Giants in Chest Medicine: Claude Lenfant, MD.

E. Roccella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.09.048

IF: 9.6

Chest

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Olgotrelvir As a Single-Agent Treatment of Nonhospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

Rongmeng Jiang,Bing Han,Wanhong Xu,Xiaoying Zhang,Chunxian Peng,Qiang Dang,Wei Sun,Ling Lin,Yuanlong Lin,Lingyan Fan,Dongqing Lv,Lei Shao,Ying Chen,Yunqing Qiu,Limei Han,Weixiang Kong,Guangming Li,Kai Wang,Jie Peng,Bingliang Lin,Zhaowei Tong,Xiaobo Lu,Lifeng Wang,Feng Gao,Jiemei Feng,Yongxia Li,Xiaojun Ma,Jinxiang Wang,Shanbo Wang,Wei Shen,Chao Wang,Kuan Yan,Zhenhao Lin,Can Jin,Long Mao,Jia Liu,Yulia Kushnareva,Olivia Kotoi,Zhenghong Zhu,Mike Royal,Mark Brunswick,Henry Ji,Xiao Xu,Hongzhou Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/evidoa2400026

2024-01-01

NEJM Evidence

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Olgotrelvir is an oral antiviral with dual mechanisms of action targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (i.e., Mpro) and human cathepsin L. It has potential to serve as a single-agent treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).METHODS:We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olgotrelvir in 1212 nonhospitalized adult participants with mild to moderate Covid-19, irrespective of risk factors, who were randomly assigned to receive orally either 600 mg of olgotrelvir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary and key secondary end points were time to sustained recovery of a panel of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms and the viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) load. The safety end point was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.RESULTS:The baseline characteristics of 1212 participants were similar in the two groups. In the modified intention-to-treat population (567 patients in the placebo group and 558 in the olgotrelvir group), the median time to symptom recovery was 205 hours in the olgotrelvir group versus 264 hours in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.46; P<0.001). The least squares mean (95% CI) changes of viral RNA load from baseline were -2.20 (-2.59 to -1.81) log10 copies/ml in olgotrelvir-treated participants and -1.40 (-1.79 to -1.01) in participants receiving placebo at day 4. Skin rash (3.3%) and nausea (1.5%) were more frequent in the olgotrelvir group than in the placebo group; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no deaths were reported.CONCLUSIONS:Olgotrelvir as a single-agent treatment significantly improved symptom recovery. Adverse effects were not dose limiting. (Funded by Sorrento Therapeutics, a parent company of ACEA Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05716425.).
Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Andre C Kalil,Aneesh K Mehta,Thomas F Patterson,Nathaniel Erdmann,Carlos A Gomez,Mamta K Jain,Cameron R Wolfe,Guillermo M Ruiz-Palacios,Susan Kline,Justino Regalado Pineda,Anne F Luetkemeyer,Michelle S Harkins,Patrick E H Jackson,Nicole M Iovine,Victor F Tapson,Myoung-Don Oh,Jennifer A Whitaker,Richard A Mularski,Catharine I Paules,Dilek Ince,Jin Takasaki,Daniel A Sweeney,Uriel Sandkovsky,David L Wyles,Elizabeth Hohmann,Kevin A Grimes,Robert Grossberg,Maryrose Laguio-Vila,Allison A Lambert,Diego Lopez de Castilla,EuSuk Kim,LuAnn Larson,Claire R Wan,Jessica J Traenkner,Philip O Ponce,Jan E Patterson,Paul A Goepfert,Theresa A Sofarelli,Satish Mocherla,Emily R Ko,Alfredo Ponce de Leon,Sarah B Doernberg,Robert L Atmar,Ryan C Maves,Fernando Dangond,Jennifer Ferreira,Michelle Green,Mat Makowski,Tyler Bonnett,Tatiana Beresnev,Varduhi Ghazaryan,Walla Dempsey,Seema U Nayak,Lori Dodd,Kay M Tomashek,John H Beigel,ACTT-3 study group members,Angela Hewlett,Barbara S Taylor,Jason E Bowling,Ruth C Serrano,Nadine G Rouphael,Zanthia Wiley,Varun K Phadke,Laura Certain,Hannah N Imlay,John J Engemann,Emmanuel B Walter,Jessica Meisner,Sandra Rajme,Joanne Billings,Hyun Kim,Jose A Martinez-Orozco,Nora Bautista Felix,Sammy T Elmor,Laurel R Bristow,Gregory Mertz,Nestor Sosa,Taison D Bell,Miranda J West,Marie-Carmelle Elie-Turenne,Jonathan Grein,Fayyaz Sutterwala,Pyoeng Gyun Choe,Chang Kyung Kang,Hana M El Sahly,Kevin S Rhie,Rezhan H Hussein,Patricia L Winokur,Ayako Mikami,Sho Saito,Constance A Benson,Kimberly McConnell,Mezgebe Berhe,Emma Dishner,Maria G Frank,Ellen Sarcone,Pierre-Cedric B Crouch,Hannah Jang,Nikolaus Jilg,Katherine Perez,Charles Janak,Valeria D Cantos,Paulina A Rebolledo,John Gharbin,Barry S Zingman,Paul F Riska,Ann R Falsey,Edward E Walsh,Angela R Branche,Henry Arguinchona,Christa Arguinchona,Jason W Van Winkle,Diego F Zea,Jongtak Jung,Kyoung-Ho Song,Hong Bin Kim,Jay Dwyer,Emma Bainbridge,David C Hostler,Jordanna M Hostler,Brian T Shahan,Lanny Hsieh,Alpesh N Amin,Miki Watanabe,William R Short,Pablo Tebas,Jillian T Baron,Neera Ahuja,Evelyn Ling,Minjoung Go,Otto O Yang,Jenny Ahn,Rubi Arias,Rekha R Rapaka,Fleesie A Hubbard,James D Campbell,Stuart H Cohen,George R Thompson 3rd,Melony Chakrabarty,Stephanie N Taylor,Najy Masri,Alisha Lacour,Tida Lee,Tahaniyat Lalani,David A Lindholm,Ana Elizabeth Markelz,Katrin Mende,Christopher J Colombo,Christina Schofield,Rhonda E Colombo,Faheem Guirgis,Mark Holodniy,Aarthi Chary,Mary Bessesen,Noreen A Hynes,Lauren M Sauer,Vincent C Marconi,Abeer Moanna,Telisha Harrison,David C Lye,Sean W X Ong,Po Ying Chia,Nikhil Huprikar,Anuradha Ganesan,Christian Madar,Richard M Novak,Andrea Wendrow,Scott A Borgetti,Sarah L George,Daniel F Hoft,James D Brien,Susan L F McLellan,Corri Levine,Joy Nock,Seow Yen Tan,Humaira Shafi,Jaime M F Chien,Keith Candiotti,Robert W Finberg,Jennifer P Wang,Mireya Wessolossky,Gregory C Utz,Susan E Chambers,David S Stephens,Timothy H Burgess,Julia Rozman,Yann Hyvert,Andrea Seitzinger,Anu Osinusi,Huyen Cao,Kevin K Chung,Tom M Conrad,Kaitlyn Cross,Jill A El-Khorazaty,Heather Hill,Stephanie Pettibone,Michael R Wierzbicki,Nikki Gettinger,Theresa Engel,Teri Lewis,Jing Wang,Gregory A Deye,Effie Nomicos,Rhonda Pikaart-Tautges,Mohamed Elsafy,Robert Jurao,Hyung Koo,Michael Proschan,Richard Davey,Tammy Yokum,Janice Arega,Ruth Florese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00384-2

Abstract:Background: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. Findings: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Interpretation: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. Funding: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).
Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Samuel M Brown,Christina E Barkauskas,Birgit Grund,Shweta Sharma,Andrew N Phillips,Lindsay Leither,Ithan D Peltan,Michael Lanspa,Daniel L Gilstrap,Ahmad Mourad,Kathleen Lane,Jeremy R Beitler,Alexis L Serra,Ivan Garcia,Eyad Almasri,Mohamed Fayed,Kinsley Hubel,Estelle S Harris,Elizabeth A Middleton,Macy A G Barrios,Kusum S Mathews,Neha N Goel,Samuel Acquah,Jarrod Mosier,Cameron Hypes,Elizabeth Salvagio Campbell,Akram Khan,Catherine L Hough,Jennifer G Wilson,Joseph E Levitt,Abhijit Duggal,Siddharth Dugar,Andrew J Goodwin,Charles Terry,Peter Chen,Sam Torbati,Nithya Iyer,Uriel S Sandkovsky,Nicholas J Johnson,Bryce R H Robinson,Michael A Matthay,Neil R Aggarwal,Ivor S Douglas,Jonathan D Casey,Manuel Hache-Marliere,J Georges Youssef,William Nkemdirim,Brad Leshnower,Omar Awan,Sonal Pannu,Darragh Shane O'Mahony,Prasad Manian,J W Awori Hayanga,Glenn W Wortmann,Bruno M Tomazini,Robert F Miller,Jens-Ulrik Jensen,Daniel D Murray,Nina A Bickell,Jigna Zatakia,Sarah Burris,Elizabeth S Higgs,Ven Natarajan,Robin L Dewar,Adam Schechner,Nayon Kang,Alejandro Arenas-Pinto,Fleur Hudson,Adit A Ginde,Wesley H Self,Angela J Rogers,Cathryn F Oldmixon,Haley Morin,Adriana Sanchez,Amy C Weintrob,Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti,Anne Davis-Karim,Nicole Engen,Eileen Denning,B Taylor Thompson,Annetine C Gelijns,Virginia Kan,Victoria J Davey,Jens D Lundgren,Abdel G Babiker,James D Neaton,H Clifford Lane,ACTIV-3b/Therapeutics for Severely Ill Inpatients with COVID-19 (TESICO) Study Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00147-9

Abstract:Background: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Methods: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. Findings: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). Interpretation: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. Funding: National Institutes of Health.
Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Selin Somersan-Karakaya,Eleftherios Mylonakis,Vidya P Menon,Jason C Wells,Shazia Ali,Sumathi Sivapalasingam,Yiping Sun,Rafia Bhore,Jingning Mei,Jutta Miller,Lisa Cupelli,Eduardo Forleo-Neto,Andrea T Hooper,Jennifer D Hamilton,Cynthia Pan,Viet Pham,Yuming Zhao,Romana Hosain,Adnan Mahmood,John D Davis,Kenneth C Turner,Yunji Kim,Amanda Cook,Bari Kowal,Yuhwen Soo,A Thomas DiCioccio,Gregory P Geba,Neil Stahl,Leah Lipsich,Ned Braunstein,Gary A Herman,George D Yancopoulos,David M Weinreich,COVID-19 Phase 2/3 Hospitalized Trial Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiac320

2022-12-28

Abstract:Background: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD). Methods: In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Results: In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to -.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%-74.0%). No safety concerns were noted. Conclusions: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients. Clinical trials registration: NCT04426695.
Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Alexander P J Vlaar,Martin Witzenrath,Pieter van Paassen,Leo M A Heunks,Bruno Mourvillier,Sanne de Bruin,Endry H T Lim,Matthijs C Brouwer,Pieter R Tuinman,José F K Saraiva,Gernot Marx,Suzana M Lobo,Rodrigo Boldo,Jesus A Simon-Campos,Alexander D Cornet,Anastasia Grebenyuk,Johannes M Engelbrecht,Murimisi Mukansi,Philippe G Jorens,Robert Zerbib,Simon Rückinger,Korinna Pilz,Renfeng Guo,Diederik van de Beek,Niels C Riedemann,PANAMO study group,José Francisco K Saraiva,Suzana Lobo,Jesus Simon-Campos,Johannes Engelbrecht,Pierre Bulpa,Fabio S Taccone,Greet Hermans,Marc Diltoer,Michael Piagnerelli,Nikolaas De Neve,Antonio T Freire,Felipe D Pizzol,Anna Karolina Marinho,Victor H Sato,Clovis Arns da Cunha,Mathilde Neuville,Jean Dellamonica,Djillali Annane,Antoine Roquilly,Jean Luc Diehl,Francis Schneider,Jean Paul Mira,Jean Baptiste Lascarrou,Luc Desmedt,Claire Dupuis,Carole Schwebel,Guillaume Thiéry,Matthias Gründling,Marc Berger,Tobias Welte,Michael Bauer,Ulrich Jaschinski,Klaus Matschke,Roberto Mercado-Longoria,Belinda Gomez Quintana,Jorge Alberto Zamudio-Lerma,Juan Moreno Hoyos Abril,Angel Aleman Marquez,Peter Pickkers,Luuk Otterspoor,Luis Hercilla Vásquez,Carlos Rafael Seas Ramos,Alejandro Peña Villalobos,Gonzalo Gianella Malca,Victoria Chávez,Victor Filimonov,Vladimir Kulabukhov,Pinak Acharya,Sjoerd A M E G Timmermans,Matthias H Busch,Floor L F van Baarle,Rutger Koning,Liora Ter Horst,Nora Chekrouni,Thijs M van Soest,Marleen A Slim,Lonneke A van Vught,Rombout B E van Amstel,Sabine E Olie,Ingeborg E van Zeggeren,Marcel C G van de Poll,Claus Thielert,Dorothee Neukirchen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00297-1

Abstract:Background: Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population. Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420. Findings: From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group. Interpretation: In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections. Funding: InflaRx and the German Federal Government.
Casirivimab and imdevimab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

RECOVERY Collaborative Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00163-5

2022-02-12

Abstract:Background: Casirivimab and imdevimab are non-competing monoclonal antibodies that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, blocking viral entry into host cells. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab administered in combination in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: RECOVERY is a randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing several possible treatments with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 127 UK hospitals took part in the evaluation of casirivimab and imdevimab. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 12 years admitted to hospital with clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual care plus casirivimab 4 g and imdevimab 4 g administered together in a single intravenous infusion. Investigators and data assessors were masked to analyses of the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality assessed by intention to treat, first only in patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomisation (ie, those who were seronegative) and then in the overall population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received casirivimab and imdevimab. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between Sept 18, 2020, and May 22, 2021, 9785 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible for casirivimab and imdevimab, of which 4839 were randomly assigned to casirivimab and imdevimab plus usual care and 4946 to usual care alone. 3153 (32%) of 9785 patients were seronegative, 5272 (54%) were seropositive, and 1360 (14%) had unknown baseline antibody status. 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 452 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·69-0·91; p=0·0009). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 943 (19%) of 4839 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 1029 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·86-1·02; p=0·14). The proportional effect of casirivimab and imdevimab on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity=0·002). There were no deaths attributed to the treatment, or meaningful between-group differences in the pre-specified safety outcomes of cause-specific mortality, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, or major bleeding events. Serious adverse reactions reported in seven (<1%) participants were believed by the local investigator to be related to treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab. Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced 28-day mortality in patients who were seronegative (and therefore had not mounted their own humoral immune response) at baseline but not in those who were seropositive at baseline. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.
Bebtelovimab, alone or together with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, as a broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for mild to moderate, ambulatory COVID-19

Michael Dougan,Masoud Azizad,Peter Chen,Barry Feldman,Matthew Frieman,Awawu Igbinadolor,Princy Kumar,Jason Morris,Jeffrey Potts,Lauren Baracco,Lisa Macpherson,Nicole L. Kallewaard,Dipak R. Patel,Matthew M. Hufford,Linda Wietecha,Emmanuel Chigutsa,Sarah L. Demmon,Bryan E. Jones,Ajay Nirula,Daniel M. Skovronsky,Mark Williams,Robert L. Gottlieb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.10.22272100

2022-03-12

Abstract:BACKGROUND Bebtelovimab is a potent, fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2, with broad neutralizing activity to all currently known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including omicron variant lineages. Specialized developmental approaches accelerated the initiation of a clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bebtelovimab alone (BEB) or together with bamlanivimab (BAM) and etesevimab (ETE) delivered via slow intravenous push for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS This portion of the phase 2, BLAZE-4 trial (J2X-MC-PYAH; NCT04634409 ) enrolled 714 patients (between May and July 2021) with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 within 3 days (≤3 days) of laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at low risk for severe COVID-19 were randomized 1:1:1 (double-blinded) to placebo, BEB 175 mg, or BEB 175 mg+BAM 700 mg+ETE 1400 mg (BEB+BAM+ETE). Patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 were randomized 2:1 (open-label) to BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE, and a subsequent treatment arm enrolled patients to BEB+BAM+ETE using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated criteria for High-risk. All treatments were administered intravenously over ≥30 seconds (open-label BEB) or ≥6.5 minutes (all other treatment arms). For the placebo-controlled patients (termed Low-risk), the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with persistently high viral load (PHVL) (log viral load >5.27) on Day 7. For the open-label patients (termed High-risk), the primary endpoint was safety. In nonclinical studies, SARS-CoV-2 isolates were tested using an endpoint neutralization assay to measure BEB’s inhibitory concentration greater than 99% (IC 99 ). RESULTS Baseline viral sequencing data were available from 611 patients; 90.2% (n=551) aligned with a variant of interest or concern (WHO designation), with the majority infected with delta (49.8%) or alpha (28.6%) variants. Among the Low-risk patients, PHVL occurred in 19.8% of patients treated with placebo, as compared to 12.7% (p=0.132) of patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE and 12.0% (p=0.097) of patients treated with BEB, a 36% and 40% relative risk reduction, respectively. Viral load-area under the curve analysis from baseline to Day 11 showed statistically signficant reductions for patients treated with BEB (p=0.006) and BEB+BAM+ETE (p=0.043) compared to patients who received placebo. Time to sustained symptom resolution was reduced by a median of 2 days for patients treated with BEB (6 days; p=0.003) and 1 day for patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE (7 days; p=0.289) compared to placebo (8 days). The incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause deaths by day 29 were similar across treatment arms, as expected given the patients’ risk status (the Low risk cohorts had a Low risk of hospitalization, and High risk cohorts received only active therapy without placebo). Overall, safety results were consistent with previous studies investigating mAbs targeting SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were 9.7% in Low-risk (n=37/380) and 14.7% in High-risk (n=48/326) patients treated with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE; majority of AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity. Serious AEs were reported in 2.1% of High-risk patients (n=7/326), including one death (a cerebrovascular accident); 1 serious AE was reported among Low-risk patients. In an in vitro neutralization assay, BEB neutralized the omicron isolate (BA.1) with <2.44ng/ml estimated IC 99 . CONCLUSIONS In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, treatment with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE was associated with greater viral clearance, a reduction in time to sustained symptom resolution, and safety results consistent with mAbs that target SARS-CoV-2. Integration of clinical findings with in vitro neutralization of emerging viral variants offered a pragmatic framework for investigating the efficacy of a new antiviral mAb agent, as demonstrated by bebtelovimab.
Metal-enhanced intrinsic fluorescence of nucleic acids using platinum nanostructured substrates.

N. Akbay,Farhad Mahdavi,J. Lakowicz,K. Ray

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPLETT.2012.08.020

IF: 2.719

2012-10-01

Chemical Physics Letters

Abstract:
Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Vincent C Marconi,Athimalaipet V Ramanan,Stephanie de Bono,Cynthia E Kartman,Venkatesh Krishnan,Ran Liao,Maria Lucia B Piruzeli,Jason D Goldman,Jorge Alatorre-Alexander,Rita de Cassia Pellegrini,Vicente Estrada,Mousumi Som,Anabela Cardoso,Sujatro Chakladar,Brenda Crowe,Paulo Reis,Xin Zhang,David H Adams,E Wesley Ely,COV-BARRIER Study Group,Mi-Young Ahn,Miriam Akasbi,Javier David Altclas,Federico Ariel,Horacio Alberto Ariza,Chandrasekhar Atkar,Anselmo Bertetti,Meenakshi Bhattacharya,Maria Luisa Briones,Akshay Budhraja,Aaliya Burza,Adrian Camacho Ortiz,Roberto Caricchio,Marcelo Casas,Valeria Cevoli Recio,Won Suk Choi,Emilia Cohen,Angel Comulada-Rivera,Paul Cook,Dora Patricia Cornejo Juarez,Carnevali Daniel,Luiz Fernando Degrecci Relvas,Jose Guillermo Dominguez Cherit,Todd Ellerin,Dmitry Enikeev,Suzana Erico Tanni Minamoto,Elie Fiss,Motohiko Furuichi,Kleber Giovanni Luz,Omar Gonzalez,Ivan Gordeev,Thomas Gruenewald,Victor Augusto Hamamoto Sato,Eun Young Heo,Jung Yeon Heo,Maria Hermida,Yuji Hirai,David Hutchinson,Claudio Iastrebner,Octavian Ioachimescu,Manish Jain,Maria Patelli Juliani Souza Lima,Akram Khan,Andreas E Kremer,Thomas Lawrie,Mark MacElwee,Farah Madhani-Lovely,Vinay Malhotra,Michel Fernando Martínez Resendez,James McKinnell,Patrick Milligan,Cesar Minelli,Miguel Angel Moran Rodriguez,Maria Leonor Parody,Priscila Paulin,Priscilla Pemu,Ana Carolina Procopio Carvalho,Massimo Puoti,Joshua Purow,Mayur Ramesh,Alvaro Rea Neto,Philip Robinson,Cristhieni Rodrigues,Gustavo Rojas Velasco,Jose Francisco Kerr Saraiva,Morton Scheinberg,Stefan Schreiber,Dario Scublinsky,Anete Sevciovic Grumach,Imad Shawa,Jesus Simon Campos,Nidhi Sofat,Christoph D Spinner,Eduardo Sprinz,Roger Stienecker,Jose Suarez,Natsuo Tachikawa,Hasan Tahir,Brian Tiffany,Alexander Vishnevsky,Adilson Westheimer Cavalcante,Kapil Zirpe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00331-3

Abstract:Background: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. Findings: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. Interpretation: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Funding: Eli Lilly and Company. Translations: For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Intravenous ravulizumab in mechanically ventilated patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19: a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Djillali Annane,Sean J Pittock,Hrishikesh S Kulkarni,Brian W Pickering,Matt R Khoshnevis,Jason L Siegel,Charles A Powell,Pedro Castro,Tomoko Fujii,Derek Dunn,Keisha Smith,Sanjay Mitter,Shamsah Kazani,Austin Kulasekararaj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00082-6

Abstract:Background: The complement pathway is a potential target for the treatment of severe COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ravulizumab, a terminal complement C5 inhibitor, in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: This phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (ALXN1210-COV-305) enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 31 hospitals in France, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 that required hospitalisation and either invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, with severe pneumonia, acute lung injury, or acute respiratory distress syndrome confirmed by CT scan or x-ray. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) to receive intravenous ravulizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone using a web-based interactive response system. Randomisation was in permuted blocks of six with stratification by intubation status. Bodyweight-based intravenous doses of ravulizumab were administered on days 1, 5, 10, and 15. The primary efficacy endpoint was survival based on all-cause mortality at day 29 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group who received at least one dose of ravulizumab, and in all randomly assigned patients in the BSC group. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04369469, and was terminated at interim analysis due to futility. Findings: Between May 10, 2020, and Jan 13, 2021, 202 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to ravulizumab plus BSC or BSC. 201 patients were included in the ITT population (135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 66 in the BSC group). The ravulizumab plus BSC group comprised 96 (71%) men and 39 (29%) women with a mean age of 63·2 years (SD 13·23); the BSC group comprised 43 (65%) men and 23 (35%) women with a mean age of 63·5 years (12·40). Most patients (113 [84%] of 135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 53 [80%] of 66 in the BSC group) were on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline. Overall survival estimates based on multiple imputation were 58% for patients receiving ravulizumab plus BSC and 60% for patients receiving BSC (Mantel-Haenszel analysis: risk difference -0·0205; 95% CI -0·1703 to 0·1293; one-sided p=0·61). In the safety population, 113 (89%) of 127 patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 56 (84%) of 67 in the BSC group had a treatment-emergent adverse event. Of these events, infections and infestations (73 [57%] vs 24 [36%] patients) and vascular disorders (39 [31%] vs 12 [18%]) were observed more frequently in the ravulizumab plus BSC group than in the BSC group. Five patients had serious adverse events considered to be related to ravulizumab. These events were bacteraemia, thrombocytopenia, oesophageal haemorrhage, cryptococcal pneumonia, and pyrexia (in one patient each). Interpretation: Addition of ravulizumab to BSC did not improve survival or other secondary outcomes. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ravulizumab in its approved indications. Despite the lack of efficacy, the study adds value for future research into complement therapeutics in critical illnesses by showing that C5 inhibition can be accomplished in severely ill patients. Funding: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease.
Molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Peter W Horby,Natalie Staplin,Leon Peto,Jonathan R Emberson,Mark Campbell,Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim,Buddha Basnyat,Louise Thwaites,Rogier Van Doorn,Raph L Hamers,Jeremy Nel,John Amuasi,Richard Stewart,Dipansu Ghosh,Fergus Hamilton,Purav Desai,Nicholas Easom,Jaydip Majumdar,Paul Hine,David Chadwick,Graham Cooke,Sara Sharp,Hanif Esmail,J Kenneth Baillie,Maya H Buch,Saul N Faust,Thomas Jaki,Katie Jeffery,Edmund Juszczak,Marian Knight,Wei Shen Lim,Alan Montgomery,Aparna Mukherjee,Andrew Mumford,Kathryn Rowan,Guy Thwaites,Marion Mafham,Richard Haynes,Martin J Landray

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.23.24307731

2024-05-24

Abstract:Background: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) are oral antivirals that have been proposed as treatments for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial, several potential treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia were evaluated. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were assessed in separate comparisons in RECOVERY, both of which are reported here. Eligible and consenting adults could join the molnupiravir comparison, the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison, or both. For each comparison, participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the relevant antiviral (five days of molnupiravir 800mg twice daily or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 300mg/100mg twice daily) or to usual care without the relevant antiviral drug, using web-based unstratified randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were time to discharge alive from hospital, and among those not on invasive ventilation at baseline, progression to invasive ventilation or death. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Both comparisons were stopped by the investigators because of low recruitment. ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov ( ). Findings: From 24 January 2022 to 24 May 2023, 923 patients were recruited to the molnupiravir comparison (445 allocated molnupiravir and 478 allocated usual care), and from 31 March 2022 to 24 May 2023, 137 patients were recruited to the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison (68 allocated nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 69 allocated usual care). More than three-quarters of the patients in both comparisons were vaccinated and had anti-spike antibodies at randomisation, and more than two-thirds were receiving other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals (including remdesivir or sotrovimab). In the molnupiravir comparison, 74 (17%) patients allocated to molnupiravir and 79 (17%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.28; p=0.66). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir comparison, 13 (19%) patients allocated nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 13 (19%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.47-2.23; p=0.96). In neither comparison was there evidence of a significant difference in the duration of hospitalisation or the proportion of patients progressing to invasive ventilation or death. Interpretation: In adults hospitalised with COVID-19, neither molnupiravir nor nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death although these comparisons had limited statistical power due to low recruitment.
Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial

Cameron R Wolfe,Kay M Tomashek,Thomas F Patterson,Carlos A Gomez,Vincent C Marconi,Mamta K Jain,Otto O Yang,Catharine I Paules,Guillermo M Ruiz Palacios,Robert Grossberg,Michelle S Harkins,Richard A Mularski,Nathaniel Erdmann,Uriel Sandkovsky,Eyad Almasri,Justino Regalado Pineda,Alexandra W Dretler,Diego Lopez de Castilla,Angela R Branche,Pauline K Park,Aneesh K Mehta,William R Short,Susan L F McLellan,Susan Kline,Nicole M Iovine,Hana M El Sahly,Sarah B Doernberg,Myoung-don Oh,Nikhil Huprikar,Elizabeth Hohmann,Colleen F Kelley,Mark Holodniy,Eu Suk Kim,Daniel A Sweeney,Robert W Finberg,Kevin A Grimes,Ryan C Maves,Emily R Ko,John J Engemann,Barbara S Taylor,Philip O Ponce,LuAnn Larson,Dante Paolo Melendez,Allan M Seibert,Nadine G Rouphael,Joslyn Strebe,Jesse L Clark,Kathleen G Julian,Alfredo Ponce de Leon,Anabela Cardoso,Stephanie de Bono,Robert L Atmar,Anuradha Ganesan,Jennifer L Ferreira,Michelle Green,Mat Makowski,Tyler Bonnett,Tatiana Beresnev,Varduhi Ghazaryan,Walla Dempsey,Seema U Nayak,Lori E Dodd,John H Beigel,Andre C Kalil,Lana Wahid,Emmanuel B. Walter,Akhila G. Belur,Grace Dreyer,Jan E. Patterson,Jason E. Bowling,Danielle O. Dixon,Angela Hewlett,Robert Odrobina,Jakrapun Pupaibool,Satish Mocherla,Suzana Lazarte,Meilani Cayabyab,Rezhan H. Hussein,Reshma R. Golamari,Kaleigh L. Krill,Sandra Rajme,Paul F. Riska,Barry S. Zingman,Gregory Mertz,Nestor Sosa,Paul A. Goepfert,Mezgebe Berhe,Emma Dishner,Mohamed Fayed,Kinsley Hubel,José Arturo Martinez-Orozco,Nora Bautista Felix,Sammy T. Elmor,Amer Ryan Bechnak,Youssef Saklawi,Jason W. Van Winkle,Diego F. Zea,Maryrose Laguio-Vila,Edward E. Walsh,Ann R. Falsey,Karen Carvajal,Robert C. Hyzy,Sinan Hanna,Norman Olbrich,Jessica J. Traenkner,Colleen S. Kraft,Pablo Tebas,Jillian T Baron,Corri Levine,Joy Nock,Joanne Billings,Hyun Kim,Marie-Carmelle Elie-Turenne,Jennifer A. Whitaker,Anne F. Luetkemeyer,Jay Dwyer,Emma Bainbridge,Pyoeng Gyun Choe,Chang Kyung Kang,Nikolaus Jilg,Valeria D Cantos,Divya R. Bhamidipati,Srinivasa Nithin Gopalsamy,Aarthi Chary,Jongtak Jung,Kyoung-Ho Song,Hong Bin Kim,Constance A. Benson,Kimberly McConnell,Jennifer P. Wang,Mireya Wessolossky,Katherine Perez,Taryn A Eubank,Catherine Berjohn,Gregory C. Utz,Patrick E.H. Jackson,Taison D. Bell,Heather M. Haughey,Abeer Moanna,Sushma Cribbs,Telisha Harrison,Christopher J. Colombo,Christina Schofield,Rhonda E. Colombo,Victor F. Tapson,Jonathan Grein,Fayyaz Sutterwala,Dilek Ince,Patricia L. Winokur,Monica Fung,Hannah Jang,David Wyles,Maria G. Frank,Ellen Sarcone,Henry Neumann,Anand Viswanathan,Sarah Hochman,Mark Mulligan,Benjamin Eckhardt,Ellie Carmody,Neera Ahuja,Kari Nadeau,David Svec,Jeffrey C. Macaraeg,Lee Morrow,Dave Quimby,Mary Bessesen,Lindsay Nicholson,Jill Adams,Princy Kumar,Allison A. Lambert,Henry Arguinchona,Radica Z. Alicic,Sho Saito,Norio Ohmagari,Ayako Mikami,David Chien Lye,Tau Hong Lee,Po Ying Chia,Lanny Hsieh,Alpesh N. Amin,Miki Watanabe,Keith A. Candiotti,Jose G. Castro,Maria A. Antor,Tida Lee,Tahaniyat Lalani,Richard M. Novak,Andrea Wendrow,Scott A. Borgetti,Sarah L. George,Daniel F. Hoft,James D. Brien,Stuart H. Cohen,George R. Thompson,Melony Chakrabarty,Faheem Guirgis,Richard T. Davey,Jocelyn Voell,Jeffrey R. Strich,David A. Lindholm,Katrin Mende,Trevor R. Wellington,Rekha R. Rapaka,Jennifer S. Husson,Andrea R. Levine,Seow Yen Tan,Humaira Shafi,Jaime M F Chien,David C. Hostler,Jordanna M. Hostler,Brian T. Shahan,David H. Adams,Anu Osinusi,Huyen Cao,Timothy H. Burgess,Julia Rozman,Kevin K. Chung,Christina Nieuwoudt,Jill A. El-Khorazaty,Heather Hill,Stephanie Pettibone,Nikki Gettinger,Theresa Engel,Teri Lewis,Jing Wang,Gregory A. Deye,Effie Nomicos,Rhonda Pikaart-Tautges,Mohamed Elsafy,Robert Jurao,Hyung Koo,Michael Proschan,Tammy Yokum,Janice Arega,Ruth Florese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00088-1

IF: 102.642

2022-09-01

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

respiratory system,critical care medicine
Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

Susan A Olender,Katherine K Perez,Alan S Go,Bindu Balani,Eboni G Price-Haywood,Nirav S Shah,Su Wang,Theresa L Walunas,Shobha Swaminathan,Jihad Slim,BumSik Chin,Stéphane De Wit,Shamim M Ali,Alex Soriano Viladomiu,Philip Robinson,Robert L Gottlieb,Tak Yin Owen Tsang,I-Heng Lee,Hao Hu,Richard H Haubrich,Anand P Chokkalingam,Lanjia Lin,Lijie Zhong,B Nebiyou Bekele,Robertino Mera-Giler,Chloé Phulpin,Holly Edgar,Joel Gallant,Helena Diaz-Cuervo,Lindsey E Smith,Anu O Osinusi,Diana M Brainard,Jose I Bernardino,GS-US-540–5773 and GS-US-540–5807 Investigators,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1041

IF: 20.999

2020-07-24

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Abstract Background We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. Methods GS-US-540–5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540–5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. Results After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34–3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22–.68, P = .001). Conclusions In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Kara W Chew,Babafemi O Taiwo,Carlee Moser,Eric S Daar,David Alain Wohl,Justin Ritz,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,Jonathan Z Li,William Fischer,Alexander L Greninger,Christoph Bausch,Thomas Luke,Robert Call,Gene Neytman,Mark J Giganti,Courtney V Fletcher,Michael D Hughes,Joseph J Eron,Judith S Currier,Davey M Smith,Kara Chew,David (Davey) Smith,Eric Daar,David Wohl,Judith Currier,Joseph Eron,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,Michael Hughes,Carlee Moser,Mark Giganti,Justin Ritz,Lara Hosey,Jhoanna Roa,Nilam Patel,Kelly Colsh,Irene Rwakazina,Justine Beck,Scott Sieg,Jonathan Li,Courtney Fletcher,William Fischer,Teresa Evering,Rachel Bender Ignacio,Sandra Cardoso,Katya Corado,Prasanna Jagannathan,Nikolaus Jilg,Alan Perelson,Sandy Pillay,Cynthia Riviere,Upinder Singh,Babafemi Taiwo,Joan Gottesman,Matthew Newell,Susan Pedersen,Joan Dragavon,Cheryl Jennings,Brian Greenfelder,William Murtaugh,Jan Kosmyna,Morgan Gapara,Akbar Shahkolahi,For the ACTIV-2/A5401 Study Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae369

2024-07-20

The Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Background To address the need for novel COVID-19 therapies, we evaluated the fully-human polyclonal antibody product SAB-185 in a phase 3 clinical trial. Methods Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset were randomized 1:1 to open-label SAB-185 3,840 units/kg or casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg. Non-inferiority comparison was undertaken for the pre-Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab expected to be fully active) and superiority comparison for the Omicron population (casirivimab/imdevimab not expected to be active). Primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause hospitalizations/deaths and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to sustained symptom improvement and resolution. Results Enrollment was terminated early due to low hospitalization/death rates upon Omicron emergence. 733 adults were randomized, 255 included in pre-Omicron and 392 in Omicron analysis populations. Hospitalizations/deaths occurred in 6 (5.0%) and 3 (2.2%) of pre-Omicron SAB-185 and casirivimab/imdevimab arms, respectively (absolute difference [95% CI] 2.7% [-2.3%, 8.6%]), inconclusive for non-inferiority; and 5 (2.5%) versus 3 (1.5%) (absolute difference 1.0% [-2.3%, 4.5%]) for Omicron. Risk ratios for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 0.94 [0.52, 1.71] (pre-Omicron) and 1.71 [0.96, 3.07] (Omicron). Time to symptom improvement and resolution were shorter for SAB-185, median 11 vs 14 (pre-Omicron) and 11 vs 13 days (Omicron) (symptom improvement), and 16 vs 24 days and 18 vs >25 days (symptom resolution), p<0.05 for symptom resolution for Omicron only. Conclusions SAB-185 had an acceptable safety profile with faster symptom resolution in the Omicron population. Additional studies are needed to characterize its efficacy for COVID-19.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

Viviane C Veiga,João A G G Prats,Danielle L C Farias,Regis G Rosa,Leticia K Dourado,Fernando G Zampieri,Flávia R Machado,Renato D Lopes,Otavio Berwanger,Luciano C P Azevedo,Álvaro Avezum,Thiago C Lisboa,Salomón S O Rojas,Juliana C Coelho,Rodrigo T Leite,Júlio C Carvalho,Luis E C Andrade,Alex F Sandes,Maria C T Pintão,Claudio G Castro,Sueli V Santos,Thiago M L de Almeida,André N Costa,Otávio C E Gebara,Flávio G Rezende de Freitas,Eduardo S Pacheco,David J B Machado,Josiane Martin,Fábio G Conceição,Suellen R R Siqueira,Lucas P Damiani,Luciana M Ishihara,Daniel Schneider,Denise de Souza,Alexandre B Cavalcanti,Phillip Scheinberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n84

2021-01-20

BMJ

Abstract:Abstract Objective To determine whether tocilizumab improves clinical outcomes for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Randomised, open label trial. Setting Nine hospitals in Brazil, 8 May to 17 July 2020. Participants Adults with confirmed covid-19 who were receiving supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and had abnormal levels of at least two serum biomarkers (C reactive protein, D dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, or ferritin). The data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early, after 129 patients had been enrolled, because of an increased number of deaths at 15 days in the tocilizumab group. Interventions Tocilizumab (single intravenous infusion of 8 mg/kg) plus standard care (n=65) versus standard care alone (n=64). Main outcome measure The primary outcome, clinical status measured at 15 days using a seven level ordinal scale, was analysed as a composite of death or mechanical ventilation because the assumption of odds proportionality was not met. Results A total of 129 patients were enrolled (mean age 57 (SD 14) years; 68% men) and all completed follow-up. All patients in the tocilizumab group and two in the standard care group received tocilizumab. 18 of 65 (28%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 of 64 (20%) in the standard care group were receiving mechanical ventilation or died at day 15 (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.66; P=0.32). Death at 15 days occurred in 11 (17%) patients in the tocilizumab group compared with 2 (3%) in the standard care group (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 43.2). Adverse events were reported in 29 of 67 (43%) patients who received tocilizumab and 21 of 62 (34%) who did not receive tocilizumab. Conclusions In patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab plus standard care was not superior to standard care alone in improving clinical outcomes at 15 days, and it might increase mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04403685 .
Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Teresa H. Evering,Kara W. Chew,Mark J. Giganti,Carlee Moser,Mauricio Pinilla,David Alain Wohl,Judith S. Currier,Joseph J. Eron,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,David Margolis,Qing Zhu,Ji Ma,Lijie Zhong,Li Yan,Ulises D’Andrea Nores,Keila Hoover,Bharat Mocherla,Manish C. Choudhary,Rinki Deo,Justin Ritz,William A. Fischer,Courtney V. Fletcher,Jonathan Z. Li,Michael D. Hughes,Davey Smith,Eric S. Daar,Teresa H. Evering,Kara W. Chew,Mark J. Giganti,Carlee Moser,David Alain Wohl,Judith S. Currier,Joseph J. Eron,Arzhang Cyrus Javan,David Margolis,Ulises D’Andrea Nores,Keila Hoover,Bharat Mocherla,Manish C. Choudhary,Justin Ritz,William A. Fischer,Courtney V. Fletcher,Jonathan Z. Li,Michael D. Hughes,Davey Smith,Eric S. Daar,Rachel Bender-Ignacio,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/m22-3428

IF: 39.2

2023-04-18

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life.OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab.DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410).SETTING: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines.PATIENTS: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression.INTERVENTION: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo.MEASUREMENTS: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death.RESULTS: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (<i>P</i> < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (<i>P</i> < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events.LIMITATION: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants.CONCLUSION: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease.PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

medicine, general & internal
Pooled analysis of the MANTICO2 and MONET randomized controlled trials comparing drug efficacy for early treatment of COVID-19 during Omicron waves

Valentina Mazzotta,Fulvia Mazzaferri,Simone Lanini,Massimo Mirandola,Alessandro Cozzi Lepri,Alessandra Vergori,Alessia Savoldi,Andrea Santoro,Gaia Maccarrone,Ilaria Mastrorosa,Omar Simonetti,Federico De Zottis,Emanuele Nicastri,Giulia Rosini,Laura Rovigo,Lorenzo Tavernaro,Loredana Sarmati,Carlo Tascini,Enrico Girardi,Anna Maria Cattelan,Andrea Antinori,Evelina Tacconelli,MANTICO2/MONET study group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106294

Abstract:Background: The clinical effectiveness of early therapies for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, comparing antivirals and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) during the Omicron era, has not been conclusively assessed through a post-approval comparative trial. We present a pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials conducted during Omicron waves. Methods: The MANTICO2/MONET trial is a pooled analysis of two multicentric, independent, phase-4, three-arm, superiority, randomized, open-label trials. Nonhospitalized patients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (≤5 days after symptoms' onset) and at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 500 mg of intravenous sotrovimab (SOT) or 600 mg of intramuscular tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) or oral 5-days course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) 300/100 mg BID. Primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization or death within 29 days after randomization. Fisher's exact test for pooled data and incidence of failure was reported as overall and by arm with respective 95% CI. Pairwise comparisons across the arms were conducted using unadjusted exact logistic regression. An analysis by means of a doubly robust marginal model using augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) was also conducted to estimate the potential outcomes (Pom) in each treatment group and their difference by the average treatment effect (ATE). Analysis of symptom persistence within 30 days after randomization was performed using a 2-level hierarchical mixed-effects logistic model with a random intercept at the patient's level. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals were adjusted for age and sex and calculated using ANOVA-like methods for the mixed effects logistic model. These trials are registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2021-002612-31 (MANTICO2) and EudraCT2021-004188-28 (MONET) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05321394 (MANTICO2). Findings: Between March 2022 and February 2023, 991 patients (SOT = 332, TGM/CGM = 327, NMV/r = 332) were enrolled in 15 Italian centers. The overall mean age was 66 years; 482 participants (48.80%) were male, and 856 were vaccinated with at least a primary course (86%). Among the 8/991 hospitalizations observed, one resulted in death. The overall estimate of failure was 0.81% (95%CI; 0.35-1.58%). The odds ratio (OR) for the primary outcome in the NMV/r arm compared to the TGM/CGM and SOT arms was 8.41 (95% CI 1.21 to infinity; p = 0.015) and 2.42 (95% CI 0.19 to infinity; p = 0.499), respectively. No significant difference was observed between SOT and TGM/CGM (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.032-1.83; p = 0.174). Results were similar when we applied the marginal weighted model accounting for potential residual confounding bias. There was no evidence for a difference in the prevalence of symptoms between treatment groups, except for cough, which was higher in the SOT group compared to the other two groups at the 21-day follow-up (P = 0.039) and a higher prevalence of nausea at the 7-day follow-up in the NMV/r group compared to the mAbs group (p = 0.036). Interpretation: NMV/r was superior to TGM/CGM in reducing hospital admission or death in clinically vulnerable patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated within 5 days of symptoms' onset. No significant difference in symptom prevalence over time across the arms was found.
Lenzilumab in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (LIVE-AIR): a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Zelalem Temesgen,Charles D Burger,Jason Baker,Christopher Polk,Claudia R Libertin,Colleen F Kelley,Vincent C Marconi,Robert Orenstein,Victoria M Catterson,William S Aronstein,Cameron Durrant,Dale Chappell,Omar Ahmed,Gabrielle Chappell,Andrew D Badley,LIVE-AIR Study Group,Meghan Lewis,Linda Sher,Michael Bowdish,Noah Wald-Dickler,Subarna Biswas,Lydia Lam,Khang Vo,Roy Poblete,May M Lee,Douglass Hutcheon,Roberto Patron,John Gharbin,Caitlin Moran,Sheetal Kandiah,Valeria Cantos,Paulina Rebolledo,Carlos Del Rio,Jeffrey Lennox,Carmen Polito,Anandi Sheth,Anup Patel,Homero Paniagua,Seife Yohannes,Alpesh Amin,Richard Lee,Miki Watanabe,Lanny Hsieh,Martin Cearras,Amay Parikh,Jason Sniffen,Wilfred Onyia,Michael Boger,Lisa Davidson,Kiran Gajurel,Michael Leonard,Lewis McCurdy,Nestor Quezada,Mindy Sampson,Zainab Shahid,Stephanie Strollo,David Weinrib,Sara Zulfigar,Cheryl McDonald,John Hollingsworth,John Burk,Joshua Berg,Daniel Barbaro,Andrew Miller,Lakshmi Sambathkumar,Stuart McDonald,Obinna Okoye,Juan Pulido,Jennifer Fulton,William Gill,Richard Zuckerman,Lionel Lewis,Chaitanya Mandapakala,Matthew Robinson,Brian Metzger,Maqsood Alam,Chrisoula Politis,Anne Frosch,Linh Ngo,Fernando Carvalho Neuenschwander,EstevÃo Figueiredo,Gualter CanÇado,Gustavo Araujo,Lucas GuimarÃes,Ricardo Diaz,Natalia Bacellar,Celso Silva,Paulo Ferreira,Marina Andrade Lima,Caroline Uber Ghisi,Camila Anton,Ricardo Albaneze,Daniel Wagner de Castro Lima Santos,Ana Caroline Iglessias,Marianna Lago,Paula Pietrobom,Maysa Alves,Juvencio José Duailibe Furtado,Leopoldo Trevelin,Valeria Telles,Francini Correa,Fabiano Ramos,Marina de A R Da Silva,Rebeca C Lacerda Garcia,Ana Elizabeth G Maldonado,Ana Carolina M Beheregaray,Ana Maria T Ortiz,Kleber Luz,Eveline Pipolo Milan,Janine Soares de Castro,Matheus José Barbosa Moreira,Renata Bezerra Onofre,TÁcito do Nascimento JÁcome,Victor Barreto Garcia,Victor Matheus Rolim de Souzafrom,Felipe Dal Pizzol,Cristiane Ritter,Marcelo B Vinhas,Adilson Joaquim Westheimer Cavalcante,Julia Minghini,Loni Dorigo,Marina Salgado Miranda,Martti Anton Antila,Rebeca Brugnolli,Henrikki Antila

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00494-X

Abstract:Background: The pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments. Methods: In LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04351152, and is completed. Findings: Patients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41-137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79-89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72-83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02-2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death. Interpretation: Lenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The added value of lenzilumab beyond other immunomodulators used to treat COVID-19 alongside steroids remains unknown. Funding: Humanigen.
Efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care for the treatment of critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an exploratory, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

E Wesley Ely,Athimalaipet V Ramanan,Cynthia E Kartman,Stephanie de Bono,Ran Liao,Maria Lucia B Piruzeli,Jason D Goldman,José Francisco Kerr Saraiva,Sujatro Chakladar,Vincent C Marconi,COV-BARRIER Study Group,Jorge Alatorre-Alexander,Javier David Altclas,Marcelo Casas,Valeria CevoliRecio,Todd Ellerin,Kleber Giovanni Luz,Maria Patelli Juliani Souza Lima,Akram Khan,Priscila Paulin,Ana Carolina Procopio Carvalho,Gustavo Rojas Velasco,Jose Francisco Kerr Saraiva,Imad Shawa,Jesus Simon Campos,Brian Tiffany,Adilson Westheimer Cavalcante

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00006-6

Abstract:Background: The oral, selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib has shown efficacy in studies of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a multinational, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of baricitinib in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care in critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Methods: This exploratory trial followed the study design of COV-BARRIER in a critically ill cohort not included in the main phase 3 trial. The study was conducted across 18 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the USA. Participants (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection on baseline invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were randomly assigned (1:1) to baricitinib (4 mg) or placebo once daily for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to study group assignment. Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in the safety population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2020, and April 10, 2021, 101 participants were enrolled into the exploratory trial and assigned to baricitinib (n=51) or placebo (n=50) plus standard of care. Standard of care included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 87 (86%) participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared with placebo (20 [39%] of 51 participants died in the baricitinib group vs 29 [58%] of 50 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·31-0·96]; p=0·030; 46% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 19%). A significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed in the baricitinib group compared with the placebo group (23 [45%] events vs 31 [62%]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·33-0·97]; p=0·027; 44% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 17%). In every six baricitinib-treated participants, one additional death was prevented compared with placebo at days 28 and 60. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between treatment groups (mean 8·1 days [SD 10·2] in the baricitinib group vs 5·5 days [8·4] in the placebo group; p=0·21). The mean duration of hospitalisation in baricitinib-treated participants was not significantly shorter than in placebo-treated participants (23·7 days [SD 7·1] vs 26·1 days [3·9]; p=0·050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment groups. Interpretation: In critically ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, treatment with baricitinib compared with placebo (in combination with standard of care, including corticosteroids) reduced mortality, which is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill patients in the hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. However, this was an exploratory trial with a relatively small sample size; therefore, further phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.
Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial

Florence Ader,Maude Bouscambert-Duchamp,Maya Hites,Nathan Peiffer-Smadja,Julien Poissy,Drifa Belhadi,Alpha Diallo,Minh-Patrick Lê,Gilles Peytavin,Thérèse Staub,Richard Greil,Jérémie Guedj,Jose-Artur Paiva,Dominique Costagliola,Yazdan Yazdanpanah,Charles Burdet,France Mentré,DisCoVeRy Study Group,Alexander Egle,Michael Joannidis,Bernd Lamprecht,Antoine Altdorfer,Leila Belkhir,Vincent Fraipont,Gil Verschelden,Jérôme Aboab,Hafid Ait-Oufella,Claire Andrejak,Pascal Andreu,Laurent Argaud,Firouzé Bani-Sadr,François Benezit,Mathieu Blot,Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers,Lila Bouadma,Olivier Bouchaud,David Bougon,Kevin Bouiller,Fanny Bounes-Vardon,David Boutoille,Alexandre Boyer,Cédric Bruel,André Cabié,Emmanuel Canet,Charles Cazanave,Cyrille Chabartier,Catherine Chirouze,Raphaël Clere-Jehl,Johan Courjon,Flora Crockett,François Danion,Agathe Delbove,Jean Dellamonica,Félix Djossou,Clément Dubost,Alexandre Duvignaud,Olivier Epaulard,Loïc Epelboin,Murielle Fartoukh,Karine Faure,Emmanuel Faure,Tristan Ferry,Cécile Ficko,Samy Figueiredo,Benjamin Gaborit,Rostane Gaci,Amandine Gagneux-Brunon,Sébastien Gallien,Denis Garot,Guillaume Geri,Sébastien Gibot,François Goehringer,Marie Gousseff,Didier Gruson,Yves Hansmann,Olivier Hinschberger,Stéphane Jaureguiberry,Vanessa Jeanmichel,Solen Kerneis,Antoine Kimmoun,Kada Klouche,Marie Lachâtre,Karine Lacombe,Fabrice Laine,Jean-Philippe Lanoix,Odile Launay,Bruno Laviolle,Vincent Le Moing,Jérôme Le Pavec,Yves Le Tulzo,Paul Le Turnier,David Lebeaux,Benjamin Lefevre,Sylvie Leroy,François-Xavier Lescure,Henry Lessire,Benjamin Leveau,Paul Loubet,Alain Makinson,Denis Malvy,Charles-Hugo Marquette,Guillaume Martin-Blondel,Martin Martinot,Julien Mayaux,Armand Mekontso-Dessap,Ferhat Meziani,Jean-Paul Mira,Jean-Michel Molina,Xavier Monnet,Joy Mootien,Bruno Mourvillier,Marlène Murris-Espin,Jean-Christophe Navellou,Saad Nseir,Walid Oulehri,Thomas Perpoint,Gilles Pialoux,Benoît Pilmis,Vincent Piriou,Lionel Piroth,Valérie Pourcher,Jean-Pierre Quenot,François Raffi,Jean Reignier,Matthieu Revest,Jean-Christophe Richard,Béatrice Riu-Poulenc,Céline Robert,Pierre-Alexandre Roger,Claire Roger,Elisabeth Rouveix-Nordon,Yvon Ruch,Nadia Saidani,Naomi Sayre,Eric Senneville,Albert Sotto,Francois Stefan,Charles Tacquard,Nicolas Terzi,Julien Textoris,Guillaume Thiery,Jean-François Timsit,Violaine Tolsma,Jean-Marie Turmel,Florent Valour,Florent Wallet,Guilhem Wattecamps,Yoann Zerbib,Marc Berna,Jean Reuter,Sandra Braz,Joao-Miguel Ferreira Ribeiro,José-Artur Paiva,Roberto Roncon-Albuquerque,Alexandre Gaymard,Bruno Lina,Sarah Tubiana,Sandrine Couffin-Cadièrgues,Hélène Esperou,Aline Dechanet,Christelle Delmas,Claire Fougerou,Noémie Mercier,Marion Noret,Juliette Saillard,Priyanka Velou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00485-0

Abstract:Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. Methods: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. Findings: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). Interpretation: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Giants in Chest Medicine: Claude Lenfant, MD.

Olgotrelvir As a Single-Agent Treatment of Nonhospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Casirivimab and imdevimab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Bebtelovimab, alone or together with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, as a broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for mild to moderate, ambulatory COVID-19

Metal-enhanced intrinsic fluorescence of nucleic acids using platinum nanostructured substrates.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Intravenous ravulizumab in mechanically ventilated patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19: a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir versus usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

Safety and Efficacy of SAB-185 for Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Pooled analysis of the MANTICO2 and MONET randomized controlled trials comparing drug efficacy for early treatment of COVID-19 during Omicron waves

Lenzilumab in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (LIVE-AIR): a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care for the treatment of critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an exploratory, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial