4.8 Article

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of ZMapp for Ebola Virus Infection

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 375, 期 15, 页码 1448-1456

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1604330

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
  2. INSERM
  3. Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces
  4. Ministries of Health
  5. U.S. Embassy staff in the country of Liberia
  6. U.S. Embassy staff in the country of Sierra Leone
  7. U.S. Embassy staff in the country of Guinea
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  9. CDC Foundation
  10. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority
  11. Defense Threat Reduction Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Data from studies in nonhuman primates suggest that the triple monoclonal antibody cocktail ZMapp is a promising immune-based treatment for Ebola virus disease (EVD). METHODS Beginning in March 2015, we conducted a randomized, controlled trial of ZMapp plus the current standard of care as compared with the current standard of care alone in patients with EVD that was diagnosed in West Africa by polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay. Eligible patients of any age were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the current standard of care or the current standard of care plus three intravenous infusions of ZMapp (50 mg per kilogram of body weight, administered every third day). Patients were stratified according to baseline PCR cycle-threshold value for the virus (<= 22 vs. >22) and country of enrollment. Oral favipiravir was part of the current standard of care in Guinea. The primary end point was mortality at 28 days. RESULTS A total of 72 patients were enrolled at sites in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the United States. Of the 71 patients who could be evaluated, 21 died, representing an overall case fatality rate of 30%. Death occurred in 13 of 35 patients (37%) who received the current standard of care alone and in 8 of 36 patients (22%) who received the current standard of care plus ZMapp. The observed posterior probability that ZMapp plus the current standard of care was superior to the current standard of care alone was 91.2%, falling short of the prespecified threshold of 97.5%. Frequentist analyses yielded similar results (absolute difference in mortality with ZMapp, -15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -36 to 7). Baseline viral load was strongly predictive of both mortality and duration of hospitalization in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized, controlled trial of a putative therapeutic agent for EVD, although the estimated effect of ZMapp appeared to be beneficial, the result did not meet the prespecified statistical threshold for efficacy. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PREVAIL II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02363322.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据