BackgroundAt the peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for an orally administered agent to prevent the progression of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection became increasingly evident, which was the impetus behind our investigations with molnupiravir. Molnupiravir has been shown to be effective in preventing hospitalizations and/or clinical complications in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in Indian patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least one risk factor for disease progression (CTRI/2021/05/033739). MethodologyThis was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled study conducted in Indian adults aged 18-60 years with mild SARS-CoV-2, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-positive within 48 hours of enrollment in the study, and within five days of first symptom onset. Enrolled patients were randomized to treatment arms in a 1:1 ratio to receive molnupiravir or placebo in addition to the standard of care (SoC) for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The SoC was in compliance with Government of India guidelines that were in force at the time. The primary endpoint was the rate of hospitalization up to day 14. Safety endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs). ResultsEligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive molnupiravir in addition to SoC treatment (n = 608) or SoC alone (n = 610). In the molnupiravir group, nine (1.48%) patients required hospitalization versus 26 (4.26%) patients in the control group (risk difference = -2.78%; 95% CI = -4.65, -0.90; p = 0.0053). Overall, 45 (3.70%) patients reported 47 AEs during the study, most of which were mild and resolved completely. The molnupiravir group reported 30 AEs compared to 17 AEs in the control group. Headache and nausea were the two most commonly reported AEs. ConclusionsThe molnupiravir arm showed a lower rate of hospitalization and a shorter time for the improvement of clinical symptoms coupled with early RT-PCR negativity. Molnupiravir was well tolerated, and AEs were mild and rare. The addition of molnupiravir to standard therapy has the potential to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 disease to the severe form.

BackgroundDarbepoetin alfa (DA-α) is a long-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating glycoprotein which has half-life three-fold longer than that of Erythropoietin alfa (EPO). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DA-α injection versus EPO for treating renal anemia amongst Indian patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis.MethodsPatients of either gender (aged 18–65 years) with ESRD undergoing dialysis who had hemoglobin (Hb) levels < 10 g/dL after receiving EPO were switched to DA-α (0.45 μg/kg) once weekly subcutaneously or EPO 50 IU/kg thrice weekly subcutaneously (centrally randomized 1:1) for 12–24 weeks (correction phase) followed by 12 weeks maintenance phase (for Hb levels ≥10 g/dL). The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in Hb level from baseline to end of correction phase.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat population (n = 126), the between group difference in mean Hb change was − 0.01 g/dL (95% CI – 0.68 to − 0.66, p = 0.97). After adjusting for covariates, the difference was − 0.2878 g/dL (95% CI -0.936 to0.360). The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of primary endpoint was above the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of − 1.0 g/dL. Similar trend of non-inferiority was observed for per-protocol population. Safety profile of DA-α and EPO were observed to be similar.ConclusionOur study results demonstrated that for patients with ESRD undergoing dialysis, administering DA-α at lower dose frequency, is equally effective and well tolerated as EPO for treating renal anemia.Trial registrationCTRI/2012/07/002835 [Registered on: 27/07/2012]; Trial Registered Prospectively.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Acotiamide is a novel prokinetic drug that acts by enhancing the release of acetylcholine and is used in the treatment of functional dyspepsia-postprandial distress syndrome (FD-PDS). Mosapride is indicated to FD-PDS as per the Rome III treatment guidelines. Mosapride 5 mg three times daily (TID) is approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) for the treatment of FD-PDS. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of Acotiamide in comparison with Mosapride on FD-PDS.Methods: The 220 patients of either gender (aged 18-64 years) with active PDS included in the study were centrally randomized 1:1 to receive either 100 mg Acotiamide (test product) or 5 mg Mosapride (reference product) TID for four weeks. Responder rates for the overall treatment effect (OTE) at the end of four weeks were the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the elimination rate of postprandial fullness, upper abdominal bloating, and early satiation. The study also evaluated the OTE at each week, individual symptom scores, and quality of life (QoL) assessed by the Short Form-Nepean Dyspepsia Index questionnaire (SF-NDI). The safety endpoints included assessments of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).Results: At the end of four weeks, the responders in the Acotiamide versus Mosapride group for OTE was 98% versus 93.27% in the per-protocol (PP) population. Among the intent to treat (ITT) population, the comparison of Acotiamide versus Mosapride stood at 95.15% versus 89.81%. Secondary efficacy endpoints were significantly improved with 100 mg TID Acotiamide, which was evident from the improvement in postprandial fullness (14.56%), upper abdominal bloating (15.53%), early satiation (10.68%), and QoL (13.7 ± 4.67).Conclusions: Our study results demonstrated that Acotiamide is effective, safe, and well-tolerated and had significantly improved the QoL over a four-week treatment period in FD-PDS patients. The efficacy and safety profiles of Acotiamide were similar to Mosapride.

No abstract

BackgroundDepression is a leading cause of psychiatric morbidity in the modern world, and the introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is a revolution in the treatment of depression. Vilazodone, a novel SSRI and 5-HT1A partial agonist, received FDA approval in 2011 to treat the major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study conducted in India aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vilazodone when compared to escitalopram or placebo in patients with MDD. MethodsThis was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, comparative study of 375 participants over eight weeks of treatment with either vilazodone (10-40mg/day) or escitalopram (10-40 mg/day) or placebo in adult patients with MDD. Primary efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17); secondary efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score. Safety parameters included adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory results, vital signs, electrocardiogram ( ECG), and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). ResultsMean change in the HAM-D-17 total score from baseline to week 8 for vilazodone, escitalopram, and placebo-treated patients in intent-to-treat (ITT) population was: