obtained after rescue therapy administration were considered missing. For primary efficacy analysis, all subjects with missing data were considered non-responders.

          Results

          63.1% and 42.7% of patients in the LVL and in the placebo groups, respectively, achieved sustained clinical improvement on Day 14 ( P = .0017). The frequency of adverse drug reactions was comparable between the groups.

          Conclusion

          In patients with radiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, requiring or not oxygen therapy (but not ventilation) with no signs of other active infection administration of LVL + SOC results in an increase of sustained clinical improvement rate.

          Trail registration

          The trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04397562).

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A Trial of Lopinavir–Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19

          Abstract Background No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao 2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao 2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir–ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. Results A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir–ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.72). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir–ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, −5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir–ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir–ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir–ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. Conclusions In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir–ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

            Summary Background No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2–10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir–ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. Findings Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87–1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95–2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. Interpretation In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

              (2021)
              Abstract Background The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. Methods We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support–free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both. Results Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support–free days was 10 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, −1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. Conclusions In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                puhtinskaya@biocad.ru
                Journal
                Inflamm Res
                Inflamm Res
                Inflammation Research
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1023-3830
                1420-908X
                29 September 2021
                29 September 2021
                : 1-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.493921.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0619 8986, Federal State Budgetary Institution Central Clinical Hospital of the Management Affair of President Russian Federation (FSBI CCH), ; Moscow, Russian Federation
                [2 ]GRID grid.411540.5, ISNI 0000 0001 0436 3958, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Bashkir State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation” (FSBEI HE BSMU of the Ministry of Health of Russia), ; Ufa, Russian Federation
                [3 ]State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the City of Moscow Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 40 of the Moscow Healthcare Department (SBHI MCH No. 40 MHD), Moscow, Russian Federation
                [4 ]GRID grid.415738.c, ISNI 0000 0000 9216 2496, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “I.I. Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University”, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation (FSBEI HE I.I. Mechnikov NWSMU, Ministry of Health of Russia), ; St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
                [5 ]State Budgetary Institution of the Republic of Dagestan “Republican Clinical Hospital” (SBU RD RCH), Makhachkala, Russian Federation
                [6 ]GRID grid.415738.c, ISNI 0000 0000 9216 2496, Federal State Budgetary Institution “Almazov National Medical Research Center”, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Almazov National Medical Research Center), ; St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
                [7 ]State Budgetary Healthcare Institution «Kaluga Regional Clinical Hospital» (SBHI KR KRCH), Kaluga, Russian Federation
                [8 ]GRID grid.446124.1, ISNI 0000 0000 9601 7990, Private Healthcare Institution N.A. Semashko Clinical Hospital «RZD-Medicine» (PHI N.A. Semashko Railroad Clinical Hospital), (Formerly Known As Non-State Healthcare Institution N.A. Semashko Railroad Clinical Hospital at the Lyublino Station of the JSC Russian Railways), Institute of Continues Medical Education Moscow State University of Food Production, ; Moscow, Russian Federation
                [9 ]GRID grid.415738.c, ISNI 0000 0000 9216 2496, Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University), [FSAEI HE I.M. Sechenov First MSMU, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)], ; Moscow, Russian Federation
                [10 ]Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution O.M. Filatov Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 15 of the Moscow Healthcare Department) (SBHI MCH No. 15 MHD) (formerly known as the State Healthcare Institution of Moscow O.M. Filatov Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 15 of the Moscow Healthcare Department), Moscow, Russian Federation
                [11 ]State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the City of Moscow N.I. Pirogov Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 1 of the Moscow Healthcare Department (N.I. Pirogov MCH No. 1), Moscow, Russian Federation
                [12 ]State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the City of Moscow Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 52 of the Moscow Healthcare Department (SBHI MCH No. 52 MHD), Moscow, Russian Federation
                [13 ]GRID grid.415738.c, ISNI 0000 0000 9216 2496, Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University, FSAEI HE I.M. Sechenov First MSMU, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University), ; Moscow, Russian Federation
                [14 ]JSC BIOCAD, Ul. Italianskaya 17, St-Petersburg, Russia 191186
                Author notes

                Responsible Editor: Anatoliy Kubyshkin.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8830-7231
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3297-1608
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5166-3280
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0797-2051
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6550-7975
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7817-3847
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6217-2818
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1570-2748
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2615-7167
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3233-4369
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2870-3301
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5083-6637
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9582-7921
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5463-1022
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6759-673X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5196-6911
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9790-8207
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7755-7526
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8499-2232
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2884-1568
                Article
                1507
                10.1007/s00011-021-01507-5
                8479713
                34586459
                a6fac59e-f234-4f8a-b293-c9f86dad7f5c
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 July 2021
                : 14 September 2021
                : 16 September 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: JSC BIOCAD
                Award ID: BCD-089-4/CORONA
                Categories
                Original Research Article

                Immunology
                levilimab,il-6r inhibitor,covid-19,7-category ordinal scale
                Immunology
                levilimab, il-6r inhibitor, covid-19, 7-category ordinal scale

                Comments

                Comment on this article