Early Treatment with Pegylated Interferon Lambda for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda in preventing clinical events among outpatients with acute symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, adaptive platform trial involving predominantly vaccinated adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Brazil and Canada. Outpatients who presented with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after the onset of symptoms received either pegylated interferon lambda (single subcutaneous injection, 180 µg) or placebo (single injection or oral). The primary composite outcome was hospitalization (or transfer to a tertiary hospital) or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients were assigned to receive pegylated interferon lambda (2 were subsequently excluded owing to protocol deviations) and 1018 were assigned to receive placebo. Overall, 83% of the patients had been vaccinated, and during the trial, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants had emerged. A total of 25 of 931 patients (2.7%) in the interferon group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 57 of 1018 (5.6%) in the placebo group, a difference of 51% (relative risk, 0.49; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.30 to 0.76; posterior probability of superiority to placebo, >99.9%). Results were generally consistent in analyses of secondary outcomes, including time to hospitalization for Covid-19 (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.33 to 0.95) and Covid-19-related hospitalization or death (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.35 to 0.97). The effects were consistent across dominant variants and independent of vaccination status. Among patients with a high viral load at baseline, those who received pegylated interferon lambda had lower viral loads by day 7 than those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among predominantly vaccinated outpatients with Covid-19, the incidence of hospitalization or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) was significantly lower among those who received a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda than among those who received placebo. (Funded by FastGrants and others; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 µg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Model-informed drug repurposing: Viral kinetic modelling to prioritize rational drug combinations for COVID-19.

AIM: We hypothesized that viral kinetic modelling could be helpful to prioritize rational drug combinations for COVID-19. The aim of this research was to use a viral cell cycle model of SARS-CoV-2 to explore the potential impact drugs, or combinations of drugs, that act at different stages in the viral life cycle might have on various metrics of infection outcome relevant in the early stages of COVID-19 disease. METHODS: Using a target-cell limited model structure that has been used to characterize viral load dynamics from COVID-19 patients, we performed simulations to inform on the combinations of therapeutics targeting specific rate constants. The endpoints and metrics included viral load area under the curve (AUC), duration of viral shedding and epithelial cells infected. Based on the known kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 life cycle, we rank ordered potential targeted approaches involving repurposed, low-potency agents. RESULTS: Our simulations suggest that targeting multiple points central to viral replication within infected host cells or release from those cells is a viable strategy for reducing both viral load and host cell infection. In addition, we observed that the time-window opportunity for a therapeutic intervention to effect duration of viral shedding exceeds the effect on sparing epithelial cells from infection or impact on viral load AUC. Furthermore, the impact on reduction on duration of shedding may extend further in patients who exhibit a prolonged shedder phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Our work highlights the use of model-informed drug repurposing approaches to better rationalize effective treatments for COVID-19.

Using in silico viral kinetic models to guide therapeutic strategies during a pandemic: An example in SARS-CoV-2.

AIMS: We propose the use of in silico mathematical models to provide insights that optimize therapeutic interventions designed to effectively treat respiratory infection during a pandemic. A modelling and simulation framework is provided using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, considering applications for both treatment and prophylaxis. METHODS: A target cell-limited model was used to quantify the viral infection dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in a pooled population of 105 infected patients. Parameter estimates from the resulting model were used to simulate and compare the impact of various interventions against meaningful viral load endpoints. RESULTS: Robust parameter estimates were obtained for the basic reproduction number, viral release rate and infected-cell mortality from the infection model. These estimates were informed by the largest dataset currently available for SARS-CoV-2 viral time course. The utility of this model was demonstrated using simulations, which hypothetically introduced inhibitory or stimulatory drug mechanisms at various target sites within the viral life-cycle. We show that early intervention is crucial to achieving therapeutic benefit when monotherapy is administered. In contrast, combination regimens of two or three drugs may provide improved outcomes if treatment is initiated late. The latter is relevant to SARS-CoV-2, where the period between infection and symptom onset is relatively long. CONCLUSIONS: The use of in silico models can provide viral load predictions that can rationalize therapeutic strategies against an emerging viral pathogen.

Model-informed drug repurposing: A pharmacometric approach to novel pathogen preparedness, response and retrospection.

During a pandemic caused by a novel pathogen (NP), drug repurposing offers the potential of a rapid treatment response via a repurposed drug (RD) while more targeted treatments are developed. Five steps of model-informed drug repurposing (MIDR) are discussed: (i) utilize RD product label and in vitro NP data to determine initial proof of potential, (ii) optimize potential posology using clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) considering both efficacy and safety, (iii) link events in the viral life cycle to RD PK, (iv) link RD PK to clinical and virologic outcomes, and optimize clinical trial design, and (v) assess RD treatment effects from trials using model-based meta-analysis. Activities which fall under these five steps are categorized into three stages: what can be accomplished prior to an NP emergence (preparatory stage), during the NP pandemic (responsive stage) and once the crisis has subsided (retrospective stage). MIDR allows for extraction of a greater amount of information from emerging data and integration of disparate data into actionable insight.

Interdisciplinary pharmacometrics linking oseltamivir pharmacology, influenza epidemiology and health economics to inform antiviral use in pandemics.

AIMS: A modular interdisciplinary platform was developed to investigate the economic impact of oseltamivir treatment by dosage regimen under simulated influenza pandemic scenarios. METHODS: The pharmacology module consisted of a pharmacokinetic distribution of oseltamivir carboxylate daily area under the concentration-time curve at steady state (simulated for 75 mg and 150 mg twice daily regimens for 5 days) and a pharmacodynamic distribution of viral shedding duration obtained from phase II influenza inoculation data. The epidemiological module comprised a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to which drug effect on the basic reproductive number (R0 ), a measure of transmissibility, was linked by reduction of viral shedding duration. The number of infected patients per population of 100 000 susceptible individuals was simulated for a series of pandemic scenarios, varying oseltamivir dose, R0 (1.9 vs. 2.7), and drug uptake (25%, 50%, and 80%). The number of infected patients for each scenario was entered into the health economics module, a decision analytic model populated with branch probabilities, disease utility, costs of hospitalized patients developing complications, and case-fatality rates. Change in quality-adjusted life years was determined relative to base case. RESULTS: Oseltamivir 75 mg relative to no treatment reduced the median number of infected patients, increased change in quality-adjusted life years by deaths averted, and was cost-saving under all scenarios; 150 mg relative to 75 mg was not cost effective in low transmissibility scenarios but was cost saving in high transmissibility scenarios. CONCLUSION: This methodological study demonstrates proof of concept that the disciplines of pharmacology, disease epidemiology and health economics can be linked in a single quantitative framework.

Resistance suppression by high-intensity, short-duration aminoglycoside exposure against hypermutable and non-hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

OBJECTIVES: Hypermutable bacteria are causing a drastic problem via their enhanced ability to become resistant. Our objectives were to compare bacterial killing and resistance emergence between differently shaped tobramycin concentration-time profiles at a given fAUC/MIC, and determine the tobramycin exposure durations that prevent resistance. METHODS: Static concentration time-kill studies over 24 h used Pseudomonas aeruginosa WT strains (ATCC 27853 and PAO1) and hypermutable PAOΔmutS. fAUC/MIC values of 36, 72 and 168 were assessed at initial inocula of 106 and 104 cfu/mL (all strains) and 101.2 cfu/mL (PAOΔmutS only) in duplicate. Tobramycin was added at 0 h and removed at 1, 4, 10 or 24 h. Proportions of resistant bacteria and MICs were determined at 24 h. Mechanism-based modelling was conducted. RESULTS: For all strains, high tobramycin concentrations over 1 and 4 h resulted in more rapid and extensive initial killing compared with 10 and 24 h exposures at a given fAUC/MIC. No resistance emerged for 1 and 4 h durations of exposure, although extensive regrowth of susceptible bacteria occurred. The 24 h duration of exposure revealed less regrowth, but tobramycin-resistant populations had completely replaced susceptible bacteria by 24 h for the 106 cfu/mL inoculum. The hypermutable PAOΔmutS showed the highest numbers of resistant bacteria. Total and resistant bacterial counts were described well by novel mechanism-based modelling. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive resistance emerged for 10 and 24 h durations of exposure, but not for shorter durations. The tobramycin concentration-time profile shape is vital for resistance prevention and should aid the introduction of optimized combination regimens.

Investigating clinically adequate concentrations of oseltamivir carboxylate in end-stage renal disease patients undergoing hemodialysis using a population pharmacokinetic approach.

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) are at heightened risk for influenza, but the optimal oseltamivir dosage regimen for treating or preventing influenza in this high-risk population is still uncertain. Pharmacokinetic data for 24 adults with ESRD were pooled from a single-dose and a multiple-dose study to develop a population pharmacokinetic model using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. The final model comprised five compartments, two each to describe the systemic pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir phosphate and its metabolite, oseltamivir carboxylate (OC), and a delay compartment to describe oseltamivir metabolism. Estimated OC clearance in the model was markedly faster during HD sessions (7.43 liters/min) than at other times (0.19 liter/min). Model simulations showed that 30 mg oseltamivir given after every HD session is the most suitable regimen for influenza treatment, producing trough OC concentrations above the median value achieved with the 75-mg twice-daily regimen in patients with normal renal function and peak concentrations below the highest oseltamivir exposures known to be well tolerated (median exposures after twice-daily dosing of 450 mg). Administration of the first dose following diagnosis of influenza need not wait until after the next HD session: addition of a single 30-mg dose during the 12 h before the next HD session raises OC exposures quickly without posing any safety risk. Further simulation showed that 30 mg oseltamivir given after every other HD session is the most suitable regimen for influenza prophylaxis.

A drug-disease model describing the effect of oseltamivir neuraminidase inhibition on influenza virus progression.

A population drug-disease model was developed to describe the time course of influenza virus with and without oseltamivir treatment and to investigate opportunities for antiviral combination therapy. Data included viral titers from 208 subjects, across 4 studies, receiving placebo and oseltamivir at 20 to 200 mg twice daily for 5 days. A 3-compartment mathematical model, comprising target cells infected at rate ß, free virus produced at rate p and cleared at rate c, and infected cells cleared at rate δ, was implemented in NONMEM with an inhibitory Hill function on virus production (p), accounting for the oseltamivir effect. In congruence with clinical data, the model predicts that the standard 75-mg regimen initiated 2 days after infection decreased viral shedding duration by 1.5 days versus placebo; the 150-mg regimen decreased shedding by an additional average 0.25 day. The model also predicts that initiation of oseltamivir sooner postinfection, specifically at day 0.5 or 1, results in proportionally greater decreases in viral shedding duration of 5 and 3.5 days, respectively. Furthermore, the model suggests that combining oseltamivir (acting to subdue virus production rate) with an antiviral whose activity decreases viral infectivity (ß) results in a moderate additive effect dependent on therapy initiation time. In contrast, the combination of oseltamivir with an antiviral whose activity increases viral clearance (c) shows significant additive effects independent of therapy initiation time. The utility of the model for investigating the pharmacodynamic effects of novel antivirals alone or in combination on emergent influenza virus strains warrants further investigation.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of oseltamivir in patients with end-stage renal disease treated with automated peritoneal dialysis.

AIMS: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are at increased risk of developing complications associated with influenza infection. Oseltamivir is indicated for influenza treatment in ESRD patients, but the disposition is poorly understood in this patient population. This study aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of oseltamivir in automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and construct a pharmacokinetic model to assist with optimized dosing. METHODS: Ten adults with ESRD were prescribed an aggressive APD regimen consisting of three continuous cycler-assisted peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) sessions during the day and two continuous ambulatory (CAPD) sessions overnight. Oseltamivir was administered as a single 75 mg dose, immediately before APD treatment. RESULTS: Oseltamivir was rapidly eliminated via first-pass metabolism, with most of the dose (Fraction metabolized = 0.964) reaching the circulation as the active metabolite, oseltamivir carboxylate. This metabolite was cleared slowly and was quantifiable throughout the sampling interval. The disposition of oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate was described by a two- and a one-compartment model, respectively. Metabolite clearance by CCPD [0.32 l h(-1) (70 kg)(-1) ] was 1.9-fold faster than via CAPD [0.17 l h(-1) (70 kg)(-1) ], with renal elimination being dominant in patients with residual urine production. Model simulations showed that a single 75 mg dose attained target exposures in patients with negligible or low urine clearance. However, higher doses are recommended for further investigation in patients with high residual renal function. In all patients, oseltamivir was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In APD patients with anuria or low residual renal elimination, a single 75 mg dose of oseltamivir produced exposures at the upper end of the safety margin.

Population pharmacokinetic analysis of oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate following intravenous and oral administration to patients with and without renal impairment.

This work characterizes the pharmacokinetics (PK) of oseltamivir phosphate (OP) and its active metabolite, oseltamivir carboxylate (OC), and investigates oseltamivir i.v. dosing regimens for treatment of influenza in patients with normal renal function and with various degrees of renal impairment. Initially, data collected from 149 subjects with normal renal function and mild to severe renal impairment who were administered 40-200 mg oseltamivir i.v. were described by a four-compartment model. Two compartments described OP, one compartment described OC and one compartment described OP to OC metabolism. Then, data of 128 subjects administered 20-1,000 mg oseltamivir orally were added. The absorption model included three first-order processes with direct (via first-pass) input in the OC compartment and two (direct and delayed) inputs in the OP compartment. Simulations and PK bridging were used to recommend i.v. dosing regimens. The analysis demonstrated that renal function had a major effect on OC clearance (CL M ) and exposure. CL M for subjects with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment was 18, 50, and 84 % lower than for subjects with normal renal function. Simulations were used to select i.v. dosing regimens that provide OC Cmin coverage and exposures comparable to those achieved in subjects with normal renal function administered 75 mg b.i.d. orally. The oseltamivir dose depended on the degree of renal impairment and was independent of route of administration. Specifically, 75 mg b.i.d. is recommended for subjects with normal renal function or mild renal impairment, 30 mg b.i.d. for subjects with moderate renal impairment, and 30 mg q.d. for subjects with severe renal impairment. Recommended i.v. doses were the same as those recommended for oral administration in corresponding renal impairment groups.

Clinical population pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of linezolid.

Thrombocytopenia is a common side effect of linezolid, an oxazolidinone antibiotic often used to treat multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacterial infections. Various risk factors have been suggested, including linezolid dose and duration of therapy, baseline platelet counts, and renal dysfunction; still, the mechanisms behind this potentially treatment-limiting toxicity are largely unknown. A clinical study was conducted to investigate the relationship between linezolid pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics and inform strategies to prevent and manage linezolid-associated toxicity. Forty-one patients received 42 separate treatment courses of linezolid (600 mg every 12 h). A new mechanism-based, population pharmacokinetic/toxicodynamic model was developed to describe the time course of plasma linezolid concentrations and platelets. A linezolid concentration of 8.06 mg/liter (101% between-patient variability) inhibited the synthesis of platelet precursor cells by 50%. Simulations predicted treatment durations of 5 and 7 days to carry a substantially lower risk than 10- to 28-day therapy for platelet nadirs of <100 ×10(9)/liter. The risk for toxicity did not differ noticeably between 14 and 28 days of therapy and was significantly higher for patients with lower baseline platelet counts. Due to the increased risk of toxicity after longer durations of linezolid therapy and large between-patient variability, close monitoring of patients for development of toxicity is important. Dose individualization based on plasma linezolid concentration profiles and platelet counts should be considered to minimize linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia. Overall, oxazolidinone therapy over 5 to 7 days even at relatively high doses was predicted to be as safe as 10-day therapy of 600 mg linezolid every 12 h.

Population pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir: pediatrics through geriatrics.

Oseltamivir is a potent inhibitor of influenza virus neuraminidase enzymes essential for viral replication. This study aimed to investigate the impact of covariates on pharmacokinetic (PK) variability of oseltamivir and its active metabolite form, oseltamivir carboxylate (OC). Dosing history, plasma drug concentrations, and demographic information were pooled from 13 clinical trials providing data for 390 healthy and infected subjects ranging in age from 1 to 78 years and given oseltamivir doses of 20 to 1,000 mg. Candidate population PK models simultaneously characterizing the time course of oseltamivir and OC in plasma were evaluated by using the NONMEM software program, and subject covariates were assessed using stepwise forward selection (α = 0.01) and backward elimination (α = 0.001). A two-compartment model with first-order absorption of oseltamivir and first-order conversion of oseltamivir to OC and a one-compartment model with first-order elimination of OC were utilized. Body weight when evaluated using a power function was a significant predictor of the apparent oseltamivir clearance and both apparent OC clearance (CL(m)/F) and central volume of distribution (Vc(m)/F). Creatinine clearance was a significant predictor of CL(m)/F, while Vc(m)/F also decreased linearly with age. A visual predictive check indicated that the final model described oseltamivir and OC concentrations in plasma adequately across dose regimens and subject covariate ranges. Concordance of population mean and individual post hoc predictions of maximum concentration of drug at steady state (C(max)) and area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h at steady state (AUC(0-24)) was high (r(2) = 0.81 and 0.71, respectively). In conclusion, a comprehensive population PK model was constructed to bridge the adult to pediatric oseltamivir PK data, allowing for reasonable estimation of the PK of OC using subject demographic data alone.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous oseltamivir: single- and multiple-dose phase I studies with healthy volunteers.

There is an unmet need for an intravenous (i.v.) neuraminidase inhibitor, particularly for patients with severe influenza who cannot take oral medication. Two phase I pharmacokinetic and safety studies of i.v. oseltamivir were carried out in healthy volunteers. The first was an open-label, randomized, four-period, two-sequence, single-dose trial of 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg oseltamivir i.v. over 2 h and a 75-mg oral dose of oseltamivir. The second was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multiple-dose study in which participants were randomized to 100 mg or 200 mg oseltamivir or placebo (normal saline) i.v. over 2 h every 12 h for 5 days. Exposure to the active metabolite oseltamivir carboxylate (OC) after dosing achieved with 100 mg oseltamivir administered i.v. over 2 h was comparable to that achieved with 75 mg administered orally. Single i.v. doses of oseltamivir up to 400 mg were well tolerated with no new safety signals. Multiple-dose data confirmed good tolerability of 100 mg and 200 mg oseltamivir and showed efficacious OC exposures with 100 mg i.v. over 2 h twice daily for 5 days. These results support further exploration of i.v. oseltamivir as an influenza treatment option for patients unable to take oral medication.

Role of the intestinal peptide transporter PEPT1 in oseltamivir absorption: in vitro and in vivo studies.

It was reported that oseltamivir (Tamiflu) absorption was mediated by human peptide transporter (hPEPT) 1. Understanding the exact mechanism(s) of absorption is important in the context of drug-drug and diet-drug interactions. Hence, we investigated the mechanism governing the intestinal absorption of oseltamivir and its active metabolite (oseltamivir carboxylate) in wild-type [Chinese hamster ovary (CHO)-K1] and hPEPT1-transfected cells (CHO-PEPT1), in pharmacokinetic studies in juvenile and adult rats, and in healthy volunteers. In vitro cell culture studies showed that the intracellular accumulation of oseltamivir and its carboxylate into CHO-PEPT1 and CHO-K1 was always similar under a variety of experimental conditions, demonstrating that these compounds are not substrates of hPEPT1. Furthermore, neither oseltamivir nor its active metabolite was capable of inhibiting Gly-Sar uptake in CHO-PEPT1 cells. In vivo pharmacokinetic studies in juvenile and adult rats showed that the disposition of oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate, after oral administration of oseltamivir, was sensitive to the feed status but insensitive to the presence of milk and Gly-Sar. Moreover, oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate exhibited significantly higher exposure in rats under fasted conditions than under fed conditions. In humans, oral dosing after a high-fat meal resulted in a statistically significant but moderate lower exposure than after an overnight fasting. This change has no clinical implications. Taken together, the results do not implicate either rat Pept1 or hPEPT1 in the oral absorption of oseltamivir.

Pharmacokinetics of oral moxidectin in individuals with Onchocerca volvulus infection.

BACKGROUND: Onchocerciasis ("river blindness"), is a neglected tropical disease caused by the filarial nematode Onchocerca volvulus and transmitted to humans through repeated bites by infective blackflies of the genus Simulium. Moxidectin was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of onchocerciasis in people at least 12 years of age. The pharmacokinetics of orally administered moxidectin in 18- to 60-year-old men and women infected with Onchocerca volvulus were investigated in a single-center, ivermectin-controlled, double-blind, randomized, single-ascending-dose, ascending severity of infection study in Ghana. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants were randomized to either a single dose of 2, 4 or 8 mg moxidectin or ivermectin. Pharmacokinetic samples were collected prior to dosing and at intervals up to 12 months post-dose from 33 and 34 individuals treated with 2 and 4 mg moxidectin, respectively and up to 18 months post-dose from 31 individuals treated with 8 mg moxidectin. Moxidectin plasma concentrations were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Moxidectin plasma AUC0-∞ (2 mg: 26.7-31.7 days*ng/mL, 4 mg: 39.1-60.0 days*ng/mL, 8 mg: 99.5-129.0 days*ng/mL) and Cmax (2mg, 16.2 to17.3 ng/mL, 4 mg: 33.4 to 35.0 ng/mL, 8 mg: 55.7 to 74.4 ng/mL) were dose-proportional and independent of severity of infection. Maximum plasma concentrations were achieved 4 hours after drug administration. The mean terminal half-lives of moxidectin were 20.6, 17.7, and 23.3 days at the 2, 4 and 8 mg dose levels, respectively. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We found no relationship between severity of infection (mild, moderate or severe) and exposure parameters (AUC0-∞ and Cmax), T1/2 and Tmax for moxidectin. Tmax, volume of distribution (V/F) and oral clearance (CL/F) are similar to those in healthy volunteers from Europe. From a pharmacokinetic perspective, moxidectin is an attractive long-acting therapeutic option for the treatment of human onchocerciasis.

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (>80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18-102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52-0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53-0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21-0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36-1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01-0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital. FUNDING: FastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Effect of early treatment with metformin on risk of emergency care and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19: The TOGETHER randomized platform clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have postulated a therapeutic role of metformin in treating COVID-19. We conducted an adaptive platform clinical trial to determine whether metformin is an effective treatment for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. METHODS: The TOGETHER Trial is a placebo-controled, randomized, platform clinical trial conducted in Brazil. Eligible participants were symptomatic adults with a positive antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. We enroled eligible patients over the age of 50 years or with a known risk factor for disease severity. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or metformin (750 mg twice daily for 10 days or placebo, twice daily for 10 days). The primary outcome was hospitalization defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting for > 6 h or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 at 28 days post randomization. Secondary outcomes included viral clearance at day 7, time to hospitalization, mortality, and adverse drug reactions. We used a Bayesian framework to determine probability of success of the intervention compared to placebo. FINDINGS: The TOGETHER Trial was initiated June 2, 2020. We randomized patients to metformin starting January 15, 2021. On April 3, 2021, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping enrollment into the metformin arm due to futility. We recruited 418 participants, 215 were randomized to the metformin arm and 203 to the placebo arm. More than half of participants (56.0%) were over the age of 50 years and 57.2% were female. Median age was 52 years. The proportion of patients with the primary outcome at 28 days was not different between the metformin and placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.14[95% Credible Interval 0.73; 1.81]), probability of superiority 0.28. We found no significant differences between the metformin and placebo group on viral clearance through to day 7 (Odds ratio [OR], 0.99, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.88-1.11) or other secondary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In this randomized trial, metformin did not provide any clinical benefit to ambulatory patients with COVID-19 compared to placebo, with respect to reducing the need for retention in an emergency setting or hospitalization due to worsening COVID-19. There were also no differences between metformin and placebo observed for other secondary clinical outcomes.