A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Although several experimental therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been developed, the safety and efficacy of the most promising therapies need to be assessed in the context of a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a trial of four investigational therapies for EVD in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an outbreak began in August 2018. Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled. All patients received standard care and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to intravenous administration of the triple monoclonal antibody ZMapp (the control group), the antiviral agent remdesivir, the single monoclonal antibody MAb114, or the triple monoclonal antibody REGN-EB3. The REGN-EB3 group was added in a later version of the protocol, so data from these patients were compared with those of patients in the ZMapp group who were enrolled at or after the time the REGN-EB3 group was added (the ZMapp subgroup). The primary end point was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P = 0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P = 0.002). A shorter duration of symptoms before admission and lower baseline values for viral load and for serum creatinine and aminotransferase levels each correlated with improved survival. Four serious adverse events were judged to be potentially related to the trial drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Both MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Scientifically and ethically sound clinical research can be conducted during disease outbreaks and can help inform the outbreak response. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PALM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03719586.).

NIAID ClinRegs-a Public Database of Country Clinical Research Regulatory and Ethics Requirements: Design and Utilization Analysis.

Regulatory compliance is challenging for multinational clinical trials. Conflicts between country requirements impedes research and slows the approval of medicines, leading the pharmaceutical industry to devote significant resources to this area. Many academic centers and nonprofits cannot support industry-level investment and are vulnerable to noncompliance. To address an insufficiency in public access to this information, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases developed ClinRegs-a public access database of clinical research regulations. This report describes ClinRegs' features, maintenance, and usage. From September 2019 through August 2020, ClinRegs had 68 504 users, 60% from outside the United States, demonstrating the demand for accessible, reliable, country-specific regulatory information. Tools such as ClinRegs can help increase regulatory compliance and free up resources for research. We encourage our partner agencies and biomedical research industries to promote greater regulatory knowledge sharing and harmonization for the betterment of clinical research and improved public health.

Efficacy and Safety of Nitazoxanide in Addition to Standard of Care for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Illness.

BACKGROUND: Effective therapeutics for respiratory viruses are needed. Early data suggest that nitazoxanide (NTZ) may be beneficial for treating acute respiratory viral illness. METHODS: From March 2014 through March 2017, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 260 participants ≥1 year old hospitalized with influenza-like illness at 6 hospitals in Mexico. Participants were randomized 1:1 to NTZ (age ≥12 years, 600 mg twice daily; age 4-11 years and 1-3 years, 200 or 100 mg twice daily, respectively) or placebo for 5 days in addition to standard of care. The primary endpoint was time from first dose to hospital discharge. Influenza reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and Respifinder 22 multiplex test were used for virus detection. RESULTS: Of 260 participants enrolled, 257 were randomized and took at least 1 dose of study treatment (intention-to-treat population): 130 in the NTZ group and 127 in the placebo group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median duration of hospitalization was 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 4.0-9.0) days in the NTZ group vs 7.0 (IQR, 4.0-9.0) days in the placebo group (P = .56). Duration of hospitalization between the 2 treatments was similar in children (P = .29) and adults (P = .62), influenza A and B (P = .32), and other respiratory viruses. Seven (5.4%) and 6 (4.7%) participants in the NTZ and placebo groups, respectively, reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with NTZ did not reduce the duration of hospital stay in severe influenza-like illness. Further analyses based on age and evaluations by virus did not reveal any subgroups that appeared to benefit from NTZ. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02057757.

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) Scores in Influenza-Positive Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health. RESULTS: Of the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71-0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1-day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9-67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults.

Design of an observational multi-country cohort study to assess immunogenicity of multiple vaccine platforms (InVITE).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccines have been developed, and the World Health Oraganization (WHO) has granted emergency use listing to multiple vaccines. Studies of vaccine immunogenicity data from implementing COVID-19 vaccines by national immunization programs in single studies spanning multiple countries and continents are limited but critically needed to answer public health questions on vaccines, such as comparing immune responses to different vaccines and among different populations.

Community-based hospitals: New partners for government-sponsored clinical research during public health emergencies.

In the United States, clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics quickly exhausted available clinical research capacity at large medical centers. The NIAID Division of Clinical Research tapped community hospitals to help fill the gap.

A unique immune signature of serum cytokine and chemokine dynamics in patients with Zika virus infection from a tropical region in Southern Mexico.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the kinetics of circulating cytokines and chemokines in humans with ZIKAV infection. METHODS: Serum levels of different immune mediators in patients with ZIKAV infection were measured at distinct stages of the disease, as well as in culture supernatants from human monocytes infected with a clinical ZIKAV isolate. We also looked for clinical features associated with specific immune signatures among symptomatic patients. RESULTS: We evaluated 23 ZIKAV-infected patients. Their mean age was 32 ± 8.3 years and 65% were female. ZIKAV patients showed elevated IL-9, IL-17A, and CXCL10 levels at acute stages of the disease. At day 28, levels of CCL4 and CCL5 were increased, whereas IL-1RA, CXCL8 and CCL2 were decreased. At baseline, IL-7 was increased among patients with headache, whereas CCL2, and CCL3 were decreased in patients with bleeding and rash, respectively. Our clinical ZIKAV isolate induced a broad immune response in monocytes that did not resemble the signature observed in ZIKAV patients. CONCLUSIONS: We showed a unique immune signature in our cohort of ZIKAV-infected patients. Our study may provide valuable evidence helpful to identify immune correlates of protection against ZIKAV.

Development and implementation of clinical trial protocol templates at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

BACKGROUND: A clinical research protocol document must reflect both sound scientific rationale as well as local, national and, when applicable, international regulatory and human subject protections requirements. These requirements originate from a variety of sources, undergo frequent revision and are subject to interpretation. Tools to assist clinical investigators in the production of clinical protocols could facilitate navigating these requirements and ultimately increase the efficiency of clinical research. PURPOSE: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) developed templates for investigators to serve as the foundation for protocol development. These protocol templates are designed as tools to support investigators in developing clinical protocols. METHODS: NIAID established a series of working groups to determine how to improve its capacity to conduct clinical research more efficiently and effectively. The Protocol Template Working Group was convened to determine what protocol templates currently existed within NIAID and whether standard NIAID protocol templates should be produced. After review and assessment of existing protocol documents and requirements, the group reached consensus about required and optional content, determined the format and identified methods for distribution as well as education of investigators in the use of these templates. RESULTS: The templates were approved by the NIAID Executive Committee in 2006 and posted as part of the NIAID Clinical Research Toolkit [1] website for broad access. These documents require scheduled revisions to stay current with regulatory and policy changes. LIMITATIONS: The structure of any clinical protocol template, whether comprehensive or specific to a particular study phase, setting or design, affects how it is used by investigators. Each structure presents its own set of advantages and disadvantages. While useful, protocol templates are not stand-alone tools for creating an optimal protocol document, but must be complemented by institutional resources and support. Education and guidance of investigators in the appropriate use of templates is necessary to ensure a complete yet concise protocol document. Due to changing regulatory requirements, clinical protocol templates cannot become static, but require frequent revisions.

"Differential risk of hospitalization among single virus infections causing influenza-like illnesses".

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections are a major cause of morbidity in children and are often caused by viruses. However, the relative severity of illness associated with different viruses is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization from different viruses in children presenting with an influenza-like illness (ILI). METHODS: Data from children 5 years old or younger participating in an ILI natural history study from April 2010 to March 2014 was analyzed. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization was estimated in children with infections caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), metapneumovirus, bocavirus, parainfluenza viruses, rhinovirus/enterovirus, coronavirus, adenovirus, and influenza. RESULTS: A total of 1486 children (408 outpatients and 1078 inpatients) were included in this analysis. At least one virus was detected in 1227 (82.6%) patients. The most frequent viruses detected as single pathogens were RSV (n = 286), rhinovirus/enterovirus (n = 251), parainfluenza viruses (n = 104), and influenza A or B (n = 99). After controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, recruitment site, days from symptom onset to enrollment, and underlying illnesses), children with RSV and metapneumovirus infections showed a greater likelihood of hospitalization than those infected by parainfluenza viruses (OR 2.7 and 1.9, respectively), rhinovirus/enterovirus (OR 3.1 and 2.1, respectively), coronaviruses (OR 4.9 and 3.4, respectively), adenovirus (OR 4.6 and 3.2, respectively), and influenza (OR 6.3 and 4.4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Children presenting with ILI caused by RSV and metapneumovirus were at greatest risk for hospitalization, while children with rhinovirus/enterovirus, parainfluenza, coronavirus, adenovirus, and influenza were at lower risk of hospitalization.

A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin). RESULTS: 77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p>0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. CONCLUSIONS: An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Informed consent substudy was registered as part of START study in clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00867048, and EudraCT # 2008-006439-12.