A standardised Phase III clinical trial framework to assess therapeutic interventions for Lassa fever.

BACKGROUND: Only one recommendation currently exists for the treatment of Lassa fever (LF), which is ribavirin administered in conjunction with supportive care. This recommendation is primarily based on evidence generated from a single clinical trial that was conducted more than 30 years ago-the methodology and results of which have recently come under scrutiny. The requirement for novel therapeutics and reassessment of ribavirin is therefore urgent. However, a significant amount of work now needs to be undertaken to ensure that future trials for LF can be conducted consistently and reliably to facilitate the efficient generation of evidence. METHODOLOGY: We convened a consultation group to establish the position of clinicians and researchers on the core components of future trials. A Core Eligibility Criteria (CEC), Core Case Definition (CCD), Core Outcome Set (COS) and Core Data Variables (CDV) were developed through the process of a multi-stakeholder consultation that took place using a modified-Delphi methodology. RESULTS: A consensus position was achieved for each aspect of the framework, which accounts for the inclusion of pregnant women and children in future LF clinical trials. The framework consists of 8 core criteria, as well as additional considerations for trial protocols. CONCLUSIONS: This project represents the first step towards delineating the clinical development pathway for new Lassa fever therapeutics, following a period of 40 years without advancement. Future planned projects will bolster the work initiated here to continue the advancement of LF clinical research through a regionally-centred, collaborative methodology, with the aim of delineating a clear pathway through which LF clinical trials can progress efficiently and ensure sustainable investments are made in research capacity at a regional level.

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19: A prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation. METHODS: 327 hospitalised participants, with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a prospective multicentre cohort study at least 3 months post-discharge. The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). FINDINGS: 55% of participants reported not feeling fully recovered. 93% reported persistent symptoms, with fatigue the most common (83%), followed by breathlessness (54%). 47% reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24% of participants. The EQ5D-5L summary index was significantly worse following acute illness (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Phase 2a, open-label, dose-escalating, multi-center pharmacokinetic study of favipiravir (T-705) in combination with oseltamivir in patients with severe influenza.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacokinetics and appropriate dose regimens of favipiravir are unknown in hospitalized influenza patients; such data are also needed to determine dosage selection for favipiravir trials in COVID-19. METHODS: In this dose-escalating study, favipiravir pharmacokinetics and tolerability were assessed in critically ill influenza patients. Participants received one of two dosing regimens; Japan licensed dose (1600 mg BID on day 1 and 600 mg BID on the following days) and the higher dose (1800 mg/800 mg BID) trialed in uncomplicated influenza. The primary pharmacokinetic endpoint was the proportion of patients with a minimum observed plasma trough concentration (Ctrough) ≥20 mg/L at all measured time points after the second dose. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled into the low dose group and 19 patients into the high dose group of the study. Favipiravir Ctrough decreased significantly over time in both groups (p <0.01). Relative to day 2 (48 hrs), concentrations were 91.7% and 90.3% lower in the 1600/600 mg group and 79.3% and 89.5% lower in the 1800/800 mg group at day 7 and 10, respectively. In contrast, oseltamivir concentrations did not change significantly over time. A 2-compartment disposition model with first-order absorption and elimination described the observed favipiravir concentration-time data well. Modeling demonstrated that less than 50% of patients achieved Ctrough ≥20 mg/L for >80% of the duration of treatment of the two dose regimens evaluated (18.8% and 42.1% of patients for low and high dose regimen, respectively). Increasing the favipravir dosage predicted a higher proportion of patients reaching this threshold of 20 mg/L, suggesting that dosing regimens of ≥3600/2600 mg might be required for adequate concentrations. The two dosing regimens were well-tolerated in critical ill patients with influenza. CONCLUSION: The two dosing regimens proposed for uncomplicated influenza did not achieve our pre-defined treatment threshold.

An open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial of the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin versus streptomycin + ciprofloxacin in the treatment of bubonic plague (IMASOY): study protocol for a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Bubonic plague is the primary manifestation of infection with Yersinia pestis, accounting for 90% of all plague cases and with 75% of global cases reported in Madagascar. All drugs in use for treating plague are registered based on experimental data and anecdotal evidence, and no regimen currently recommended is supported by a randomized clinical trial. The IMASOY trial intends to fill this knowledge gap by comparing two 10-day regimens included in the national guidelines in Madagascar. The primary objective of the trial is to test the hypothesis that ciprofloxacin monotherapy is non-inferior to streptomycin followed by ciprofloxacin for the treatment of bubonic plague, thus avoiding the need for injectable, potentially toxic, aminoglycosides. METHODS: A two-arm parallel-group randomized control trial will be conducted across peripheral health centres in Madagascar in five districts. Males and non-pregnant females of all ages with suspected bubonic or pneumonic plague will be recruited over the course of three plague 'seasons'. The primary endpoint of the trial is to assess the proportion of patients with bubonic plague who have a therapeutic response to treatment (defined as alive, resolution of fever, 25% reduction in the size of measurable buboes, has not received an alternative treatment and no clinical decision to continue antibiotics) as assessed on day 11. DISCUSSION: If successful, the trial has the potential to inform the standard of care guidelines not just in Madagascar but in other countries afflicted by plague. The trial is currently ongoing and expected to complete recruitment in 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04110340 . Registered on 1 October 2019.