Background The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused millions of deaths, and new treatments are urgently needed. Factors associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis include old age (> 65 years), ethnicity, male sex, obesity, and people with comorbidities. Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was reported as a predictor of poor prognosis in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. According to a recent clinical case series, vitamin D deficiency is a modifiable risk factor, which has the prospect of reducing hospital stay, intensive care, and fatal outcomes. Vitamin D has potent immunomodulatory properties, and its supplementation might improve important outcomes in critically ill and vitamin D-deficient COVID-19 patients. Despite the evidence that supports an association between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 severity, there is uncertainty about the direct link. Therefore, the aim of the trial is to assess if high-dose vitamin D supplementation has a therapeutic effect in vitamin D-deficient patients with COVID-19. Methods As the trial design, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-center approach was chosen to compare a high single dose of vitamin D (140,000 IU) followed by treatment as usual (TAU) (VitD + TAU) with treatment as usual only (placebo + TAU) in patients with COVID-19 and vitamin D deficiency. Discussion Vitamin D substitution in patients with COVID-19 and vitamin D deficiency should be investigated for efficacy and safety. The study aim is to test the hypothesis that patients with vitamin D deficiency suffering from COVID-19 treated under standardized conditions in hospital will recover faster when additionally treated with high-dose vitamin D supplementation. Latest studies suggest that vitamin D supplementation in patients with COVID-19 is highly recommended to positively influence the course of the disease. With this randomized controlled trial, a contribution to new treatment guidelines shall be made. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04525820 and SNCTP 2020-01401
Despite important advances in diagnosis and medical therapy of heart failure (HF), disease monitoring and therapy guidance remains to be based on clinical signs and symptoms. NT-proBNP was repeatedly demonstrated to be a strong and independent predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with HF. Only few – and conflicting – data are available on the efficacy of serial measurement of NT-proBNP as a tool for treatment monitoring in HF. These data are limited to the outpatient setting. Currently, no data are available on the effects of this approach in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF. The goal of this study is to explore whether the availability of serial NT-proBNP measurements may influence treatment decisions in patients with acute decompensated HF, and whether this leads to more rapid dose adjustments of prognostically beneficial medical therapies and earlier hospital discharge. In the intervention group, serial measurements of NT-proBNP every second business day are performed and made available to the treating physician, while no serial measurements are available in control group. HF therapy is left at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoints are defined as the effects of monitoring NT-proBNP on medical HF therapy decisions, including type and dosing of medical therapies and the rapidity of adjustments, length of hospital stay, and evaluation of the changes in NT-proBNP values. Additional secondary endpoints include incidence of electrolyte imbalances and renal failure, changes in NYHA functional class, vital signs, body weight, quality of life, incidence of adverse events, transfer to Intensive Care Units, and mortality.
Vitamin D and its role in the coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been controversially discussed, with inconclusive evidence about vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation in COVID-19 patients. Vitamin D metabolites play an important role in the initiation of the immune response and can be an easily modifiable risk factor in 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3)-deficient patients. This is a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial to compare the effect of a single high dose of vitamin D3 followed by treatment as usual (TAU) of daily vitamin D3 daily until discharge versus placebo plus TAU in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 25(OH)D3-deficiency on length hospital stay. We included 40 patients per group and did not observe a significant difference in the median length of hospital stay (6 days in both groups, p = 0.920). We adjusted the length of stay for COVID-19 risk factors (β = 0.44; 95% CI: −2.17–2.22), and center (β = 0.74; 95% CI: −1.25–2.73). The subgroup analysis in patients with severe 25(OH)D3-deficiency (<25 nmol/L) showed a non-significant reduction in the median length of hospital stay in the intervention group (5.5 vs. 9 days, p = 0.299). The competing risk model with death did not reveal significant differences between the group in the length of stay (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.62–1.48, p = 0.850). Serum 25(OH)D3 level increased significantly in the intervention group (mean change in nmol/L; intervention: +26.35 vs. control: –2.73, p < 0.001). The intervention with 140,000 IU vitamin D3 + TAU did not significantly shorten the length of hospital stay but was effective and safe for the elevation of serum 25(OH)D3 levels.
Background:The development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may be associated with clinical efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in patients with cancer. We therefore investigated the effect of irAEs and pre-treatment parameters on outcome in a large, real-life patient cohort. Methods:We performed a single-centre, retrospective, observational study including patients who received CPIs from 2011 to 2018 and followed until 2021.The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcome was the development of irAEs. Results:In total, 229 patients with different tumour entities (41% non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], 29% melanoma) received a total of 282 CPI treatment courses
BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major public health issue affecting approximately 4% to 7% of the Swiss population. According to current inpatient guidelines, systemic corticosteroids are important in the treatment of acute COPD exacerbations and should be given for 5 to 7 days. Several studies suggest that corticosteroids accelerate the recovery of FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), enhance oxygenation, decrease the duration of hospitalization, and improve clinical outcomes. However, the additional therapeutic benefit regarding FEV1 recovery appears to be most apparent in the first 3 to 5 days. No data are available on the optimum duration of corticosteroid treatment in primary-care patients with acute COPD exacerbations. Given that many COPD patients are treated as outpatients, there is an urgent need to improve the evidence base on COPD management in this setting. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a 3-day treatment with orally administered corticosteroids is non-inferior to a 5-day treatment in acute exacerbations of COPD in a primary-care setting.Methods/designThis study is a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted in a primary-care setting. It is anticipated that 470 patients with acutely exacerbated COPD will be recruited. Participants are randomized to receive systemic corticosteroid treatment of 40 mg prednisone daily for 5 days (conventional arm, n = 235) or for 3 days followed by 2 days of placebo (experimental arm, n = 235). Antibiotic treatment for 7 days is given to all patients with CRP ≥ 50 mg/l, those with a known diagnosis of bronchiectasis, or those presenting with Anthonisen type I exacerbation. Additional treatment after inclusion is left at the discretion of the treating general practitioner. Follow-up visits are performed on days 3 and 7, followed by telephone interviews on days 30, 90, and 180 after inclusion in the study. The primary endpoint is the time to next exacerbation during the 6-month follow-up period.DiscussionThe study is designed to assess whether a 3-day course of corticosteroid treatment is not inferior to the conventional 5-day treatment course in outpatients with exacerbated COPD regarding time to next exacerbation. Depending on the results, this trial may lead to a reduction in the cumulative corticosteroid dose in COPD patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02386735. Registered on 12 March 2015.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.