COVIDMED – An early pandemic randomized clinical trial of losartan treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.12.22269095: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: COVID MED (NCT04340557) was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Bassett Medical Center (Cooperstown, NY [April 3, 2020] [#1581969]), Goshen Health (Goshen, IN) and Reid Health (Richmond, IN).
    Consent: Target recruitment was maximized by daily assessment of positive SARS-CoV-2 swab tests from Bassett’s laboratory in hospitalized patients with review of inclusion/exclusion criteria for all such patients by the study’s enrollment nurse and offering enrollment to all interested in participating after a comprehensive informed consent process (see Supplementary material for Informed Consent Form [ICF]).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationPost-consent, patients were randomly assigned by an unblinded enrollment research nurse in a 2:2:2:1 ratio in blocks to one of four groups using a computer-generated randomization schedule provided by the study’s statistician (without stratification): hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, losartan, or placebo; this ratio was selected because early in the pandemic patients declined participation in trials with low likelihood of receiving ‘active’ drug.
    BlindingIf crushed drug or drug in solution had to be administered (nasogastric/gastric tube), eye shields were used to maintain blinding.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data from CRFs and AE/SAE reports were entered into REDCap using secure login/password entry; data were deidentified in working documents which were available only to study investigators; all study identifying data will be destroyed/deleted upon publication to allow wider sharing if requested.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Study limitations included single-arm, nonrandomized, open-label design with external historical controls, and between-group imbalance. 34 of 347 screened patients were enrolled (10%). The second, an open-label RCT compared the ARB telmisartan and SOC vs. SOC alone in two hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Argentina up to 4 days post symptoms onset (earlier than our trial) [14]. The primary outcome was CRP at days 5 and 8. In an interim analysis, 40 telmisartan/SOC vs. 38 SOC were compared. Mean CRP was significantly lower in telmisartan/SOC vs. SOC groups at days 5 (24.2 vs. 51.1 mg/L [p<0.05]) and 8 (9.0 vs. 41.6 mg/L [p<0.05]). Median time to discharge was shorter with telmisartan, 9 vs. 15 days (p=0.01) and 30-day mortality trend favored telmisartan (5.26 vs. 11.76%, p=0.41); there were no differences for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and a composite of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death; fewer patients receiving telmisartan needed oxygen at day 15 (2/4 vs. 13/14, p<0.05). No telmisartan related AEs occurred and BP was similar. 82 of 185 screened patients were enrolled (56% [higher than our trial]). The third, an open-label RCT compared the ARB losartan and SOC vs. SOC alone in 31 SHARP (San Diego) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with mild hypoxia (requiring

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04340557CompletedDo Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Mitigate Progression to Acu…
    NCT04328012RecruitingCOVID MED Trial - Comparison Of Therapeutics for Hospitalize…


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.