Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial).DesignACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]).Setting94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants).ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionSOC.Measurements28-day mortality and recovery.ResultsAlthough outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages.LimitationUnmeasured confounding.ConclusionChanges in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

BackgroundBaricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.FindingsBetween Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).InterpretationIn hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

BackgroundFunctional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475.FindingsBetween Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group.InterpretationInterferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo.FundingThe National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

BackgroundSevere 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsBaricitinib 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.).

BACKGROUND:There are no fully oral recommended treatment regimens for gonorrhea. Inadequately treated pharyngeal gonococcal infections are a likely reservoir for transmission and development of antimicrobial resistance. We sought to determine an oral cefixime dosing regimen that would theoretically treat pharyngeal infections by gonococci with minimum inhibitory concentrations 0.5 μg/mL. METHODS:We conducted an open-label, nonrandomized, phase I pharmacokinetic and safety study of cefixime in 25 healthy male and female volunteers divided into 4 dosing cohorts (cohort A, 400 mg; cohort B, 800 mg; cohort C, 1200 mg; and cohort D, 800 mg every 8 hours × 3 doses [total dose 2400 mg]) with a target serum concentration of at least 2.0 μg/mL for more than 20 hours. Cefixime concentrations from serum and pharyngeal fluid were determined with use of a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Safety measures included laboratories, physical examinations, and symptom diaries. RESULTS:None of the single-dose regimens attained the target concentration; however, 50% of subjects in cohort D attained the target concentration. Variation in absorption and protein binding contributed to differences in concentrations. Pharyngeal fluid concentrations were negligible. The single-dose regimens were well tolerated; the multidose regimen resulted in mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms in 43% of subjects. CONCLUSIONS:None of the dosing regimens achieved the target concentration. However, the proposed theoretical target was extrapolated from penicillin data; there are no empirically derived pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic criteria for pharyngeal gonorrhea. Under alternative cephalosporin-specific therapeutic goals, the multidose regimen may be effective, although the absence of cefixime in pharyngeal fluid is concerning. A clinical trial evaluating efficacy and defining pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic outcomes may be warranted.

Clostridium difficile causes antibiotic-associated diarrhea and is a major public health concern. Current therapies disrupt the protective intestinal flora, do not reliably prevent recurrent infections, and will be decreasingly effective should less susceptible strains emerge. CRS3123 is an oral agent that inhibits bacterial methionyl-tRNA synthetase and has potent activity against C. difficile and aerobic Gram-positive bacteria but little activity against Gram-negative bacteria, including anaerobes. This first-in-human, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose escalation study evaluated the safety and systemic exposure of CRS3123 after a single oral dose in healthy adults. Five cohorts of eight subjects each received CRS3123 or placebo in a 3:1 ratio. Doses for the respective active arms were 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, 800 mg, and 1,200 mg. Blood and urine were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. CRS3123 concentrations were measured with validated LC-MS/MS techniques. There were no serious adverse events or immediate allergic reactions during administration of CRS3123. In the CRS3123-treated groups, the most frequent adverse events were decreased hemoglobin, headache, and abnormal urine analysis; all adverse events in the active-treatment groups were mild to moderate, and their frequency did not increase with dose. Although CRS3123 systemic exposure increased at higher doses, the increase was less than dose proportional. The absorbed drug was glucuronidated at reactive amino groups on the molecule, which precluded accurate pharmacokinetic analysis of the parent drug. Overall, CRS3123 was well tolerated over this wide range of doses. This safety profile supports further investigation of CRS3123 as a treatment for C. difficile infections. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01551004.).

DAS181, (study drug, Fludase®) was developed for treatment of influenza and parainfluenza infections. Delivered by inhalation, DAS181 cleaves sialic acid receptors from respiratory epithelial cells. Treatment of influenza for three days with DAS181 reduced viral shedding. To increase deposition in the upper airways and decrease systemic absorption, the particle size was increased to 10μm. We conducted two Phase I trials with three cohorts, randomized 2:1, active drug to placebo. The initial cohort got a single 20mg dose of DAS181, or placebo; the second, 20mg DAS181 or placebo for 10days, and the third got 20mg of DAS181 or placebo for 3days. Formulations differed slightly in their excipients. Subjects in the 1- and 3-day cohorts completed dosing without serious adverse events. Two subjects in the 10-day cohort stopped at Day 9 after developing respiratory and systemic symptoms, and a third experienced a decrease in FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in 1s) after the 9th dose and a further decline after the 10th dose. Plasma DAS181, in the 10-day cohort, peaked and began falling before the last dose. Antibodies, predominately IgG with neutralizing activity, were detected in 15/18 subjects by Day 30. The highest IgG concentrations were in the 10-day cohort. The respiratory adverse events occurring after seven days and rapid drug clearance during continued dosing are consistent with the induction of DAS181 antibodies. This could preclude use of this medication for longer than seven days or for repeated courses. (These studies have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration Nos. NCT 00527865 and NCT 01651494.).