Trial reportImmunoHorizons2025
Efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib with best supportive care versus best supportive care in patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization.
Trial report in ImmunoHorizons, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase 2, Open Label, Randomized Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Acalabrutinib With Best Supportive Care Versus Best Supportive Care in Subjects Hospitalized With COVID-19
A Phase 2, Open Label, Randomized Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Acalabrutinib With Best Supportive Care Versus Best Supportive Care in Subjects Hospitalized With COVID-19
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, was evaluated in 2 phase 2 studies in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received acalabrutinib + best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04380688 and NCT04346199). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients alive and free of respiratory failure on day 14 (rest of the world [RoW] study) and day 28 (US study). In the RoW study, 177 patients were randomized (acalabrutinib + BSC: n = 89; BSC: n = 88); in the US study, 62 patients were randomized (acalabrutinib + BSC: n = 31; BSC: n = 31). The percentage of patients who met the primary endpoint was similar in both studies (RoW study: acalabrutinib + BSC: 83.1%, BSC: 90.9%; US study: acalabrutinib + BSC: 80.6%, BSC: 83.9%). No new safety concerns were reported. Overall, no significant clinical benefit of adding acalabrutinib to BSC in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.