Clinical antiviral efficacy of remdesivir and casirivimab/imdevimab against the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants

BackgroundUncertainty over the therapeutic benefit provided by parenteral remdesivir in COVID-19 has resulted in varying treatment guidelines. Early in the pandemic the monoclonal antibody cocktail, casirivimab/imdevimab, proved highly effective in clinical trials but because of weak or absent in vitro activity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 subvariant, it is no longer recommended. MethodsIn a multicenter open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of eight treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200mg followed by 100mg daily for five days), casirivimab/imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the viral clearance rate in the modified intention-to-treat population derived from daily log10 viral densities (days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). ResultsAcceleration in mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance, compared with the contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=64), was 42% (95%CI 18 to 73%) for remdesivir (n=67). Acceleration with casirivimab/imdevimab was 58% (95%CI: 10 to 120) in Delta (n=13), and 20% (95%CI: 3 to 43) in Omicron variant (n=61) infections compared with contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=84). In a post hoc subgroup analysis viral clearance was accelerated by 8% in BA.1 (95%CI: -21 to 59) and 23% (95%CI: 3 to 49) in BA.2 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants. ConclusionsParenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Despite substantially reduced in vitro activities, casirivimab/imdevimab retains in vivo antiviral activity against COVID-19 infections caused by currently prevalent Omicron subvariants. Brief summaryIn early symptomatic COVID-19 remdesivir accelerated viral clearance by 42% while the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab accelerated clearance by approximately 60% in SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infections, and by approximately 25% in infections with Omicron subvariants BA.2 and BA.5.

Pharmacometric assessment of the in-vivo antiviral activity of ivermectin in early symptomatic COVID-19

BackgroundThere is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has significant antiviral activity in vivo is uncertain. MethodsIn a multicentre open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of six treatment arms including high dose ivermectin (600{micro}g/kg daily for seven days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. Viral clearance rates were derived from daily duplicate oropharyngeal quantitative PCR measurements. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). ResultsRandomization to the ivermectin arm was stopped after enrolling 205 patients into all arms, as the prespecified futility threshold was reached. Compared with the no study drug arm, the mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance following ivermectin was 9.1% slower [95%CI -27.2% to +11.8%; n=45 versus n=41], whereas in a preliminary analysis of the casirivimab/imdevimab arm it was 52.3% faster [95%CI +7.0% to +115.1%; n=10 (Delta variant) versus n=41]. ConclusionsHigh dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Measured in this way viral clearance rate is a valuable pharmacodynamic measure in assessing antiviral COVID-19 therapeutics in vivo. Funding"Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV)" is funded by the Wellcome Therapeutics Accelerator (223195/Z/21/Z). ImpactO_LIRate of viral clearance determined from daily duplicate oropharyngeal swabs over one week is an efficient measure of antiviral efficacy in early COVID-19 infection. C_LIO_LIHigh dose ivermectin did not demonstrate measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19 infection. C_LI

Definitions matter: heterogeneity of COVID-19 disease severity criteria and incomplete reporting compromise meta-analysis

Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease stage and severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation living guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate; 3 mild-severe; 18 mild-critical; 5 moderate-severe; 8 moderate-critical; 10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations; notably extrapolation of "lack of therapeutic benefit" shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19.

Optimal design for phase 2 studies of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drugs

A consensus methodology for pharmacometric assessment of candidate SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drugs would be useful for comparing trial results and improving trial design. The time to viral clearance, assessed by serial qPCR of nasopharyngeal swab samples, has been the most widely reported measure of virological response in clinical trials, but it has not been compared formally with other metrics, notably model-based estimates of the rate of viral clearance. We analysed prospectively gathered viral clearance profiles from 280 infection episodes in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. We fitted different phenomenological pharmacodynamic models (single exponential decay, bi-exponential, penalised splines) and found that the clearance rate, estimated from a mixed effects single exponential decay model, is a robust pharmacodynamic summary of viral clearance. The rate of viral clearance, estimated from viral densities during the first week following peak viral load, provides increased statistical power (reduced type 2 error) compared with time to clearance. We recommend that pharmacometric antiviral assessments should be conducted in early illness with serial qPCR samples taken over one week.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.

BackgroundHydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the basis of in vitro activity, uncontrolled data, and small randomized studies. MethodsThe Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label, platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We report the preliminary results for the comparison of hydroxychloroquine vs. usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results1561 patients randomly allocated to receive hydroxychloroquine were compared with 3155 patients concurrently allocated to usual care. Overall, 418 (26.8%) patients allocated hydroxychloroquine and 788 (25.0%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.23; P=0.18). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to hydroxychloroquine were less likely to be discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (60.3% vs. 62.8%; rate ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99) and those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline were more likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (29.8% vs. 26.5%; risk ratio 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25). There was no excess of new major cardiac arrhythmia. ConclusionsIn patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. FundingMedical Research Council and NIHR (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056). Trial registrationsThe trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936).

Concentration-dependent mortality of chloroquine in overdose

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are used extensively in malaria and rheumatological conditions, and now in COVID-19 prevention and treatment. Although generally safe they are potentially lethal in overdose. In-vitro data suggest that high concentrations and thus high doses are needed for COVID-19 infections, but as yet there is no convincing evidence they are clinically effective. Bayesian regression models were fitted to survival outcomes and electrocardiograph QRS durations from 302 prospectively studied French patients who had taken intentional chloroquine overdoses, of whom 33 died (11%), and 16 healthy volunteers who took 620 mg base chloroquine single doses. Whole blood concentrations of 13.5 mol/L (95% credible interval 10.1-17.7) were associated with 1% mortality. Prolongation of ventricular depolarisation is concentration-dependent with a QRS duration >150 msec independently highly predictive of mortality. Pharmacokinetic modelling combined with these lethality data predicts that the majority of chloroquine regimens trialled in COVID-19 should not cause serious cardiovascular toxicity.