Search

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population., Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir., Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community., Funding: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England from October, 2017, to March, 2022, and reports lecture fees from Gilead and fees for participation on an advisory board for F Hoffmann-La Roche. KH is a member of the Health Technology Assessment General Committee and Funding Strategy Group, and Research Professors Funding Committee at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), received a grant from AstraZeneca (paid to their institution) to support a trial of Evusheld for the prevention of COVID-19 in high-risk individuals, and is an independent member of the independent data monitoring committee for the OCTAVE-DUO trial of vaccines in individuals at high risk of COVID-19. DML has received grants or contracts from LifeArc, the UK Medical Research Council, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, and Blood Cancer UK, personal fees or honoraria from Biotest UK, Gilead, and Merck, consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to their institution), and conference support from Octapharma. DBR has received consulting fees from OMASS Therapeutics and has a leadership and fiduciary role in the Heal-COVID trial TMG. BRS, JM, MAD, CTS, NSB, and MF report grant money paid to their employer from the University of Oxford for the statistical design and analyses of the PANORAMIC trial. JM has also participated on data and safety monitoring boards as part of his employment with Berry Consultants. ML is a member of the data monitoring and ethics committee of RAPIS-TEST (NIHR efficacy and mechanism evaluation). SK reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, Vir, Merck, the UK Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all paid to his institution), speaker's honoraria from ViiV, and donations of drugs for clinical studies from ViiV Healthcare, Toyama, and GlaxoSmithKline. JFS has participated on a data safety monitoring board for GlaxoSmithKline. MA has received grants from the Blood and Transplant Research Unit, Janssen, Pfizer, Prenetics, Dunhill Medical Trust, the BMA Trust (Kathleen Harper Fund), and Antibiotic Research UK (all of which were paid to their institution), and consultancy fees from Prenetics and OxDx. MA reports a planned patent for Ramanomics, has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Prenetics, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the E3 Initiative. NPBT has received payment for participation on an advisory board from MSD (before any knowledge or planning of this trial). OvH has received consulting fees from MindGap (fees paid to Oxford University lnnovation), has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for the CHICO trial, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. AU has received consulting fees and payment or honoraria from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, and Gilead. NF has received consulting fees from Abbott Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline, is a member of the PRINCIPLE trial data safety monitoring board and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment General Funding Committee, and has stocks in Synairgen. JB has received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to her institution). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community., Methods: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing., Findings: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19)., Interpretation: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications., Funding: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MB reports grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and GlaxoSmithKline; and is a member of advisory boards for Albus Health and ProAxsis, outside the submitted work. DR reports being a former employee of GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. BRS, NB, MAD, MF, and CS report grants from The University of Oxford, for the University of Oxford's grant from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and for statistical design and analyses for the PRINCIPLE trial during the conduct of the study. SdL is Director of the Oxford–Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre and reports that through his university he has had grants outside the submitted work from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Takeda for vaccine-related research, and membership of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Seqirus. MIA reports grants and personal fees from Prenetics outside the submitted work. PJB reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and personal fees from Teva and Covis, during the conduct of the study. REKR reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi UK, and GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. SR reports grants and non-financial support from Oxford respiratory NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), during the conduct of the study; and non-financial support from AstraZeneca and personal fees from the Australian Government Research Training Program, outside the submitted work. FDRH and CCB report grants from UK Research and Innovation, during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes., Methods: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m 2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580., Findings: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group., Interpretation: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BRS, MAD, CS, MF, and NB report grants from University of Oxford, for the sponsor's grant from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), for statistical design and analyses for the trial, during the conduct of the study. RD reports grants and personal fees from Synairgen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Boehringer, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and grants from the Innovative Medicines Initiative, the UK Medical Research Council, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. FDRH reports grants from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), during the conduct of the study. OVH reports grants from UKRI, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To critically appraise and evaluate the evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of oil pulling on oro dental hygiene., Methods: We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Amed, The Cochrane Library and Cinahl databases from inception to February 2015, and assessed reporting quality using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria. We included RCTs that compared oil pulling using conventional cooking oils with a control intervention. Our primary outcomes were measures of oro dental hygiene using validated scales., Results: Electronic searches yielded 26 eligible studies, of which five RCTs comprising a total of 160 participants were included. The studies varied in reporting quality, lasted between 10 and 45 days, and compared oil pulling with chlorhexidine, placebo or routine dental hygiene practice. Three studies reported no significant differences in post intervention plaque index scores between oil pulling and control groups (Chlorhexidine mouthwash +/- Placebo): p=0.28, 0.94, and 0.38, respectively. Two studies reported no significant difference in post-intervention modified gingival index score between oil pulling and Chlorhexidine mouthwash groups (p=0.32 and 0.64)., Conclusion: The limited evidence to date from clinical trials suggests that oil pulling may have beneficial effects on oro dental hygiene as seen for the short period of time investigated. Given that this is a potentially cost-effective intervention, this practice might be of particular benefit. Future clinical trials should be more rigorous and better reported., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)