Search

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via the ACE2 receptor, disrupting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis, potentially contributing to lung injury. Treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers(ARBs) may mitigate these effects, though induction of ACE2 expression could increase viral entry, replication, and worsen disease. Methods: This study represents a placebo-controlled blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of losartan on outpatients with COVID-19 across three hospital systems in Minnesota, U.S. Participants included symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 not already taking ACE-inhibitors or ARBs, enrolled within 7 days of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to losartan versus placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within 15 days. Secondary outcomes included functional status, dyspnea, temperature, and viral load. Findings: From April-November 2020, 117 participants were randomized 58 to losartan and 59 to placebo. The primary outcome did not differ significantly between the two arms based on Barnard’s test [losartan arm: 3 events (5.2%; 95% CI 1.8-14.1%) versus placebo arm: 1 event (1.7% 95% CI 0.01-9.0%); proportion difference -3.5% (95% CI -12.7-4.5%); p=0.32]. Functional status, self-reported dyspnea, maximum daily temperatures, and viral load were not significantly different between treatment groups. Due to a lower than expected hospitalization rate and low likelihood of a clinically important treatment effect, the trial was terminated early. Interpretation: In this multicenter blinded RCT for outpatients with mild symptomatic COVID-19 disease, losartan did not significantly reduce hospitalizations, affect functional status or assessment of dyspnea. Viral load was not significantly affected by treatment. This study does not support initiation of losartan for low-risk outpatients. Trial Registration: The trial was conducted under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (IND 148365), was registered on clinicaltrials.gov prior to study initialization (NCT04311177). Funding Statement: This study was supported by Minnesota Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics (CON000000076883) Declaration of Interests: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest to disclose. MAP, MHN, TWS, and CJT have received additional funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to conduct a clinical trial of losartan in inpatients with COVID-19. Ethics Approval Statement: The protocol was approved by a central institutional review board and underwent local context review. The study was conducted following good clinical practice guidelines under the oversight of an independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

Introduction The Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to drastically reduce the allowable nicotine content of cigarettes. The current study examined whether the policy implementation approach, i.e., either immediately reducing nicotine content to very low levels or gradually reducing nicotine content over an extended period, influences policy support among people who smoke cigarettes. Methods Adults who smoked daily were randomly assigned (double-blind) to an immediate nicotine reduction condition (0.4 mg/g nicotine cigarettes), a gradual nicotine reduction condition (15.5 to 0.4 mg/g), or a control condition (15.5 mg/g) for 20 weeks. Participants were asked if they would “support or oppose a law that reduced the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, to make cigarettes less addictive.” Logistic regression analyses assessed if policy support was affected by treatment condition, demographic covariates, interest in quitting, and subjective cigarette effects. Results At Week 20 (N = 957 completers), 60.4% of participants supported the policy, 17.4% opposed, and 22.2% responded “Don’t know.” Policy support did not differ by treatment condition. Support was greater among those interested in quitting (OR = 3.37, 95% CI = 2.49, 4.55). Support was lower among males (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.37, 0.67), those with greater dependence scores (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.99) and participants aged 18–24 (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.28, 0.99). No other covariates were associated with policy support. Conclusions The majority of participants supported a nicotine reduction policy. The implementation approach, immediate or gradual reduction, did not affect policy support. Participants interested in quitting smoking were more likely to support a nicotine reduction policy.

Summary Background Only 15% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with oral epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib, as a second-line therapy have objective responses. Fifty percent will have improvement of lung cancer related symptoms. It will be critical to identify patients who will benefit clinically from this therapy even when there is no objective response seen on imaging studies. We have performed a retrospective analysis of 76 patients who received gefitinib as a therapy for previously treated metastatic NSCLC at the University of Minnesota Comprehensive Cancer Center in order to describe characteristics of patients who will likely derive benefits from gefitinib therapy. Methods All patients treated with gefitinib therapy at the University of Minnesota from September 2001 to January 2004 were entered into the study. The Log-rank Test and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to assess the effect of the number of previous therapy lines, histology subtype, performance status, gender, stage of disease at initial diagnosis, and presence of skin rash on time to disease progression and overall survival (OS). Fisher's Exact Test and multiple logistic regressions were used to assess the effect of these covariates on disease response. Results Seventy-six patients entered the study, with a median age of 60 years (range 37–82). There were 37 female and 39 male patients; 47 patients had adenocarcinoma, 22 had squamous and 7 had other NSCLC histologies. Six patients had no prior therapy, 23 had one, 32 had two, 8 had three, and 7 had four prior therapies for lung cancer. Fifty-six were current smokers. Median time to disease progression was 3 months (95% CI: 3.0, 6.0). There was no difference in time to disease progression whether patients had one or more prior therapies. Patients with brain metastases (26 patients) benefited from gefitinib therapy at least equally well as those without brain metastatic disease. Patients with adenocarcinoma histology with bronchoalveolar features had superior median time to progression versus other lung cancer histology (14 months versus 3 months, p = 0.076), which translated into survival advantage in this group >24 months (95% CI: 0.76, 24+) versus 6.6 months (p = 0.0096). Patients with EGFR positive tumors had median survival of 10.2 months (95% CI: 1.45, 16.94) versus 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.66, 4.74) with EGFR negative tumors. Patients who developed any degree of skin rash had prolonged time to disease progression with median of 6 months (95% CI: 2.56, 15.5) versus patients without skin rash median 3 months (95% CI: 1.43, 2.83) (p = 0.023). This last factor was the best predictor of improved time to disease progression in multiple regression analysis (p = 0.0405). Conclusion A subgroup of patients with NSCLC will benefit from gefitinib therapy. Objective responses will likely be seen in half the patients with mutation of internal domain of EGFR; however, a larger group of patients will also enjoy prolonged disease stabilization and clinical benefit. We suggest that adenocarcinoma with bronchoalveolar features and the presence of skin rash may be used as predictors of gefitinib benefit.