Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41644167›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2026

Multiarm multistage randomised controlled trial of inflammatory signal inhibitors (MATIS) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia during the UK pandemic.

Lorna Hazell, Clio Pillay, Victoria Cornelius, Rachel Phillips, Asad Charania, James Wason, Svetlana Cherlin, Sinisa Savic, Ashley Whittington, Pratap Neelakantan and 11 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyAdaptive Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04581954 (Randomised Multi-arm Trial of Ruxolitinib), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04581954 phase1 / phase2completednot on this map

Randomised Multi-arm Trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) and Fostamatinib (FOS) for COVID-19 Pneumonia

TypeinterventionalSponsorImperial College LondonRan2020 to 2023Enrolled185ConditionsCoronavirus, Covid19, PneumoniaArmsRuxolitinib, Fostamatinib, Standard of care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Lorna Hazell *Imperial College Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5962-0648
Clio Pillay *Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Victoria CorneliusImperial College Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Rachel PhillipsImperial College Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Asad CharaniaDepartment of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
James WasonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4691-126X
Svetlana CherlinPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sinisa SavicImmunology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Ashley WhittingtonInfectious Diseases and Acute Medicine, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, London, UK.
Pratap NeelakantanHaemato-Oncology, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, UK.
Paul ColliniDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Lucy CookDepartment of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Michelle WillicomeDepartment of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Dragana MilojkovicDepartment of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Onn Min KonRespiratory Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2647-4688
Taryn YoungsteinImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Andrew InnesDepartment of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mark ThurszImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Graham S CookeImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Nikhil Vergis *Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nichola Cooper *Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK n.cooper@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) and fostamatinib (FOS) compared with standard of care (SOC) in patients requiring hospital admission for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.

designAdaptive multiarm, multistage, randomised, open-label trial (three arm, two stage).

settingFive hospitals in England between October 2020 and September 2022.

participantsHospitalised patients (≥18 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia defined by a modified WHO COVID-19 severity grade of 3 or 4.

interventionsParticipants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive RUX (10 mg two times per day for 7 days then 5 mg two times per day for 7 days), FOS (150 mg two times per day for 7 days then 100 mg two times per day for 7 days) or SOC.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was development of severe COVID-19 pneumonia (modified WHO severity grade≥5) within 14 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included mortality, invasive and non-invasive ventilation, venous thromboembolism, duration of hospital stay, readmissions, inflammatory markers and serious adverse events (SAEs).

resultsAt stage 1, 181 patients were randomised, with 4 assessed as ineligible post randomisation. FOS was stopped early for futility with 16 participants (27.6%, n=58) developing severe COVID-19 pneumonia compared with 15 (25.0%, n=60) in the SOC arm (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) compared with SOC: 1.12; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.58; p=0.608). RUX progressed to stage 2 but the trial was stopped early due to slow recruitment. At the final analysis, 10 participants (16.1%, n=62) developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the RUX arm compared with 15 (24.6%, n=61) in the SOC arm (aOR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.57; p=0.161). Four (7.4%) participants in the FOS arm, none in the RUX arm and three (5.5%) in the SOC arm died within 14 days of randomisation. Infections were the most frequently reported SAE and were numerically higher in the FOS (10, 17.2%) and RUX (10, 16.1%) arms compared with SOC (7, 11.5%). Two unexpected serious adverse reactions occurred in the RUX arm only.

conclusionsWe found no evidence that FOS was superior to SOC for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients requiring hospital admission. Due to early stopping, the trial was underpowered to establish RUX's effect in this population. Further study is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04581954; EUDRA-CT: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001750-22/GB.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentPyrazolesAgedCOVID-19EnglandFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPyrimidinesSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomPyrazolesPyrimidinesClinical TrialCOVID-19Drug Therapy

Identifiers

PMID41644167
PMCPMC12887464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.