Search

Background Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use. Methods and findings Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507. Interpretation In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04303507; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10207947., Author(s): William H. K. Schilling 1,2,*, Mavuto Mukaka 1,2, James J. Callery 1,2, Martin J. Llewelyn 3,4, Cintia V. Cruz 1,2, Mehul Dhorda 1,2, Thatsanun Ngernseng 1, Naomi Waithira 1,2, [...]

Background: Ticks, as critical vectors of a variety of pathogens, pose a significant public health challenge globally. In Southeast Asia (SEA), ticks are responsible for transmitting a diverse array of pathogens affecting humans and animals. The geographical and ecological diversity of SEA provides a unique environment that supports a wide range of tick species, which complicates the management and study of tick-borne diseases (TBDs). Methodology/principal findings: This article synthesizes findings from the first international symposium on ticks and TBDs in Southeast Asia, held in Phnom Penh on June 22 and 23, 2023. It highlights regional efforts to understand tick ecology and pathogen transmission. This paper proposes to present a summary of the various presentations given during the symposium following 3 main parts. The first one is devoted to the state of knowledge regarding ticks and TBDs in SEA countries, with presentations from 6 different countries, namely Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The second part focuses on the development of new research approaches on tick-borne pathogens (TBPs) and TBDs. The last part is a summary of the round table discussion held on the final day, with the aim of defining the most important challenges and recommendations for researches on TBP and TBD in the SEA region. Conclusions/Significance: Key topics discussed include advancements in diagnostic tools, such as MALDI-TOF MS and proteomics, and the development of sustainable strategies for tick management and disease prevention. The symposium facilitated the exchange of knowledge and collaborative networks among experts from various disciplines, promoting a unified approach to tackling TBDs in the region. The symposium underscored the need for enhanced surveillance, diagnostics, and inter-regional cooperation to manage the threat of TBDs effectively. Recommendations include the establishment of a regional database for tick identification and the expansion of vector competence studies. These initiatives are crucial for developing targeted interventions and understanding the broader implications of climate change and urbanization on the prevalence of TBDs. Author summary: Ticks are arthropods that can transmit pathogens affecting both animals and people. In Southeast Asia, the diversity of tick species and the tick-borne pathogens is particularly high due to the region's varied climates and ecosystems. Our research, discussed during an international symposium, focuses on understanding these ticks and finding better ways to detect and manage the associated diseases. This symposium highlighted knowledge on ticks and tick-borne pathogens in the different countries, new technologies such as perspectives in research. This work is important because it helps in developing strategies to prevent these diseases, which is crucial for the health of people and animals in Southeast Asia and beyond. This work not only advances scientific knowledge but also supports efforts to improve public health in response to the challenges posed by environmental changes, such as climate and land-use changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Uncertainty over the therapeutic benefit of parenteral remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in varying treatment guidelines. Methods In a multicenter open-label, controlled, adaptive, pharmacometric platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to 1 of 8 treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200 mg followed by 100 mg daily for 5 days) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) clearance (estimated under a linear model fit to the daily log10 viral densities, days 0–7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates, in a modified intention-to-treat population. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). Results The 2 study arms enrolled 131 patients (remdesivir n = 67, no study drug n = 64) and estimated viral clearance rates from a median of 18 swab samples per patient (a total of 2356 quantitative polymerase chain reactions). Under the linear model, compared with the contemporaneous control arm (no study drug), remdesivir accelerated mean estimated viral clearance by 42% (95% credible interval, 18%–73%). Conclusions Parenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric assessment of therapeutics using the method described can determine in vivo clinical antiviral efficacy rapidly and efficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In Melanesia, the prevalence of trachomatous inflammation–follicular (TF) suggests that public health–level interventions against active trachoma are needed. However, the prevalence of trachomatous trichiasis is below the threshold for elimination as a public health problem and evidence of conjunctival infection with trachoma's causative organism (Chlamydia trachomatis [CT]) is rare. Here, we examine the prevalence of ocular infection with CT and previous exposure to CT in three evaluation units (EUs) of Papua New Guinea. Methods All individuals aged 1–9 years who were examined for clinical signs of trachoma in 3 Global Trachoma Mapping Project EUs were eligible to take part in this study (N = 3181). Conjunctival swabs were collected from 349 children with TF and tested by polymerase chain reaction to assess for ocular CT infection. Dried blood spots were collected from 2572 children and tested for anti-Pgp3 antibodies using a multiplex assay. Results The proportion of children with TF who had CT infection was low across all 3 EUs (overall 2%). Anti-Pgp3 seroprevalence was 5.2% overall and there was no association between anti-Pgp3 antibody level and presence of TF. In 2 EUs, age-specific seroprevalence did not increase significantly with increasing age in the 1- to 9-year-old population. In the third EU, there was a statistically significant change with age but the overall seroprevalence and peak age-specific seroprevalence was very low. Conclusions Based on these results, together with similar findings from the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, the use of TF to guide antibiotic mass drug administration decisions in Melanesia should be reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Western Pacific Surveillance & Response Journal is the property of World Health Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir are the two leading oral COVID-19 antiviral treatments, but their antiviral activities in patients have not been compared directly. The aim of this ongoing platform trial is to compare different antiviral treatments using the rate of viral clearance as the measure of antiviral effect. PLATCOV is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial running in Thailand, Brazil, Pakistan, and Laos. The component of the trial reported here was conducted in the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We recruited low-risk adult patients aged 18–50 years with early symptomatic COVID-19 (<4 days of symptoms). Eligible patients were randomly assigned using block randomisation via a centralised web app to one of seven treatment groups: molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, casirivimab–imdevimab, tixagevimab–cilgavimab, favipiravir, fluoxetine, or no study drug. The no study drug group comprised a minimum proportion of 20% of patients at all times, with uniform randomisation ratios applied across the active treatment groups. Results for the concurrently randomised molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and no study drug groups are reported here. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as patients with more than 2 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed in all participants who took at least one dose of the medication. The viral clearance rate was derived under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log 10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 1 week (18 measurements). Treatment groups with a probability of more than 0·9 that viral clearance was accelerated by more than 20% compared with no drug entered a non-inferiority comparison (with a 10% non-inferiority margin) compared with the platform's current most effective drug. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT05041907. Between June 6, 2022, and Feb 23, 2023, 209 patients in Thailand were enrolled and concurrently randomly assigned to molnupiravir (n=65), ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (n=59), or no study drug (n=85). 129 (62%) of the patients were female and 80 (38%) were male. Relative to the no study drug group, the rates of viral clearance were 37% (95% credible interval 16–65) faster with molnupiravir and 84% (54–119) faster with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. In the non-inferiority comparison, viral clearance was 25% (10–38) slower with molnupiravir than ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Molnupiravir was removed from the study platform when it reached the prespecified inferiority margin of 10% compared with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Median estimated viral clearance half-lives were 8·5 h (IQR 6·7–10·1) with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, 11·6 h (8·6–15·4) with molnupiravir, and 15·5 h (11·9–21·2) with no study drug. Viral rebound occurred more frequently following nirmatrelvir (six [10%] of 58) compared with the no study drug (one [1%] of 84; p=0·018) or the molnupiravir (one [2%] of 65; p=0·051) groups. Persistent infections following molnupiravir had more viral mutations (three of nine patients had an increased number of single nucleotide polymorphisms in samples collected at 7 or more days compared with those at baseline) than after nirmatrelvir (zero of three) or no study drug (zero of 19). There were no adverse events of grade 3 or worse, or serious adverse events in any of the reported treatment groups. Both molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir accelerate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in patients with COVID-19, but the antiviral effect of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir was substantially greater. Measurement of oropharyngeal viral clearance rates provides a rapid and well tolerated approach to the assessment and comparison of antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19. It should be evaluated in other acute viral respiratory infections. Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]