Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Multiyear Factor VIII Expression after AAV Gene Transfer for Hemophilia A.

BACKGROUND: The goal of gene therapy for patients with hemophilia A is to safely impart long-term stable factor VIII expression that predictably ameliorates bleeding with the use of the lowest possible vector dose. METHODS: In this phase 1-2 trial, we infused an investigational adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector (SPK-8011) for hepatocyte expression of factor VIII in 18 men with hemophilia A. Four dose cohorts were enrolled; the lowest-dose cohort received a dose of 5 × 1011 vector genomes (vg) per kilogram of body weight, and the highest-dose cohort received 2 × 1012 vg per kilogram. Some participants received glucocorticoids within 52 weeks after vector administration either to prevent or to treat a presumed AAV capsid immune response. Trial objectives included evaluation of the safety and preliminary efficacy of SPK-8011 and of the expression and durability of factor VIII. RESULTS: The median safety observation period was 36.6 months (range, 5.5 to 50.3). A total of 33 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 8 participants; 17 events were vector-related, including 1 serious adverse event, and 16 were glucocorticoid-related. Two participants lost all factor VIII expression because of an anti-AAV capsid cellular immune response that was not sensitive to immune suppression. In the remaining 16 participants, factor VIII expression was maintained; 12 of these participants were followed for more than 2 years, and a one-stage factor VIII assay showed no apparent decrease in factor VIII activity over time (mean [±SD] factor VIII activity, 12.9±6.9% of the normal value at 26 to 52 weeks when the participants were not receiving glucocorticoids vs. 12.0±7.1% of the normal value at >52 weeks after vector administration; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.4 to 0.6 for the difference between matched pairs). The participants had a 91.5% reduction (95% CI, 88.8 to 94.1) in the annualized bleeding rate (median rate, 8.5 events per year [range, 0 to 43.0] before vector administration vs. 0.3 events per year [range, 0 to 6.5] after vector administration). CONCLUSIONS: Sustained factor VIII expression in 16 of 18 participants who received SPK-8011 permitted discontinuation of prophylaxis and a reduction in bleeding episodes. No major safety concerns were reported. (Funded by Spark Therapeutics and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03003533 and NCT03432520.).

Efficacy of Omadacycline Versus Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia by Disease Severity: Results From the OPTIC Study.

BACKGROUND: Severity/mortality risk scores and disease characteristics may assist in deciding whether patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) require outpatient treatment or hospitalization. The phase 3 OPTIC (Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community) study enrolled patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II-IV. Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to moxifloxacin in adults with CABP, at early clinical response (ECR) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE). We assessed efficacy of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in these patients based on disease severity. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) omadacycline (100 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses followed by 100 mg daily [q24h], with optional transition to omadacycline 300 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment) or moxifloxacin IV 400 mg q24h (with optional transition to 400 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment). Total treatment duration was 7-14 days. We compared rates of early clinical success (72-120 hours after first dose) and investigator-assessed clinical success at PTE (5-10 days after last dose) in subgroups based (1) on severity/mortality risk scores (PORT, CURB-65, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, modified ATS, SMART-COP) and (2) on presence of baseline radiographic characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, or bacteremia. RESULTS: Altogether, 774 patients (omadacycline, n = 386; moxifloxacin, n = 388) were randomized. Clinical success rates (ECR/PTE) were similar between treatment groups (across all subgroups). Efficacy across treatment groups was similar in patients with baseline radiographic characteristics or COPD/asthma, but moxifloxacin had higher clinical success rates in patients with bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of omadacycline was similar to that of moxifloxacin, regardless of disease severity/mortality risk and disease characteristics.

Omadacycline vs moxifloxacin in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a major clinical burden worldwide. In the phase III OPTIC study (NCT02531438) in CABP, omadacycline was found to be non-inferior to moxifloxacin for investigator-assessed clinical response (IACR) at post-treatment evaluation (PTE, 5-10 days after last dose). This article reports the efficacy findings, as specified in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to omadacycline 100 mg intravenously (every 12 h for two doses, then every 24 h) with optional transition to 300 mg orally after 3 days, or moxifloxacin 400 mg intravenously (every 24 h) with optional transition to 400 mg orally after 3 days. The total treatment duration was 7-14 days. The primary endpoint for EMA efficacy analysis was IACR at PTE in patients with Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV. RESULTS: In total, 660 patients were randomized as PORT risk class III and IV. Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin at PTE. The clinical success rates were 88.4% and 85.2%, respectively [intent-to-treat population; difference 3.3; 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -2.7 to 9.3], and 92.5% and 90.5%, respectively (clinically evaluable population; difference 2.0; 97.5% CI 3.2-7.4). Clinical success rates with omadacycline and moxifloxacin were similar against identified pathogens and across key subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin for IACR at PTE, with high clinical success across pathogen types and patient subgroups.

Early Clinical Response in Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: From Clinical Endpoint to Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Early clinical response (ECR) is a new endpoint to determine whether a drug should be approved for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the United States. The Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community (OPTIC) phase III study demonstrated noninferiority of omadacycline to moxifloxacin using this endpoint. This study describes the performance of the ECR endpoint and clinical stability relative to a posttreatment evaluation (PTE) of clinical success. METHODS: ECR was defined as symptom improvement 72-120 hours after the first dose of study drug (ECR window), no use of rescue antibiotics, and patient survival. Clinical success at PTE was an investigator assessment of success. Clinical stability was defined based on vital sign stabilization, described in the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America community-acquired pneumonia treatment guidelines. RESULTS: During the ECR window, ECR was achieved in 81.1% and 82.7% of omadacycline and moxifloxacin patients, respectively. Similar numbers of patients achieved clinical stability in each treatment group (omadacycline 74.6%, moxifloxacin 77.6%). The proportion of patients with improved symptoms who were considered clinically stable increased across the ECR window (69.2-77.6% for omadacycline; 68.0-79.7% for moxifloxacin). There was high concordance (>70%) and high positive predictive value (>90%) of ECR and clinical stability with overall clinical success at PTE. CONCLUSIONS: Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin, based on a new ECR endpoint. Clinical stability was similarly high when measured in the same time frame as ECR. Both ECR and clinical stability showed high concordance and high positive predictive value with clinical success at PTE. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02531438.

Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data.

Although most research professionals believe that protocol designs contain a growing number of unnecessary and redundant procedures generating unused data, incurring high cost, and jeopardizing study success, there are no published studies systematically examining this issue. Between November 2011 and May 2012, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted a study among a working group of 15 pharmaceutical companies in which a total of 25,103 individual protocol procedures were evaluated and classified using clinical study reports and analysis plans. The results show that the typical later-stage protocol had an average of 7 objectives and 13 end points of which 53.8% are supplementary. One (24.7%) of every 4 procedures performed per phase-III protocol and 17.7% of all phase-II procedures per protocol were classified as "Noncore" in that they supported supplemental secondary, tertiary, and exploratory end points. For phase-III protocols, 23.6% of all procedures supported regulatory compliance requirements and 15.9% supported those for phase-II protocols. The study also found that on average, $1.7 million (18.5% of the total) is spent in direct costs to administer Noncore procedures per phase-III protocol and $0.3 million (13.1% of the total) in direct costs are spent on Noncore procedures for each phase-II protocol. Based on the results of this study, the total direct cost to perform Noncore procedures for all active annual phase-II and phase-III protocols is conservatively estimated at $3.7 billion annually, not including the indirect costs associated with collecting and managing Noncore procedure data and the ethical costs of exposing study volunteers to unnecessary risks associated with conducting extraneous procedures.