Clinical antiviral efficacy of favipiravir in early COVID-19 (PLATCOV): an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

In early symptomatic COVID-19 treatment, high dose oral favipiravir did not accelerate viral clearance. BACKGROUND: Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries. METHODS: In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]), assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907) on 13/09/2021. RESULTS: In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients given favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug; a -1% (95% credible interval: -14 to 14%) difference. High dose favipiravir was well-tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. The viral clearance rate estimated from quantitative measurements of oropharyngeal eluate viral densities assesses the antiviral efficacy of drugs in vivo with comparatively few studied patients.

Clinical Antiviral Efficacy of Remdesivir in Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Adaptive Platform Trial (PLATCOV).

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty over the therapeutic benefit of parenteral remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in varying treatment guidelines. METHODS: In a multicenter open-label, controlled, adaptive, pharmacometric platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to 1 of 8 treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200 mg followed by 100 mg daily for 5 days) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) clearance (estimated under a linear model fit to the daily log10 viral densities, days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates, in a modified intention-to-treat population. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). RESULTS: The 2 study arms enrolled 131 patients (remdesivir n = 67, no study drug n = 64) and estimated viral clearance rates from a median of 18 swab samples per patient (a total of 2356 quantitative polymerase chain reactions). Under the linear model, compared with the contemporaneous control arm (no study drug), remdesivir accelerated mean estimated viral clearance by 42% (95% credible interval, 18%-73%). CONCLUSIONS: Parenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric assessment of therapeutics using the method described can determine in vivo clinical antiviral efficacy rapidly and efficiently.

Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis for forest goers in southeast Asia: an open-label, individually randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Malaria in the eastern Greater Mekong subregion has declined to historic lows. Countries in the Greater Mekong subregion are accelerating malaria elimination in the context of increasing antimalarial drug resistance. Infections are now increasingly concentrated in remote, forested foci. No intervention has yet shown satisfactory efficacy against forest-acquired malaria. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of malaria chemoprophylaxis among forest goers in Cambodia. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, individually randomised controlled trial in Cambodia, which recruited participants aged 16-65 years staying overnight in forests. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to antimalarial chemoprophylaxis, a 3-day course of twice-daily artemether-lumefantrine followed by the same daily dosing once a week while travelling in the forest and for a further 4 weeks after leaving the forest (four tablets per dose; 20 mg of artemether and 120 mg of lumefantrine per tablet), or a multivitamin with no antimalarial activity. Allocations were done according to a computer-generated randomisation schedule, and randomisation was in permuted blocks of size ten and stratified by village. Investigators and participants were not masked to drug allocation, but laboratory investigations were done without knowledge of allocation. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of either clinical malaria with any Plasmodium species within 1-28, 29-56, or 57-84 days, or subclinical infection detected by PCR on days 28, 56, or 84 using complete-case analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to study drug was assessed primarily by self-reporting during follow-up visits. Adverse events were assessed in the intention-to-treat population as a secondary endpoint from self-reporting at any time, plus a physical examination and symptom questionnaire at follow-up. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04041973) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 11 and Nov 20, 2020, 1480 individuals were enrolled, of whom 738 were randomly assigned to artemether-lumefantrine and 742 to the multivitamin. 713 participants in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 714 in the multivitamin group had a PCR result or confirmed clinical malaria by rapid diagnostic test during follow-up. During follow-up, 19 (3%, 95% CI 2-4) of 713 participants had parasitaemia or clinical malaria in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 123 (17%, 15-20) of 714 in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 15%, 95% CI 12-18; p<0·0001). During follow-up, there were 166 malaria episodes caused by Plasmodium vivax, 14 by Plasmodium falciparum, and five with other or mixed species infections. The numbers of participants with P vivax were 18 (3%, 95% CI 2-4) in the artemether-lumefantrine group versus 112 (16%, 13-19) in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 13%, 95% CI 10-16; p<0·0001). The numbers of participants with P falciparum were two (0·3%, 95% CI 0·03-1·01) in the artemether-lumefantrine group versus 12 (1·7%, 0·9-2·9) in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 1·4%, 95% CI 0·4-2·4; p=0·013). Overall reported adherence to the full course of medication was 97% (95% CI 96-98; 1797 completed courses out of 1854 courses started) in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 98% (97-98; 1842 completed courses in 1885 courses started) in the multivitamin group. Overall prevalence of adverse events was 1·9% (355 events in 18 806 doses) in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 1·1% (207 events in 19 132 doses) in the multivitamin group (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis with artemether-lumefantrine was acceptable and well tolerated and substantially reduced the risk of malaria. Malaria chemoprophylaxis among high-risk groups such as forest workers could be a valuable tool for accelerating elimination in the Greater Mekong subregion. FUNDING: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; Wellcome Trust.