Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Potential Impact of the Involvement of Clinical Pharmacists in Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs on the Incidence of Antimicrobial-Related Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Although specialized pharmacists have been suggested to be essential members of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs), not all hospitals in Korea operate ASPs with pharmacists involved. We aimed to evaluate the association of involvement of clinical pharmacists as team members of multidisciplinary ASPs with the incidence of antimicrobial-related adverse drug events (ADEs). Five tertiary teaching hospitals participated in this retrospective cohort study. At each participating hospital, we randomly selected 1000 participants among patients who had received systemic antimicrobial agents for more than one day during the first quarter of 2017. We investigated five categories of antimicrobial-related ADEs: allergic reactions, hematologic toxicity, nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, and antimicrobial-related diarrhea. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the potential impact of pharmacist involvement in ASPs on the incidence of ADEs. A total of 1195 antimicrobial-related ADEs occurred in 618 (12.4%) of the 4995 patients included in the analysis. The overall rate of ADE occurrence was 17.4 per 1000 patient days. Hospitals operating ASPs with pharmacists showed significantly lower AE incidence proportions than other hospitals (8.9% vs. 14.7%; p < 0.001). Multidisciplinary ASPs that included clinical pharmacists reduced the risk of antimicrobial-related ADEs by 38% (adjusted odds ratio 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.77). Our results suggest that the active involvement of clinical pharmacists in multidisciplinary ASPs may contribute to reduce the incidence of antimicrobial-related ADEs in hospitalized patients.

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Naturally acquired IgM antibody response to the C-terminal region of the merozoite surface protein 1 of Plasmodium vivax in Korea: use for serodiagnosis of vivax malaria.

The antibody levels against the C-terminal region of the merozoite surface protein 1 of Plasmodium vivax (PvMSP1c) were measured in 276 patients with P. vivax malaria (patient group), 320 malaria-naïve healthy individuals (control group 1), and 70 malaria-naïve individuals with various disorders (control group 2) using the immunoglobulin M (IgM) capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the direct sandwich ELISA. To evaluate the antibody response during relapse, 5 relapsed patients were tested using the IgM capture ELISA. The IgM antibodies were negative in 99.7% of control group 1 and in 100% of control group 2; they were positive in 90.6% of the patient group. The total antibody levels were positive in 88.4% of the patient group with the direct sandwich ELISA. The sera from the second malaria episode, i.e., relapsed patients, were 100% positive on the IgM capture ELISA. The results of this study suggest that the IgM capture ELISA may be a useful diagnostic method for P. vivax malaria for both primary infection and relapse.