Favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (PIONEER trial): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial of early intervention versus standard care.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733. FINDINGS: Between May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87). INTERPRETATION: Favipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19. FUNDING: LifeArc and CW+.

Prognostic value of interferon-γ release assays and tuberculin skin test in predicting the development of active tuberculosis (UK PREDICT TB): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tackling tuberculosis requires testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis in high-risk groups. The aim of this study was to estimate the predictive values of the tuberculin skin test (TST) and two interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) for the development of active tuberculosis in high-risk groups-ie, people in recent contact with active tuberculosis cases and from high-burden countries. METHOD: In this prospective cohort study, we recruited participants from 54 centres (eg, clinics, community settings) in London, Birmingham, and Leicester in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older and at high risk for latent tuberculosis infection (ie, recent contact with someone with active tuberculosis [contacts] or a migrant who had arrived in the UK in the past 5 years from-or who frequently travelled to-a country with a high burden of tuberculosis [migrants]). Exclusion criteria included prevalent cases of tuberculosis, and participants who were treated for latent tuberculosis after a positive test result in this study. Each participant received three tests (QuantiFERON-TB Gold-In Tube, T-SPOT.TB, and a Mantoux TST). A positive TST result was reported using three thresholds: 5 mm (TST-5), 10 mm (TST-10), and greater than 5 mm in BCG-naive or 15 mm in BCG-vaccinated (TST-15) participants. Participants were followed up from recruitment to development of tuberculosis or censoring. Incident tuberculosis cases were identified by national tuberculosis databases, telephone interview, and review of medical notes. Our primary objective was to estimate the prognostic value of IGRAs compared with TST, assessed by the ratio of incidence rate ratios and predictive values for tuberculosis development. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01162265, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2010, and June 1, 2015, 10 045 people were recruited, of whom 9610 were eligible for inclusion. Of this cohort, 4861 (50·6%) were contacts and 4749 (49·4%) were migrants. Participants were followed up for a median of 2·9 years (range 21 days to 5·9 years). 97 (1·0%) of 9610 participants developed active tuberculosis (77 [1·2%] of 6380 with results for all three tests). In all tests, annual incidence of tuberculosis was very low in those who tested negatively (ranging from 1·2 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 0·6-2·0 for TST-5 to 1·9 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 1·3-2·7, for QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube). Annual incidence in participants who tested positively were highest for T-SPOT.TB (13·2 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 9·9-17·4), TST-15 (11·1 per 1000 person-years, 8·3-14·6), and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (10·1 per 1000 person-years, 7·4-13·4). Positive results for these tests were significantly better predictors of progression than TST-10 and TST-5 (eg, ratio of test positivity rates in those progressing to tuberculosis compared with those not progressing T-SPOT.TB vs TST-5: 1·99, 95% CI 1·68-2·34; p<0·0001). However, TST-5 identified a higher proportion of participants who progressed to active tuberculosis (64 [83%] of 77 tested) than all other tests and TST thresholds (≤75%). INTERPRETATION: IGRA-based or BCG-stratified TST strategies appear most suited to screening for potential disease progression among high-risk groups. Further work will be needed to assess country-specific cost-effectiveness of each screening test, and in the absence of highly specific diagnostic tests, cheap non-toxic treatments need to be developed that could be given to larger groups of people at potential risk. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme 08-68-01.