Search

Successful drug discovery is like finding oases of safety and efficacy in chemical and biological deserts. Screens in disease models, and other decision tools used in drug research and development (R&D), point towards oases when they score therapeutic candidates in a way that correlates with clinical utility in humans. Otherwise, they probably lead in the wrong direction. This line of thought can be quantified by using decision theory, in which ‘predictive validity’ is the correlation coefficient between the output of a decision tool and clinical utility across therapeutic candidates. Analyses based on this approach reveal that the detectability of good candidates is extremely sensitive to predictive validity, because the deserts are big and oases small. Both history and decision theory suggest that predictive validity is under-managed in drug R&D, not least because it is so hard to measure before projects succeed or fail later in the process. This article explains the influence of predictive validity on R&D productivity and discusses methods to evaluate and improve it, with the aim of supporting the application of more effective decision tools and catalysing investment in their creation.

Experimental exposure of healthy volunteers to the T-cell dependent neoantigen keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) permits the evaluation of immunomodulatory investigational medicinal product (IMP) pharmacology prior to the recruitment of patient populations. Despite widespread use, no standardized approach to the design and conduct of such studies has been agreed. The objective of this systematic review was to survey the published literature where KLH was used as a challenge agent, describing methodology, therapeutic targets addressed, and pharmacodynamic outcome measures. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies using KLH challenge in humans between January 1, 1994, and April 1, 2022. We described key study features, including KLH formulation, dose, use of adjuvants, route of administration, co-administered IMPs, and end points. Of 2421 titles and abstracts screened, 46 met the inclusion criteria, including 14 (31%) early phase trials of IMP, of which 10 (71%) targeted T-cell co-stimulation. IMPs with diverse mechanisms demonstrated modulation of the humoral response to KLH, suggesting limited specificity of this end point. Two early phase IMP studies (14%) described the response to intradermal re-challenge (delayed type hypersensitivity). Challenge regimens for IMP assessment were often incompletely described, and exhibited marked heterogeneity, including primary KLH dose (25-fold variation: 100–2500 mcg), KLH formulation, and co-administration with adjuvants. Methodological heterogeneity and failure to exploit the access to tissue-level mechanism-relevant end points afforded by KLH challenge has impaired the translational utility of this paradigm to date. Future standardization, characterization, and methodological development is required to permit tailored, appropriately powered, mechanism-dependent study design to optimize drug development decisions.

Background A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. Methods PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. Findings The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI –0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). Interpretation Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. Funding National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Background: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. Aim: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people in the community. Design and setting: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). Method: Adults aged ≥65, or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500μg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The hypothesis for the time to recovery endpoint is evaluated first, and if superiority is declared on time to recovery, the hypothesis for the second co-primary endpoint of hospitalisation/death is then evaluated. To determine futility, we pre-specified a clinically meaningful benefit in time to first reported recovery as a hazard ratio of 1.2 or larger (equating to approximately 1.5 days benefit in the colchicine arm, assuming 9 days recovery in the usual care arm). Results: The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to colchicine from March 04, 2021 until May 26, 2021, after the pre-specified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to colchicine (n=156), usual care (n=1145), and other treatments (n=1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0·919 [95% credible interval 0·72 to 1·16] and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. Results were similar in comparisons with concurrent controls. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0·76 [0·28 to 1·89] and an estimated difference of 0.4% [-2.4 to 2.7%]. One serious adverse event occurred in the colchicine group and two in usual care. Conclusions: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) currently has few effective treatments. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness and uptake of a vaccine, it is important that the search for treatments continue. An exaggerated inflammatory state is likely responsible for much of the morbidity and mortality in COVID-19. Elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), a key pro-inflammatory cytokine, have been shown to be associated with increased COVID-19 mortality. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, TNF blockade reduces not only biologically active TNF but other pro-inflammatory cytokines important in COVID-19 hyperinflammation. Observational data from patients already on anti-TNF therapy show a reduced rate of COVID-19 poor outcomes and death compared with other immune-suppressing therapies. Anti-TNF has a long history of safe use, including in special at-risk populations, and is widely available. The case to adequately assess anti-TNF as a treatment for COVID-19 is compelling., Robinson et al. discuss the potential of TNF blockade in the management of COVID-19. The rationale for the therapeutic benefit of anti-TNF is outlined, including the pathogenic role of TNF in COVID-19, the mechanism of action of anti-TNF, animal data, and supportive observational data from those on anti-TNF who develop COVID-19.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 triggering the COVID-19 pandemic ranks as arguably the greatest medical emergency of the last century. COVID-19 has highlighted health disparities both within and between countries and will leave a lasting impact on global society. Nonetheless, substantial investment in life sciences over recent decades has facilitated a rapid scientific response with innovations in viral characterization, testing, and sequencing. Perhaps most remarkably, this permitted the development of highly effective vaccines, which are being distributed globally at unprecedented speed. In contrast, drug treatments for the established disease have delivered limited benefits so far. Innovative and rapid approaches in the design and execution of large-scale clinical trials and repurposing of existing drugs have saved many lives; however, many more remain at risk. In this review we describe challenges and unmet needs, discuss existing therapeutics, and address future opportunities. Consideration is given to factors that have hindered drug development in order to support planning for the next pandemic challenge and to allow rapid and cost-effective development of new therapeutics with equitable delivery.

Background: Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. Methods: In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903. Findings: Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment–time interactions were –0·09 (95% CI –0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (–0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group. Interpretation: Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation—as measured by CRP concentration—in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19.

Background: The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, in patients in the community who are multiply-vaccinated and at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, has not been established. We aimed to determine whether molnupiravir added to usual care reduced hospital admissions/deaths among people at higher risk from COVID-19, and here report our preliminary analyses. Methods: Participants in this UK multicentre, open-label, adaptive, multi-arm, platform, randomised controlled trial were aged ≥50, or ≥18 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤5 days with confirmed COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care or usual care plus molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for 5 days). The primary outcome measure was all-cause hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The main secondary outcome measure was time to first self-reported recovery. A sub-set of participants in each group were assessed for the virology primary outcome measure of day seven SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 Findings: Between December 8, 2021 and April 27, 2022, 25783 participants were randomised to molnupiravir plus usual care (n=12821) or usual care alone (n=12962). Mean (range) age of participants was 56·6 years (18 to 99), 58·6% were female, and 99% had at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomisation was two days (IQR 1 – 3), the median number of days from symptom onset to starting to take the medication was three days (IQR 3 – 4), 87% (11109/11997) received their medication within five days of symptom onset, and 95·4% (n=11857) of participants randomised to molnupiravir reported taking molnupiravir for five days. Primary outcome measure data were available in 25000 (97%) participants and included in this analysis. 103/12516 (0·8%) hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the molnupiravir group versus 96/12484 (0·8%) in usual care alone with a posterior probability of superiority of 0·34 (adjusted odds ratio 1·061 (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]) 0·80 to 1·40). Estimates were similar for all subgroups. The observed median (IQR) time-to-first-recovery from randomisation was 9 (5–23) days in molnupiravir and 15 (7–not reached) days in usual care. There was an estimated benefit of 4·2 (95% BCI: 3·8 – 4·6) days in time-to-first-recovery (TTR) giving a posterior probability of superiority of >0·999 (estimated median TTR 10·3 [10·2 – 10·6] days vs 14·5 [14·2 – 14·9] days respectively; hazard ratio [95% BCI], 1·36 [1·3–1·4] days), which met the pre-specified superiority threshold. On day 7, SARS-CoV-2 virus was below detection levels in 7/34 (21%) of the molnupiravir group, versus 1/39 (3%) in the usual care group (p=0.039), and mean viral load was lower in the molnupiravir group compared with those receiving usual care [(SD) of log10(viral load) 3·82 (1·40) in the molnupiravir group and 4.93 (1·38) in the usual care group, (P Interpretation: In this preliminary analysis, we found that molnupiravir did not reduce already low hospitalisations/deaths among higher risk, vaccinated adults with COVID-19 in the community, but resulted in faster time to recovery, and reduced viral detection and load. Funding: This project is funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

ObjectivesColchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment, but its effect on time to recovery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether colchicine is effective at reducing time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people in the community.DesignProspective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE).SettingNational trial run remotely from a central trial site and at multiple primary care centres across the United Kingdom.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥65, or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions.Main outcome measuresThe co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The hypothesis for the time to recovery endpoint is evaluated first, and if superiority is declared on time to recovery, the hypothesis for the second co-primary endpoint of hospitalisation/death is then evaluated. To determine futility, we pre-specified a clinically meaningful benefit in time to first reported recovery as a hazard ratio of 1.2 or larger (equating to approximately 1.5 days benefit in the colchicine arm, assuming 9 days recovery in the usual care arm).ResultsThe trial opened on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to colchicine starting on March 04, 2021 and stopping on May 26, 2021, because the pre-specified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to colchicine (n=156), usual care (n=1145), and other treatments (n=1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.919 [95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.16] and an estimated increase of 1.14 days [−1.86 to 5.21] in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. Results were similar in comparisons with concurrent controls. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 [0.28 to 1.89] and an estimated difference of −0.4% [−2.7% to 2.4]. One serious adverse event occurred in the colchicine group and one in usual care.ConclusionsColchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.Trial registrationISRCTN86534580.

Background The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-moderate disease are lacking. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospitalisation in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. Methods This open-label, randomised superiority clinical trial at 19 centres in the United Kingdom enrolled adults, ≥18 years, presenting to hospitals with clinically-diagnosed highly-probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with

Introduction Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a dysregulated immune response. Inflammatory monocytes and macrophages are crucial, promoting injurious, proinflammatory sequelae. Immunomodulation is, therefore, an attractive therapeutic strategy and we sought to test licensed and novel candidate drugs. Methods and analysis The CATALYST trial is a multiarm, open-label, multicentre, phase II platform trial designed to identify candidate novel treatments to improve outcomes of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with usual care. Treatments with evidence of biomarker improvements will be put forward for larger-scale testing by current national phase III platform trials. Hospitalised patients >16 years with a clinical picture strongly suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (confirmed by chest X-ray or CT scan, with or without a positive reverse transcription PCR assay) and a C reactive protein (CRP) ≥40 mg/L are eligible. The primary outcome measure is CRP, measured serially from admission to day 14, hospital discharge or death. Secondary outcomes include the WHO Clinical Progression Improvement Scale as a principal efficacy assessment. Ethics and dissemination The protocol was approved by the East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0115) and given urgent public health status; initial approval was received on 5 May 2020, current protocol version (V.6.0) approval on 12 October 2020. The MHRA also approved all protocol versions. The results of this trial will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration numbers EudraCT2020-001684-89,NCT40580903.

Background The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Methods This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed. Findings 298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43–1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Funding National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

SummaryBackgroundDysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the efficacy of namilumab, a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor inhibitor and infliximab, a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in order to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials.MethodsIn this randomised, multi-arm, parallel group, open label, adaptive phase 2 proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST) we recruited hospitalised patients ≥ 16 years with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 40mg/L in nine UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated with equal probability to usual care, or usual care plus a single 150mg intravenous dose of namilumab (150mg) or infliximab (5mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified for ward versus ICU. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation in intervention arms compared to control as measured by CRP over time, analysed using Bayesian multi-level models. ISRCTN registry number 40580903.FindingsBetween 15thJune 2020 and 18thFebruary 2021 we randomised 146 participants: 54 to usual care, 57 to namilumab and 35 to infliximab. The probabilities that namilumab and infliximab were superior to usual care in reducing CRP over time were 97% and 15% respectively. Consistent effects were seen in ward and ICU patients and aligned with clinical outcomes, such that the probability of discharge (WHO levels 1-3) at day 28 was 47% and 64% for ICU and ward patients on usual care, versus 66% and 77% for patients treated with namilumab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30/55 (54.5%) namilumab patients compared to 145 in 29/54 (53.7%) usual care patients. 102 events occurred in 20/29 (69.0%) infliximab patients versus 112 events in 17/34 (50.0%) usual care patients.InterpretationNamilumab, but not infliximab, demonstrated proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia which was consistent with secondary clinical outcomes. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19.FundingMedical Research Council.

Background: Clinical manifestations and treatment outcomes in children and adolescents with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 are not well characterized. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 80 patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 who commenced tumor surveillance at ≤18 years of age. Results: Fifty-six patients (70%) developed an endocrine tumor by age ≤18 years (median age = 14 years, range = 6–18 years). Primary hyperparathyroidism occurred in >80% of patients, with >70% undergoing parathyroidectomy, in which less-than-subtotal (70% had nonfunctioning tumors, >35% had insulinomas, and 55% undergoing surgery. Pituitary tumors developed in >30% of patients, and ∼35% were macroprolactinomas. Tumor occurrence in male patients and female patients was not significantly different. Genetic analyses revealed 38 germline MEN1 mutations, of which 3 were novel. Conclusions: Seventy percent of children aged ≤18 years with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 develop endocrine tumors, which include parathyroid tumors for which less-than-subtotal parathyroidectomy should be avoided; pancreaticoduodenal neuroendocrine tumors that may metastasize; and pituitary macroprolactinomas.

BackgroundThe antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-moderate disease are lacking. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospitalisation in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis open-label, randomised superiority clinical trial at 19 centres in the United Kingdom enrolled adults, ≥18 years, presenting to hospitals with clinically-diagnosed highly-probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with NCT04381962, Study closed.Findings298 participants were enrolled from 3rd June 2020 to 29th January 2021. The primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants. The primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (Adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). Rates of respiratory failure, progression to pneumonia, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, including serious cardiovascular events, were not significantly different between groups.InterpretationIn patients with mild-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospitalisation or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19.FundingNIHR Oxford BRC, University of Oxford and Pfizer Inc.Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) with the terms (“azithromycin”) AND (“COVID” OR “COVID-19”) AND (“clinical trials”), until March 25, 2021, with no language restrictions. We identified 42 studies, among which there were four completed randomised trials of azithromycin (with or without hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalised patients with severe disease, and three completed randomised trials of azithromycin in mild COVID-19 in primary care. The four trials in hospitalised patients randomised 8,988 participants to azithromycin or standard care or hydroxychloroquine and found no evidence of a difference in mortality, duration of hospital stay or peak disease severity. Of the three trials in primary care, these randomised participants with early disease to 3 or 5 days of therapy, of which only one assessed azithromycin as standalone therapy. This large, adaptive platform trial in the UK randomised 540 participants in primary care to 3 days treatment with azithromycin versus 875 to standard care alone and found no meaningful difference in time to first reported recovery, or of rates of hospitalisation (3% versus 3%) and there were no deaths. We did not identify any randomised trials in patients with COVID-19 managed in ambulatory care.Added value of this studyThe ATOMIC2 trial was uniquely-designed to assess azithromycin as a standalone therapy in those with mild-moderately COVID-19 presenting to emergency care, but assessed as appropriate for initial ambulatory management without hospital admission. ATOMIC2 also uniquely assessed high-dose, long-duration treatment to investigate the efficacy of putative anti-inflammatory effects. We found that azithromycin 500 mg daily for 14 days did not reduce the proportion of participants who died or required hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation.Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings, taken together with existing data, suggest there is no evidence that azithromycin reduces hospitalisation, respiratory failure or death compared with standard care, either in early disease in the community, or those hospitalised with severe disease, or in those with moderate disease managed on an ambulatory pathway.

IntroductionSevere SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a dysregulated immune response. Inflammatory monocytes and macrophages are crucial, promoting injurious, pro-inflammatory sequelae. Immunomodulation is, therefore, an attractive therapeutic strategy and we sought to test licensed and novel candidate drugs.Methods and analysisThe CATALYST trial is a multi-arm, open-label, multi-centre, phase II platform trial designed to identify candidate novel treatments to improve outcomes of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with usual care. Treatments with evidence of biomarker improvements will be put forward for larger-scale testing by current national phase III platform trials. Hospitalised patients >16 years with a clinical picture strongly suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (confirmed by chest X-ray or CT scan, with or without a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay) and a C-Reactive Protein (CRP) ≥40 mg/L are eligible. The primary outcome measure is CRP, measured serially from admission to day 14, hospital discharge or death. Secondary outcomes include the WHO Clinical Progression Improvement Scale as a principal efficacy assessment.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by the East Midlands - Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0115) and given Urgent Public Health status; initial approval was received on 05-May-2020, current protocol version (v6.0) approval on 12-Oct-2020. The MHRA also approved all protocol versions. The results of this trial will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberEudraCT Number: 2020-001684-89ISRCTN Number: 40580903Strengths and limitations of this trialCATALYST will provide a rapid readout on the safety and proof-of-concept of candidate novel treatmentsCATALYST will enable phase III trial resources to be focussed and allocated for agents with a high likelihood of successCATALYST uses Bayesian multi-level models to allow for nesting of repeated measures data, with factors for each individual patient and treatment arm, and allowing for non-linear responsesCATALYST is not designed to provide a definitive signal on clinical outcomes

Background: The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-moderate disease are lacking. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospitalisation in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. Methods: This open-label, randomised superiority clinical trial at 19 centres in the United Kingdom enrolled adults, ≥18 years, presenting to hospitals with clinically-diagnosed highly-probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with

Objective Base of thumb OA (BTOA) is a common age-related disease that has a significant negative impact on quality of life, while little is known about the structure and pathways of interface services. Our aim was to assess disease burden, referral pathways, service structure and management pathways in UK interface services. Methods A structured questionnaire was carried out with a participating clinician at each centre to detail the local guidelines and management of BTOA. Five patients referred with BTOA were prospectively identified in each of 32 UK interface centres. Results Most centres (72%) had a local guideline and a standardized treatment regime consisting of education (100%), joint protection (100%), range of motion exercises (84%), strengthening exercises (88%), splintage (100%) and use of assistive devices (78%). No centre routinely offered a steroid injection at the first appointment and no centre had a specific threshold for offering an injection. Injection delivery was variable. Most patients had not been referred previously (82%). Most patients used analgesia (72%), but a minority of patients had been treated with a splint (46%), therapy (43%) and steroid injection (27%) prior to their latest attendance. Conclusion Most BTOA patients newly referred to interface services have been treated with analgesics and have not received comprehensive multimodal intervention. The management of BTOA at interface services is standardized in terms of education, splintage and therapy. However, there is a lack of standardization in terms of both the threshold for, timing of and mode of delivery of injection therapy.

Background Azithromycin is an orally active synthetic macrolide antibiotic with a wide range of anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. It is a safe, inexpensive, generic licenced drug available worldwide and manufactured to scale and is a potential candidate therapy for pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Azithromycin was widely used to treat severe SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but to date, no randomised data are available in any coronavirus infections. Other ongoing trials are exploring short courses of azithromycin either in early disease, within the first 7 days of symptoms, when azithromycin’s antiviral properties may be important, or late in disease when anti-bacterial properties may reduce the risk of secondary bacterial infection. However, the molecule’s anti-inflammatory properties, including suppression of pulmonary macrophage-derived pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukins-1β, -6, -8, and -18 and cytokines G-CSF and GM-CSF may provide a distinct therapeutic benefit if given in as a prolonged course during the period of progression from moderate to severe disease. Methods ATOMIC2 is a phase II/III, multi-centre, prospective, open-label, two-arm randomised superiority clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care for adults presenting to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms who are not admitted at initial presentation. We will enrol adults, ≥ 18 years of age assessed in acute hospitals in the UK with clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 infection where management on an ambulatory care pathway is deemed appropriate. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or to azithromycin 500 mg orally daily for 14 days with telephone follow-up at days 14 and 28. The primary objective is to compare the proportion with either death or respiratory failure requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation over 28 days from randomisation. Secondary objectives include mortality/respiratory failure in those with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis; all-cause mortality; progression to pneumonia; progression to severe pneumonia; peak severity of illness and mechanistic analysis of blood and nasal biomarkers. Discussion This trial will determine the clinical utility of azithromycin in patients with moderately severe, clinically diagnosed COVID-19 and could be rapidly applicable worldwide. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04381962. Registered on 11 May 2020. EudraCT identifier 2020-001740-26. Opened for accrual on 29 May 2020.

Background and purpose Miridesap, a depleter of serum amyloid P component (SAP), forms an essential component of a novel approach to remove systemic amyloid deposits; low oral bioavailability necessitates that it is given parenterally. We sought to identify and clinically characterise a pro-drug that preserves the pharmacological properties of miridesap while having adequate oral bioavailability and physical stability. Experimental approach We utilised a preclinical screening cascade focused on appropriate physicochemical properties, physical and gut stability, and conversion to miridesap in liver microsomes and blood. GSK3039294 (GSK294) had the desired in vitro profile and progressed to preclinical in vivo pharmacokinetic and safety assessments. Based on a favourable profile, it was tested in healthy participants after single and repeat dosing. Key results GSK294 was highly soluble and stable in simulated gastric and intestinal fluids, stable in intestinal microsomes, and permeable in Madine Darby Canine Kidney type II cells. GSK294 was rapidly hydrolysed to miridesap and its mono pro-drug ester in blood and liver microsomes. GSK294 showed good oral bioavailability of miridesap in rats and dogs. Following administration of GSK294 600 mg QD for 7 days in humans, pharmacodynamically active concentrations of miridesap were achieved with substantial and sustained depletion of plasma SAP. The study was terminated due to observations of arrhythmia, the relation of which to GSK294 remains unclear. Conclusion and implications Using a preclinical screening cascade, we identified a pro-drug for a palindromic molecule with unique pharmacology (miridesap). The pro-drug depleted circulating SAP with a time course and extent similar to that of parenterally administered miridesap.

Background Up to 70% of patients with primary biliary cholangitis develop pruritus (itch) during the course of their disease. Treatment of pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis is challenging and novel therapies are needed. Ursodeoxycholic acid, the standard first-line treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, is largely ineffective for pruritus. We investigated the efficacy and safety of GSK2330672, a selective inhibitor of human ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT), in patients with primary biliary cholangitis with pruritus. Methods We conducted this phase 2a, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in two UK medical centres. Following 2 weeks of open placebo run-in, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with a block size of 4 to receive GSK2330672 or placebo twice daily during two consecutive 14-day treatment periods in a crossover sequence. The treatment periods were followed by a 14-day single-blinded placebo follow-up period. The primary endpoints were safety of GSK2330672, assessed using clinical and laboratory parameters, and tolerability as rated by the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. The secondary endpoints were changes in pruritus scores measured using the 0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS), primary biliary cholangitis-40 (PBC-40) itch domain score and 5-D itch scale, changes in serum total bile acids and 7 alpha hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4), and changes in the pharmacokinetic parameters of ursodeoxycholic acid and its conjugates. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01899703. Findings Between March 10, 2014, and Oct 7, 2015, we enrolled 22 patients. 11 patients were assigned to receive intervention followed by placebo (sequence 1), and 11 patients were assigned to receive placebo followed by intervention (sequence 2). One patient assigned to sequence 2 withdrew consent prior to receiving randomised therapy. One patient did not attend the placebo follow-up period, but was included in the final analysis. GSK2330672 treatment for 14 days was safe with no serious adverse events reported. Diarrhoea was the most frequent adverse event during treatment with GSK2330672 (seven with GSK2330672 vs one with placebo) and headache was the most frequent adverse event during treatment with placebo (seven with placebo vs six with GSK2330672). After GSK2330672 treatment, the percentage changes from baseline itch scores were −57% (95% CI −73 to −42, p Interpretation In patients with primary biliary cholangitis with pruritus, 14 days of ileal bile acid transporter inhibition by GSK2330672 was generally well tolerated without serious adverse events, and demonstrated efficacy in reducing pruritus severity. GSK2330672 has the potential to be a significant and novel advance for the treatment of pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis. Diarrhoea, the most common adverse event associated with GSK2330672 treatment, might limit the long-term use of this drug.