Rare predicted loss-of-function variants of type I IFN immunity genes are associated with critical COVID-19

BackgroundWe previously reported inborn errors of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I interferon (IFN) immunity in 1-5% of unvaccinated patients with life-threatening COVID-19, and auto-antibodies against type I IFN in another 15-20% of cases. MethodsWe report here a genome-wide rare variant burden association analysis in 3,269 unvaccinated patients with life-threatening COVID-19 (1,301 previously reported and 1,968 new patients), and 1,373 unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals without pneumonia. A quarter of the patients tested had antibodies against type I IFN (234 of 928) and were excluded from the analysis. ResultsNo gene reached genome-wide significance. Under a recessive model, the most significant gene with at-risk variants was TLR7, with an OR of 27.68 (95%CI:1.5-528.7, P=1.1x10-4), in analyses restricted to biochemically loss-of-function (bLOF) variants. We replicated the enrichment in rare predicted LOF (pLOF) variants at 13 influenza susceptibility loci involved in TLR3-dependent type I IFN immunity (OR=3.70 [95%CI:1.3-8.2], P=2.1x10-4). Adding the recently reported TYK2 COVID-19 locus strengthened this enrichment, particularly under a recessive model (OR=19.65 [95%CI:2.1-2635.4]; P=3.4x10-3). When these 14 loci and TLR7 were considered, all individuals hemizygous (n=20) or homozygous (n=5) for pLOF or bLOF variants were patients (OR=39.19 [95%CI:5.2-5037.0], P=4.7x10-7), who also showed an enrichment in heterozygous variants (OR=2.36 [95%CI:1.0-5.9], P=0.02). Finally, the patients with pLOF or bLOF variants at these 15 loci were significantly younger (mean age [SD]=43.3 [20.3] years) than the other patients (56.0 [17.3] years; P=1.68x10-5). ConclusionsRare variants of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I IFN immunity genes can underlie life-threatening COVID-19, particularly with recessive inheritance, in patients under 60 years old.

Remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results from the DisCoVeRy randomised, controlled, open-label trial

BackgroundThe antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. MethodsIn this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-{beta}-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. FindingsBetween March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). InterpretationRemdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. FundingEuropean Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.

An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 - Final results from the DisCoVeRy trial

ObjectivesWe evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-{beta}-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. MethodsWe conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. ResultsThe intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a, n=147; hydroxychloroquine, n=150; control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36); lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08); hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). 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. ConclusionIn adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Modeling remdesivir antiviral efficacy in COVID-19 hospitalized patients of the randomized, controlled, open-label DisCoVeRy trial

Despite several clinical studies, the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. We analyzed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads collected in the 29 days following randomization from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial, allocated to either standard of care (SoC, N=329) or SoC + remdesivir for 10 days (N=336). We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in reducing viral production. To identify factors associated with viral kinetics, additional analyses were conducted stratified either on time of treatment initiation ([≤] or > 7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or [≥] 3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by 2-fold on average (95%CI: 1.5-3.2). Using the estimated parameter of the model, simulations predict that remdesivir reduces time to viral clearance by 0.7 day compared to SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (Inter-Quartile Range, IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Exploratory analyses suggest that remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with a high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95%CI: 2.8-25), leading to a predicted median reduction in the time to viral clearance of 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). In summary, our model shows that remdesivir reduces viral production from infected cells by a factor 2, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared to SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high level of viral load at treatment initiation. One sentence summaryRemdesivir reduces the time to SARS-CoV-2 clearance by 1 day in hospitalized patients, and up to 3 days in those with high viral load at admission.

Antiviral drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 - the DisCoVeRy trial

BackgroundLopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-{beta}-1a and hydroxychloroquine efficacy for COVID-19 have been evaluated, but detailed evaluation is lacking. ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir for improving the clinical, virological outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients. DesignOpen-label, randomized, adaptive, controlled trial. SettingMulti-center trial with patients from France. Participants583 COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support InterventionStandard of care (SoC, control), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg lopinavir and 100 mg ritonavir every 12h for 14 days), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-{beta}-1a (44 g of subcutaneous IFN-{beta}-1a on days 1, 3, and 6), SoC plus hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice on day 1 then 400 mg once daily for 9 days) or SoC plus remdesivir (200 mg intravenously on day 1 then 100 mg once-daily for hospitalization duration or 10 days). MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens and safety analyses. ResultsAdjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for the WHO 7-point ordinal scale were not in favor of investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, aOR 0.83, 95%CI, 0.55 to 1.26, P=0.39; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a versus control, aOR 0.69, 95%CI, 0.45 to 1.04, P=0.08; hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.41, P=0.75. No significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract was evidenced. Lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatments were significantly associated with more SAE. LimitationsNot a placebo-controlled, no anti-inflammatory agents tested. ConclusionNo improvement of the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract specimens by studied drugs. This comforts the recent Solidarity findings. RegistrationNCT04315948. FundingPHRC 2020, Dim OneHealth, REACTing

ISARIC COVID-19 Clinical Data Report: 8 June 2020

ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium) partnerships and outbreak preparedness initiatives enabled the rapid launch of standardised clinical data collection on COVID-19 in Jan 2020. Extensive global participation has resulted in a large, standardised collection of comprehensive clinical data from hundreds of sites across dozens of countries. Data are analysed regularly and reported publicly to inform patient care and public health response. This report, our 17th report, is a part of a series published over the past 2 years. Data have been entered for 800,459 individuals from 1701 partner institutions and networks across 60 countries. The comprehensive analyses detailed in this report includes hospitalised individuals of all ages for whom data collection occurred between 30 January 2020 and up to and including 5 January 2022, AND who have laboratory-confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection or clinically diagnosed COVID-19. For the 699,014 cases who meet eligibility criteria for this report, selected findings include: O_LImedian age of 58 years, with an approximately equal (50/50) male:female sex distribution C_LIO_LI29% of the cohort are at least 70 years of age, whereas 4% are 0-19 years of age C_LIO_LIthe most common symptom combination in this hospitalised cohort is shortness of breath, cough, and history of fever, which has remained constant over time C_LIO_LIthe five most common symptoms at admission were shortness of breath, cough, history of fever, fatigue/malaise, and altered consciousness/confusion, which is unchanged from the previous reports C_LIO_LIage-associated differences in symptoms are evident, including the frequency of altered consciousness increasing with age, and fever, respiratory and constitutional symptoms being present mostly in those 40 years and above C_LIO_LI16% of patients with relevant data available were admitted at some point during their illness into an intensive care unit (ICU), which is slightly lower than previously reported (19%) C_LIO_LIantibiotic agents were used in 35% of patients for whom relevant data are available (669,630), a significant reduction from our previous reports (80%) which reflects a shifting proportion of data contributed by different institutions; in ICU/HDU admitted patients with data available (50,560), 91% received antibiotics C_LIO_LIuse of corticosteroids was reported in 24% of all patients for whom data were available (677,012); in ICU/HDU admitted patients with data available (50,646), 69% received corticosteroids C_LIO_LIoutcomes are known for 632,518 patients and the overall estimated case fatality ratio (CFR) is 23.9% (95%CI 23.8-24.1), rising to 37.1% (95%CI 36.8-37.4) for patients who were admitted to ICU/HDU, demonstrating worse outcomes in those with the most severe disease C_LI To access previous versions of ISARIC COVID-19 Clinical Data Report please use the link below: https://isaric.org/research/covid-19-clinical-research-resources/evidence-reports/

Review and methodological analysis of trials currently testing treatment and prevention options for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) globally.

BackgroundAs COVID-19 cases continue to rise globally within an unprecedented short period of time, solid evidence from large randomised controlled trials is still lacking. Currently, numerous trials testing potential treatment and preventative options are undertaken globally. ObjectivesWe summarised all currently registered clinical trials examining treatment and prevention options for COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the quality of the retrieved interventional studies. Data sourcesClinicaltrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched. Study eligibility criteriaRegistered clinical trials examining treatment and/or prevention options for COVID-19 were included. No language, country or study design restrictions were applied. We excluded withdrawn or cancelled studies and trials not reporting therapeutic or preventative strategies for COVID-19. Participants and interventionsNo restrictions in terms of participants age and medical background or type of intervention were enforced. MethodsThe registries were searched using the term "coronavirus" or "COVID-19" from their inception until 26th March 2020. Additional manual search of the registries was also performed. Eligible studies were summarised and tabulated. Interventional trials were methodologically analysed, excluding expanded access studies and trials testing Traditional Chinese Medicine. ResultsIn total, 309 trials evaluating therapeutic management options, 23 studies assessing preventive strategies and 3 studies examining both were retrieved. Interventional treatment studies were mostly randomised (n=150, 76%) and open-label (n=73, 37%) with a median number of planned inclusions of 90 (IQR 40-200). Major categories of interventions that are currently being investigated are discussed. ConclusionNumerous clinical trials have been registered since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarised data on these trials will assist physicians and researchers to promote patient care and guide future research efforts for COVID-19 pandemic containment. However, up to the end of March, 2020, significant information on reported trials was often lacking.

Timing of antiviral treatment initiation is critical to reduce SARS-Cov-2 viral load

We modeled the viral dynamics of 13 untreated patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 to infer viral growth parameters and predict the effects of antiviral treatments. In order to reduce peak viral load by more than 2 logs, drug efficacy needs to be greater than 90% if treatment is administered after symptom onset; an efficacy of 60% could be sufficient if treatment is initiated before symptom onset. Given their pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, current investigated drugs may be in a range of 6-87% efficacy. They may help control virus if administered very early, but may not have a major effect in severe patients.

A brief review of antiviral drugs evaluated in registered clinical trials for COVID-19

BackgroundAlthough a number of antiviral agents have been evaluated for coronaviruses there are no approved drugs available. To provide an overview of the landscape of therapeutic research for COVID-19, we conducted a review of registered clinical trials. MethodsA review of currently registered clinical trials was performed on registries, including the Chinese (chictr.org.cn) and US (clinicaltrials.gov) databases to identify relevant studies up to March, 7th 2020. The search was conducted using the search terms "2019-nCoV", "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "Hcov-19", "new coronavirus", "novel coronavirus". We included interventional clinical trials focusing on patients with COVID-19 and assessing antiviral drugs or agents. FindingsOut of the 353 studies identified, 115 clinical trials were selected for data extraction. Phase IV trials were the most commonly reported study type (n=27, 23%). However, 62 trials (54%) did not describe the phase of the study. Eighty percent (n=92) of the trials were randomized with parallel assignment and the median number of planned inclusions was 63 (IQR, 36-120). Open-label studies were the most frequent (46%) followed by double-blind (13%) and single blind studies (10%). The most frequently assessed therapies were: stem cells therapy (n=23 trials), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=15), chloroquine (n=11), umifenovir (n=9), hydroxychloroquine (n=7), plasma treatment (n=7), favipiravir (n=7), methylprednisolone (n=5), and remdesivir (n=5). Remdesivir was tested in 5 trials with a median of 400 (IQR, 394-453) planned inclusions per trial, while stem cells therapy was tested in 23 trials, but had a median of 40 (IQR, 23-60) planned inclusions per trial. Lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with the highest total number of planned inclusions (2606) followed by remdesivir (2155). Only 52% of the clinical trials reported the treatment dose (n=60) and only 34% (n=39) the duration. The primary outcome was clinical in 76 studies (66%), virological in 27 (23%); radiological in 9 (8%) or immunological in three studies (3%). InterpretationNumerous clinical trials have been registered since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, however, a number of information regarding drugs or trial design were lacking. FundingNone