FreshRSS

🔒
☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Multiarm multistage randomised controlled trial of inflammatory signal inhibitors (MATIS) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia during the UK pandemic

Por: Hazell · L. · Pillay · C. · Cornelius · V. · Phillips · R. · Charania · A. · Wason · J. · Cherlin · S. · Savic · S. · Whittington · A. · Neelakantan · P. · Collini · P. · Cook · L. · Willicome · M. · Milojkovic · D. · Kon · O. M. · Youngstein · T. · Innes · A. · Thursz · M. · Cooke · G. S. — Febrero 5th 2026 at 13:02
Objectives

To determine the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) and fostamatinib (FOS) compared with standard of care (SOC) in patients requiring hospital admission for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.

Design

Adaptive multiarm, multistage, randomised, open-label trial (three arm, two stage).

Setting

Five hospitals in England between October 2020 and September 2022.

Participants

Hospitalised patients (≥18 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia defined by a modified WHO COVID-19 severity grade of 3 or 4.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive RUX (10 mg two times per day for 7 days then 5 mg two times per day for 7 days), FOS (150 mg two times per day for 7 days then 100 mg two times per day for 7 days) or SOC.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome was development of severe COVID-19 pneumonia (modified WHO severity grade≥5) within 14 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included mortality, invasive and non-invasive ventilation, venous thromboembolism, duration of hospital stay, readmissions, inflammatory markers and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results

At stage 1, 181 patients were randomised, with 4 assessed as ineligible post randomisation. FOS was stopped early for futility with 16 participants (27.6%, n=58) developing severe COVID-19 pneumonia compared with 15 (25.0%, n=60) in the SOC arm (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) compared with SOC: 1.12; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.58; p=0.608). RUX progressed to stage 2 but the trial was stopped early due to slow recruitment. At the final analysis, 10 participants (16.1%, n=62) developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the RUX arm compared with 15 (24.6%, n=61) in the SOC arm (aOR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.57; p=0.161). Four (7.4%) participants in the FOS arm, none in the RUX arm and three (5.5%) in the SOC arm died within 14 days of randomisation. Infections were the most frequently reported SAE and were numerically higher in the FOS (10, 17.2%) and RUX (10, 16.1%) arms compared with SOC (7, 11.5%). Two unexpected serious adverse reactions occurred in the RUX arm only.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that FOS was superior to SOC for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients requiring hospital admission. Due to early stopping, the trial was underpowered to establish RUX’s effect in this population. Further study is needed.

Trial registration number

NCT04581954; EUDRA-CT: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001750-22/GB.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Surgery versus conservative management for severe pectus excavatum (RESTORE): protocol for a multicentre, randomised, controlled superiority trial

Por: Maier · R. · Dunning · J. · Wason · J. · Chadwick · T. · Bryant · A. · Fernandez-Garcia · C. · Vale · L. · Danjoux · G. R. · Wallace · G. · Levett-Renton · A. · Naidu · B. · Pryor · C. · McCulloch · P. · Thursfield · R. · Wyllie · J. · Chang · L. · Marsay · L. · Akowuah · E. — Diciembre 25th 2025 at 05:45
Introduction

Severe pectus excavatum (PE) may impair cardiopulmonary and physical function. The effectiveness of surgical treatment to correct PE and restore physical function is widely debated due to a lack of high-quality comparative evidence. The RESTORE trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of corrective surgery for severe PE compared with conservative management for the first time in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Methods and analysis

RESTORE is a pragmatic, multicentre, RCT with an embedded observational cohort. 200 participants aged ≥12 years with severe PE will be recruited at around 12 National Health Service cardiothoracic surgical centres in England. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive either surgery within 3 months of randomisation (intervention arm) or no surgery until after the primary outcome measurement at 1 year (comparator arm). The primary outcome is change in physical functioning from baseline to 1 year as measured by the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical function score. The primary economic outcome is cost-effectiveness. The key secondary outcome is change in % predicted VO2peak at 1 year measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). Outcomes will be assessed at 1 year post-randomisation in the comparator arm and 1 year post-surgery in the intervention arm. The primary analyses will be undertaken on an intention-to-treat population using a linear mixed-effects model, adjusted for stratification variables via a binary covariate. Other secondary outcomes will include change from baseline of cardiopulmonary function (CPET and spirometry), health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) and SF-36v2 questionnaires, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and disease specific symptoms (Phoenix Comprehensive Assessment for Pectus Excavatum Symptoms and Pectus Excavatum Evaluation Questionnaire). Adverse events, complications from surgery and operative technical success (Haller and Compression Indices from preoperative and postoperative CT scans) will also be assessed. Health economic analysis will estimate the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year at 1 year.

Ethics and dissemination

The trial was approved by East of Scotland Research and Ethics Service (24/ES/0034). Participants who are ≥16 years of age will be required to provide written informed consent. For participants

Trial registration number

ISRCTN11359779.

❌