首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet infectious diseases >Efficacy and safety of celgosivir in patients with dengue fever (CELADEN): A phase 1b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of celgosivir in patients with dengue fever (CELADEN): A phase 1b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial

机译:西戈斯韦在登革热患者中的疗效和安全性(CELADEN):1b期随机,双盲,安慰剂对照,概念验证试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: Dengue infection is the most common mosquito-borne viral disease worldwide, but no suitable antiviral drugs are available. We tested the α-glucosidase inhibitor celgosivir as a treatment for acute dengue fever. Methods: To establish eligibility for inclusion in a phase 1b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial, individuals aged 21-65 years who had had a fever (≥38°C) for less than 48 h, met at least two criteria indicating probable dengue infection, and had a positive result on a dengue point-of-care test kit or PCR assay were referred for screening at a centre in Singapore between July 30, 2012, and March 4, 2013. Using a web-based system, we randomly assigned patients who met full inclusion criteria after screening (1:1; random permuted block length four) to celgosivir (initial 400 mg loading dose within 6 h of randomisation, followed by 200 mg every 12 h for a total of nine doses) or matched placebo. Patients and the entire study team were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoints were mean virological log reduction (VLR) from baseline for days 2, 3, and 4, and area under the fever curve (AUC) for a temperature above 37°C from 0 h to 96 h. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01619969. Findings: We screened 69 patients and randomly assigned 50 (24 to celgosivir, 26 to placebo). Mean VLR was greater in the celgosivir group (-1·86, SD 1·07) than in the placebo group (-1·64, 0·75), but the difference was non-significant (-0·22, 90% CI -0·65 to 0·22; one-sided p=0·203). The mean AUC was also higher in the celgosivir group (54·92, SD 31·04) than in the placebo group (40·72, 18·69), but again the difference was non-significant (14·20, 90% CI 2·16-26·25; one-sided p=0·973). We noted similar incidences of adverse events between groups. Interpretation: Although generally safe and well tolerated, celgosivir does not seem to reduce viral load or fever burden in patients with dengue. Funding: STOP Dengue Translational Clinical Research.
机译:背景:登革热感染是全世界最常见的蚊媒病毒性疾病,但没有合适的抗病毒药物。我们测试了α-葡萄糖苷酶抑制剂celgosivir作为急性登革热的治疗方法。方法:为纳入1b期随机双盲安慰剂对照概念验证试验的资格,年龄在21-65岁的发烧(≥38°C)少于48岁的人h,在2012年7月30日至2013年3月4日期间,至少达到两个表明可能感染登革热的标准,并且在登革热现场检测试剂盒或PCR分析中获得阳性结果,被转诊至新加坡的一个中心我们使用基于网络的系统,将筛选后符合完全纳入标准的患者(1:1;随机排列的块长为4)随机分配给celgosivir(随机分配的6 h内初始剂量为400 mg,随后每12 mg 200 mg) h,共9剂)或匹配的安慰剂。患者和整个研究团队都被掩盖到小组分配中。主要终点为第2天,第3天和第4天相对于基线的平均病毒学对数减少(VLR),以及温度在37°C以上的0 h至96 h发烧曲线下面积(AUC)。疗效分析是有意治疗的。该研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册,编号为NCT01619969。结果:我们筛选了69位患者,随机分配了50位患者(24位归于celgosivir,26位归于安慰剂)。 Celgosivir组(-1·86,SD 1·07)的平均VLR大于安慰剂组(-1·64、0·75),但差异无统计学意义(-0·22,90% CI -0·65至0·22;一侧p = 0·203)。 Celgosivir组(54·92,SD 31·04)的平均AUC也高于安慰剂组(40·72、18·69),但再次差异不显着(14·20,90% CI 2·16-26·25;一侧p = 0·973)。我们注意到两组之间不良事件的发生率相似。解释:尽管一般安全且耐受性良好,但是塞戈西韦似乎并未降低登革热患者的病毒载量或发烧负担。资金来源:STOP登革热转化临床研究。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号