Blocking NS3-NS4B interaction inhibits dengue virus in non-human primates.

Dengue is a major health threat and the number of symptomatic infections caused by the four dengue serotypes is estimated to be 96 million1 with annually around 10,000 deaths2. However, no antiviral drugs are available for the treatment or prophylaxis of dengue. We recently described the interaction between non-structural proteins NS3 and NS4B as a promising target for the development of pan-serotype dengue virus (DENV) inhibitors3. Here we present JNJ-1802-a highly potent DENV inhibitor that blocks the NS3-NS4B interaction within the viral replication complex. JNJ-1802 exerts picomolar to low nanomolar in vitro antiviral activity, a high barrier to resistance and potent in vivo efficacy in mice against infection with any of the four DENV serotypes. Finally, we demonstrate that the small-molecule inhibitor JNJ-1802 is highly effective against viral infection with DENV-1 or DENV-2 in non-human primates. JNJ-1802 has successfully completed a phase I first-in-human clinical study in healthy volunteers and was found to be safe and well tolerated4. These findings support the further clinical development of JNJ-1802, a first-in-class antiviral agent against dengue, which is now progressing in clinical studies for the prevention and treatment of dengue.

Bulevirtide Combined with Pegylated Interferon for Chronic Hepatitis D.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial, bulevirtide monotherapy led to a virologic response in patients with chronic hepatitis D. Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) alfa-2a is recommended by guidelines as an off-label treatment for this disease. The role of combination therapy with bulevirtide and peginterferon alfa-2a, particularly with regard to finite treatment, is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 2b, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive peginterferon alfa-2a alone (180 µg per week) for 48 weeks; bulevirtide at a daily dose of 2 mg or 10 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a (180 µg per week) for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks; or bulevirtide at a daily dose of 10 mg alone for 96 weeks. All the patients were followed for 48 weeks after the end of treatment. The primary end point was an undetectable level of hepatitis D virus (HDV) RNA at 24 weeks after the end of treatment. The primary comparison was between the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group and the 10-mg bulevirtide monotherapy group. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients received peginterferon alfa-2a alone, 50 received 2 mg and 50 received 10 mg of bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a, and 50 received 10 mg of bulevirtide monotherapy. At 24 weeks after the end of treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 17% of the patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 32% of those in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 46% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and in 12% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide group. For the primary comparison, the between-group difference was 34 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 15 to 50; P<0.001). At 48 weeks after the end of treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 25% of the patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 26% of those in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 46% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and in 12% of those in the 10-mg bulevirtide group. The most frequent adverse events were leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. The majority of adverse events were of grade 1 or 2 in severity. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a was superior to bulevirtide monotherapy with regard to an undetectable HDV RNA level at 24 weeks after the end of treatment. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; MYR 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03852433.).

Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir is an antiviral treatment for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this treatment in patients who are at standard risk for severe Covid-19 or who are fully vaccinated and have at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 has not been established. METHODS: In this phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19-related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28. RESULTS: Among the 1296 participants who underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population, 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit. The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P = 0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 0.4). The percentages of participants with adverse events were similar in the two groups (25.8% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 24.1% with placebo). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were dysgeusia (in 5.8% of the participants) and diarrhea (in 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who received placebo. (Supported by Pfizer; EPIC-SR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05011513.).

Oral Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not shown a significant benefit of postexposure prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind trial to assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in asymptomatic, rapid antigen test-negative adults who had been exposed to a household contact with Covid-19 within 96 hours before randomization. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg of nirmatrelvir and 100 mg of ritonavir) every 12 hours for 5 days or for 10 days or matching placebo for 5 or 10 days. The primary end point was the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection, confirmed on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen testing, through 14 days in participants who had a negative RT-PCR test at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2736 participants were randomly assigned to a trial group - 921 to the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 917 to the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 898 to the placebo group. Symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed by day 14 in 2.6% of the participants in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, 2.4% of those in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, and 3.9% of those in the placebo group. In each nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the percentage of participants in whom symptomatic, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection developed did not differ significantly from that in the placebo group, with risk reductions relative to placebo of 29.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.7 to 57.8; P = 0.17) in the 5-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 35.5% (95% CI, -11.5 to 62.7; P = 0.12) in the 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the trial groups, with dysgeusia being the most frequently reported adverse event (in 5.9% and 6.8% of the participants in the 5-day and 10-day nirmatrelvir-ritonavir groups, respectively, and in 0.7% of those in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: In this placebo-controlled trial, postexposure prophylaxis with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for 5 or 10 days did not significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05047601.).

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.).

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.).

VV116 versus Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir has been authorized for emergency use by many countries for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, the supply falls short of the global demand, which creates a need for more options. VV116 is an oral antiviral agent with potent activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority, observer-blinded, randomized trial during the outbreak caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 with a high risk of progression were assigned to receive a 5-day course of either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The primary end point was the time to sustained clinical recovery through day 28. Sustained clinical recovery was defined as the alleviation of all Covid-19-related target symptoms to a total score of 0 or 1 for the sum of each symptom (on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater severity; total scores on the 11-item scale range from 0 to 33) for 2 consecutive days. A lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of more than 0.8 was considered to indicate noninferiority (with a hazard ratio of >1 indicating a shorter time to sustained clinical recovery with VV116 than with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir). RESULTS: A total of 822 participants underwent randomization, and 771 received VV116 (384 participants) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (387 participants). The noninferiority of VV116 to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery was established in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.35) and was maintained in the final analysis (median, 4 days with VV116 and 5 days with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.36). In the final analysis, the time to sustained symptom resolution (score of 0 for each of the 11 Covid-19-related target symptoms for 2 consecutive days) and to a first negative SARS-CoV-2 test did not differ substantially between the two groups. No participants in either group had died or had had progression to severe Covid-19 by day 28. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the VV116 group than in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (67.4% vs. 77.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 who were at risk for progression, VV116 was noninferior to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns. (Funded by Vigonvita Life Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05341609; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2200057856.).

Early Treatment with Pegylated Interferon Lambda for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda in preventing clinical events among outpatients with acute symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, adaptive platform trial involving predominantly vaccinated adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Brazil and Canada. Outpatients who presented with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after the onset of symptoms received either pegylated interferon lambda (single subcutaneous injection, 180 µg) or placebo (single injection or oral). The primary composite outcome was hospitalization (or transfer to a tertiary hospital) or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients were assigned to receive pegylated interferon lambda (2 were subsequently excluded owing to protocol deviations) and 1018 were assigned to receive placebo. Overall, 83% of the patients had been vaccinated, and during the trial, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants had emerged. A total of 25 of 931 patients (2.7%) in the interferon group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 57 of 1018 (5.6%) in the placebo group, a difference of 51% (relative risk, 0.49; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.30 to 0.76; posterior probability of superiority to placebo, >99.9%). Results were generally consistent in analyses of secondary outcomes, including time to hospitalization for Covid-19 (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.33 to 0.95) and Covid-19-related hospitalization or death (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.35 to 0.97). The effects were consistent across dominant variants and independent of vaccination status. Among patients with a high viral load at baseline, those who received pegylated interferon lambda had lower viral loads by day 7 than those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among predominantly vaccinated outpatients with Covid-19, the incidence of hospitalization or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) was significantly lower among those who received a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda than among those who received placebo. (Funded by FastGrants and others; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Evolutionary safety of lethal mutagenesis driven by antiviral treatment.

Nucleoside analogs are a major class of antiviral drugs. Some act by increasing the viral mutation rate causing lethal mutagenesis of the virus. Their mutagenic capacity, however, may lead to an evolutionary safety concern. We define evolutionary safety as a probabilistic assurance that the treatment will not generate an increased number of mutants. We develop a mathematical framework to estimate the total mutant load produced with and without mutagenic treatment. We predict rates of appearance of such virus mutants as a function of the timing of treatment and the immune competence of patients, employing realistic assumptions about the vulnerability of the viral genome and its potential to generate viable mutants. We focus on the case study of Molnupiravir, which is an FDA-approved treatment against Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). We estimate that Molnupiravir is narrowly evolutionarily safe, subject to the current estimate of parameters. Evolutionary safety can be improved by restricting treatment with this drug to individuals with a low immunological clearance rate and, in future, by designing treatments that lead to a greater increase in mutation rate. We report a simple mathematical rule to determine the fold increase in mutation rate required to obtain evolutionary safety that is also applicable to other pathogen-treatment combinations.

Antivirals for treatment of severe influenza: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiviral drug for treatment of severe influenza remains unclear. To support updated WHO influenza clinical guidelines, this systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated antivirals for treatment of patients with severe influenza. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials published up to Sept 20, 2023, that enrolled hospitalised patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza and compared direct-acting influenza antivirals against placebo, standard care, or another antiviral. Pairs of coauthors independently extracted data on study characteristics, patient characteristics, antiviral characteristics, and outcomes, with discrepancies resolved by discussion or by a third coauthor. Key outcomes of interest were time to alleviation of symptoms, duration of hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, hospital discharge destination, emergence of antiviral resistance, adverse events, adverse events related to treatments, and serious adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023456650. FINDINGS: Of 11 878 records identified by our search, eight trials with 1424 participants (mean age 36-60 years for trials that reported mean or median age; 43-78% male patients) were included in this systematic review, of which six were included in the network meta-analysis. The effects of oseltamivir, peramivir, or zanamivir on mortality compared with placebo or standard care without placebo for seasonal and zoonotic influenza were of very low certainty. Compared with placebo or standard care, we found low certainty evidence that duration of hospitalisation for seasonal influenza was reduced with oseltamivir (mean difference -1·63 days, 95% CI -2·81 to -0·45) and peramivir (-1·73 days, -3·33 to -0·13). Compared with standard care, there was little or no difference in time to alleviation of symptoms with oseltamivir (0·34 days, -0·86 to 1·54; low certainty evidence) or peramivir (-0·05 days, -0·69 to 0·59; low certainty evidence). There were no differences in adverse events or serious adverse events with oseltamivir, peramivir, and zanamivir (very low certainty evidence). Uncertainty remains about the effects of antivirals on other outcomes for patients with severe influenza. Due to the small number of eligible trials, we could not test for publication bias. INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with severe influenza, oseltamivir and peramivir might reduce duration of hospitalisation compared with standard care or placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low. The effects of all antivirals on mortality and other important patient outcomes are very uncertain due to scarce data from randomised controlled trials. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

Antivirals for post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral post-exposure prophylaxis with neuraminidase inhibitors can reduce the incidence of influenza and the risk of symptomatic influenza, but the efficacy of the other classes of antiviral remains unclear. To support an update of WHO influenza guidelines, this systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated antiviral drugs for post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials published up to Sept 20, 2023 that evaluated the efficacy and safety of antivirals compared with another antiviral or placebo or standard care for prevention of influenza. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed network meta-analyses with frequentist random effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The outcomes of interest were symptomatic or asymptomatic infection, admission to hospital, all-cause mortality, adverse events related to antivirals, and serious adverse events. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023466450. FINDINGS: Of 11 845 records identified by our search, 33 trials of six antivirals (zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, baloxavir, amantadine, and rimantadine) that enrolled 19 096 individuals (mean age 6·75-81·15 years) were included in this systematic review and network meta-analysis. Most of the studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. Zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, and baloxavir probably achieve important reductions in symptomatic influenza in individuals at high risk of severe disease (zanamivir: risk ratio 0·35, 95% CI 0·25-0·50; oseltamivir: 0·40, 0·26-0·62; laninamivir: 0·43, 0·30-0·63; baloxavir: 0·43, 0·23-0·79; moderate certainty) when given promptly (eg, within 48 h) after exposure to seasonal influenza. These antivirals probably do not achieve important reductions in symptomatic influenza in individuals at low risk of severe disease when given promptly after exposure to seasonal influenza (moderate certainty). Zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, and baloxavir might achieve important reductions in symptomatic zoonotic influenza in individuals exposed to novel influenza A viruses associated with severe disease in infected humans when given promptly after exposure (low certainty). Oseltamivir, laninamivir, baloxavir, and amantadine probably decrease the risk of all influenza (symptomatic and asymptomatic infection; moderate certainty). Zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, and baloxavir probably have little or no effect on prevention of asymptomatic influenza virus infection or all-cause mortality (high or moderate certainty). Oseltamivir probably has little or no effect on admission to hospital (moderate certainty). All six antivirals do not significantly increase the incidence of drug-related adverse events or serious adverse events, although the certainty of evidence varies. INTERPRETATION: Post-exposure prophylaxis with zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, or baloxavir probably decreases the risk of symptomatic seasonal influenza in individuals at high risk for severe disease after exposure to seasonal influenza viruses. Post-exposure prophylaxis with zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, or baloxavir might reduce the risk of symptomatic zoonotic influenza after exposure to novel influenza A viruses associated with severe disease in infected humans. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

Nirsevimab for Prevention of RSV in Healthy Late-Preterm and Term Infants.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of lower respiratory tract infection and hospitalization in infants. Nirsevimab is a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein that has an extended half-life. The efficacy and safety of nirsevimab in healthy late-preterm and term infants are uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, infants who had been born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo before the start of an RSV season. The primary efficacy end point was medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection through 150 days after the injection. The secondary efficacy end point was hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection through 150 days after the injection. RESULTS: A total of 1490 infants underwent randomization: 994 were assigned to the nirsevimab group and 496 to the placebo group. Medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 12 infants (1.2%) in the nirsevimab group and in 25 infants (5.0%) in the placebo group; these findings correspond to an efficacy of 74.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.6 to 87.1; P<0.001) for nirsevimab. Hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 6 infants (0.6%) in the nirsevimab group and in 8 infants (1.6%) in the placebo group (efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, -8.6 to 86.8; P = 0.07). Among infants with data available to day 361, antidrug antibodies after baseline were detected in 58 of 951 (6.1%) in the nirsevimab group and in 5 of 473 (1.1%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 67 of 987 infants (6.8%) who received nirsevimab and in 36 of 491 infants (7.3%) who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A single injection of nirsevimab administered before the RSV season protected healthy late-preterm and term infants from medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi; MELODY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03979313.).

Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

EDP-938, a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Inhibitor, in a Human Virus Challenge.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection causes substantial morbidity and mortality among infants, older adults, and immunocompromised adults. EDP-938, a nonfusion replication inhibitor of RSV, acts by modulating the viral nucleoprotein. METHODS: In a two-part, phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge trial, we assigned participants who had been inoculated with RSV-A Memphis 37b to receive EDP-938 or placebo. Different doses of EDP-938 were assessed. Nasal-wash samples were obtained from day 2 until day 12 for assessments. Clinical symptoms were assessed by the participants, and pharmacokinetic profiles were obtained. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) for the RSV viral load, as measured by reverse-transcriptase-quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction assay. The key secondary end point was the AUC for the total symptom score. RESULTS: In part 1 of the trial, 115 participants were assigned to receive EDP-938 (600 mg once daily [600-mg once-daily group] or 300 mg twice daily after a 500-mg loading dose [300-mg twice-daily group]) or placebo. In part 2, a total of 63 participants were assigned to receive EDP-938 (300 mg once daily after a 600-mg loading dose [300-mg once-daily group] or 200 mg twice daily after a 400-mg loading dose [200-mg twice-daily group]) or placebo. In part 1, the AUC for the mean viral load (hours × log10 copies per milliliter) was 204.0 in the 600-mg once-daily group, 217.7 in the 300-mg twice-daily group, and 790.2 in the placebo group. The AUC for the mean total symptom score (hours × score, with higher values indicating greater severity) was 124.5 in the 600-mg once-daily group, 181.8 in the 300-mg twice-daily group, and 478.8 in the placebo group. The results in part 2 followed a pattern similar to that in part 1: the AUC for the mean viral load was 173.9 in the 300-mg once-daily group, 196.2 in the 200-mg twice-daily group, and 879.0 in the placebo group, and the AUC for the mean total symptom score was 99.3, 89.6, and 432.2, respectively. In both parts, mucus production was more than 70% lower in each EDP-938 group than in the placebo group. The four EDP-938 regimens had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. Across all dosing regimens, the EDP-938 median time to maximum concentration ranged from 4 to 5 hours, and the geometric mean half-life ranged from 13.7 to 14.5 hours. CONCLUSIONS: All EDP-938 regimens were superior to placebo with regard to lowering of the viral load, total symptom scores, and mucus weight without apparent safety concerns. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03691623.).

Efficacy and Safety of Bepirovirsen in Chronic Hepatitis B Infection.

BACKGROUND: Bepirovirsen is an antisense oligonucleotide that targets all hepatitis B virus (HBV) messenger RNAs and acts to decrease levels of viral proteins. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2b, randomized, investigator-unblinded trial involving participants with chronic HBV infection who were receiving or not receiving nucleoside or nucleotide analogue (NA) therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (in a 3:3:3:1 ratio) to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of bepirovirsen at a dose of 300 mg for 24 weeks (group 1), bepirovirsen at a dose of 300 mg for 12 weeks then 150 mg for 12 weeks (group 2), bepirovirsen at a dose of 300 mg for 12 weeks then placebo for 12 weeks (group 3), or placebo for 12 weeks then bepirovirsen at a dose of 300 mg for 12 weeks (group 4). Groups 1, 2, and 3 received loading doses of bepirovirsen. The composite primary outcome was a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level below the limit of detection and an HBV DNA level below the limit of quantification maintained for 24 weeks after the planned end of bepirovirsen treatment, without newly initiated antiviral medication. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 457 participants (227 receiving NA therapy and 230 not receiving NA therapy). Among those receiving NA therapy, a primary-outcome event occurred in 6 participants (9%; 95% credible interval, 0 to 31) in group 1, in 6 (9%; 95% credible interval, 0 to 43) in group 2, in 2 (3%; 95% credible interval, 0 to 16) in group 3, and 0 (0%; post hoc credible interval, 0 to 8) in group 4. Among participants not receiving NA therapy, a primary-outcome event occurred in 7 participants (10%; 95% credible interval, 0 to 38), 4 (6%; 95% credible interval, 0 to 25), 1 (1%; post hoc credible interval, 0 to 6), and 0 (0%; post hoc credible interval, 0 to 8), respectively. During weeks 1 through 12, adverse events, including injection-site reactions, pyrexia, fatigue, and increased alanine aminotransferase levels, were more common with bepirovirsen (groups 1, 2, and 3) than with placebo (group 4). CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2b trial, bepirovirsen at a dose of 300 mg per week for 24 weeks resulted in sustained HBsAg and HBV DNA loss in 9 to 10% of participants with chronic HBV infection. Larger and longer trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of bepirovirsen. (Funded by GSK; B-Clear ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04449029.).

Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir is an orally administered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (Mpro) inhibitor with potent pan-human-coronavirus activity in vitro. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in which symptomatic, unvaccinated, nonhospitalized adults at high risk for progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir (a pharmacokinetic enhancer) or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause through day 28, viral load, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 2246 patients underwent randomization; 1120 patients received nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (nirmatrelvir group) and 1126 received placebo (placebo group). In the planned interim analysis of patients treated within 3 days after symptom onset (modified intention-to treat population, comprising 774 of the 1361 patients in the full analysis population), the incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death by day 28 was lower in the nirmatrelvir group than in the placebo group by 6.32 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.04 to -3.59; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 89.1%); the incidence was 0.77% (3 of 389 patients) in the nirmatrelvir group, with 0 deaths, as compared with 7.01% (27 of 385 patients) in the placebo group, with 7 deaths. Efficacy was maintained in the final analysis involving the 1379 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a difference of -5.81 percentage points (95% CI, -7.78 to -3.84; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 88.9%). All 13 deaths occurred in the placebo group. The viral load was lower with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo at day 5 of treatment, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.868 log10 copies per milliliter when treatment was initiated within 3 days after the onset of symptoms. The incidence of adverse events that emerged during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (any adverse event, 22.6% with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir vs. 23.9% with placebo; serious adverse events, 1.6% vs. 6.6%; and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drugs or placebo, 2.1% vs. 4.2%). Dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 0.3%) and diarrhea (3.1% vs. 1.6%) occurred more frequently with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of symptomatic Covid-19 with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir resulted in a risk of progression to severe Covid-19 that was 89% lower than the risk with placebo, without evident safety concerns. (Supported by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04960202.).

Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19-related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P = 0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19-related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12.).

Safety and efficacy of off-label bulevirtide monotherapy in patients with HDV with decompensated Child-B cirrhosis-A real-world case series.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic hepatitis D is the most debilitating form of viral hepatitis frequently progressing to cirrhosis and subsequent decompensation. However, the HDV entry inhibitor bulevirtide is only approved for antiviral treatment of patients with compensated disease. We aimed for the analysis of real-world data on the off-label use of bulevirtide in the setting of decompensated liver cirrhosis. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective study in patients with HDV with decompensated liver disease at German, Austrian, and Italian centers. We included 19 patients (47% male, mean age: 51 years) with liver cirrhosis Child-Pugh B. The median MELD score was 12 (range 9-17) at treatment initiation. The median observation period was 41 weeks. Virologic response was achieved in 74% and normal alanine aminotransferase was observed in 74%. The combined response was achieved by 42%. The most relevant adverse events included self-limited alanine aminotransferase flares, an asymptomatic increase in bile acids, and the need for liver transplantation. Despite bile acid increases, adverse events were considered unrelated. Clinical and laboratory improvement from Child-Pugh B to A occurred in 47% (n = 9/19). Improvements in the amount of ascites were observed in 58% of the patients initially presenting with ascites (n = 7/12). CONCLUSIONS: This report on off-label bulevirtide treatment in patients with decompensated HDV cirrhosis shows similar virologic and biochemical response rates as observed in compensated liver disease. Significant improvements were observed in surrogates of hepatic function and portal hypertension. However, this improvement was not seen in all patients. Controlled trials are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of bulevirtide in decompensated HDV cirrhosis.

Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of RSV-Specific Monoclonal Antibodies and Antivirals in Development.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of acute respiratory infection amongst all ages, causing a significant global health burden. Preventative and therapeutic options for RSV infection have long been under development, and recently, several widely-publicised vaccines targeting older adult and maternal populations have become available. Promising monoclonal antibody (mAb) and antiviral (AV) therapies are also progressing in clinical trials, with the prophylactic mAb nirsevimab recently approved for clinical use in infant populations. A systematic review on current progress in this area is lacking. We performed a systematic literature search (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT, ANZCTR-searched Nov 29th, 2023) to identify studies on all RSV-specific mAbs and AV therapies that has undergone human clinical trials since year 2000. Data extraction focused on outcomes related to the therapeutic efficacy and safety of the intervention on trial, and all studies were graded against the OCEBM Levels of Evidence Table. Results from 59 studies were extracted, covering efficacy and safety data on six mAbs (motavizumab, motavizumab-YTE, nirsevimab, ALX-0171, suptavumab, clesrovimab) and 12 AV therapies (ALN-RSV01, RSV604, presatovir, MDT-637, lumicitabine, IFN-α1b, rilematovir, enzaplatovir, AK0529, sisunatovir, PC786, EDP-938). Of the mAbs reviewed, nirsevimab and clesrovimab hold considerable promise. The timeline for RSV-specific AV availability is less advanced, although EDP-938 and AK0529 have reported promising phase 2 efficacy and safety data. Moving forward, passive immunisation and treatment options for RSV infection will play a significant role in reducing the health burden of RSV, complementing recent advancements in vaccine development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376633.

Azvudine versus Paxlovid in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.