Abstract
Background Indomethacin has shown to be a broad spectrum anti-viral agent apart from it being a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). This randomized clinical trial in a hospital setting is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this drug in RT-PCR positive Covid patients.
Materials and Methods RT-PCR positive Covid-19 patients, who gave the consent for the trial, were allotted to a control, or case, arm based on block randomization procedure. The control arm received the standard care consisting of paracetamol, ivermectin and other adjuvant therapy. The case arm had indomethacin instead of paracetamol, retaining the other medications. The endpoint was the development of hypoxia/desaturation. Secondary endpoints were time to become afebrile and time to resolution of cough and myalgia.
The results of 210 patients were available at this point, with 102 patients in the indomethacin arm and 108 in the paracetamol arm. The complete patient profile along with everyday clinical parameters were monitored. Blood chemistry at the time of admission and discharge were also carried out.
Results As no one required high-flow oxygen, desaturation with an SpO2 level of 93 and below was considered an important goal. In the indomethacin group, no one out of the 102 patients developed desaturation. On the other hand, 20 of the 108 patients in the paracetamol arm developed desaturation. Patients who received indomethacin also experienced more rapid symptomatic relief compared to those in the paracetamol arm, with most symptoms disappearing in half the time. A total of 56 patients out of 108 in the paracetamol arm had fever on the seventh day, while no one recorded fever in the indomethacin arm. No adverse event was reported in either arms. A fourteenth day follow up revealed that the paracetamol arm patients had several discomfort including myalgia, joint pain and tiredness while the indomethacin arm patients complained only of tiredness.
Conclusion Indomethacin is a safe and effective drug for the treatment of mild and moderate Covid-19 patients.
1.0 Introduction
SARS–Cov-2, a member of the family of coronavirus, has ravaged the world for the past 18 months. Though an effective treatment has eluded the medical community, there have been several registered trials to zero-in on a new or a reproposed drug Several studies have brought out the mechanism of the virus-host interaction and the possible treatments have been the subject of several hundred studies [1], but an effective and safe treatment for early disease is yet to emerge. An immediate solution seems to be drug repurposing, and scores of drugs have been suggested from various perspectives [2,3]
The drugs needed to combat the pathogen may fall into one or more of the following categories: Antivirals, anti-inflammatory agents and supporting therapies. According to V’Kovski, [1] the antiviral action can be based on the stages of viral-host interactions. They are attachment and virus neutralization, host protease inhibitors that stop the entry of the virus, viral protease inhibitors, viral RdRp inhibitors, and viral maturation inhibitors. The possible anti-viral solutions at various stages of interactions have been enumerated by Frediansyah et.al [4]. The role of Cathepsin L in cleavage of the S protein complex and further release of virus genome is well documented [5, 6]. Inhibiting Cathepsin L inhibits the entry of SARS-Cov-2 by 76 % [7].
Pro-inflammatory cytokine production is a natural process during an immune response. An important step in the control of the disease is the elimination of virus-infected cells. If this step, which naturally follows virus entry and replication, is defective or prolonged, several pro-inflammatory cytokines are generated in an uncontrolled fashion resulting in what is popularly called a “cytokine storm” [8]. Several interleukins are involved in a “cytokine storm”, the foremost being IL-6, IL-1 [8] and IL -17 [9]. IL-17 also seems to have a role as the interaction partner of SARS-Cov-2. Anti-inflammatory drugs targeting the production of these interleukins are important for treatment.
1.1 Indomethacin as a drug for SARS-Cov-2
Amici et. al [10] were the first to identify the anti-viral activity of Indomethacin. They recorded the anti-viral activities of indomethacin against SARS-Cov-1 in vitro experiments. Xu et al. [11] showed evidence of its anti-viral activity in SARS-Cov-2. Their investigations covered the anti-viral effect of indomethacin in vitro, in cellulo and in corona-infected canine model. They also state that indomethacin does not reduce infectivity, binding or entry into target cells. This conclusion is based on the results of Amici et.al [10], though computer models have shown it to be otherwise [12]. Down regulation of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are important to reduce infectivity, and using an open source code, Gene2Drug, Napolitano et al., [12] showed in a computer model that indomethacin down regulates ACE2 by suppressing the genes in the ACE2 pathway. The role of indomethacin in inhibiting Cathepsin L activity required for fusion has been shown by Ragav et al. [13]. Interestingly, this has not been observed with any other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug [13].
That Nsp7, along with Nsp12, is important for RNA synthesis has been highlighted by Frediansyah et al. [4]. Gordan et al.[9] recognised that prostaglandin E synthase 2 (PGES-2) is an “interactor” with Nsp7 and it is well known that indomethacin is a PGES-2 inhibitor. Hence, indomethacin is an important candidate for blocking RNA synthesis. That it blocks RNA synthesis was also shown by Amici et al. [10].
The importance of preventing inflammation in Covid-19 patients has been highlighted in several publications [14,15]. Indomethacin is known to down regulate IL-6 by inhibiting the synthesis of PGES-2 [16]. Indomethacin has been used successfully to prevent a cytokine reaction in kidney transplant patients receiving OKT3 therapy [17,18].
One of the first trials for indomethacin was conducted by Ravichandran Rajan et.al. [19]. Using the data from an open label single arm data for Indomethacin, they used propensity score matching with retrospectively collected data on paracetamol to show the effect of indomethacin as a treatment option. Gordon et al [9] showed, by retrospective data analysis. that indomethacin markedly reduces the need for hospitalization. Two studies [20, 21] have shown the effectiveness of indomethacin in treating a small number of SARS-Cov-2 patients with severe comorbidities. However, it was a small case series and a larger controlled trial was required to validate these findings.
2.0 Materials & Methods
Panimalar Medical College, Chennai, India, was identified for the trial. Patients who were RT-PCR positive for Covid-19 were recruited using a block randomization parallel group protocol [22] for the efficacy and safety of indomethacin after obtaining the Ethics Committee clearance and consent from the patients. The trial was registered with CTRI of the ICMR.
Indomethacin replaced paracetamol and was given along with the hospital standard care, which included doxycycline and ivermectin, However, other studies have shown that ivermectin may not be effective in treating Covid-19 patients [23]. A proton pump inhibitor was also added along with indomethacin. The drugs and its dosage are given in Table1. One of the primary outcomes of the study is the development of desaturation, with SpO2 ≤ 93. The days for symptomatic relief is the secondary goal.
Drug Chart
A total of 300 patients were to be recruited based on a block randomization protocol and at a ratio of 1:1. The results presented here are for 210 patients with 102 in the indomethacin arm and 108 in the paracetamol arm. The inclusion criteria for the patients are given below:
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria of Patients
Inclusion
Age between 20 and 90 years
RT-PCR Positive
Hospitalized patients
The case criteria for the study:
Kidney Function Test (KFT) Normal
Liver Function Test (LFT) Normal
Oxygen saturation – 94 or more
Exclusion
Hypersensitivity/Allergy to Drug
Gastritis
Recent heart attack
Severe asthma
Acute kidney injury
Patients on immunosuppressants
Pregnant & lactating mothers.
Indomethacin Allergy.
The following investigations were conducted on admission: CT scan of the lungs, LFT, RFT, Liver Function Test, Kidney Function Test, C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and D-Dimer. The blood chemistry was repeated on discharge and the well-being of the patients monitored for fourteen days. The patients were monitored for oxygen saturation, fever, cough and myalgia during the seven days at the hospital. The patients were deemed to have recovered symptomatically if the temperature dropped below 99 F for two days and cough reduced to Score 1 on a one-to-ten scale (1 – no cough, 2-3 – cough sometimes, 4-6 – cough with the ability to do things, 7-8 persistent cough, and 9-10 great deal of discomfort). Myalgia was left to the patient discretion and the results are reported for the fourteenth day
3.0 Results
The patients were recruited based on the random number generated. The patient profile is shown in Fig 1 and in Table 2. The age profile in both the groups as well as the gender-wise enumeration match closely. Temperature on admission has a marginal bias, being higher for the patients in the paracetamol group. Also, more patients in the indomethacin group had severe cough (above Scale 7). The co-morbidity distribution is almost similar.
The profile of the recruited patients.
Profile of the recruited patients
To understand the impact of the sample size, the response rate for paracetamol was assumed to be 0.8 and that for indomethacin 0.96. The sample size was calculated using R with an alpha value of 0.05. Marginal power was 0.84, above the minimum recommended limit of 0.8 [24]. Post-hoc calculations based on the actual result gave a marginal power of 0.99.
3.1 Efficacy of indomethacin
Symptomatic relief is very important for the psychological and physiological well-being of the patient. We monitored the number of days for becoming afebrile, days for reduction of cough and relief from myalgia. These results are shown in Fig. 2.
Days for becoming Afebrile
Number of days for cough reduction
Number of days for cough reduction with a higher score of 7 on admission
Number of days for cough reduction with a score on admission between 2 and 6
Number of days for myalgia reduction
Number of patients desaturated.
Median (dark line) and interquartile ranges are also shown as a box. The symptomatic recovery from fever and cough in terms of median values are also given in Table 3. IQR indicates the InterQuartile Range. Two points are significant from the Table and the Figure. With Indomethacin, symptomatic relief takes only half the time compared to paracetamol. Also, the IQR, a measure of statistical dispersion, is very small compared to paracetamol. This is significant because the action of indomethacin is almost independent of the patient condition on admission, the comorbidities etc. The p values given in the figure indicate the statistical significance.
Symptomatic Relief due to various treatments
The key question is the number of patients desaturating (SpO2 93) in both the arms. The patients were admitted with a median SpO2 of 95 (IQR = 1) in the indomethacin arm and a median SpO2 of 96 (IQR = 1) in the paracetamol arm with a minimum SpO2 of 94. Twenty out of 108 patients in the paracetamol arm desaturated and none in the indomethacin arm desaturated. None of the 20 patients deteriorated to require high-flow oxygen and were managed with prone position and occasional low-flow oxygen. In the indomethacin arm, saturation improved in one or two doses.
CRP is a well-known inflammatory marker, implicated in Covid-19 for severe disease. According to Liu et.al (14), a CRP score greater than 41.8 may lead to a severe disease. Fig. 4 shows the relationship between CRP on admission and decrease of CRP on the seventh day. Fig. 5 brings out the relationship between CRP on admission with a value greater than 41 and the reduction in CRP. Though the information of Fig.5 is available in Fig. 4, the separation gives a clarity of data.
CRP on admission vs Change in CRP at discharge
Relationship between CRP on admission (with values greater than 41) and the change in CRP at discharge.
Around 60 patients were tested for RT-PCR on the seventh day. The results are given in Fig. 6.
RT-PCR negative patients at the end of the seventh day
As can be seen from the figure, more patients became RT-PCR negative on the seventh day in the indomethacin arm, though the p value is 0.42.
The patients were followed-up on the fourteenth day through a telephonic enquiry. The result of the patient feedback is summarised in Table 4. It should be noted that many patients had more than one ailment and, hence, the numbers do not add up to the total.
Fourteenth day feedback of the patients
3.2 Safety profile of Indomethacin
Though indomethacin was approved in 1965, there have been concerns about its safety [25]. The number of prescriptions in the US alone for indomethacin in the year 2018 was 2.16 million [26]. Patients were tested for Serum Urea and Creatinine, SGOT and SGPT before and after the treatment and the results are given in Fig 7 and Fig. 8.
Kidney and Liver Function tests at admission
Kidney and Liver Function tests at discharge
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show no statistically significant difference between the two arms. Neither the liver nor the kidney function deteriorated after the treatment in either arms. No other side-effects were reported by the patients or the attending physicians.
4.0 Discussion
The primary aim of the study is to understand the efficacy of indomethacin in preventing desaturation (SpO2 ≤ 93) and deterioration in mild and moderate Covid-19 patients and compare this with a paracetamol based arm. The secondary aim is to evaluate symptomatic relief in indomethacin patients compared to patients on paracetamol. The results are striking. No patient developed desaturation in the indomethacin arm, while nearly 20 per cent of the patients in the paracetamol arm developed desaturation. When the SpO2 level dips below 93, the patient is managed with low-flow oxygen or by placing him/her in prone position to enhance breathing. In this study, no one showed further deterioration. The noticeable point is that in the indomethacin arm, the SpO2 improved just after one or two doses. Many patients in the marginal level of 94 improved. At the end of the seventh day, a further 13 patients in the paracetamol arm were at a SpO2 level of 94. In the indomethacin arm, only two patients had a SpO2 levels of 94, while 97 of the 102 patients recorded an SpO2 level higher than 97.
The symptomatic relief is even more salient. The median time for becoming afebrile in the indomethacin arm was three days compared to seven in the paracetamol arm. The median time for cough reduction was four days in the indomethacin arm compared to seven in the case of the paracetamol arm. In fact, 59 out of 108 patients in the paracetamol arm had fever on the seventh day but none in the indomethacin arm. Forty-nine out of 75 patients taking paracetamol took seven or more days to recover from cough. Only nine out of 70 patients took seven days and beyond in the indomethacin arm. One of the most important conclusion comes from analysing the IQR. One can notice in figs 2a to 2e, a very thin IQR band for fever and cough reduction along with a small error bar, compared to paracetamol. This clearly shows that indomethacin acts independent of the patient profile. A marginally broader IQR brand in myalgia may be because of the subjective nature of the relief.
The results are similar to our earlier study based on propensity score matching [27]. The median time for becoming afebrile, cough reduction and myalgia relief in the indomethacin arm was four and three and four days respectively. On the other hand, in the paracetamol arm, the median time was seven and eight and seven days, respectively.
CRP, a marker for inflammation, was monitored on admission and discharge. indomethacin is very effective in reducing CRP in patients with higher CRP on admission (more than 41 mg/L). The R2 value for indomethacin was much higher at 0.85, compared to 0.1. One may, hence, conclude that the consistency of indomethacin in reducing inflammation is very high. A fourteen-day follow-up further reveals the efficacy of the drug. In the indomethacin arm nearly 50 per cent had fully recovered compared to 28 % in the paracetamol arm. The normal complaint by patients who took indomethacin was tiredness. Many of these patients had gone back to normal work, too. Myalgia was present only in 14 % of the patients and other normal complaint was joint pain in 10% of the patients.
The importance of indomethacin in reducing cough and myalgia through its inhibitive action of bradykinin has been hypothesised by Alkotaji et.al [28] and the mechanism and the ill-effects of bradykinin are well documented. The theory proposed in this reference explains the difference in symptomatic relief between the two groups.
We hypothesise that early symptomatic relief is important for recovery and prevents desaturation. Seventeen out of the twenty patients who desaturated had fever beyond seven days and of the remaining one had cough for more than seven days. This is also reflected in the fourteenth day state of the patients.
The viral load reduction is better for indomethacin, but not significant. It may be that seven days are early for an RT-PCR test.
5.0 Conclusions
The use of Indomethacin, alongside the standard treatment protocol in hospitalised Covid-19 patients, was associated with marked symptomatic relief and the oxygen saturation level being maintained at a high level. There were no adverse effects. Indomethacin, instead of paracetamol, should be a preferred drug for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2.
Data Availability
All data are available and can be obtained with ethics committee clearance
Data Availability
All data are available and can be obtained with ethics committee clearance
Author Contributions
Conception and protocol design – Dr. Rajan Ravichandran
Clinical study conduction, coordination and data collection – Dr. Surapaneni Krishna Mohan, Dr. Suresh Kumar Sukumaran, Dr. Devakumar Kamaraj, Samson Oliver Abraham Samuel Ravi and Dr. Sivakumar Vijayaraghavalu.
Data- analysis, - interpretation and manuscript preparation – Dr. Ramarathnam Krishna Kumar
6.0 Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the generous funding for this study by Mr. Kris Gopalakrishnan, Alumnus, Indian Institute of Technology Madras. But for him this study would not have been possible
Footnotes
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
Funding: Funding for this study was provided by Mr. Kris Gopalakrishnan, Alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology Madras. He is also the Chairman of Axilor Ventures
7.0 References
