Search

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population, especially when the population affected is undefined. METHODS: We evaluated the utility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), the COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 United States (US) Census data to determine demographic representation in the 4 stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at US ACTT sites, with respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. RESULTS: US ACTT sites enrolled 3509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with US Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants aged ≥65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and the US Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Although surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, they are a better comparator than US Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known.METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15.RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003).CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

BackgroundProtection from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines wanes over time and is compounded by emerging variants including Omicron subvariants. This study evaluated safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines.MethodsThis phase 2 open-label, randomized trial enrolled healthy adults previously vaccinated with a SARS-CoV-2 primary series and a single boost. Eligible participants were randomized to one of six Moderna COVID19 mRNA vaccine arms (50µg dose): Prototype (mRNA-1273), Omicron BA.1+Beta (1 or 2 doses), Omicron BA.1+Delta, Omicron BA.1 monovalent, and Omicron BA.1+Prototype. Neutralization antibody titers (ID50) were assessed for D614G, Delta, Beta and Omicron BA.1 variants and Omicron BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 subvariants 15 days after vaccination.ResultsFrom March 30 to May 6, 2022, 597 participants were randomized and vaccinated. Median age was 53 years, and 20% had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. All vaccines were safe and well-tolerated. Day 15 geometric mean titers (GMT) against D614G were similar across arms and ages, and higher with prior infection. For uninfected participants, Day 15 Omicron BA.1 GMTs were similar across Omicron-containing vaccine arms (3724-4561) and higher than Prototype (1,997 [95%CI:1,482-2,692]). The Omicron BA.1 monovalent and Omicron BA.1+Prototype vaccines induced a geometric mean ratio (GMR) to Prototype for Omicron BA.1 of 2.03 (97.5%CI:1.37-3.00) and 1.56 (97.5%CI:1.06-2.31), respectively. A subset of samples from uninfected participants in four arms were also tested in a different laboratory at Day 15 for neutralizing antibody titers to D614G and Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2.12.2 and BA.4/BA.5. Omicron BA.4/BA.5 GMTs were approximately one third BA.1 GMTs (Prototype 517 [95%CI:324-826] vs. 1503 [95%CI:949-2381]; Omicron BA.1+Beta 628 [95%CI:367-1,074] vs. 2125 [95%CI:1139-3965]; Omicron BA.1+Delta 765 [95%CI:443-1,322] vs. 2242 [95%CI:1218-4128] and Omicron BA.1+Prototype 635 [95%CI:447-903] vs. 1972 [95%CI:1337-2907).ConclusionsHigher Omicron BA.1 titers were observed with Omicron-containing vaccines compared to Prototype vaccine and titers against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were lower than against BA.1 for all candidate vaccines.Clinicaltrials.govNCT05289037