Oral administration of obeldesivir protects nonhuman primates against Sudan ebolavirus.

Obeldesivir (ODV, GS-5245) is an orally administered prodrug of the parent nucleoside of remdesivir (RDV) and is presently in phase 3 trials for COVID-19 treatment. In this work, we show that ODV and its circulating parent nucleoside metabolite, GS-441524, have similar in vitro antiviral activity against filoviruses, including Marburg virus, Ebola virus, and Sudan virus (SUDV). We also report that once-daily oral ODV treatment of cynomolgus monkeys for 10 days beginning 24 hours after SUDV exposure confers 100% protection against lethal infection. Transcriptomics data show that ODV treatment delayed the onset of inflammation and correlated with antigen presentation and lymphocyte activation. Our results offer promise for the further development of ODV to control outbreaks of filovirus disease more rapidly.

An oral antiviral for Ebola disease.

For those exposed to filovirus, such as Sudan virus and Ebola virus, a new study offers hope.

Oral Simnotrelvir for Adult Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Simnotrelvir is an oral 3-chymotrypsin-like protease inhibitor that has been found to have in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and potential efficacy in a phase 1B trial. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients who had mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and onset of symptoms within the past 3 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive 750 mg of simnotrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the time to sustained resolution of symptoms, defined as the absence of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms for 2 consecutive days. Safety and changes in viral load were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1208 patients were enrolled at 35 sites in China; 603 were assigned to receive simnotrelvir and 605 to receive placebo. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population who received the first dose of trial drug or placebo within 72 hours after symptom onset, the time to sustained resolution of Covid-19 symptoms was significantly shorter in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (180.1 hours [95% confidence interval {CI}, 162.1 to 201.6] vs. 216.0 hours [95% CI, 203.4 to 228.1]; median difference, -35.8 hours [95% CI, -60.1 to -12.4]; P = 0.006 by Peto-Prentice test). On day 5, the decrease in viral load from baseline was greater in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (mean difference [±SE], -1.51±0.14 log10 copies per milliliter; 95% CI, -1.79 to -1.24). The incidence of adverse events during treatment was higher in the simnotrelvir group than in the placebo group (29.0% vs. 21.6%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of simnotrelvir plus ritonavir shortened the time to the resolution of symptoms among adult patients with Covid-19, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by Jiangsu Simcere Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05506176.).

Virological safety of the UK blood supply in the era of individual risk assessments and HIV PrEP.

A more individualised donor selection policy was implemented in the UK in 2021, which replaced the previous 3-month deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM). Other blood services have a variety of policies in place to ensure the virological safety of blood components, ranging from an indefinite ban on MSM, to a defined period of exclusion, or to an individualised risk assessment that is not based on gender or sexual orientation. Justification of these policies should be based on scientific evidence including assessment of lengths of virological window periods, infectious disease epidemiology within donor populations and donation screening assay sensitivities. Developments in molecular technology and assays which can detect both antibodies and antigens in the very early stages of infection have significantly reduced the risk in most developed countries. However, the increasing usage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent acquisition of HIV infection after possible high-risk sexual contact within the UK blood donor population has been recently noted. It has brought with it new diagnostic challenges within blood screening, notably possible non-detection of HIV RNA and serological markers following PrEP use despite potential infectivity. The use of other testing strategies such as detection of HIV DNA and screening for non-declared PrEP usage should be investigated further.

Long-Term Impact of Direct-Acting Antivirals on Liver Fibrosis and Survival in HCV-Infected Liver Transplant Recipients.

(1) Background: Little is known about the long-term impact of sustained virological response (SVR) on fibrosis progression and patient survival in liver transplantation (LT) recipients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). We investigated liver fibrosis evolution and patient survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients receiving DAAs after LT. (2) Methods: All consecutive HCV-infected patients treated with DAAs after LT between May 2014 and January 2019 were considered. The clinical and virological features were registered at the baseline and during the follow-up. The liver fibrosis was assessed by liver biopsy and/or transient elastography (TE) at the baseline and at least 1 year after the end of treatment (EoT). (3) Results: A total of 136 patients were included. The SVR12 was 78% after the first treatment and 96% after retreatment. After the SVR12, biochemical tests improved at the EoT and remained stable throughout the 3-year follow-up. Liver fibrosis improved after the SVR12 (p < 0.001); nearly half of the patients with advanced liver fibrosis experienced an improvement of an F ≤ 2. The factors associated with lower survival in SVR12 patients were the baseline platelet count (p = 0.04) and creatinine level (p = 0.04). (4) Conclusions: The long-term follow-up data demonstrated that SVR12 was associated with an improvement in hepatic function, liver fibrosis, and post-LT survival, regardless of the baseline liver fibrosis. The presence of portal hypertension before the DAAs has an impact on patient survival, even after SVR12.

Remdesivir plus dexamethasone is associated to improvement in the clinical outcome of COVID-19 hospitalized patients regardless of their vaccination status / Remdesivir más dexametasona se asocian a una reducción de los eventos clínicos en los pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19, independientemente de su estado de vacunación

Introduction Remdesivir seems to reduce the risk of hospitalization and improve clinical outcome in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives To compare the clinical outcome of COVID-19 hospitalized patients treated with remdesivir plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone alone, according to their vaccination status. Material and methods A retrospective observational study was carried out in 165 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from October 2021 to January 2022. Multivariate logistic regression, Kaplan–Meier and the log-rank tests were used to evaluate the event (need for ventilation or death). Results Patients treated with remdesivir plus dexamethasone (n=87) compared with dexamethasone alone (n=78) showed similar age (60±16, 47–70 vs. 62±37, 51–74 years) and number of comorbidities: 1 (0–2) versus 1.5 (1–3). Among 73 fully vaccinated patients, 42 (47.1%) were in remdesivir plus dexamethasone and 31 (41%) in dexamethasone alone. Patients treated with remdesivir plus dexamethasone needed intensive care less frequently (17.2% vs. 31%; p=0.002), high-flow oxygen (25.3% vs. 50.0%; p=0.002) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (16.1% vs. 47.4%; p<0.001). Furthermore, they had less complications during hospitalization (31.0% vs. 52.6%; p=0.008), need of antibiotics (32.2% vs. 59%; p=0.001) and radiologic worsening (21.8% vs. 44.9%; p=0.005). Treatment with remdesivir plus dexamethasone (aHR, 0.26; 95% CI: 0.14–0.48; p<0.001) and vaccination (aHR 0.39; 95% CI: 0.21–0.74) were independent factors associated with lower progression to mechanical ventilation or death. Conclusions Remdesivir in combination with dexamethasone and vaccination independently and synergistically protects hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen therapy from progression to severe disease or dead (AU)

Introducción Remdesivir parece reducir el riesgo de hospitalización y mejorar el resultado clínico en pacientes hospitalizados con COVID-19. Objetivos Comparar el desenlace clínico de pacientes hospitalizados con COVID-19 tratados con remdesivir más dexametasona vs. dexametasona sola, según su estado de vacunación. Material y métodos Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo en 165 pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 desde octubre de 2021 hasta enero de 2022. Se consideró como evento la necesidad de ventilación o muerte. esultados Los pacientes tratados con remdesivir más dexametasona (n=87) en comparación con dexametasona sola (n=78) mostraron una edad similar (60±16, 47-70 vs. 62±37, 51-74 años) y número de comorbilidades: 1 (0-2) vs. 1,5 (1-3). Entre 73 pacientes completamente vacunados, 42 (47,1%) estaban en remdesivir más dexametasona y 31 (41%) en dexametasona sola. Los pacientes tratados con remdesivir más dexametasona necesitaron cuidados intensivos con menos frecuencia (17,2 vs. 31%; p=0,002), oxígeno de alto flujo (25,3 vs. 50%; p=0,002) y ventilación mecánica no invasiva (16,1 vs. 47,4%, p<0,001). Además, tuvieron menos complicaciones durante la hospitalización (31 vs. 52,6%; p=0,008), necesidad de antibióticos (32,2 vs. 59%; p=0,001) y empeoramiento radiológico (21,8 vs. 44,9%; p=0,005). El tratamiento con remdesivir más dexametasona (aHR, 0,26; IC 95% 0,14-0,48; p<0,001) y la vacunación (aHR 0,39; IC 95% 0,21-0,74>) fueron factores independientes asociados con una menor progresión a ventilación mecánica o muerte. Conclusiones Remdesivir en combinación con dexametasona protegieron de forma independiente y sinérgica a los pacientes hospitalizados con COVID-19 que requieren oxigenoterapia de la progresión a la enfermedad grave o la muerte (AU)

Monoclonal Antibody and Oral Antiviral Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in US Nursing Homes.

This study examines the use of COVID-19 antiviral treatments in US nursing homes and the facility characteristics associated with use of oral antivirals and monoclonal antibodies.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of half-life extended SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) in healthy Japanese adults.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) in healthy Japanese adults. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, AZD7442 was administered intramuscularly (300 or 600 mg) or intravenously (300 or 1000 mg) to healthy Japanese adults. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. Anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibody activities were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants were randomized to receive AZD7442 (n = 30) or placebo (n = 10). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 12 (40%) and 3 (30%) participants, respectively; there were no deaths, serious AEs, or AEs leading to study withdrawal. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab had mean half-lives of 82.1-95.9 and 77.9-92.0 days, respectively, which were generally similar regardless of administration route. SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibody titers were >4-fold higher than baseline levels from Day 8 to Day 211 in participants receiving AZD7442. CONCLUSIONS: AZD7442 was well tolerated in healthy Japanese adults, with predictable pharmacokinetics and an extended half-life, consistent with previous studies. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04896541.

A Phase 3, Randomized Trial of Bulevirtide in Chronic Hepatitis D.

BACKGROUND: Coinfection with hepatitis D virus (HDV) accelerates the progression of liver disease associated with chronic hepatitis B. Bulevirtide inhibits the entry of HDV into hepatocytes. METHODS: In this ongoing phase 3 trial, patients with chronic hepatitis D, with or without compensated cirrhosis, were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive bulevirtide subcutaneously at 2 mg per day (2-mg group) or 10 mg per day (10-mg group) for 144 weeks or to receive no treatment for 48 weeks followed by bulevirtide subcutaneously at 10 mg per day for 96 weeks (control group). Patients will complete 96 weeks of additional follow-up after the end of treatment. The primary end point was a combined response at week 48 of an undetectable HDV RNA level, or a level that decreased by at least 2 log10 IU per milliliter from baseline, and normalization of the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level. The key secondary end point was an undetectable HDV RNA level at week 48, in a comparison between the 2-mg group and the 10-mg group. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were assigned to the 2-mg group, 50 to the 10-mg group, and 51 to the control group. A primary end-point response occurred in 45% of patients in the 2-mg group, 48% in the 10-mg group, and 2% in the control group (P<0.001 for the comparison of each dose group with the control group). The HDV RNA level at week 48 was undetectable in 12% of patients in the 2-mg group and in 20% in the 10-mg group (P = 0.41). The ALT level normalized in 12% of patients in the control group, 51% in the 2-mg group (difference from control, 39 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, 20 to 56]), and 56% in the 10-mg group (difference from control, 44 percentage points [95% CI, 26 to 60]). Loss of hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) or an HBsAg level that decreased by at least 1 log10 IU per milliliter did not occur in the bulevirtide groups by week 48. Headache, pruritus, fatigue, eosinophilia, injection-site reactions, upper abdominal pain, arthralgia, and asthenia were more common in the 2-mg and 10-mg groups combined than in the control group. No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred. Dose-dependent increases in bile acid levels were noted in the 2-mg and 10-mg groups. CONCLUSIONS: After 48 weeks of bulevirtide treatment, HDV RNA and ALT levels were reduced in patients with chronic hepatitis D. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; MYR 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03852719.).

Letermovir vs Valganciclovir for Prophylaxis of Cytomegalovirus in High-Risk Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Valganciclovir for 200 days is standard care for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk CMV-seronegative kidney transplant recipients who receive an organ from a CMV-seropositive donor, but its use is limited by myelosuppression. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of letermovir with valganciclovir for prevention of CMV disease in CMV-seronegative kidney transplant recipients who receive an organ from a CMV-seropositive donor. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, double-dummy, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in adult CMV-seronegative kidney transplant recipients who received an organ from a CMV-seropositive donor at 94 participating sites between May 2018 and April 2021 (final follow-up in April 2022). Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio (stratified by receipt of lymphocyte-depleting induction immunosuppression) to receive letermovir, 480 mg, orally daily (with acyclovir) or valganciclovir, 900 mg, orally daily (adjusted for kidney function) for up to 200 days after transplant, with matching placebos. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CMV disease, confirmed by an independent masked adjudication committee, through posttransplant week 52 (prespecified noninferiority margin, 10%). CMV disease through week 28 and time to onset of CMV disease through week 52 were secondary outcomes. Exploratory outcomes included quantifiable CMV DNAemia and resistance. The rate of leukopenia or neutropenia through week 28 was a prespecified safety outcome. Results: Among 601 participants randomized, 589 received at least 1 dose of the study drug (mean age, 49.6 years; 422 [71.6%] men). Letermovir (n = 289) was noninferior to valganciclovir (n = 297) for prevention of CMV disease through week 52 (10.4% vs 11.8% of participants with committee-confirmed CMV disease; stratum-adjusted difference -1.4% [95% CI, -6.5% to 3.8%]). No participants who received letermovir vs 5 participants (1.7%) who received valganciclovir developed CMV disease through week 28. Time to onset of CMV disease was comparable between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.56-1.47]). Quantifiable CMV DNAemia was detected in 2.1% of participants in the letermovir group vs 8.8% in the valganciclovir group by week 28. Of participants evaluated for suspected CMV disease or CMV DNAemia, none (0/52) who received letermovir and 12.1% (8/66) who received valganciclovir had resistance-associated substitutions. The rate of leukopenia or neutropenia through week 28 was lower with letermovir vs valganciclovir (26% vs 64%; difference, -37.9% [95% CI, -45.1% to -30.3%]; P < .001). Fewer participants in the letermovir group than the valganciclovir group discontinued prophylaxis due to adverse events (4.1% vs 13.5%) or drug-related adverse events (2.7% vs 8.8%). Conclusion and Relevance: Among adult CMV-seronegative kidney transplant recipients who received an organ from a CMV-seropositive donor, letermovir was noninferior to valganciclovir for prophylaxis of CMV disease over 52 weeks, with lower rates of leukopenia or neutropenia, supporting its use for this indication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03443869; EudraCT: 2017-001055-30.

Effectiveness of JYNNEOS Vaccine Against Diagnosed Mpox Infection - New York, 2022.

In 2022, an international Monkeypox virus outbreak, characterized by transmission primarily through sexual contact among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), resulted in 375 monkeypox (mpox) cases in the state of New York outside of New York City (NYC).*,† The JYNNEOS vaccine (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic), licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) against mpox as a 2-dose series, with doses administered 4 weeks apart,§ was deployed in a national vaccination campaign.¶ Before this outbreak, evidence to support vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mpox was based on human immunologic and animal challenge studies (1-3). New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) conducted a case-control study to estimate JYNNEOS VE against diagnosed mpox in New York residents outside of NYC, using data from systematic surveillance reporting. A case-patient was defined as a man aged ≥18 years who received a diagnosis of mpox during July 24-October 31, 2022. Contemporaneous control patients were men aged ≥18 years with diagnosed rectal gonorrhea or primary syphilis and a history of male-to-male sexual contact, without mpox. Case-patients and control patients were matched to records in state immunization systems. JYNNEOS VE was estimated as 1 - odds ratio (OR) x 100, and JYNNEOS vaccination status (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) at the time of diagnosis was compared, using conditional logistic regression models that adjusted for week of diagnosis, region, patient age, and patient race and ethnicity. Among 252 eligible mpox case-patients and 255 control patients, the adjusted VE of 1 dose (received ≥14 days earlier) or 2 doses combined was 75.7% (95% CI = 48.5%-88.5%); the VE for 1 dose was 68.1% (95% CI = 24.9%-86.5%) and for 2 doses was 88.5% (95% CI = 44.1%-97.6%). These findings support recommended 2-dose JYNNEOS vaccination consistent with CDC and NYSDOH guidance.

Tratamiento de la COVID-19, ¿qué hemos aprendido? / COVID-19 treatment, what have we learned?

En diciembre de 2019 surgió un nuevo coronavirus, muy virulento y que provocaba un cuadrosevero a nivel respiratorio. La falta de experiencia con esta nueva enfermedad, unida a sugravedad y alta mortalidad, hizo que se utilizaran una gran cantidad de medicamentos sinexperiencia y se investigara sobre nuevas terapias específicas para combatirlo. Los primeros medicamentos que se utilizaron fueron antirretrovirales, usados habitualmente para eltratamiento del virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana, y antiparasitarios, por su actividadinmunosupresora. Además, debido a la neumonía que producía este nuevo virus se utilizabanantibióticos por el riesgo de sobreinfección bacteriana, además de corticoides. Posteriormente, se comenzaron a usar terapias inmunomoduladoras como interferones, anticuerposmonoclonales o moléculas pequeñas dirigidas contra dianas implicadas en el proceso de lainflamación. Durante todo este tiempo surgieron nuevas terapias como remdesivir, cuyaspautas de uso fueron cambiando a lo largo de los meses. En enero de 2022 cambió el paradigma de tratamiento de esta enfermedad, ya que se incluyeron nuevas alternativas tera-péuticas tanto para el tratamiento de esta enfermedad como para su prevención, como sonsotrovimab, casirivimab-imdevimab o nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Desde este momento, la AgenciaEspañola del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios publicó una serie de recomendaciones deutilización de estos nuevos medicamentos, que se han ido actualizando hasta la fecha. Eneste artículo hacemos una revisión de los tratamientos utilizados desde el inicio de la pandemia hasta enero de 2023.(AU)

Abordaje integral de infecciones respiratorias agudas virales y coqueluche / Comprehensive approach to acute viral respiratory infections and whooping cough

Informe sobre el objetivo del abordaje de estas patologías, desde el Ministerio de Salud de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires: Medidas de prevención; Priorización de diagnóstico; Estrategia integrada de vigilancia de la Infecciones Respiratorias Agudas de posible origen viral; Vigilancia Universal; Vigilancia epidemiológica de coqueluche (tos convulsa); y Recomendaciones sobre el uso de antivirales para influenza; (AU)

Nirmatrelvir treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected mice blunts antiviral adaptive immune responses.

Alongside vaccines, antiviral drugs are becoming an integral part of our response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Nirmatrelvir-an orally available inhibitor of the 3-chymotrypsin-like cysteine protease-has been shown to reduce the risk of progression to severe COVID-19. However, the impact of nirmatrelvir treatment on the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses is unknown. Here, by using mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we show that nirmatrelvir administration blunts the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody and T cell responses. Accordingly, upon secondary challenge, nirmatrelvir-treated mice recruited significantly fewer memory T and B cells to the infected lungs and mediastinal lymph nodes, respectively. Together, the data highlight a potential negative impact of nirmatrelvir treatment with important implications for clinical management and might help explain the virological and/or symptomatic relapse after treatment completion reported in some individuals.