Back

Short- and long-term effects of imatinib in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 infection: A randomised controlled trial

Halme, A. L. E.; Laakkonen, S.; Rutanen, J.; Nevalainen, O. P. O.; Sinisalo, M.; Horstia, S.; Mustonen, J. M. J.; Pourjamal, N.; Vanhanen, A.; Solidarity Finland Investigators, ; Rosberg, T.; Renner, A.; Perola, M.; Paukkeri, E.-L.; Patovirta, R.-L.; Parkkila, S.; Paajanen, J.; Nykanen, T.; Mantyla, J.; Myllarniemi, M.; Mattila, T.; Leinonen, M.; Kulmasu, A.; Kuutti, P.; Kuitunen, I.; Kreivi, H.-R.; Kilpelainen, T. P.; Kauma, H.; Kalliala, I. E. J.; Jarvinen, P.; Hankkio, R.; Hammaren, T.; Feuth, T.; Ansakorpi, H.; Ala-Karvia, R.; Guyatt, G. H.; Tikkinen, K. A. O.

2024-02-06 infectious diseases
10.1101/2024.02.02.24302227 medRxiv
Show abstract

We report the short- and long-term results of the SOLIDARITY Finland on mortality and other patient-important outcomes in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Between 08/2021 and 03/2023, we randomised 156 patients in 15 hospitals. In the imatinib group, 7.2% of patients had died at 30 days and 13.3% at 1 year and in the standard of care group 4.1% and 8.3% (adjusted HR at 30 days 1.09, 95% CI 0.23-5.07). In a meta-analysis of randomised trials of imatinib versus standard of care (n=732), allocation to imatinib was associated with a mortality risk ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.32-1.63). At 1-year, self-reported recovery occurred in 79.0% in imatinib and in 88.3% in standard of care (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-1.06). Of the 21 potential long COVID symptoms, patients often reported moderate or major bother from fatigue (24%), sleeping problems (19%) and memory difficulties (17%). We found no convincing difference between imatinib and standard of care groups in quality of life or symptom outcomes. The evidence raises serious doubts regarding the benefit of imatinib in reducing mortality, improving recovery, and preventing potential long COVID symptoms when given to patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 7%
18.1%
2
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
3
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
4
The Lancet Rheumatology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
5
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.9%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 27%
3.5%
9
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
10
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.0%
11
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.7%
13
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
14
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
15
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
16
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.3%
17
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.3%
18
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
19
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
23
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
24
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
26
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
27
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
29
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.7%
30
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.7%