Cardiac Adverse Events and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Post Hoc Safety Analysis of the Randomized DisCoVeRy Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the cardiac adverse events (AEs) in hospitalized patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving remdesivir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC alone (control), as an association was noted in some cohort studies and disproportionality analyses of safety databases. METHODS: This post-hoc safety analysis is based on data from the multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled DisCoVeRy trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (NCT04315948). Any first AE occurring between randomization and day 29 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population randomized to either remdesivir or control group was considered. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for event rates. RESULTS: Cardiac AEs were reported in 46 (11.2%) of 410 and 48 (11.3%) of 423 patients in the mITT population (n = 833) enrolled in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively. The difference between both groups was not significant (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, p = 0.98), even when evaluating serious and non-serious cardiac AEs separately. The majority of reports in both groups were of arrhythmic nature (remdesivir, 84.8%; control, 83.3%) and were associated with a favorable outcome. There was no significant difference between remdesivir and control groups in the occurrence of different cardiac AE subclasses, including arrhythmic events (HR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.7, p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir treatment was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac AEs, whether serious or not, and regardless of AE severity, compared to control, in patients hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19. This is consistent with the results of other randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Management of pharmacovigilance during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis by the safety department of an academic sponsor: Lessons learnt and challenges from the EU DisCoVeRy clinical trial.

The current COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional health situation, including for drug use. As there was no known effective drug for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, different drug candidates were proposed. In this article, we present the challenges for an academic Safety Department to manage the global safety of a European trial during the pandemic. The National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) conducted a European multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving three repurposed and one-in development drugs (lopinavir/ritonavir, IFN-ß1a, hydroxychloroquine, and remdesivir) in adults hospitalized with COVID-19. From 25 March 2020 to 29 May 2020, the Inserm Safety Department had to manage 585 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) initial notification and 396 follow-up reports. The Inserm Safety Department's staff was mobilized to manage these SAEs and to report Expedited safety reports to the competent authorities within the legal timeframes. More than 500 queries were sent to the investigators due to a lack of or incoherent information on SAE forms. At the same time, the investigators were overwhelmed by the management of patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. These particular conditions of missing data and lack of accurate description of adverse events made evaluation of the SAEs very difficult, particularly the assessment of the causal role of each investigational medicinal product. In parallel, working difficulties were accentuated by the national lockdown, frequent IT tool dysfunctions, delayed implementation of monitoring and the absence of automatic alerts for SAE form modification. Although COVID-19 is a confounding factor per se, the delay in and quality of SAE form completion and the real-time medical analysis by the Inserm Safety Department were major issues in the quick identification of potential safety signals. To conduct a high-quality clinical trial and ensure patient safety, all stakeholders must take their roles and responsibilities.

Ensuring quality control in a COVID-19 clinical trial during the pandemic: The experience of the Inserm C20-15 DisCoVeRy study.

SETTING: Health measures taken during the pandemic deeply modified the clinical research practices. At the same time, the demand for the results of the COVID-19 trials was urgent. Thus, the objective of this article is to share Inserm's experience in ensuring quality control in clinical trials in this challenging context. OBJECTIVES: DisCoVeRy is a phase III randomized study that aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of 4 therapeutic strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients. Between March, 22nd 2020 and January, 20th 2021, 1309 patients were included. In order to guarantee the best quality of data, the Sponsor had to adapt to the current sanitary measures and to their impact on clinical research activity, notably by adapting Monitoring Plan objectives, involving the research departments of the participating hospitals and a network of clinical research assistants (CRAs). RESULTS: Overall, 97 CRAs were involved and performed 909 monitoring visits. The monitoring of 100% of critical data for all patients included in the analysis was achieved, and despite of the pandemic context, a conform consent was recovered for more than 99% of patients. Results of the study were published in May and September 2021. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The main monitoring objective was met thanks to the mobilization of considerable personnel resources, within a very tight time frame and external hurdles. There is a need for further reflection to adapt the lessons learned from this experience to the context of routine practice and to improve the response of French academic research during a future epidemic.

An open-label randomized controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

A musical intervention for respiratory comfort during noninvasive ventilation in the ICU.

Discomfort associated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may participate in its failure. We aimed to determine the effect of a musical intervention on respiratory discomfort during NIV in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).An open-label, controlled trial was performed over three centres. Patients requiring NIV for ARF were randomised to either a musical intervention group (where they received a musical intervention and were subjected to visual deprivation during the first 30 min of each NIV session), a sensory deprivation group (where they wore insulating headphones and were subjected to visual deprivation during the first 30 min of each NIV session), or a control group (where they received NIV as routinely performed). The primary outcome was the change in respiratory discomfort before and after 30 min of the first NIV session.A total of 113 patients were randomised (36 in the musical intervention group, 38 in the sensory deprivation group and 39 in the control group). Median (interquartile range (IQR)) change in respiratory discomfort was 0 (-1; 1) between the musical intervention and control groups (p=0.7). Between groups comparison did not evidence any significant variation of respiratory parameters across time or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at day-90. The Peri-traumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) at intensive care unit (ICU) discharge was reduced in musical intervention group patients. However, a 30 min musical intervention did not reduce respiratory discomfort during NIV for ARF in comparison to conventional care or sensory deprivation.

Effect of a musical intervention on tolerance and efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in the ICU: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (MUSique pour l'Insuffisance Respiratoire Aigue - Mus-IRA).

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) tolerance is a key factor of NIV success. Hence, numerous sedative pharmacological or non-pharmacological strategies have been assessed to improve NIV tolerance. Music therapy in various health care settings has shown beneficial effects. In invasively ventilated critical care patients, encouraging results of music therapy on physiological parameters, anxiety, and agitation have been reported. We hypothesize that a musical intervention improves NIV tolerance in comparison to conventional care. We therefore question the potential benefit of a receptive music session administered to patients by trained caregivers ("musical intervention") to enhance acceptance and tolerance of NIV. METHODS/DESIGN: We conduct a prospective, three-center, open-label, three-arm randomized trial involving patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who require NIV, as assessed by the treating physician. Participants are allocated to a "musical intervention" arm ("musical intervention" applied during all NIV sessions), to a "sensory deprivation" arm (sight and hearing isolation during all NIV sessions), or to the control group. The primary endpoint is the change in respiratory comfort (measured with a digital visual scale) before the initiation and after 30 minutes of the first NIV session. The evaluation of the primary endpoint is performed blindly from the treatment group. Secondary endpoints include changes in respiratory and cardiovascular parameters during NIV sessions, the percentage of patients requiring endotracheal intubation, day-90 anxiety/depression and health-related quality of life, post-trauma stress induced by NIV, and the overall assessment of NIV. The follow-up for each participant is 90 days. We expect to randomize a total of 99 participants. DISCUSSION: As music intervention is a simple and easy-to-implement non-pharmacological technique, efficacious in reducing anxiety in critically ill patients, it appeared logical to assess its efficacy in NIV, one of the most stressful techniques used in the ICU. Patient centeredness was crucial in choosing the outcomes assessed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02265458 . Registered on 25 August 2014.