Search

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support., Methods: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948., Findings: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome)., Interpretation: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support., Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DC reports grants and lecture fees from Janssen and lecture fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. FM reports grants and consulting fees from Da Volterra, grants from Sanofi, and consulting fees from Ipsen, outside the submitted work. MH reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), the Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles and the EU-Horizon programme, for the submitted work; and has received support for attending meetings from Pfizer; support for participation on an advisory board for therapeutics on COVID-19; and support for leadership for the Belgian guidelines on therapeutics for COVID-19 and acting as a treasurer for the Belgian Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. JP reports lecture fees from Gilead; support for attending meetings from Gilead, Eumedica, Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. GP reports grants or contracts from Gilead Sciences, Merck France, Takeda, TheraTechnologies, and ViiV Healthcare; consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck France, Takeda, TheraTechnologies, and ViiV Healthcare; lecture fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck France, and ViiV Healthcare; support for attending meetings from Gilead Sciences; and participation in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board for Gilead Sciences, Merck France, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. CB reports participation in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board for 4Living Biotech; and consulting fees from Da Volterra and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. RG reports consulting fees from Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankvo; lecture fees from Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sandoz, Abbvie, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankvo; support for attending meetings from Roche, Amgen, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Celgene, Gilead, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abbvie, and Daiichi Sankvo; participation in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board for Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo; research grants from Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sandoz, Abbvie, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo. J-AP reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Janssen-Cilag; lecture fees from Pfizer; and support for attending meetings from Pfizer. All other authors decalre no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Europe, increases in HCV infection have been observed over the last two decades in MSM, making them a key population for recently acquired HCV. Alternative combinations of direct-acting antiviral agents against early HCV infection need to be assessed., Patients and Methods: In this pilot trial, MSM with recently acquired genotype 1 or 4 HCV infection were prospectively included and received 8 weeks of oral grazoprevir 100 mg and elbasvir 50 mg in a fixed-dose combination administered once daily. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response evaluated 12 weeks after the end of treatment (EOT) (SVR12). Secondary endpoints were the virological characterization of failures, the quality of life before, during and after treatment and the rate of reinfection., Results: In a 15 month period, 30 patients were enrolled, all of whom were MSM. Of the 29 patients completing follow-up, 28 (96%, 95% CI = 82%-99%) achieved SVR12. One patient interrupted follow-up (suicide) but had undetectable plasma HCV RNA at EOT. One patient with suboptimal adherence confirmed by plasma drug monitoring relapsed and developed NS3, NS5A and NS5B resistance-associated substitutions (V36M, M28V and S556G). The most common adverse events related to study drug were diarrhoea (n = 4, 13%), insomnia (n = 2, 7%) and fatigue (n = 2, 7%), although no patient discontinued treatment. No HIV RNA breakthrough was reported in the 28 patients with HIV coinfection. At Week 48, reinfection was diagnosed in three patients., Conclusions: Our data support the use of grazoprevir/elbasvir for immediate treatment against HCV in order to reduce HCV transmission in MSM., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Co1nflicting data exist regarding the effect of efavirenz (EFV) plasma concentrations on central nervous system (CNS) toxicity. We aimed to determine whether patients with high EFV plasma concentrations have an increased likelihood of toxicity-driven EFV discontinuations., Methods: EFV plasma concentrations were measured from patients in the EuroSIDA study starting EFV after 1 January 1999. Patients with a plasma concentration available were divided into those that discontinued EFV because of any toxicity or by the choice of the patient or physician within 2 years (TOXPC group) and those that continued EFV for > or = 2 years (no toxicity group). Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to investigate the effects of the EFV plasma concentration and those of other potentially relevant factors on the risk of toxicity-induced EFV discontinuations., Results: A total of 843 patients were included. Of these patients, 138 patients (16.4%) discontinued EFV because of TOXPC and 705 (83.6%) patients continued EFV for 22 years. A total of 20 (14.5%) patients in the TOXPC group had high EFV plasma concentrations (>4.0 mg/l) compared with 99 (14.0%) patients in the no toxicity group (P = 0.890). A positive hepatitis C status (P = 0.026), but not the EFV plasma concentration, was an independent predictor of toxicity-driven EFV discontinuations., Conclusions: No association was found between EFV plasma concentrations and the risk of EFV discontinuations because of (CNS) toxicity. This result questions the designation of EFV plasma concentrations >4.0 mg/l as being 'toxic', at least when defined by treatment discontinuation.