Pharmacometrics of high-dose ivermectin in early COVID-19 from an open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial (PLATCOV).

Background: There is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infections. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has clinically significant antiviral activity in vivo is uncertain. Methods: In a multicentre open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of six treatment arms including high-dose oral ivermectin (600 µg/kg daily for 7 days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600 mg/600 mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the comparison of viral clearance rates in the modified intention-to-treat population. This was derived from daily log10 viral densities in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing trial is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT05041907). Results: Randomization to the ivermectin arm was stopped after enrolling 205 patients into all arms, as the prespecified futility threshold was reached. Following ivermectin, the mean estimated rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance was 9.1% slower (95% confidence interval [CI] -27.2% to +11.8%; n=45) than in the no drug arm (n=41), whereas in a preliminary analysis of the casirivimab/imdevimab arm it was 52.3% faster (95% CI +7.0% to +115.1%; n=10 (Delta variant) vs. n=41). Conclusions: High-dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric evaluation of viral clearance rate from frequent serial oropharyngeal qPCR viral density estimates is a highly efficient and well-tolerated method of assessing SARS-CoV-2 antiviral therapeutics in vitro. Funding: 'Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV)' is supported by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. Clinical trial number: NCT05041907.

A pharmacometric approach to evaluate drugs for potential repurposing as COVID-19 therapeutics.

INTRODUCTION: Developing and evaluating novel compounds for treatment or prophylaxis of emerging infectious diseases is costly and time-consuming. Repurposing of already available marketed compounds is an appealing option as they already have an established safety profile. This approach could substantially reduce cost and time required to make effective treatments available to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this approach is challenging since many drug candidates show efficacy in in vitro experiments, but fail to deliver effect when evaluated in clinical trials. Better approaches to evaluate in vitro data are needed, in order to prioritize drugs for repurposing. AREAS COVERED: This article evaluates potential drugs that might be of interest for repurposing in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 disease. A pharmacometric simulation-based approach was developed to evaluate in vitro activity data in combination with expected clinical drug exposure, in order to evaluate the likelihood of achieving effective concentrations in patients. EXPERT OPINION: The presented pharmacometric approach bridges in vitro activity data to clinically expected drug exposures, and could therefore be a useful compliment to other methods in order to prioritize repurposed drugs for evaluation in prospective randomized controlled clinical trials.

Pre-clinical evaluation of antiviral activity of nitazoxanide against SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: To address the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, multiple clinical trials in humans were rapidly started, including those involving an oral treatment by nitazoxanide, despite no or limited pre-clinical evidence of antiviral efficacy. METHODS: In this work, we present a complete pre-clinical evaluation of the antiviral activity of nitazoxanide against SARS-CoV-2. FINDINGS: First, we confirmed the in vitro efficacy of nitazoxanide and tizoxanide (its active metabolite) against SARS-CoV-2. Then, we demonstrated nitazoxanide activity in a reconstructed bronchial human airway epithelium model. In a SARS-CoV-2 virus challenge model in hamsters, oral and intranasal treatment with nitazoxanide failed to impair viral replication in commonly affected organs. We hypothesized that this could be due to insufficient diffusion of the drug into organs of interest. Indeed, our pharmacokinetic study confirmed that concentrations of tizoxanide in organs of interest were always below the in vitro EC50. INTERPRETATION: These preclinical results suggest, if directly applicable to humans, that the standard formulation and dosage of nitazoxanide is not effective in providing antiviral therapy for Covid-19. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Fondation de France "call FLASH COVID-19", project TAMAC, by "Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale" through the REACTing (REsearch and ACTion targeting emerging infectious diseases), by REACTING/ANRS MIE under the agreement No. 21180 ('Activité des molécules antivirales dans le modèle hamster'), by European Virus Archive Global (EVA 213 GLOBAL) funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 871029 and DNDi under support by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 222489/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator".

Need for a Standardized Translational Drug Development Platform: Lessons Learned from the Repurposing of Drugs for COVID-19.

In the absence of drugs to treat or prevent COVID-19, drug repurposing can be a valuable strategy. Despite a substantial number of clinical trials, drug repurposing did not deliver on its promise. While success was observed with some repurposed drugs (e.g., remdesivir, dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib), others failed to show clinical efficacy. One reason is the lack of clear translational processes based on adequate preclinical profiling before clinical evaluation. Combined with limitations of existing in vitro and in vivo models, there is a need for a systematic approach to urgent antiviral drug development in the context of a global pandemic. We implemented a methodology to test repurposed and experimental drugs to generate robust preclinical evidence for further clinical development. This translational drug development platform comprises in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo models of SARS-CoV-2, along with pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation approaches to evaluate exposure levels in plasma and target organs. Here, we provide examples of identified repurposed antiviral drugs tested within our multidisciplinary collaboration to highlight lessons learned in urgent antiviral drug development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data confirm the importance of assessing in vitro and in vivo potency in multiple assays to boost the translatability of pre-clinical data. The value of pharmacokinetic modeling and simulations for compound prioritization is also discussed. We advocate the need for a standardized translational drug development platform for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 to generate preclinical evidence in support of clinical trials. We propose clear prerequisites for progression of drug candidates for repurposing into clinical trials. Further research is needed to gain a deeper understanding of the scope and limitations of the presented translational drug development platform.

Pharmacometric and Electrocardiographic Evaluation of Chloroquine and Azithromycin in Healthy Volunteers.

Chloroquine and azithromycin were developed in combination for the preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy, and more recently were proposed as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment options. Billions of doses of chloroquine have been administered worldwide over the past 70 years but concerns regarding cardiotoxicity, notably the risk of torsades de pointes (TdP), remain. This investigation aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetics and electrocardiographic effects of chloroquine and azithromycin observed in a large previously conducted healthy volunteer study. Healthy adult volunteers (n = 119) were randomized into 5 arms: placebo, chloroquine alone (600 mg base), or chloroquine with either 500 mg, 1,000 mg, or 1,500 mg of azithromycin all given daily for 3 days. Chloroquine and azithromycin levels, measured using liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, and electrocardiograph intervals were recorded at frequent intervals. Time-matched changes in the PR, QRS, and heart rate-corrected JT, and QT intervals were calculated and the relationship with plasma concentrations was evaluated using linear and nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Chloroquine and azithromycin pharmacokinetics were described satisfactorily by two- and three-compartment distribution models, respectively. No drug-drug interaction between chloroquine and azithromycin was observed. Chloroquine resulted in concentration-dependent prolongation of the PR, QRS, JTc and QTc intervals with a minimal additional effect of azithromycin. QRS widening contributed ~ 28% of the observed QT prolongation. Chloroquine causes significant concentration-dependent delays in both ventricular depolarization and repolarization. Co-administration of azithromycin did not significantly increase these effects. The arrhythmogenic risk of TdP associated with chloroquine may have been substantially overestimated in studies which did not separate electrocardiograph QRS and JT prolongation.

The oral protease inhibitor (PF-07321332) protects Syrian hamsters against infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

There is an urgent need for potent and selective antivirals against SARS-CoV-2. Pfizer developed PF-07321332 (PF-332), a potent inhibitor of the viral main protease (Mpro, 3CLpro) that can be dosed orally and that is in clinical development. We here report that PF-332 exerts equipotent in vitro activity against the four SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns (VoC) and that it can completely arrest replication of the alpha variant in primary human airway epithelial cells grown at the air-liquid interface. Treatment of Syrian Golden hamsters with PF-332 (250 mg/kg, twice daily) completely protected the animals against intranasal infection with the beta (B.1.351) and delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants. Moreover, treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.617.2) infected animals with PF-332 completely prevented transmission to untreated co-housed sentinels.

Identification of the metabolites of ivermectin in humans.

Mass drug administration of ivermectin has been proposed as a possible malaria elimination tool. Ivermectin exhibits a mosquito-lethal effect well beyond its biological half-life, suggesting the presence of active slowly eliminated metabolites. Human liver microsomes, primary human hepatocytes, and whole blood from healthy volunteers given oral ivermectin were used to identify ivermectin metabolites by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry. The molecular structures of metabolites were determined by mass spectrometry and verified by nuclear magnetic resonance. Pure cytochrome P450 enzyme isoforms were used to elucidate the metabolic pathways. Thirteen different metabolites (M1-M13) were identified after incubation of ivermectin with human liver microsomes. Three (M1, M3, and M6) were the major metabolites found in microsomes, hepatocytes, and blood from volunteers after oral ivermectin administration. The chemical structure, defined by LC-MS/MS and NMR, indicated that M1 is 3″-O-demethyl ivermectin, M3 is 4-hydroxymethyl ivermectin, and M6 is 3″-O-demethyl, 4-hydroxymethyl ivermectin. Metabolic pathway evaluations with characterized cytochrome P450 enzymes showed that M1, M3, and M6 were produced primarily by CYP3A4, and that M1 was also produced to a small extent by CYP3A5. Demethylated (M1) and hydroxylated (M3) ivermectin were the main human in vivo metabolites. Further studies are needed to characterize the pharmacokinetic properties and mosquito-lethal activity of these metabolites.

High Cure Rates for Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 6 in Advanced Liver Fibrosis With 12 Weeks Sofosbuvir and Daclatasvir: The Vietnam SEARCH Study.

BACKGROUND: Genotype 6 is the most genetically diverse lineage of hepatitis C virus, and it predominates in Vietnam. It can be treated with sofosbuvir with daclatasvir (SOF/DCV), the least expensive treatment combination globally. In regional guidelines, longer treatment durations of SOF/DCV (24 weeks) are recommended for cirrhotic individuals, compared with other pangenotypic regimens (12 weeks), based on sparse data. Early on-treatment virological response may offer means of reducing length and cost of therapy in patients with liver fibrosis. METHODS: In this prospective trial in Vietnam, genotype 6-infected adults with advanced liver fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis were treated with SOF/DCV. Day 14 viral load was used to guide duration of therapy: participants with viral load <500 IU/mL at day 14 were treated with 12 weeks of SOF/DCV and those ≥500 IU/mL received 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was sustained virological response (SVR). RESULTS: Of 41 individuals with advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis who commenced treatment, 51% had genotype 6a and 34% had 6e. The remainder had 6h, 6k, 6l, or 6o. One hundred percent had viral load <500 IU/mL by day 14, meaning that all received 12 weeks of SOF/DCV. One hundred percent achieved SVR12 despite a high frequency of putative NS5A inhibitor resistance-associated substitutions at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing 12 weeks of SOF/DCV results in excellent cure rates in this population. These data support the removal of costly genotyping in countries where genotype 3 prevalence is <5%, in keeping with World Health Organization guidelines. NS5A resistance-associated mutations in isolation do not affect efficacy of SOF/DCV therapy. Wider evaluation of response-guided therapy is warranted.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).

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.

COVID-19 prevention and treatment: A critical analysis of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine clinical pharmacology.

Nicholas White and coauthors discuss chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine pharmacology in the context of possible treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Concentration-dependent mortality of chloroquine in overdose.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are used extensively in malaria and rheumatological conditions, and now in COVID-19 prevention and treatment. Although generally safe they are potentially lethal in overdose. In-vitro data suggest that high concentrations and thus high doses are needed for COVID-19 infections, but as yet there is no convincing evidence of clinical efficacy. Bayesian regression models were fitted to survival outcomes and electrocardiograph QRS durations from 302 prospectively studied French patients who had taken intentional chloroquine overdoses, of whom 33 died (11%), and 16 healthy volunteers who took 620 mg base chloroquine single doses. Whole blood concentrations of 13.5 µmol/L (95% credible interval 10.1-17.7) were associated with 1% mortality. Prolongation of ventricular depolarization is concentration-dependent with a QRS duration >150 msec independently highly predictive of mortality in chloroquine self-poisoning. Pharmacokinetic modeling predicts that most high dose regimens trialled in COVID-19 are unlikely to cause serious cardiovascular toxicity.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are closely-related drugs used for the treatment of malaria and rheumatological conditions, such as lupus. Laboratory tests have indicated that these drugs could also be used against the virus that causes COVID-19. Given the urgent need, these drugs have been fast-tracked into large-scale clinical trials, bypassing the usual stages that would provide estimates for suitable dosage. The dosage is a critical factor in a clinical trial: too low and the drug will not have an effect, too high and the side effects may counteract any potential benefits. Laboratory tests suggest that higher doses of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are needed for treating COVID-19 compared to malaria or lupus. However, there are concerns about the high doses used in some trials, as the drugs can have lethal side effects. Indeed, chloroquine has been used extensively in suicide attempts, particularly in France. To address these concerns, Watson et al. set out to determine the highest dosage of chloroquine (and thus of hydroxychloroquine, approximately) that does not cause unacceptable side effects. First, data was analysed regarding the concentration of chloroquine in the blood of 302 patients who had intentionally overdosed on the drug, since this concentration is tightly correlated with their risk of death. Watson et al. used a statistical model to calculate the maximal chloroquine concentration in a person's blood associated with a one per cent risk of death. This is taken to be the threshold above which any potential benefit of chloroquine treatment would be outweighed by the possibility of lethal toxicity. Watson et al. also estimated the relationship between chloroquine concentrations and changes in electrocardiogram patterns, which record the electrical activity of the heart. This makes it possible to determine whether a high dose of chloroquine has led to dangerous levels in the blood. Using a mathematical model of how chloroquine is metabolised, Watson et al. predicted that most of the trials that tested chloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 did not reach the calculated threshold concentration. An exception was the CloroCovid-19 trial in Brazil, which was stopped early because people in the higher dosage group suffered more heart problems and died in greater numbers than those in the lower dosage group. Two large randomised trials, RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY, have shown no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19, changing clinical practice worldwide. Both of these trials used high doses resulting in higher hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine concentrations than normally observed in the treatment of malaria or rheumatological conditions. The results from Watson et al demonstrate that the lack of benefit seen in these two large clinical trials is not due to the drug dosage being too high.