Search

IntroductionThe ADVANCE and NAMSAL trials evaluating antiretroviral drugs have both reported substantial levels of clinical obesity in participants. As one of the main risk factors for metabolic syndrome, growing rates of obesity may drive metabolic syndrome development. This study aims to evaluate the risk of metabolic syndrome in the ADVANCE and NAMSAL trials.MethodsThe number of participants with metabolic syndrome was calculated at baseline and week 192 as central obesity and any of the following two factors: raised triglycerides, reduced HDL-cholesterol, raised blood pressure and raised fasting glucose. Differences between the treatment arms were calculated using the χ2 test.ResultsAcross all visits to week 192, treatment-emergent metabolic syndrome was 15% (TAF/FTC + DTG), 10% (TDF/FTC + DTG) and 7% (TDF/FTC/EFV) in ADVANCE. The results were significantly higher in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm compared to the TDF/FTC/EFV arm (p

Abstract Background Several drugs are being repurposed for the treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic based on in vitro or early clinical findings. As these drugs are being used in varied regimens and dosages, it is important to enable synthesis of existing safety data from clinical trials. However, availability of safety information is limited by a lack of timely reporting of overall clinical trial results on public registries or through academic publication. We aimed to analyse the evidence gap in this data by conducting a rapid review of results posting on ClinicalTrials.gov and in academic publications to quantify the number of trials missing results for drugs potentially being repurposed for COVID-19. Methods ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for 19 drugs that have been identified as potential treatments for COVID-19. Relevant clinical trials for any prior indication were listed by identifier (NCT number) and checked for results and for timely result reporting (within 395 days of the primary completion date). Additionally, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to identify publications of results not listed on the registry. A second, blinded search of 10% of trials was conducted to assess reviewer concordance. Results Of 3754 completed trials, 1516 (40.4%) did not post results on ClinicalTrials.gov or in the academic literature. Tabular results were available on ClinicalTrials.gov for 1172 (31.2%) completed trials. A further 1066 (28.4%) had published results in the academic literature, but did not report results on ClinicalTrials.gov . Key drugs missing clinical trial results include hydroxychloroquine (37.0% completed trials unreported), favipiravir (77.8%) and lopinavir (40.5%). Conclusions There is an important evidence gap for the safety of drugs being repurposed for COVID-19. This uncertainty could cause unnecessary additional morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. We recommend caution in experimental drug use for non-severe disease and urge clinical trial sponsors to report missing results retrospectively.

Background: Many treatments are being assessed for repurposing to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One drug that has shown promising results in vitro is nitazoxanide. Unlike other postulated drugs, nitazoxanide shows a high ratio of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), after 1 day of 500 mg twice daily (BD), to the concentration required to inhibit 50% replication (EC50) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Cmax: EC50roughly equal to 14:1). As such, it is important to investigate the safety of nitazoxanide for further trials. Furthermore, treatments for COVID-19 should be cheap to promote global access, but prices of many drugs are far higher than the costs of production. We aimed to conduct a review of the safety of nitazoxanide for any prior indication and calculate its minimum costs of production. Methods: A review of nitazoxanide clinical research was conducted using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, supplemented by ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched for phase 2 or 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitazoxanide with placebo or active control for 5–14 days in participants experiencing acute infections of any kind. Data extracted were grade 1–4 and serious adverse events (AEs). Data were also extracted on gastrointestinal (GI) AEs, as well as hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects.Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost data from 2016 to 2019 were extracted from the Panjiva database and adjusted for 5% loss during production, costs of excipients, formulation, a 10% profit margin and tax. Two dosages, at 500 mg BD and a higher dose of 1100 mg three times daily (TDS), were considered. Our estimated costs were compared with publicly available list prices from a selection of countries. Results: Nine RCTs of nitazoxanide were identified for inclusion. These RCTs accounted for 1514 participants and an estimated 95.3 person-years-of-follow-up. No significant differences were found in any of the AE endpoints assessed, across all trials or on subgroup analyses of active- or placebo-controlled trials. Mild GI AEs increased with dose. No hepatorenal or cardiovascular concerns were raised, but few appropriate metrics were reported. There were no teratogenic concerns, but the evidence base was very limited.Based on a weighted-mean cost of US $61/kg, a 14-day course of treatment with nitazoxanide 500 mg BD would cost $1.41. The daily cost would therefore be $0.10. The same 14-day course could cost $3944 in US commercial pharmacies, and $3 per course in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. At a higher dose of 1100 mg TDS, our estimated cost was $4.08 per 14-day course, equivalent to $0.29 per day. Conclusion: Nitazoxanide demonstrates a good safety profile at approved doses. However, further evidence is required regarding hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects, as well as teratogenicity. We estimate that it would be possible to manufacture nitazoxanide as generic for $1.41 for a 14-day treatment course at 500 mg BD, up to $4.08 at 1100 mg TDS. Further trials in COVID-19 patients should be initiated. If efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated in clinical studies, nitazoxanide may represent a safe and affordable treatment in the ongoing pandemic.

Background: Repurposing broad-spectrum antivirals is an immediate treatment opportunity for 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Favipiravir is an antiviral previously indicated for influenza and Ebola, which has shown some promise in early trials for treatment of COVID-19. We aim to review existing favipiravir safety evidence, which is vital to informing the potential future use of favipiravir in COVID-19. Methods: A search was conducted across EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, supplemented by relevant grey-literature and ClinicalTrials.gov. All studies assessing the use of favipiravir in humans by 27 March 2020 were considered for inclusion. Further analysis of available safety data from phase 2 and 3 studies was undertaken. Data extracted were adverse events (AEs) grade 1–4, serious AEs and discontinuation for AEs. Specific AEs of interest highlighted in early-phase studies, including gastrointestinal AEs and hyperuricaemia, were also examined. Results: Twenty-nine studies were identified as potential sources of evidence of the clinical safety of favipiravir. Six were phase 2 and 3 studies reporting relevant safety data for statistical comparison, representing a total of 4299 participants, an estimated 175 person-years-of-follow-up (PYFU). Comparator drugs were oseltamivir, umifenovir, lopinavir/ritonavir or placebo. Study follow-up was between 5 and 21 days. The proportions of grade 1–4 AEs on favipiravir was 28.2% vs 28.4% (P = n.s.) in the comparison arms. The proportion of discontinuations due to AEs on favipiravir was 1.1% vs 1.2% (P = n.s.) in the comparison arms. For serious AEs the proportion was 0.4% in both arms (P = n.s.). There were significantly fewer gastrointestinal AEs occurring on favipiravir vs comparators [8.7% vs 11.5%; P = 0.003]. Favipiravir showed significantly more uric acid elevations than comparators [5.8% vs 1.3%; P

Introduction: People living with HIV (PLWH) are mainly African or Asian, the majority female. In contrast, pharmaceutical companies typically conduct phase 3 regulatory randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in high-income countries (HICs), where PLWH are mainly white males. Regulatory authorities can be conservative about including pregnant women in trials, discouraging female participation. Some adverse events occur more frequently by sex or by race because of differing pharmacokinetics. Most drugs have insufficient safety data in pregnancy and non-white people even after regulatory approval. The present study compared race and sex demographics of phase 3 RCTs of dolutegravir (DTG), bictegravir (BIC) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) with global HIV epidemic demography. Methods: National epidemic sizes by sex were extracted from UNAIDS 2018 data. National demographics were used to estimate prevalence by race. PLWH by national socio-economic status were calculated from World Bank data. Summary race and sex demographic data for 10 phase 3 trials of DTG (n = 7714), four of BIC (n = 2307), eight of TAF (n = 7573) and two of doravirine (DOR) (n = 1407) were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov. Results: Black females (42%) and black males (30%) have highest prevalence globally. White males comprise 6% of PLWH. Over 60% of PLWH live in low or low-middle-income countries, 68% of whom are black and 23% Asian. Seventy-six per cent of DTG trial centres were in high-income countries (HICs) (5% global burden) and 23% in upper-middle-income countries (UMICs). DTG trials were not representative of PLWH even within the UMIC and HIC setting (49% white male vs 31% income band). White males were overrecruited by 44% to DTG, BIC, TAF and DOR trials in comparison with prevalence. Black females were underrepresented by 35%. Conclusion: Phase 3 RCT populations for new antiretrovirals comprised 51% white males, vastly disproportionate to the global HIV epidemic (6%). Females and non-white people are underrepresented. Female safety data are insufficient despite drug approval in Europe and USA. HIV trials should be located in regions representing the global epidemic with no sex-based selection. Trials should aim for at least 50% female and 50% non-white recruitment to properly provide safety information.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality and morbidity have been shown to increase with deprivation and impact non-White ethnicities more severely. Despite the extra risk Black, Asian and Minority Ethnicity (BAME) groups face in the pandemic, our current medical research system seems to prioritise innovation aimed at people of European descent. We found significant difficulties in assessing baseline demographics in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines, displaying a lack of transparency in reporting. Further, we found that most of these trials take place in high-income countries, with only 25 of 219 trials (11.4%) taking place in lower middle- or low-income countries. Trials for the current best vaccine candidates (BNT162b2, ChadOx1, mRNA-173) recruited 80.0% White participants. Underrepresentation of BAME groups in medical research will perpetuate historical distrust in healthcare processes, and poses a risk of unknown differences in efficacy and safety of these vaccines by phenotype. Limiting trial demographics and settings will mean a lack of global applicability of the results of COVID-19 vaccine trials, which will slow progress towards ending the pandemic.