4.7 Article

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 175, 期 9, 页码 1266-+

出版社

AMER COLL PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.7326/M22-1503

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Operation Warp Speed program
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  3. Leidos Biomedical Research for the INSIGHT Network
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  5. Research Triangle Institute for the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network
  6. Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network
  7. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  8. government of Denmark from the National Research Foundation [126]
  9. government of Australia (from the National Health and Medical Research Council)
  10. government of United Kingdom from the Medical Research Council [MRC_UU_12023/23]
  11. government of Singapore from the National Medical Research Council [COVID19RF-005]
  12. National Institutes of Health [1OT2HL156812-01]
  13. National Cancer Institute [75N91019D00024, 75N91020F00039]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate whether Ensovibep improves clinical outcomes for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The results showed no significant differences in pulmonary outcomes and recovery rates between Ensovibep and placebo. The safety assessment did not identify any concerns.
Background: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Objective: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978) Setting: Multinational, multicenter trial. Participants: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Intervention: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. Measurements: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. Results: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n =247) or placebo (n =238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P= 0.68; OR> 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR> 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR< 1 would favor ensovibep). Limitation: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. Conclusion: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据