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.

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.).

Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000-2012.

IMPORTANCE: Some new drug applications fail because of inadequate drug performance and others are not approved because the information submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is unsatisfactory to make that determination. Resubmission of failed applications is costly, delaying marketing approval and the availability of new drugs to patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify the reasons that FDA marketing approval for new drugs was delayed or denied. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective review of FDA documents and extraction of data were performed. We examined all drug applications first submitted to the FDA between 2000 and 2012 for new molecular entities (NMEs), which are active ingredients never before marketed in the United States in any form. Using FDA correspondence and reviews, we investigated the reasons NMEs failed to obtain FDA approval. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reasons for delayed FDA approval or nonapproval of NME applications. RESULTS: Of the 302 identified NME applications, 151 (50%) were approved when first submitted and 222 (73.5%) were ultimately approved. Seventy-one applications required 1 or more resubmissions before approval, with a median delay to approval of 435 days following the first unsuccessful submission. Of the unsuccessful first-time applications, 24 (15.9%) included uncertainties related to dose selection, 20 (13.2%) choice of study end points that failed to adequately reflect a clinically meaningful effect, 20 (13.2%) inconsistent results when different end points were tested, 17 (11.3%) inconsistent results when different trials or study sites were compared, and 20 (13.2%) poor efficacy when compared with the standard of care. The frequency of safety deficiencies was similar among never-approved drugs compared with those with delayed approval (43 of 80 never approved [53.8%] vs 37 of 71 eventually approved [52.1%]; difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -14.86% to 18.05%]; P = .87). However, efficacy deficiencies were significantly more frequent among the never-approved drugs than among those with delayed approvals (61 of 80 never approved [76.3%] vs 28 of 71 eventually approved [39.4%]; difference, 36.9% [95% CI, 20.25% to 50.86%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Several potentially preventable deficiencies, including failure to select optimal drug doses and suitable study end points, accounted for significant delays in the approval of new drugs. Understanding the reasons for previous failures is helpful to improve the efficiency of clinical development for new drugs.