Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Impact of Molnupiravir Treatment on Patient-Reported COVID-19 Symptoms in the Phase 3 MOVe-OUT Trial: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir is an orally administered antiviral authorized for COVID-19 treatment in adults at high risk of progression to severe disease. Here, we report secondary and post hoc analyses of participants' self-reported symptoms in the MOVe-OUT trial, which evaluated molnupiravir initiated within 5 days of symptom onset in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a 15-item symptom diary daily from day 1 (randomization) through day 29, rating symptom severity as "none," "mild," "moderate," or "severe"; loss of smell and loss of taste were rated as "yes" or "no." Time to sustained symptom resolution/improvement was defined as the number of days from randomization to the first of 3 consecutive days of reduced severity, without subsequent relapse. Time to symptom progression was defined as the number of days from randomization to the first of 2 consecutive days of worsening severity. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate event rates at various time points. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio between molnupiravir and placebo. RESULTS: For most targeted COVID-19 symptoms, sustained resolution/improvement was more likely, and progression was less likely, in the molnupiravir versus placebo group through day 29. When evaluating 5 distinctive symptoms of COVID-19, molnupiravir participants had a shorter median time to first resolution (18 vs 20 d) and first alleviation (13 vs 15 d) of symptoms compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir treatment in at-risk, unvaccinated patients resulted in improved clinical outcomes for most participant-reported COVID-19 symptoms compared with placebo. Clinical Trials Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04575597.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 in immunocompromised participants: efficacy, safety, and virology results from the phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled MOVe-OUT trial.

PURPOSE: Immunocompromised patients have a potentially increased risk for progression to severe COVID-19 and prolonged replication of SARS-CoV-2. This post hoc analysis examined outcomes among immunocompromised participants in the MOVe-OUT trial. METHODS: In phase 3 of MOVe-OUT, non-hospitalized at-risk adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomized to receive molnupiravir 800 mg or placebo twice daily for 5 days. Immunocompromised participants were identified based on prior/concomitant medications and/or medical history. All-cause hospitalization/death, adverse events, SARS-CoV-2 titers, infectivity, and RNA sequences were compared between immunocompromised participants who received molnupiravir or placebo and with non-immunocompromised participants. RESULTS: Fifty-five of 1408 participants were considered immunocompromised. Compared to placebo, fewer molnupiravir-treated immunocompromised participants were hospitalized/died through Day 29 (22.6% [7/31] vs. 8.3% [2/24]), with fewer adverse events (45.2% [14/31] vs. 25.0% [6/24]). A larger mean change from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA was observed with molnupiravir compared to placebo in non-immunocompromised participants (least squares mean [LSM] difference Day 5: - 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.47 to - 0.15), while the mean change was comparable between treatment groups in immunocompromised participants (LSM difference Day 5: 0.23, 95% CI - 0.71 to 1.17). Molnupiravir treatment was associated with increased clearance of infectious virus. Increased errors in viral nucleotide sequences in post-baseline samples compared to placebo support molnupiravir's mechanism of action and were not associated with observation of novel treatment-emergent amino acid substitutions in immunocompromised participants. CONCLUSION: Although the study population was small, these data suggest that molnupiravir treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in non-hospitalized immunocompromised adults is efficacious and safe and quickly reduces infectious SARS-CoV-2. GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04575597.

Effect of Molnupiravir on Biomarkers, Respiratory Interventions, and Medical Services in COVID-19 : A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the MOVe-OUT trial, molnupiravir showed a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death in adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and risk factors for progression to severe disease. OBJECTIVE: To identify other potential clinical benefits of molnupiravir versus placebo. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 component of MOVe-OUT. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04575597). SETTING: 107 sites globally. PARTICIPANTS: 1433 nonhospitalized adults aged 18 years or older with mild to moderate COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Molnupiravir, 800 mg, or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. MEASUREMENTS: Changes from baseline in C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration and oxygen saturation (Spo 2), need for respiratory interventions (including invasive mechanical ventilation), and need for medical services in all randomly assigned participants through day 29, and need for respiratory interventions and time to discharge in the subgroup of participants who were hospitalized after randomization. RESULTS: Participants receiving molnupiravir showed faster normalization of CRP and Spo 2, with improvements observed on day 3 of therapy, compared with placebo. Molnupiravir-treated participants had a decreased need for respiratory interventions versus placebo-treated participants (relative risk reduction [RRR], 34.3% [95% CI, 4.3% to 54.9%]), with similar findings in participants who were hospitalized after randomization (RRR, 21.3% [CI, 0.2% to 38.0%]). Hospitalized participants who received molnupiravir were discharged a median of 3 days before those who received placebo. Acute care visits (7.2% vs. 10.6%; RRR, 32.1% [CI, 4.4% to 51.7%]) and COVID-19-related acute care visits (6.6% vs. 10.0%; RRR, 33.8% [CI, 5.6% to 53.6%]) were less frequent in molnupiravir- versus placebo-treated participants. LIMITATIONS: Some analyses were performed post hoc. Longer-term benefits of molnupiravir therapy were not evaluated. Participants were not immunized against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest there are additional important clinical benefits of molnupiravir beyond reduction in hospitalization or death. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study).

BACKGROUND: Imipenem combined with the ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7-14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. RESULTS: Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02493764.

The safety and efficacy of relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin in Japanese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection or complicated urinary tract infection: A multicenter, open-label, noncomparative phase 3 study.

INTRODUCTION: Relebactam, a novel class A/C ß-lactamase inhibitor developed as a fixed-dose combination with imipenem/cilastatin, restores imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, open-label, noncomparative study (NCT03293485) evaluated relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin (250 mg/500 mg/500 mg) dosed every 6 h for 5-14 days in Japanese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) or complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including those with secondary sepsis. Sepsis was defined as an infection-induced systemic inflammatory response syndrome, with a documented positive blood culture; patients meeting these protocol-defined criteria were evaluated for efficacy against sepsis. RESULTS: Of 83 patients enrolled, 81 patients (cIAI, n = 37; cUTI, n = 44) received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Escherichia coli was the most common baseline pathogen isolated in both patients with cIAI and cUTI. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 74.1% (n = 60/81) of patients, and drug-related AEs occurred in 18.5% (n = 15/81). The most common AEs were diarrhea and nausea (8.6%). Serious AEs occurred in nine patients, including one death, but none were considered treatment related. The primary efficacy endpoint for patients with cIAI was clinical response at end of treatment (EOT) in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population, and for patients with cUTI was microbiological response at EOT in the ME population. The proportion of cIAI and cUTI patients achieving favorable responses were 85.7% (n = 24/28) and 100.0% (n = 39/39), respectively. All patients with sepsis (cIAI, n = 1; cUTI, n = 5) achieved a favorable composite clinical and microbiological response at EOT. CONCLUSIONS: A favorable safety and efficacy profile for relebactam/imipenem/cilastatin was observed in Japanese patients with cIAI and cUTI.

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

BACKGROUND: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5-21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, -27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, -46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02452047.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Analysis Populations in the RESTORE-IMI 1 Phase 3 Trial of Imipenem-Cilastatin-Relebactam versus Colistin plus Imipenem-Cilastatin in Patients with Imipenem-Nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

The RESTORE-IMI 1 phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) combined with relebactam (REL) for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. The objective of this analysis was to compare the outcomes among patients meeting eligibility requirements based on central laboratory susceptibility versus local laboratory susceptibility. Patients with serious infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible, colistin-susceptible, and imipenem-REL-susceptible pathogens were randomized 2:1 to IMI-REL plus placebo or colistin plus IMI for 5 to 21 days. The primary endpoint was a favorable overall response. Key endpoints included the clinical response and all-cause mortality. We compared outcomes between the primary microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population, where eligibility was based on central laboratory susceptibility testing, and the supplemental mMITT (SmMITT) population, where eligibility was based on local, site-level testing. The SmMITT (n = 41) and MITT (n = 31) populations had similar baseline characteristics, including sex, age, illness severity, and renal function. In both analysis populations, favorable overall response rates in the IMI-REL treatment group were >70%. Favorable clinical response rates at day 28 were 71.4% for IMI-REL and 40.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 75.0% for IMI-REL and 53.8% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. Day 28 all-cause mortality rates were 9.5% for IMI-REL and 30.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 10.7% for IMI-REL and 23.1% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. The outcomes in the SmMITT population were generally consistent with those in the mMITT population, suggesting that outcomes may be applicable to the real-world use of IMI-REL for treating infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative pathogens. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02452047.).

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 2 dose-ranging study comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin plus relebactam with imipenem/cilastatin alone in patients with complicated urinary tract infections.

Objectives: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem non-susceptible pathogens. Methods: To explore relebactam's safety, tolerability and efficacy, we conducted a randomized (1:1:1), controlled, Phase 2 trial comparing imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 250 mg, imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam 125 mg and imipenem/cilastatin alone in adults with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) or acute pyelonephritis, regardless of baseline pathogen susceptibility. Treatment was administered intravenously every 6 h for 4-14 days, with optional step-down to oral ciprofloxacin. The primary endpoint was favourable microbiological response rate (pathogen eradication) at discontinuation of intravenous therapy (DCIV) in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population. Non-inferiority of imipenem/cilastatin+relebactam over imipenem/cilastatin alone was defined as lower bounds of the 95% CI for treatment differences being above -15%. Results: At DCIV, 71 patients in the imipenem/cilastatin + 250 mg relebactam, 79 in the imipenem/cilastatin + 125 mg relebactam and 80 in the imipenem/cilastatin-only group were ME; 51.7% had cUTI and 48.3% acute pyelonephritis. Microbiological response rates were 95.5%, 98.6% and 98.7%, respectively, confirming non-inferiority of both imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam doses to imipenem/cilastatin alone. Clinical response rates were 97.1%, 98.7% and 98.8%, respectively. All 23 ME patients with imipenem non-susceptible pathogens had favourable DCIV microbiological responses (100% in each group). Among all 298 patients treated, 28.3%, 29.3% and 30.0% of patients, respectively, had treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-related adverse events across groups (1.0%-4.0%) were diarrhoea, nausea and headache. Conclusions: Imipenem/cilastatin + relebactam (250 or 125 mg) was as effective as imipenem/cilastatin alone for treatment of cUTI. Both relebactam-containing regimens were well tolerated. (NCT01505634).

Phase 2, Dose-Ranging Study of Relebactam with Imipenem-Cilastatin in Subjects with Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection.

Relebactam (REL [MK-7655]) is a novel class A/C ß-lactamase inhibitor intended for use with imipenem for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial infections. REL restores imipenem activity against some resistant strains of Klebsiella and Pseudomonas In this multicenter, double-blind, controlled trial (NCT01506271), subjects who were ≥18 years of age with complicated intra-abdominal infection were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 250 mg REL, 125 mg REL, or placebo, each given intravenously (i.v.) with 500 mg imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) every 6 h (q6h) for 4 to 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of microbiologically evaluable (ME) subjects with a favorable clinical response at discontinuation of i.v. therapy (DCIV). A total of 351 subjects were randomized, 347 (99%) were treated, and 255 (73%) were ME at DCIV (55% male; mean age, 49 years). The most common diagnoses were complicated appendicitis (53%) and complicated cholecystitis (17%). Thirty-six subjects (13%) had imipenem-resistant Gram-negative infections at baseline. Both REL doses plus IMI were generally well tolerated and demonstrated safety profiles similar to that of IMI alone. Clinical response rates at DCIV were similar in subjects who received 250 mg REL plus IMI (96.3%) or 125 mg REL plus IMI (98.8%), and both were noninferior to IMI alone (95.2%; one-sided P < 0.001). The treatment groups were also similar with respect to clinical response at early and late follow-up and microbiological response at all visits. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic simulations show that imipenem exposure at the proposed dose of 500 mg IMI with 250 mg REL q6h provides coverage of >90% of carbapenem-resistant bacterial strains.

Ertapenem prophylaxis of surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery in China: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to evaluate ertapenem versus ceftriaxone/metronidazole for prophylaxis of surgical site infections (SSIs) following elective colorectal surgery in Chinese adult patients. METHODS: Eligible Chinese adults aged 18-80 years scheduled to undergo elective colorectal surgery by laparotomy were randomized to receive a 30 min infusion of 1 g of ertapenem/metronidazole placebo or 2 g of ceftriaxone/500 mg of metronidazole within 2 h before initial incision. The study endpoint was the proportion of patients with successful prophylaxis at 4 weeks after treatment. The primary analysis was based on the evaluable population (PP population) and the pre-specified non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01254344. RESULTS: Of 599 patients randomized, 499 (251 ertapenem and 248 ceftriaxone) were eligible for inclusion in the PP population. The proportions of patients with successful prophylaxis in the ertapenem and ceftriaxone groups were 90.4% (227/251) and 90.3% (224/248), respectively. The difference in the proportion of successful outcomes was 0.1% (95% CI -5.2%, 5.5%). Unexplained antibiotic use was the most frequent reason for prophylaxis failure in both groups [ertapenem 4.8% (12/251), ceftriaxone 4.4% (11/248); difference 0.3%; 95% CI -3.6, 4.3]. Pathogen species isolated from SSI sources were consistent with previously conducted studies and the product package insert. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between the groups, with the most common AE being pyrexia [ertapenem 7.6% (22/290), ceftriaxone 5.7% (17/297)]. CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem is as effective as ceftriaxone/metronidazole for SSI prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, and is well tolerated.

Respiratory virus coinfections during the COVID-19 pandemic: epidemiologic analysis and clinical outcomes from the Phase 2/3 molnupiravir trial (MOVe-OUT).

This exploratory post hoc analysis assessed the incidence of respiratory viral coinfections and their impact on clinical outcomes in non-hospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) treated with molnupiravir versus placebo for 5 days in the Phase 2/3 MOVe-OUT trial (NCT04575597), which took place in October 2020 to January 2021 (Phase 2, n = 302) and May 2021 to October 2021 (Phase 3, n = 1,433). Among 1,735 total randomized participants, 1,674 had a baseline respiratory pathogen panel (NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel for the Luminex MAGPIX instrument) performed and 69 (4.1%) were coinfected with at least one additional respiratory viral pathogen. Human rhinovirus/enterovirus (39/69, 56.5%) was the most common coinfection detected at baseline. In the modified intention-to-treat population, two participants with coinfecting respiratory RNA viruses were hospitalized and received respiratory interventions through Day 29, and none died; one participant in the molnupiravir group was coinfected with human rhinovirus/enterovirus, and one participant in the placebo group was coinfected with human metapneumovirus. Hospitalization or death occurred in 6.2% and 9.0% of non-coinfected participants in the molnupiravir versus placebo group, respectively, and over 90% did not require respiratory interventions. Most coinfecting respiratory RNA viruses detected at baseline were not detected at the end of therapy in both the molnupiravir and placebo groups. In summary, participants coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and another respiratory RNA virus were not more likely to be hospitalized or die, or require respiratory interventions, compared to participants who were not coinfected with another respiratory RNA virus at baseline in both groups. IMPORTANCE: Respiratory viral coinfections are known to occur with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In a cohort of non-hospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 treated with molnupiravir versus placebo in the MOVe-OUT trial during October 2020 to October 2021, 4.1% of participants had a documented viral coinfection; human rhinovirus/enterovirus was the most common pathogen detected with the NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel assay. Participants who had a coinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and another respiratory RNA virus were not more likely to have worse clinical outcomes compared to those participants without a viral coinfection, and many coinfecting respiratory RNA viruses were no longer detected at the end of the 5-day treatment period in both groups.

Factors Influencing COVID-19 Risk: Insights From Molnupiravir Exposure-Response Modeling of Clinical Outcomes.

Molnupiravir (MOV) is an oral antiviral for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in outpatient settings. This analysis investigated the relationship between ß-D-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC) pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in the phase III part of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled MOVe-OUT trial. Logistic regression models of the dependency of outcomes on exposures and covariates were constructed using a multistep process. Influential covariates were identified first using placebo arm data, followed by assessment of exposure-dependency in drug effect using data from both the placebo and MOV arms. The exposure-response (E-R) analysis included 1,313 participants; 630 received MOV and 683 received placebo. Baseline viral load, baseline disease severity, age, weight, viral clade, active cancer, and diabetes were identified as significant determinants of response using placebo data. Absolute measures of viral load on days 5 and 10 were strong on-treatment predictors of hospitalization. An additive area under the curve (AUC)-based maximum effect (Emax ) model with a fixed Hill coefficient of 1 best represented the exposure-dependency in drug effect and the AUC50 was estimated to be 19,900 nM hour. Patients at 800 mg achieved near maximal response, which was larger than for 200 or 400 mg. The final E-R model was externally validated and predicted that the relative reduction in hospitalization with MOV treatment would vary with patient characteristics and factors in the population. In conclusion, the E-R results support the MOV dose of 800 mg twice daily to treat COVID-19. Many patient characteristics and factors impacted outcomes beyond drug exposures.

Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam efficacy, safety and probability of target attainment in adults with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia among patients with baseline renal impairment, normal renal function, and augmented renal clearance.

Objectives: To assess the relationship between renal function and efficacy/safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam for the treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HABP/VABP) from RESTORE-IMI 2 and determine the PTA. Methods: Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to IV imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 1.25 g or piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g every 6 h for 7-14 days. Initial doses were selected by CLCR and adjusted thereafter, as appropriate. Outcomes included Day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM), clinical response, microbiological response and adverse events. Population pharmacokinetic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations assessed PTA. Results: The modified ITT population comprised those with normal renal function (n = 188), augmented renal clearance (ARC; n = 88), mild renal impairment (RI; n = 124), moderate RI (n = 109) and severe RI (n = 22). ACM rates were comparable between treatment arms among all baseline renal function categories. Clinical response rates were comparable between treatment arms for participants with RI and normal renal function but were higher (91.7% versus 44.4%) for imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam-treated versus piperacillin/tazobactam-treated participants with CLCR ≥250 mL/min (n = 21). Microbiologic response rates were comparable between treatment arms for participants with RI but higher among those treated with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in participants with CLCR ≥90 mL/min (86.6% versus 67.2%). Adverse events were comparable between treatment arms across renal function categories. Joint PTA was >98% for key pathogen MICs for susceptible pathogens (MIC ≤2 mg/L). Conclusions: Prescribing information-defined dose adjustments in participants with baseline RI and full dosing of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 1.25 g every 6 h for participants with normal renal function or augmented renal clearance achieved sufficiently high drug exposures and favourable safety and efficacy profiles.

Participant- and Disease-Related Factors as Independent Predictors of Treatment Outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 Clinical Trial: A Multivariable Regression Analysis.

Background: In the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine independent predictors of efficacy outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, to assist in treatment decision making. Methods: A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify variables that were independently associated with day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM), favorable clinical response at early follow-up (EFU), and favorable microbiologic response at end of treatment (EOT). The analysis accounted for the number of baseline infecting pathogens and in vitro susceptibility to randomized treatment. Results: Vasopressor use, renal impairment, bacteremia at baseline, and Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores ≥15 were associated with a greater risk of day 28 ACM. A favorable clinical response at EFU was associated with normal renal function, an APACHE II score <15, no vasopressor use, and no bacteremia at baseline. At EOT, a favorable microbiologic response was associated with IMI/REL treatment, normal renal function, no vasopressor use, nonventilated pneumonia at baseline, intensive care unit admission at randomization, monomicrobial infections at baseline, and absence of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex at baseline. These factors remained significant after accounting for polymicrobial infection and in vitro susceptibility to assigned treatment. Conclusions: This analysis, which accounted for baseline pathogen susceptibility, validated well-recognized patient- and disease-related factors as independent predictors of clinical outcomes. These results lend further support to the noninferiority of IMI/REL to piperacillin/tazobactam and suggests that pathogen eradication may be more likely with IMI/REL. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02493764.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam in Children with Confirmed or Suspected Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: A Phase 1b, Open-Label, Single-Dose Clinical Trial.

Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is approved for the treatment of serious gram-negative bacterial infections in adults. This study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of a single dose of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (with a fixed 2:1 ratio of imipenem/cilastatin to relebactam, and with a maximum dose of 15 mg/kg imipenem and 15 mg/kg cilastatin [≤500 mg imipenem and ≤500 mg cilastatin] and 7.5 mg/kg relebactam [≤250 mg relebactam]) in children with confirmed/suspected gram-negative bacterial infections receiving standard-of-care antibacterial therapy. In this phase 1, noncomparative study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03230916), PK parameters from 46 children were analyzed using both population modeling and noncompartmental analysis. The PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) target for imipenem was percent time of the dosing interval that unbound plasma concentration exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT>MIC) of ≥30% (MIC = 2 mcg/mL). For relebactam, the PK/PD target was a free drug area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) normalized to MIC (at 2 mcg/mL) of ≥8.0 (equivalent to an AUC from time zero extrapolated to infinity of ≥20.52 mcg·h/mL). Safety was assessed up to 14 days after drug infusion. For imipenem, the ranges for the geometric mean %fT>MIC and maximum concentration (Cmax ) across age cohorts were 56.5%-93.7% and 32.2-38.2 mcg/mL, respectively. For relebactam, the ranges of the geometric mean Cmax and AUC from 0 to 6 hours across age cohorts were 16.9-21.3 mcg/mL and 26.1-55.3 mcg·h/mL, respectively. In total, 8/46 (17%) children experienced ≥1 adverse events (AEs) and 2/46 (4%) children experienced nonserious AEs that were deemed drug related by the investigator. Imipenem and relebactam exceeded plasma PK/PD targets; single doses of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam were well tolerated with no significant safety concerns identified. These results informed imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam dose selection for further pediatric clinical evaluation.

Virologic Outcomes with Molnupiravir in Non-hospitalized Adult Patients with COVID-19 from the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled MOVe-OUT Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind MOVe-OUT trial demonstrated molnupiravir (800 mg every 12 h for 5 days) as safe and effective for outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing the risk of hospitalization/death in high-risk adults. At the time of that report, virologic assessments from the trial were partially incomplete as a result of their time-intensive nature. Here we present final results from all prespecified virology endpoints in MOVe-OUT based on the full trial dataset. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline (day 1, prior to first dose) and days 3, 5 (end-of-treatment visit), 10, 15, and 29. From these samples, change from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers (determined by quantitative PCR), detection of infectious SARS-CoV-2 (by plaque assay), and SARS-CoV-2 viral error induction (determined by whole genome next-generation sequencing) were assessed as exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: Molnupiravir was associated with greater mean reductions from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 RNA than placebo (including 50% relative reduction at end-of-treatment) through day 10. Among participants with infectious virus detected at baseline (n = 96 molnupiravir, n = 97 placebo) and evaluable post-baseline samples, no molnupiravir-treated participant had infectious SARS-CoV-2 by day 3, whereas infectious virus was recovered from 21% of placebo-arm participants on day 3 and 2% at end-of-treatment. Consistent with molnupiravir's mechanism of action, sequence analysis demonstrated that molnupiravir was associated with an increased number of low-frequency transition errors randomly distributed across the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome compared with placebo (median 143.5 molnupiravir, 15 placebo), while transversion errors were infrequent overall (median 2 in both arms). Outcomes were consistent regardless of baseline SARS-CoV-2 clade, presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response, or viral load. CONCLUSIONS: A 5-day course of orally administered molnupiravir demonstrated a consistently greater virologic effect than placebo, including rapidly eliminating infectious SARS-CoV-2, in high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04575597.

Population pharmacokinetics of molnupiravir in adults with COVID-19: Lack of clinically important exposure variation across individuals.

Effective antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, particularly in patients with risk factors for severe disease. Molnupiravir (MK-4482, EIDD-2801) is an orally administered, ribonucleoside prodrug of ß-D-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC) with submicromolar potency against SARS-CoV-2. A population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) analysis for molnupiravir exposure was conducted using 4202 NHC plasma concentrations collected in 1207 individuals from a phase I trial in healthy participants, a phase IIa trial in non-hospitalized participants with COVID-19, a phase II trial in hospitalized participants with COVID-19, and a phase II/III trial in non-hospitalized participants with COVID-19. Molnupiravir pharmacokinetics (PK) was best described by a two-compartment model with a transit-compartment absorption model and linear elimination. Molnupiravir apparent elimination clearance increased with body weight less-than-proportionally (power 0.412) and was estimated as 70.6 L/h in 80-kg individuals with a moderate interindividual variability (43.4% coefficient of variation). Additionally, effects of sex and body mass index on apparent central volume and food status and formulation on the absorption mean transit time were identified as statistically significant descriptors of variability in these PK parameters. However, none of the identified covariate effects caused clinically relevant changes in the area under the NHC concentration versus time curve between doses, the exposure metric most closely related to clinical response. Overall, the PopPK model indicates that molnupiravir can be administered in adults without dose adjustment based on age, sex, body size, food, and mild-to-moderate renal or mild hepatic impairment.

Molnupiravir for intra-household prevention of COVID-19: The MOVe-AHEAD randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for intra-household post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. METHODS: MOVe-AHEAD was a randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial comparing molnupiravir (800 mg twice daily for 5 days) with placebo. Eligible participants were adult, unvaccinated, asymptomatic household contacts of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of COVID-19 through day 14 in modified intention-to-treat (MITT) participants (those who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) without detectable SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, termed the MITT-VN population. Superiority of molnupiravir was prespecified as a stratified one-sided p-value of <0.0249 for the treatment difference in this endpoint. RESULTS: The MITT population comprised 763 participants randomized to molnupiravir and 764 to placebo; 83.6% had anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline. In the MITT-VN population, COVID-19 rates through day 14 were 6.5% with molnupiravir and 8.5% with placebo (one-sided p-value: 0.0848). In the molnupiravir arm, 25/35 of confirmed COVID-19 events (71.4%) occurred after completion of treatment (versus 17/49 [34.7%] for placebo). Adverse event rates were low and similar between molnupiravir and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir was well-tolerated but did not meet the prespecified superiority criterion, possibly influenced in part by the high pre-existing immunity in the trial population.