Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19
Ko, E. R.; Anstrom, K. J.; Panettieri, R. A.; Lachiewicz, A. M.; Maillo, M.; O'Halloran, J.; Boucher, C.; Smith, P. B.; McCarthy, M. W.; Segura Nunez, P.; Mendivil Tuchia de Tai, S.; Khan, A.; Mena Lora, A. J.; Salathe, M.; Kedar, E.; Capo, G.; Rodriguez Gonzalez, D.; Patterson, T. F.; Palma, C.; Ariza, H.; Patelli Lima, M.; Blamoun, J.; Nannini, E.; Sprinz, E.; Mykietiuk, A.; Wang, J. P.; Parra-Rodriguez, L.; Der, T.; Willsey, K.; Benjamin, D. K.; Wen, J.; Zakroysky, P.; Halabi, S.; Silverstein, A.; McNulty, S. E.; O'Brien, S. M.; Al-Khalidi, H. R.; Butler, S.; Atkinson, J.; Adam, S. J.; Chan
Show abstract
BackgroundWe investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. MethodsWe conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. ResultsBetween October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). ConclusionsAddition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 97%
- Safety and Efficacy of Pemivibart, a Long-Acting Monoclonal Antibody, for Prevention of Symptomatic COVID-19: Interim Results From the CANOPY Clinical Trial 94%
- Pre-existing autoimmunity is associated with increased severity of COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Opaganib in COVID-19 pneumonia: Results of a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2a trial 96%
- Intramuscular Versus Intravenous SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab for Treatment of COVID-19 (COMET-TAIL): A Randomized Non-inferiority Clinical Trial 96%
- Safety and Efficacy of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID 19: A Phase IIa Trial 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Namilumab or infliximab compared to standard of care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (CATALYST): a phase 2 randomised adaptive trial 97%
- Efficacy of Colchicine in Non-Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 96%
- A randomised clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care in ambulatory COVID-19 – the ATOMIC2 trial 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.