Clinical Trials of Respiratory Virus Infections: How to Address Challenges and Prepare for the Future
Ai Jingwen,Zhang Wenhong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/id9.0000000000000120
2024-01-01
Infectious Diseases & Immunity
Abstract:1. Backgrounds Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the only antiviral treatment widely used in clinical settings was for influenza. However, following the global pandemic, there has been renewed research interest in medications for respiratory viral infections. Clinical trials of antiviral medications often need to consider multiple dimensions because of the significant differences in disease severity among populations. For example, during respiratory viral epidemic seasons, the clinical spectrum of diseases is usually complex, including asymptomatic infections, symptomatic infections (mild to moderate without hospitalization), severe cases (requiring hospitalization), and fatalities. Currently, for respiratory viral infections that are in localized outbreaks, including respiratory syncytial virus and human metapneumovirus, multiple small-molecule drugs are in preclinical or early clinical trial stages. The rapid achievement of success in clinical trials remains a significant challenge. Different respiratory viral infections present difficulties in adopting similar clinical endpoint standards during trials. Therefore, choosing primary clinical endpoints and objectively evaluating the efficacy of antiviral medications are crucial. 2. Experiences to be learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic served as a typical case. During the early stages of the pandemic, there were a high proportion of severe cases, leading to a batch of antiviral medications being quickly approved for emergency use after the completion of clinical trials. The primary clinical endpoints included reduced mortality in high-risk populations, promoted recovery from severe cases, and decreased severity. However, as the pandemic subsided and transitioned to localized outbreaks, conducting clinical trials for antiviral medications became challenging because of the decreasing virulence of the strains over time, which led to increased difficulties in reaching the primary endpoint during studies. Around 2021–2022, researchers, globally, were experiencing difficulties in reducing mortality in high-risk populations and decreasing severity, as primary clinical endpoints have become increasingly challenging. To overcome this obstacle, the ability of drugs to shorten symptom duration and prevent infections was proposed as a rationale for gaining government and market approval. However, the use of symptom duration as the main endpoint introduces subjectivity in assessing efficacy, making it difficult to achieve statistically significant results. For example, in the case of COVID-19 antiviral therapy, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir conducted was used in the EPIC-HR (NCT04960202), EPIC-SR (NCT05011513), and EPIC-PEP (NCT05047601) trials to reduce severity, shorten symptom duration, and prevent infection. Only the EPIC-HR trial demonstrated a reduction in disease severity; the other two trials did not yield positive results.[1] The failure of the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir EPIC-SR trial has significantly impacted global confidence in similar antiviral therapy clinical trials. The trial used 14 COVID-19 symptoms as the endpoint for evaluating symptom resolution time. The study did not yield positive results, mainly because, at the time the trial was conducted, a large portion of the population had been vaccinated or had previous infections and the transformation of the COVID-19 strain from Delta to Omicron. Therefore, patients experienced milder symptoms post-infection, leading to a decreased likelihood of consistent improvement during multiple symptom evaluations. In such cases, negative clinical trial results may indicate several possibilities: (1) the drug is ineffective for mild-to-moderate patients; (2) the drug is effective, but its efficacy standards are unreliable; and (3) the efficacy standard is unreliable and the drug is ineffective against mild-to-severe infections, indicating issues with the study inclusion criteria. Following the market approval of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, a Chinese antiviral therapy study also used the percentage of severity progression as an endpoint. However, owing to the rapid changes in the global pandemic situation, it has become difficult to observe the expected number of events, leading to the termination and initiation of another clinical trial using symptom relief as an endpoint.[2] These studies highlight the challenges in evaluating the clinical efficacy of a new drug when diseases evolve rapidly, especially when the rates of severe cases decrease rapidly. These experiences indicate that, when global immunity is gradually established following a pandemic, the disease will have reduced severity and lower mortality rates and using severity progression as the primary endpoint during clinical trials will become increasingly difficult. Conducting clinical trials of antiviral drugs would then become a challenge. We gathered valuable experience from several studies on how to design future studies on respiratory viral infections. A phase 3 randomized controlled study led by Li et al. on treating mild-to-moderate COVID-19 with oral VV116 used sustained clinical symptom relief time as the endpoint.[3] Meanwhile, Dr. Bin Cao conducted a phase 2–3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, during which patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 within 3 days of symptom onset were randomly assigned to receive simnotrelvir/ritonavir orally twice daily (750 mg/100 mg) or placebo for 5 days.[4] The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to recovery from 11 core symptoms, which required 2 days without relapse. From this study, a new endpoint indicator "recovery time from 11 core symptoms" applicable to mild to moderate cases was identified. Compared with EPIC-SR's evaluation of 14 COVID-19 symptoms, several less common clinical symptoms were removed while not using "severity" as a primary endpoint. By day 5 of treatment initiation, simnotrelvir significantly reduced the viral load compared with placebo (−1.51 ± 0.14 log10 copies/mL; 95% CI, −1.79 to −1.24). Furthermore, as per the results from secondary endpoints on symptom reduction and subgroup analyses, simnotrelvir could shorten symptom duration in COVID-19 patients. My research team's completion of a market study on a new flu drug also involved a phase 2–3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that adopted an adaptive design, during which flu symptom relief time was set as the primary endpoint, while fever relief time was included among the secondary endpoints.[5] 3. Future expectations As the COVID-19 pandemic transitions into localized outbreaks and specific antiviral treatments remain lacking for viruses, such as RSV, hMPV, and adenovirus infections during localized outbreaks post-pandemic, researchers must be aware of the challenges that may exist when conducting clinical research. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic is not the first time that researchers have attempted to use alternative indicators, such as symptom relief time during RCTs. This concept has been adopted in several clinical antiviral studies. However, awareness of the importance of setting the right endpoints at different phases of an epidemic is significantly raised post-pandemic. Future studies are needed to leverage experiences from influenza and COVID-19 antiviral drug market approvals and creatively address internationally recognized challenges in clinical trials for respiratory virus infections. To achieve positive results in clinical trials during respiratory virus epidemics or pandemics, detailed evaluation criteria for clinical efficacy must be established, and thorough communication with regulatory agencies is essential. With the continuous global emergence of innovative drugs, innovative thinking will be required to solve these issues.