Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized, double-blind trial in 1062 adults hospitalized with Covid-19, remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery (10 days, vs. 15 days with placebo). The estimates of mortality by day 29 were 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo. The benefit of remdesivir was most apparent in patients who were receiving low-flow oxygen at baseline.

A randomized trial comparing a 5-day course of intravenous remdesivir with a 10-day course in patients with Covid-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia who were not yet receiving mechanical ventilation showed no significant differences in outcome related to the duration of treatment.

In a phase 2 trial, patients with mechanical heart valves were randomly assigned to receive either dabigatran or warfarin for anticoagulation. Dabigatran was associated with higher rates of ischemic stroke (5%, vs. 0% with warfarin) and major bleeding (4% vs. 2%). Prosthetic heart-valve replacement is recommended for many patients with severe valvular heart disease and is performed in several hundred thousand patients worldwide each year. 1 Mechanical valves are more durable than bioprosthetic valves 2 but typically require lifelong anticoagulant therapy. The use of vitamin K antagonists provides excellent protection against thromboembolic complications in patients with mechanical heart valves 3 but requires restrictions on food, alcohol, and drugs and lifelong coagulation monitoring. Because of the limitations of vitamin K antagonists, many patients opt for a bioprosthesis rather than a mechanical valve, despite the higher risk of premature valve failure requiring repeat valve-replacement surgery with . . .

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Remdesivir (RDV), a single diastereomeric monophosphoramidate prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has potent in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). RDV received the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s emergency use authorization in the United States and approval in Japan for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This report describes two phase I studies that evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of single escalating and multiple i.v. doses of RDV (solution or lyophilized formulation) in healthy subjects. Lyophilized formulation was evaluated for potential future use in clinical trials due to its storage stability in resource‐limited settings. All adverse events were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Overall, RDV exhibited a linear profile following single‐dose i.v. administration over 2 hours of RDV solution formulation across the dose range of 3–225 mg. Both lyophilized and solution formulations provided comparable PK parameters. High intracellular concentrations of the active triphosphate (~ 220‐fold to 370‐fold higher than the in vitro half‐maximal effective concentration against SARS‐CoV‐2 clinical isolate) were achieved following infusion of 75 mg or 150 mg lyophilized formulation over 30 minutes or 2 hours. Following multiple‐doses of RDV 150 mg once daily for 7 or 14 days, RDV exhibited a PK profile similar to single‐dose administration. Metabolite GS‐441524 accumulated ~ 1.9‐fold after daily dosing. Overall, RDV exhibited favorable safety and PK profiles that supported once‐daily dosing.

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analog prodrug approved for the treatment of COVID-19. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of remdesivir and its metabolites (GS-704277 and GS-441524) in participants with varying degrees of renal impairment. Results of this phase I study, along with those of a phase III study, contributed to an extension of indication for remdesivir in the USA and Europe for use in patients with COVID-19 with all stages of renal impairment, including those on dialysis, with no dose adjustment. This phase I, open-label, parallel-group study enrolled participants who had mild (n = 12), moderate (n = 11), or severe (n = 10) renal impairment or kidney failure (n = 6 with dialysis, n = 4 without dialysis). Healthy matched controls were enrolled as reference. Remdesivir was given as single intravenous doses of 100 mg (mild and moderate renal impairment), 40 mg (severe renal impairment, kidney failure predialysis), and 20 mg (kidney failure postdialysis and without dialysis). Plasma pharmacokinetics of remdesivir were not affected by mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment or kidney failure. Geometric least squares mean ratios ranged from 0.8 to 1.2 for remdesivir area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC). GS-704277 AUC was up to 2.8-fold higher and GS-441524 AUC up to 7.9-fold higher in participants with renal impairment. Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were consistent with the existing safety profile for remdesivir. Observed pharmacokinetics for remdesivir and its metabolites in participants with renal impairment aligned with expected changes based on known routes of elimination. Remdesivir was generally safe and well tolerated in participants with renal impairment, and no new safety concerns were identified. These results, along with those from the phase III study in patients with COVID-19 with severely reduced kidney function, support the use of remdesivir in patients with any degree of renal impairment with no dose adjustments. EudraCT no. 2020-003441-10; 9 July 2020.

Safinamide and rasagiline are adjuncts to levodopa for the motor fluctuations of Parkinson’s Disease (PD). However, there remains a scarcity of head-to-head studies that directly compare safinamide and rasagiline. This study compared safinamide and rasagiline as adjuncts to levodopa in Chinese PD patients with motor fluctuations by matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Baseline age, sex, BMI, and OFF time were adjusted for matching. Efficacy outcomes were the mean changes in total daily OFF time, UPDRS III, and PDQ-39 from baseline to week 16, which calculated by a weighted covariance model. Safety outcomes included rates of AEs, SAEs, and DCAEs. Bucher method was used for mean difference (MD) of efficacy and odds ratio (OR) of safety outcomes. Combination therapy of safinamide 50-100 mg/day and levodopa significantly reduced the mean total daily OFF time by 0.7 h (− 1.40 to − 0.02) compared to the combination therapy of rasagiline 1 mg/day and levodopa. Safinamide more effectively reduced UPDRS III (− 2.9, − 5.28 to − 0.52). Changes in PDQ-39 scores indicated a trend toward greater improvement in safinamide. There was no significant difference in safety outcomes. Compared to rasagiline, the combined therapy of safinamide and levodopa could significantly improve motor fluctuations for PD patients in China, without compromising safety.

Currently, no consensus exists on optimal treatment for post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) gastric ulcer. This study aims to compare rebamipide and tegoprazan combination therapy with tegoprazan monotherapy for post-ESD ulcer healing. Between May 2022 and September 2023, 140 patients (141 lesions) who underwent ESD for gastric epithelial neoplasms at five tertiary hospitals were randomly assigned to tegoprazan monotherapy or combination therapy groups. The size, stage and healing quality of the post-ESD ulcers were assessed at weeks 4 and 8. Modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses included 132 and 121 lesions, respectively. The ulcer healing rate at week 4 was significantly higher in the combination therapy group than in the tegoprazan monotherapy group (96.4% vs. 93.6%, P  = 0.02 in mITT). Combination therapy significantly predicted higher-than-average ulcer healing at week 4 (odds ratio 2.28, 95% confidence interval 1.04–5.02, P  = 0.04). The proportion of flat ulcer scar at week 8 was significantly higher in the combination group than in the tegoprazan monotherapy group (73.8% vs. 48.4%, P  = 0.007). Combination treatment with rebamipide and tegoprazan led to faster ulcer healing and the development of high-quality post-ESD scars compared to tegoprazan monotherapy.

BACKGROUNDSevere coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a dysregulated immune response, which can result in cytokine-release syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS have elevated free serum levels of the cytokine lymphotoxin-like inducible protein that competes with glycoprotein D for herpesvirus entry on T cells (LIGHT; also known as TNFSF14). Such patients may benefit from LIGHT-neutralization therapy.METHODSThis randomized, double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept trial enrolled adults hospitalized with COVID-19-associated pneumonia and mild to moderate ARDS. Patients received standard of care plus a single dose of a human LIGHT-neutralizing antibody (CERC-002) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving CERC-002 who remained alive and free of respiratory failure through day 28. Safety was assessed via adverse event monitoring.RESULTSFor most of the 83 enrolled patients, standard of care included systemic corticosteroids (88.0%) or remdesivir (57.8%). A higher proportion of patients remained alive and free of respiratory failure through day 28 after receiving CERC-002 (83.9%) versus placebo (64.5%; P = 0.044), including in patients 60 years of age or older (76.5% vs. 47.1%, respectively; P = 0.042). Mortality rates were 7.7% (CERC-002) and 14.3% (placebo) on day 28 and 10.8% and 22.5%, respectively, on day 60. Treatment-emergent adverse events were less frequent with CERC-002 than placebo.CONCLUSIONFor patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, adding CERC-002 to standard-of-care treatment reduces LIGHT levels and might reduce the risk of respiratory failure and death.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04412057.FUNDINGAvalo Therapeutics.

Background and objective Within the UNIVERSAL project (RIA2019PD-2882) we aim to develop a paediatric dolutegravir (DTG)/emtricitabine (FTC or F)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) fixed-dose combination. To inform dosing of this study, we undertook a relative bioavailability (RBA) study in healthy volunteers to investigate a potential pharmacokinetic effect when paediatric formulations of DTG and F/TAF are taken together. Methods Participants received all of the following treatments as paediatric formulations in randomised order: a single dose of 180/22.5 mg F/TAF; a single dose of 30 mg DTG; a single dose of 180/22.5 mg F/TAF plus 30 mg DTG. Blood concentrations of DTG, FTC, TAF, and tenofovir (TFV) were measured over 48 h post-dose. If the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratios of area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration ( C max ) of each compound were within 0.70–1.43, we considered this as no clinically relevant PK interaction. Results A total of 15 healthy volunteers were included. We did not observe a clinically relevant PK interaction between the paediatric DTG and F/TAF formulations for the compounds DTG, FTC, and TFV. For TAF, the lower boundaries of the 90% CIs of the GLSM ratios of the AUC 0–∞ and C max fell outside our acceptance criteria of 0.70–1.43. Conclusions Although TAF AUC and C max 90% CIs fell outside the pre-defined criteria (0.62–1.11 and 0.65–1.01, respectively), no consistent effect on TAF PK was observed, likely due to high inter-subject variability. Moreover, there are several reasons to rely on TFV exposure as being more clinically relevant than TAF exposure. Therefore, we found no clinically relevant interactions in this study.