Randomized Trial of Vaccines for Zaire Ebola Virus Disease.

BACKGROUND: Questions remain concerning the rapidity of immune responses and the durability and safety of vaccines used to prevent Zaire Ebola virus disease. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled trials - one involving adults and one involving children - to evaluate the safety and immune responses of three vaccine regimens against Zaire Ebola virus disease: Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo 56 days later (the Ad26-MVA group), rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by placebo 56 days later (the rVSV group), and rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP 56 days later (the rVSV-booster group). The primary end point was antibody response at 12 months, defined as having both a 12-month antibody concentration of at least 200 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU) per milliliter and an increase from baseline in the antibody concentration by at least a factor of 4. RESULTS: A total of 1400 adults and 1401 children underwent randomization. Among both adults and children, the incidence of injection-site reactions and symptoms (e.g., feverishness and headache) was higher in the week after receipt of the primary and second or booster vaccinations than after receipt of placebo but not at later time points. These events were largely low-grade. At month 12, a total of 41% of adults (titer, 401 EU per milliliter) and 78% of children (titer, 828 EU per milliliter) had a response in the Ad26-MVA group; 76% (titer, 992 EU per milliliter) and 87% (titer, 1415 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV group; 81% (titer, 1037 EU per milliliter) and 93% (titer, 1745 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV-booster group; and 3% (titer, 93 EU per milliliter) and 4% (titer, 67 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons of vaccine with placebo). In both adults and children, antibody responses with vaccine differed from those with placebo beginning on day 14. CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns were identified in this trial. With all three vaccine regimens, immune responses were seen from day 14 through month 12. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; PREVAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876328; EudraCT numbers, 2017-001798-18 and 2017-001798-18/3rd; and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR201712002760250.).

Effect of Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Treatment on Early Trajectories of Virologic and Immunologic Biomarkers in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nmAbs) failed to show clear benefit for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Dynamics of virologic and immunologic biomarkers remain poorly understood. METHODS: Participants enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 trials were randomized to nmAb versus placebo. Longitudinal differences between treatment and placebo groups in levels of plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag), anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and D-dimer at enrollment, day 1, 3, and 5 were estimated using linear mixed models. A 7-point pulmonary ordinal scale assessed at day 5 was compared using proportional odds models. RESULTS: Analysis included 2149 participants enrolled between August 2020 and September 2021. Treatment resulted in 20% lower levels of plasma N-Ag compared with placebo (95% confidence interval, 12%-27%; P < .001), and a steeper rate of decline through the first 5 days (P < .001). The treatment difference did not vary between subgroups, and no difference was observed in trajectories of other biomarkers or the day 5 pulmonary ordinal scale. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that nmAb has an antiviral effect assessed by plasma N-Ag among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with no blunting of the endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response. No effect on systemic inflammation or day 5 clinical status was observed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04501978.

A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery.

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Design and implementation of an international, multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol for trials of novel SARS-CoV-2 antiviral agents: Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 are urgently needed. In order to meet this need, the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines public-private partnership initiated the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 is a multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol, which facilitates the rapid evaluation of the safety and efficacy of novel candidate antiviral therapeutic agents for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Five agents have so far entered the protocol, with rapid answers already provided for three of these. Other agents are expected to enter the protocol throughout 2021. This protocol contains a number of key design and implementation features that, along with challenges faced by the protocol team, are presented and discussed. METHODS: Three clinical trial networks, encompassing a global network of clinical sites, participated in the protocol development and implementation. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 utilizes a multi-arm, multi-stage design with an agile and robust approach to futility and safety evaluation at 300 patients enrolled, with subsequent expansion to full sample size and an expanded target population if the agent shows an acceptable safety profile and evidence of efficacy. Rapid recruitment to multiple agents is enabled through the sharing of placebo, the confining of agent-specific information to protocol appendices, and modular consent forms. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, a thorough safety data collection and Data and Safety Monitoring Board schedule was developed for the study of potential therapeutic agents with limited in-human data in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: As of 8 August 2021, five agents have entered the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 master protocol and a total of 1909 participants have been randomized to one of these agents or matching placebo. There were a number of challenges faced by the study team that needed to be overcome in order to successfully implement Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 across a global network of sites. These included ensuring drug supply and reliable recruitment allowing for changing infection rates across the global network of sites, the need to balance the collection of data and samples without overburdening clinical staff and obtaining regulatory approvals across a global network of sites. CONCLUSION: Through a robust multi-network partnership, the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 protocol has been successfully used across a global network of sites for rapid generation of efficacy data on multiple novel antiviral agents. The protocol design and implementation features used in this protocol, and the approaches to address challenges, will have broader applicability. Mechanisms to facilitate improved communication and harmonization among country-specific regulatory bodies are required to achieve the full potential of this approach in dealing with a global outbreak.

Developing Treatment Guidelines During a Pandemic Health Crisis: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Phase 2 Placebo-Controlled Trial of Two Vaccines to Prevent Ebola in Liberia.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease (EVD) were unknown when the incidence of EVD was peaking in Liberia. METHODS: We initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the chimpanzee adenovirus 3 vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z) and the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine (rVSV∆G-ZEBOV-GP) in Liberia. A phase 2 subtrial was embedded to evaluate safety and immunogenicity. Because the incidence of EVD declined in Liberia, the phase 2 component was expanded and the phase 3 component was eliminated. RESULTS: A total of 1500 adults underwent randomization and were followed for 12 months. The median age of the participants was 30 years; 36.6% of the participants were women. During the week after the administration of vaccine or placebo, adverse events occurred significantly more often with the active vaccines than with placebo; these events included injection-site reactions (in 28.5% of the patients in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group and 30.9% of those in the rVSV∆G-ZEBOV-GP group, as compared with 6.8% of those in the placebo group), headache (in 25.1% and 31.9%, vs. 16.9%), muscle pain (in 22.3% and 26.9%, vs. 13.3%), feverishness (in 23.9% and 30.5%, vs. 9.0%), and fatigue (in 14.0% and 15.4%, vs. 8.8%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons); these differences were not seen at 1 month. Serious adverse events within 12 months after injection were seen in 40 participants (8.0%) in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group, in 47 (9.4%) in the rVSV∆G-ZEBOV-GP group, and in 59 (11.8%) in the placebo group. By 1 month, an antibody response developed in 70.8% of the participants in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group and in 83.7% of those in the rVSV∆G-ZEBOV-GP group, as compared with 2.8% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). At 12 months, antibody responses in participants in the ChAd3-EBO-Z group (63.5%) and in those in the rVSV∆G-ZEBOV-GP group (79.5%) remained significantly greater than in those in the placebo group (6.8%, P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of two vaccines that was rapidly initiated and completed in Liberia showed the capability of conducting rigorous research during an outbreak. By 1 month after vaccination, the vaccines had elicited immune responses that were largely maintained through 12 months. (Funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Liberian Ministry of Health; PREVAIL I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02344407 .).

Risk of Suicidal Behavior With Use of Efavirenz: Results from the Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Treatment Trial.

Background: Randomized trials have shown increased risk of suicidality associated with efavirenz (EFV). The START (Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Treatment) trial randomized treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive adults with high CD4 cell counts to immediate vs deferred antiretroviral therapy (ART). Methods: The initial ART regimen was selected prior to randomization (prespecified). We compared the incidence of suicidal and self-injurious behaviours (suicidal behavior) between the immediate vs deferred ART groups using proportional hazards models, separately for those with EFV and other prespecified regimens, by intention to treat, and after censoring participants in the deferred arm at ART initiation. Results: Of 4684 participants, 271 (5.8%) had a prior psychiatric diagnosis. EFV was prespecified for 3515 participants (75%), less often in those with psychiatric diagnoses (40%) than without (77%). While the overall intention-to-treat comparison showed no difference in suicidal behavior between arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07, P = .81), subgroup analyses suggest that initiation of EFV, but not other ART, is associated with increased risk of suicidal behavior. When censoring follow-up at ART initiation in the deferred group, the immediate vs deferred HR among those who were prespecified EFV was 3.31 (P = .03) and 1.04 (P = .93) among those with other prespecified ART; (P = .07 for interaction). In the immediate group, the risk was higher among those with prior psychiatric diagnoses, regardless of prespecified treatment group. Conclusions: Participants who used EFV in the immediate ART group had increased risk of suicidal behavior compared with ART-naive controls. Those with prior psychiatric diagnoses were at higher risk.

Initiation of Antiretroviral Therapy in Early Asymptomatic HIV Infection.

BACKGROUND: Data from randomized trials are lacking on the benefits and risks of initiating antiretroviral therapy in patients with asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who have a CD4+ count of more than 350 cells per cubic millimeter. METHODS: We randomly assigned HIV-positive adults who had a CD4+ count of more than 500 cells per cubic millimeter to start antiretroviral therapy immediately (immediate-initiation group) or to defer it until the CD4+ count decreased to 350 cells per cubic millimeter or until the development of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or another condition that dictated the use of antiretroviral therapy (deferred-initiation group). The primary composite end point was any serious AIDS-related event, serious non-AIDS-related event, or death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 4685 patients were followed for a mean of 3.0 years. At study entry, the median HIV viral load was 12,759 copies per milliliter, and the median CD4+ count was 651 cells per cubic millimeter. On May 15, 2015, on the basis of an interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board determined that the study question had been answered and recommended that patients in the deferred-initiation group be offered antiretroviral therapy. The primary end point occurred in 42 patients in the immediate-initiation group (1.8%; 0.60 events per 100 person-years), as compared with 96 patients in the deferred-initiation group (4.1%; 1.38 events per 100 person-years), for a hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.62; P<0.001). Hazard ratios for serious AIDS-related and serious non-AIDS-related events were 0.28 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.50; P<0.001) and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.97; P=0.04), respectively. More than two thirds of the primary end points (68%) occurred in patients with a CD4+ count of more than 500 cells per cubic millimeter. The risks of a grade 4 event were similar in the two groups, as were the risks of unscheduled hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: The initiation of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive adults with a CD4+ count of more than 500 cells per cubic millimeter provided net benefits over starting such therapy in patients after the CD4+ count had declined to 350 cells per cubic millimeter. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; START ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00867048.).

How to construct an optimal interim report: What the data monitoring committee does and doesn't need to know.

BACKGROUND: Data monitoring committees for randomized clinical trials have the responsibility of safeguarding interests of trial participants. To do so, the data monitoring committee must receive reports on safety and efficacy to assess risk/benefit and on trial conduct to ensure that the study can achieve its goals. This article outlines the key components of reports to the data monitoring committee and the important role of the unblinded statistician in preparing those reports. METHODS: Most data monitoring committee meetings include open and closed sessions. For each session, there is a report of interim results. The open session is attended by the sponsor and lead investigators, including the statistician(s) responsible for the trial design. These investigators are blinded to the interim treatment comparisons. The closed session is attended by the data monitoring committee members and by the statistician(s) who prepared the closed report. These individuals are unblinded to interim treatment comparisons and therefore are not involved in study design changes. The optimal content of data monitoring committee reports and qualifications of the unblinded statistician(s) are discussed. REPORTS: Open reports should include responses to data monitoring committee recommendations, a synopsis of the protocol, a review of the protocol history and amendments, and information on enrollment, baseline characteristics, completeness of follow-up, and data quality. The open report is also a vehicle through which the sponsor and investigators should inform the data monitoring committee of relevant external information. Data in the open report are pooled over the treatment groups. The open report should not include data summaries by treatment group. The closed report should include a written summary with references to key tables and figures and methods used to prepare them. Tables and figures should summarize baseline characteristics, follow-up completeness, treatment adherence, and major safety and efficacy outcomes by treatment group. Text summaries should accompany the tables and figures. The data monitoring committee monitoring history (e.g. treatment differences at previous meetings) should be summarized. The unblinded statistician preparing the closed report should be familiar with the protocol and data collection plan and be capable of customizing the report to the current stage of the trial. This includes anticipating questions that may arise during the data monitoring committee review and pro-actively including data summaries to address these questions. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the quality of open and closed data monitoring committee reports. Open and closed data monitoring committee reports should be concise, up to date, and informative. To achieve this, unblinded statisticians responsible for preparing closed data monitoring committee reports should be familiar with the statistical methods, the trial protocol, and the data collection plan. They should be capable of anticipating questions from the data monitoring committee and responding to requests for additional analyses.

Interleukin 6 Is a Stronger Predictor of Clinical Events Than High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein or D-Dimer During HIV Infection.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and D-dimer levels are linked to adverse outcomes in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, but the strength of their associations with different clinical end points warrants investigation. METHODS: Participants receiving standard of care in 2 HIV trials with measured biomarker levels were followed to ascertain all-cause death, non-AIDS-related death, AIDS, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and non-AIDS-defining malignancies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each end point for quartiles and log2-transformed IL-6, hsCRP, and D-dimer levels were calculated using Cox models. Marginal models modelling multiple events tested for equal effects of biomarker levels on different end points. RESULTS: Among 4304 participants, there were 157 all-cause deaths, 117 non-AIDS-related deaths, 101 AIDS cases, 121 CVD cases, and 99 non-AIDS-defining malignancies. IL-6 was more strongly associated with most end points, compared with hsCRP. IL-6 appeared to be a stronger predictor than D-dimer for CVD and non-AIDS-defining malignancies, but 95% CIs overlapped. Independent associations of IL-6 were stronger for non-AIDS-related death (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.04) and all-cause death (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.33-1.84) and similar for CVD (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.62) and non-AIDS-defining malignancies (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.61). There was heterogeneity of IL-6 (P < .001) but not hsCRP (P = .15) or D-dimer (P = .20) as a predictor for different end points. CONCLUSIONS: IL-6 is a stronger predictor of fatal events than of CVD and non-AIDS-defining malignancies. Adjuvant antiinflammatory and antithrombotic therapies should be tested in HIV-infected individuals.

Early trajectories of virological and immunological biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients admitted to hospital for COVID-19: an international, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Serial measurement of virological and immunological biomarkers in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can give valuable insight into the pathogenic roles of viral replication and immune dysregulation. We aimed to characterise biomarker trajectories and their associations with clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this international, prospective cohort study, patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 platform trial within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines programme between Aug 5, 2020 and Sept 30, 2021 were included. Participants were included from 108 sites in Denmark, Greece, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Uganda, the UK, and the USA, and randomised to placebo or one of four neutralising monoclonal antibodies: bamlanivimab (Aug 5 to Oct 13, 2020), sotrovimab (Dec 16, 2020, to March 1, 2021), amubarvimab-romlusevimab (Dec 16, 2020, to March 1, 2021), and tixagevimab-cilgavimab (Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021). This trial included an analysis of 2149 participants with plasma nucleocapsid antigen, anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-6, and D-dimer measured at baseline and day 1, day 3, and day 5 of enrolment. Day-90 follow-up status was available for 1790 participants. Biomarker trajectories were evaluated for associations with baseline characteristics, a 7-day pulmonary ordinal outcome, 90-day mortality, and 90-day rate of sustained recovery. FINDINGS: The study included 2149 participants. Participant median age was 57 years (IQR 46-68), 1246 (58·0%) of 2149 participants were male and 903 (42·0%) were female; 1792 (83·4%) had at least one comorbidity, and 1764 (82·1%) were unvaccinated. Mortality to day 90 was 172 (8·0%) of 2149 and 189 (8·8%) participants had sustained recovery. A pattern of less favourable trajectories of low anti-nucleocapsid antibody, high plasma nucleocapsid antigen, and high inflammatory markers over the first 5 days was observed for high-risk baseline clinical characteristics or factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, participants with chronic kidney disease demonstrated plasma nucleocapsid antigen 424% higher (95% CI 319-559), CRP 174% higher (150-202), IL-6 173% higher (144-208), D-dimer 149% higher (134-165), and anti-nucleocapsid antibody 39% lower (60-18) to day 5 than those without chronic kidney disease. Participants in the highest quartile for plasma nucleocapsid antigen, CRP, and IL-6 at baseline and day 5 had worse clinical outcomes, including 90-day all-cause mortality (plasma nucleocapsid antigen hazard ratio (HR) 4·50 (95% CI 3·29-6·15), CRP HR 3·37 (2·30-4·94), and IL-6 HR 5·67 (4·12-7·80). This risk persisted for plasma nucleocapsid antigen and CRP after adjustment for baseline biomarker values and other baseline factors. INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with less favourable 5-day biomarker trajectories had worse prognosis, suggesting that persistent viral burden might drive inflammation in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, identifying patients that might benefit from escalation of antiviral or anti-inflammatory treatment. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Improved neurocognitive test performance in both arms of the SMART study: impact of practice effect.

We evaluated factors associated with improvement in neurocognitive performance in 258 HIV-infected adults with baseline CD4 lymphocyte counts above 350 cells/mm³ randomized to intermittent, CD4-guided antiretroviral therapy (ART) (128 participants) versus continuous therapy (130) in the Neurology substudy of the Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy trial. Participants were enrolled in Australia, North America, Brazil, and Thailand, and neurocognitive performance was assessed by a five-test battery at baseline and month 6. The primary outcome was change in the quantitative neurocognitive performance z score (QNPZ-5), the average of the z scores of the five tests. Associations of the 6-month change in test scores with ART use, CD4 cell counts, HIV RNA levels, and other factors were determined using multiple regression models. At baseline, median age was 40 years, median CD4 cell count was 513 cells/mm³, 88 % had plasma HIV RNA ≤ 400 copies/mL, and mean QNPZ-5 was -0.68. Neurocognitive performance improved in both treatment groups by 6 months; QNPZ-5 scores increased by 0.20 and 0.13 in the intermittent and continuous ART groups, respectively (both P < 0.001 for increase and P = 0.26 for difference). ART was used on average for 3.6 and 5.9 out of the 6 months in the intermittent and continuous ART groups, respectively, but the increase in neurocognitive test scores could not be explained by ART use, changes in CD4, or plasma HIV RNA, which suggests a practice effect. The impact of a practice effect after 6 months emphasizes the need for a control group in HIV studies that measure intervention effects using neurocognitive tests similar to ours.

Considerations in the rationale, design and methods of the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) study.

BACKGROUND: Untreated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is characterized by progressive depletion of CD4+ T lymphocyte (CD4) count leading to the development of opportunistic diseases (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)), and more recent data suggest that HIV is also associated with an increased risk of serious non-AIDS (SNA) diseases including cardiovascular, renal, and liver diseases and non-AIDS-defining cancers. Although combination antiretroviral treatment (ART) has resulted in a substantial decrease in morbidity and mortality in persons with HIV infection, viral eradication is not feasible with currently available drugs. The optimal time to start ART for asymptomatic HIV infection is controversial and remains one of the key unanswered questions in the clinical management of HIV-infected individuals. PURPOSE: In this article, we outline the rationale and methods of the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) study, an ongoing multicenter international trial designed to assess the risks and benefits of initiating ART earlier than is currently practiced. We also describe some of the challenges encountered in the design and implementation of the study and how these challenges were addressed. METHODS: A total of 4000 study participants who are HIV type 1 (HIV-1) infected, ART naïve with CD4 count > 500 cells/µL are to be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to start ART immediately (early ART) or defer treatment until CD4 count is <350 cells/µL (deferred ART) and followed for a minimum of 3 years. The primary outcome is time to AIDS, SNA, or death. The study had a pilot phase to establish feasibility of accrual, which was set as the enrollment of at least 900 participants in the first year. RESULTS: Challenges encountered in the design and implementation of the study included the limited amount of data on the risk of a major component of the primary endpoint (SNA) in the study population, changes in treatment guidelines when the pilot phase was well underway, and the complexities of conducting the trial in a geographically wide population with diverse regulatory requirements. With the successful completion of the pilot phase, more than 1000 participants from 100 sites in 23 countries have been enrolled. The study will expand to include 237 sites in 36 countries to reach the target accrual of 4000 participants. CONCLUSIONS: START is addressing one of the most important questions in the clinical management of ART. The randomization provided a platform for the conduct of several substudies aimed at increasing our understanding of HIV disease and the effects of antiretroviral therapy beyond the primary question of the trial. The lessons learned from its design and implementation will hopefully be of use to future publicly funded international trials.

Association between ten-eleven methylcytosine dioxygenase 2 genetic variation and viral load in people with HIV.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying genetic factors that influence HIV-pathogenesis is critical for understanding disease pathways. Previous studies have suggested a role for the human gene ten-eleven methylcytosine dioxygenase 2 (TET2) in modulating HIV-pathogenesis. METHODS: We assessed whether genetic variation in TET2 was associated with markers of HIV-pathogenesis using both gene level and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) level association in 8512 HIV-positive persons across five clinical trial cohorts. RESULTS: Variation at both the gene and SNP-level of TET2 was found to be associated with levels of HIV viral load (HIV-VL) consistently in the two cohorts that recruited antiretroviral-naïve participants. The SNPs occurred in two clusters of high linkage disequilibrium (LD), one associated with high HIV-VL and the other low HIV-VL, and were predominantly found in Black participants. CONCLUSION: Genetic variation in TET2 was associated with HIV-VL in two large antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive clinical trial cohorts. The role of TET2 in HIV-pathogenesis warrants further investigation.

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

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.

Long-Term Benefits from Early Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation in HIV Infection.

BACKGROUND: For people with HIV and CD4+ counts >500 cells/mm3, early initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces serious AIDS and serious non-AIDS (SNA) risk compared with deferral of treatment until CD4+ counts are <350 cells/mm3. Whether excess risk of AIDS and SNA persists once ART is initiated for those who defer treatment is uncertain. METHODS: The Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial, as previously reported, randomly assigned 4684 ART-naive HIV-positive adults with CD4+ counts .500 cells/mm3 to immediate treatment initiation after random assignment (n = 2325) or deferred treatment (n= 2359). In 2015, a 57% lower risk of the primary end point (AIDS, SNA, or death) for the immediate group was reported, and the deferred group was offered ART. This article reports the follow-up that continued to December 31, 2021. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to compare hazard ratios for the primary end point from randomization through December 31, 2015, versus January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2021. RESULTS: Through December 31, 2015, approximately 7 months after the cutoff date from the previous report, the median CD4+ count was 648 and 460 cells/mm3 in the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, at treatment initiation. The percentage of follow-up time spent taking ART was 95% and 36% for the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, and the time-averaged CD4+ difference was 199 cells/mm3. After January 1, 2016, the percentage of follow-up time on treatment was 97.2% and 94.1% for the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, and the CD4+ count difference was 155 cells/mm3. After January 1, 2016, a total of 89 immediate and 113 deferred group participants experienced a primary end point (hazard ratio of 0.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.04] versus hazard ratio of 0.47 [95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.65; P<0.001]) before 2016 (P=0.02 for hazard ratio difference). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CD4+ counts >500 cells/mm3, excess risk of AIDS and SNA associated with delaying treatment initiation was diminished after ART initiation, but persistent excess risk remained. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others.).

Considerations for Endpoint Selection When Designing HIV Clinical Trials.

Selecting the primary endpoint is one of the most important decisions in designing clinical trials. Many HIV trials are powered for surrogate markers, often virologic suppression. Among 49 recently published Phase 3 or higher randomized HIV trials only 14% were powered for clinical outcomes such as the progression to AIDS, death, or serious non-AIDS diseases. We provide two examples where interventions modified the targeted surrogate markers but failed to provide clinical benefit. We review the use of surrogate and clinical endpoints, discuss the composition of clinical endpoints, and the need for endpoint verification. In HIV-infected individuals with CD4 cell counts above 200 cells/mm(3) serious non-AIDS conditions such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic diseases and cancer contribute substantially to morbidity and mortality. In this population clinical endpoint trials should be powered for non-AIDS morbidity along with AIDS.