Search

We evaluated clinical and socioeconomic burdens of respiratory disease in banana farm workers in Guatemala. We offered all eligible workers enrollment during June 15-December 30, 2020, and annually, then tracked them for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) through self-reporting to study nurses, sentinel surveillance at health posts, and absenteeism. Workers who had ILI submitted nasopharyngeal swab specimens for testing for influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2, then completed surveys at days 0, 7, and 28. Through October 10, 2021, a total of 1,833 workers reported 169 ILIs (12.0 cases/100 person-years), and 43 (25.4%) were laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 (3.1 cases/100 person-years). Workers who had SARS-CoV-2‒positive ILIs reported more frequent anosmia, dysgeusia, difficulty concentrating, and irritability and worse clinical and well-being severity scores than workers who had test result‒negative ILIs. Workers who had positive results also had greater absenteeism and lost income. These results support prioritization of farm workers in Guatemala for COVID-19 vaccination.

Animal and human data indicate variable effects of interferons in treating coronavirus infections according to inflammatory status and timing of therapy. In this sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection Treated with a Combination of Lopinavir–Ritonavir and Interferon β-1b), we evaluated the heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-β1b and lopinavir–ritonavir versus placebo among hospitalized patients with MERS on 90-day mortality, according to cytokine levels and timing of therapy. We measured plasma levels of 17 cytokines at enrollment and tested the treatment effect on 90-day mortality according to cytokine levels (higher versus lower levels using the upper tertile (67%) as a cutoff point) and time to treatment (≤ 7 days versus > 7 days of symptom onset) using interaction tests. Among 70 included patients, 32 received interferon-β1b and lopinavir–ritonavir and 38 received placebo. Interferon-β1b and lopinavir–ritonavir reduced mortality in patients with lower IL-2, IL-8 and IL-13 plasma concentrations but not in patients with higher levels (p-value for interaction = 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05, respectively) and with early but not late therapy (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect according to other cytokine levels. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the assessment of inflammatory status can help in identifying patients with MERS who may benefit from interferon-β1b and lopinavir–ritonavir. Trial registration: This is a sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843).

Background Baloxavir marboxil has demonstrated safety and efficacy in treating adult and adolescent outpatients with acute influenza (CAPSTONE-1 trial). Here, we report a subgroup analysis of outcomes in adolescents from the trial. Methods CAPSTONE-1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eligible adolescent outpatients (aged 12-17 years of age) were randomized in a ratio of 2:1 to a single dose of baloxavir 40/80 mg if less than/greater than or equal to 80 kg or placebo. The main outcomes were the time to alleviation of symptoms (TTAS), duration of infectious virus detection, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results Among 117 adolescent patients, 90 (77%) comprised the intent-to-treat infected population (63 baloxavir and 27 placebo; 88.9% A(H3N2)). The median TTAS was 38.6 hours shorter (95% confidence interval: −2.6, 68.4) in the baloxavir group compared with placebo (median TTAS, 54.1 hours vs 92.7 hours, P = .0055). The median time to sustained cessation of infectious virus detection was 72.0 hours for baloxavir compared with 120.0 hours for placebo recipients (P < .0001). Treatment-emergent PA/I38X-substituted viruses were detected in 5 of the 51 (9.8%) baloxavir recipients. In the safety population (76 baloxavir and 41 placebo), AEs were less common in baloxavir than placebo recipients (17.1% vs 34.1%; P = .0421). In the baloxavir group, no AEs except for diarrhea were reported in 2 or more patients. Conclusions Baloxavir demonstrated clinical and virologic efficacy in the otherwise healthy adolescents with acute influenza compared with placebo. There were no safety concerns identified. These results were similar to the adult population in CAPSTONE-1 and support baloxavir as a treatment option in adolescents., Single-dose baloxavir marboxil was clinically and virologically effective in otherwise healthy adolescent influenza patients (12-17 years) in CAPSTONE-1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. This analysis supports the use of baloxavir marboxil in an adolescent population with uncomplicated influenza.

BACKGROUND Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is a polymerase acidic protein (PA) endonuclease inhibitor with clinical efficacy in the treatment of uncomplicated influenza, including in outpatients at increased risk for complications. The postexposure prophylactic efficacy of baloxavir in the household setting is unclear. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the postexposure prophylactic efficacy of baloxavir in household contacts of index patients with confirmed influenza during the 2018–2019 season in Japan. The participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a single dose of baloxavir or placebo. The primary end point was clinical influenza, as confirmed by reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction testing, over a period of 10 days. The occurrence of baloxavir-selected PA substitutions associated with reduced susceptibility was assessed. RESULTS A total of 752 household contacts of 545 index patients were randomly assigned to receive baloxavir or placebo. Among the index patients, 95.6% had influenza A virus infection, 73.6% were younger than 12 years of age, and 52.7% received baloxavir. Among the participants who could be evaluated (374 in the baloxavir group and 375 in the placebo group), the percentage in whom clinical influenza developed was significantly lower in the baloxavir group than in the placebo group (1.9% vs. 13.6%) (adjusted risk ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.30; P

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

We evaluated the clinical and socioeconomic burdens of respiratory disease in a cohort of Guatemalan banana plantation workers. All eligible workers were offered enrollment from June 15–December 30, 2020, and annually, then followed for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) through: 1) self-reporting to study nurses, 2) sentinel surveillance at health posts, and 3) absenteeism. Workers with ILI submitted nasopharyngeal swabs for influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 testing, then completed surveys at days 0, 7, and 28. Through October 10, 2021, 1,833 workers developed 169 ILIs (12.0/100 person-years) and 43 (25.4%) of these ILIs were laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (3.1/100 person-years). Workers with SARS-CoV-2-positive ILI reported more anosmia (p

Background We conducted double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy and tolerability of favipiravir in acute influenza. Methods Otherwise healthy adults with influenza-like symptoms and fever of ≤48 hours were randomized to favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily [BID] on day 1, 800 mg BID on days 2–5) or placebo tablets (1:1 in US316; 3:1 in US317). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to illness alleviation when 6 influenza symptoms were self-rated as absent or mild and fever was absent in the intention-to-treat, influenza-infected participants. Results In US316 (301 favipiravir, 322 placebo), favipiravir was associated with a 14.4-hour reduction (median, 84.2 vs 98.6 hours; P = .004) in time to illness alleviation vs placebo. In US317 (526 favipiravir, 169 placebo), favipiravir did not significantly reduce time to alleviation (median, 77.8 vs 83.9 hours). In both trials favipiravir was associated with reduced viral titers, RNA load area under the curve over days 1–5, and median times to cessation of virus detection (P < .001). Aside from asymptomatic hyperuricemia, no important differences in adverse events were found. Conclusions This favipiravir dosing regimen demonstrated significant antiviral efficacy but inconsistent illness alleviation in uncomplicated influenza. Studies of higher doses and antiviral combinations for treating serious influenza and other RNA viral infections are warranted. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02026349; NCT02008344.

BackgroundSingle-dose baloxavir rapidly reduces influenza virus titers and symptoms in patients with uncomplicated influenza, but viruses with reduced in vitro susceptibility due to amino acid substitutions at position 38 of polymerase acidic protein (PA/I38X) sometimes emerge.MethodsWe evaluated the kinetics, risk factors, and effects on clinical and virologic outcomes of emergence of PA/I38X-substituted viruses.ResultsViruses containing PA/I38X substitutions were identified 3–9 days after baloxavir treatment in 9.7% (36/370) of patients, of whom 85.3% had transient virus titer rises. Median time to sustained cessation of infectious virus detection was 192, 48, and 96 hours in the baloxavir recipients with PA/I38X-substituted viruses, without PA/I38X-substituted viruses, and placebo recipients, respectively. The corresponding median times to alleviation of symptoms were 63.1, 51.0, and 80.2 hours, respectively. After day 5, symptom increases occurred in 11.5%, 8.0%, and 13.0%, respectively, and in 8.9% of oseltamivir recipients. Variant virus emergence was associated with lower baseline neutralizing antibody titers.ConclusionsThe emergence of viruses with PA/I38X substitutions following baloxavir treatment was associated with transient rises in infectious virus titers, prolongation of virus detectability, initial delay in symptom alleviation, and uncommonly with symptom rebound. The potential transmissibility of PA/I38X-substituted viruses requires careful study.Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT02954354.

Background We assessed the safety and effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil administration in Japanese children with influenza. Methods This open-label study administered 1 weight-adjusted dose of baloxavir to 107 children aged 1–11 years with laboratory-confirmed, febrile influenza virus infection of ≤48 hours duration. Results Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 34.6% of patients, most commonly vomiting (7.5%); no serious AEs or AEs causing discontinuation occurred. The median time to alleviation of influenza illness was 44.6 hours (95% confidence interval, 38.9–62.5 hours), to resolution of fever was 21.4 hours, and to sustained cessation of infectious viral shedding was 24.0 hours. However, viruses with amino acid substitutions in the viral polymerase acidic protein at position I38 (PA/I38T/M) emerged in 18 of 77 (23.4%) patients. Emergence was associated with longer infectious virus detectability (median time, 180.0 hours) and time to illness alleviation (median, 79.6 vs 42.8 hours in patients without PA/I38T/M-substituted viruses). Among patients with PA/I38T/M-substituted virus emergence, those with baseline hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) antibody titer, A single, oral dose of baloxavir marboxil was well tolerated and rapidly reduced viral titers, but the common emergence of PA/I38T/M-substituted viruses warrants consideration of alternative dosing regimens in young children.

Purpose of review We review antivirals inhibiting subunits of the influenza polymerase complex that are advancing in clinical development. Recent findings Favipiravir, pimodivir, and baloxavir are inhibitory in preclinical models for influenza A viruses, including pandemic threat viruses and those resistant to currently approved antivirals, and two (favipiravir and baloxavir) also inhibit influenza B viruses. All are orally administered, although the dosing regimens vary. The polymerase basic protein 1 transcriptase inhibitor favipiravir has shown inconsistent clinical effects in uncomplicated influenza, and is teratogenic effects in multiple species, contraindicating its use in pregnancy. The polymerase basic protein 2 cap-binding inhibitor pimodivir displays antiviral effects alone and in combination with oseltamivir in uncomplicated influenza, although variants with reduced susceptibility emerge frequently during monotherapy. Single doses of the polymerase acidic protein cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor baloxavir are effective in alleviating symptoms and rapidly inhibiting viral replication in otherwise healthy and higher risk patients with acute influenza, although variants with reduced susceptibility emerge frequently during monotherapy. Combinations of newer polymerase inhibitors with neuraminidase inhibitors show synergy in preclinical models and are currently undergoing clinical testing in hospitalized patients. Summary These new polymerase inhibitors promise to add to the clinical management options and overall control strategies for influenza virus infections.

Prompt antiviral treatment has the potential to reduce influenza virus transmission to close contacts, but rigorous data on the magnitude of treatment effects on transmission are limited. Animal model data indicate that rapid reductions in viral replication after antiviral treatment reduce the risk of transmission. Observational and clinical trial data with oseltamivir and other neuraminidase inhibitors indicate that prompt treatment of household index patients seems to reduce the risk of illness in contacts, although the magnitude of the reported effects has varied widely across studies. In addition, the potential risk of transmitting drug-resistant variants exists with all approved classes of influenza antivirals. A controlled trial examining baloxavir treatment efficacy to reduce transmission, including the risk of transmitting virus with reduced baloxavir susceptibility, is currently in progress. If reduced transmission risk is confirmed, modeling studies indicate that early treatment could have major epidemiologic benefits in seasonal and pandemic influenza.

The possible effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 disease severity have generated considerable debate. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, who had definite clinical outcome (dead or discharged) by February 15, 2020. Patients on anti-hypertensive treatment with or without ACEI/ARB were compared on their clinical characteristics and outcomes. The medical records from 702 patients were screened. Among the 101 patients with a history of hypertension and taking at least one anti-hypertensive medication, 40 patients were receiving ACEI/ARB as part of their regimen, and 61 patients were on antihypertensive medication other than ACEI/ARB. We observed no statistically significant differences in percentages of in-hospital mortality (28% vs. 34%, P = 0.46), ICU admission (20% vs. 28%, P = 0.37) or invasive mechanical ventilation (18% vs. 26%, P = 0.31) between patients with or without ACEI/ARB treatment. Further multivariable adjustment of age and gender did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Our findings confirm the lack of an association between chronic receipt of renin-angiotensin system antagonists and severe outcomes of COVID-19. Patients should continue previous anti-hypertensive therapy until further evidence is available.

In the last few years, several new direct-acting influenza antivirals have been licensed, and others have advanced in clinical development. The increasing diversity of antiviral classes should allow an adequate public health response should a resistant virus to one agent or class widely circulate. One new antiviral, baloxavir marboxil, has been approved in the United States for treatment of influenza in those at high risk of developing influenza-related complications. Except for intravenous zanamivir in European Union countries, no antivirals have been licensed specifically for the indication of severe influenza or hospitalized influenza. This review addresses recent clinical developments involving selected polymerase inhibitors, neuraminidase inhibitors, antibody-based therapeutics, and host-directed therapies. There are many knowledge gaps for most of these agents because some data are not published and multiple pivotal studies are in progress at present. This review also considers important clinical research issues, including regulatory pathways, study designs, endpoints, and target populations encountered during the clinical development of novel therapeutics.

The NIH Virtual SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Summit, held on 6 November 2020, was organized to provide an overview on the status and challenges in developing antiviral therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including combinations of antivirals. Scientific experts from the public and private sectors convened virtually during a live videocast to discuss severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) targets for drug discovery as well as the preclinical tools needed to develop and evaluate effective small-molecule antivirals. The goals of the Summit were to review the current state of the science, identify unmet research needs, share insights and lessons learned from treating other infectious diseases, identify opportunities for public-private partnerships, and assist the research community in designing and developing antiviral therapeutics. This report includes an overview of therapeutic approaches, individual panel summaries, and a summary of the discussions and perspectives on the challenges ahead for antiviral development.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Background: The pharmacokinetics and appropriate dose regimens of favipiravir are unknown in hospitalized influenza patients; such data are also needed to determine dosage selection for favipiravir trials in COVID-19. Methods: In this dose-escalating study, favipiravir pharmacokinetics and tolerability were assessed in critically ill influenza patients. Participants received one of two dosing regimens; Japan licensed dose (1600 mg BID on day 1 and 600 mg BID on the following days) and the higher dose (1800 mg/800 mg BID) trialed in uncomplicated influenza. The primary pharmacokinetic endpoint was the proportion of patients with a minimum observed plasma trough concentration (Ctrough) ≥20 mg/L at all measured time points after the second dose. Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled into the low dose group and 19 patients into the high dose group of the study. Favipiravir Ctrough decreased significantly over time in both groups (p 80% of the duration of treatment of the two dose regimens evaluated (18.8% and 42.1% of patients for low and high dose regimen, respectively). Increasing the favipravir dosage predicted a higher proportion of patients reaching this threshold of 20 mg/L, suggesting that dosing regimens of ≥3600/2600 mg might be required for adequate concentrations. The two dosing regimens were well-tolerated in critical ill patients with influenza. Conclusion: The two dosing regimens proposed for uncomplicated influenza did not achieve our pre-defined treatment threshold.

Background:No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. Methods:We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2–10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir–ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered withClinicalTrials.gov,NCT04257656. Findings:Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87–1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95–2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. Interpretation:In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel corinavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2 virus), was fistly reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China towards the end of 2019. Large-scale spread within China and internationally led the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 virus infection include asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory symptoms, severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure, and even death. There are no antivirals of proven clinical efficacy in coronavirus infections. Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue, has inhibitory effects on animal and human highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, in in vitro and in vivo experiments. It is also inhibitory against the COVID-19 virus in vitro. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19. Methods The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Adults (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 virus infection, severe pneumonia signs or symptoms, and radiologically confirmed severe pneumonia are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenously administered remdesivir or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement (censored at day 28), defined as the time (in days) from randomization of study treatment (remdesivir or placebo) until a decline of two categories on a six-category ordinal scale of clinical status (1 = discharged; 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital. One interim analysis for efficacy and futility will be conducted once half of the total number of events required has been observed. Discussion This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in COVID-19. Enrolment began in sites in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on 6th February 2020. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04257656. Registered on 6 February 2020.

Background No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir–ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. Results A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir–ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir–ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, −5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir–ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir–ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir–ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. Conclusions In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir–ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308. opens in new tab.)

It is more than 20 years since the neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir and zanamivir were approved for the treatment and prevention of influenza. Guidelines for global surveillance and methods for evaluating resistance were established initially by the Neuraminidase Inhibitor Susceptibility Network (NISN), which merged 10 years ago with the International Society for influenza and other Respiratory Virus Diseases (isirv) to become the isirv-Antiviral Group (isirv-AVG). With the ongoing development of new influenza polymerase inhibitors and recent approval of baloxavir marboxil, the isirv-AVG held a closed meeting in August 2019 to discuss the impact of resistance to these inhibitors. Following this meeting and review of the current literature, this article is intended to summarize current knowledge regarding the clinical impact of resistance to polymerase inhibitors and approaches for surveillance and methods for laboratory evaluation of resistance, both in vitro and in animal models. We highlight limitations and gaps in current knowledge and suggest some strategies for addressing these gaps, including the need for additional clinical studies of influenza antiviral drug combinations. Lessons learned from influenza resistance monitoring may also be helpful for establishing future drug susceptibility surveillance and testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Background: A novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China towards the end of 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 virus). Large scale spread within China and internationally led the World Health Organisation to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 virus infection include asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory symptoms, severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure and even death. There are no antivirals of proven clinical efficacy in coronavirus infections. Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue, has inhibitory effects on animal and human highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including highkly pathogenic MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, in in-vitro and in-vivo experiments. It is also inhibitory against COVID-19 virus in-vitro. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in adult patients with severe pneumonia caused by COVID-19 virus infection.Methods: The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Adults (≥18 years) with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 virus infection, and severe pneumonia signs or symptoms, and radiologically confirmed severe pneumonia are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement (censored at Day 28), defined as the time (in days) from randomization of study treatment (remdesivir or placebo) until a decline of two categories on a six-category ordinal scale of clinical status (1 ꞊ discharged; 6 ꞊ death). One interim analysis for efficacy and futility will be conducted once half of the total number of events required had been observed.Discussion: This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 2019-nCoV. Enrolment began in sites in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on 6th February 2020.

With the expanding use of molecular assays, viral pathogens are increasingly recognized among critically ill adult patients with community-acquired severe respiratory illness; studies have detected respiratory viral infections (RVIs) in 17–53% of such patients. In addition, novel pathogens including zoonotic coronaviruses like the agents causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019 nCoV) are still being identified. Patients with severe RVIs requiring ICU care present typically with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Oseltamivir is the most widely used neuraminidase inhibitor for treatment of influenza; data suggest that early use is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients with influenza. At present, there are no antiviral therapies of proven efficacy for other severe RVIs. Several adjunctive pharmacologic interventions have been studied for their immunomodulatory effects, including macrolides, corticosteroids, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, sirolimus, statins, anti-influenza immune plasma, and vitamin C, but none is recommended at present in severe RVIs. Evidence-based supportive care is the mainstay for management of severe respiratory viral infection. Non-invasive ventilation in patients with severe RVI causing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and pneumonia is associated with a high likelihood of transition to invasive ventilation. Limited existing knowledge highlights the need for data regarding supportive care and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy that is specific for critically ill patients with severe RVI. There is a need for more pragmatic and efficient designs to test different therapeutics both individually and in combination. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-05943-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Baloxavir marboxil (hereafter baloxavir), a selective inhibitor of influenza cap-dependent endonuclease, was approved in 2018 in the USA and Japan for the treatment of uncomplicated influenza in otherwise healthy individuals aged 12 years and older. We aimed to study the efficacy of baloxavir in outpatients at high risk of developing influenza-associated complications.We did a double-blind, placebo-controlled and oseltamivir-controlled trial in outpatients aged 12 years and older in 551 sites in 17 countries and territories. Eligible patients had clinically diagnosed influenza-like illness, at least one risk factor for influenza-associated complications (eg, age older than 65 years), and a symptom duration of less than 48 h. Patients were stratified by baseline symptom score (≤14 vs ≥15), pre-existing and worsened symptoms at onset of illness compared with pre-influenza (yes or no), region (Asia, North America and Europe, or southern hemisphere), and weight (80 kg vs ≥80 kg), and randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to either a single weight-based dose of baloxavir (40 mg for patients weighing80 kg and 80 mg for patients weighing ≥80 kg; baloxavir group), oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for 5 days (oseltamivir group), or matching placebo (placebo group). All patients, investigators, study personnel, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignment until database lock. The primary endpoint was time to improvement of influenza symptoms (TTIIS) in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had RT-PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection. Safety was assessed in all patients who receved at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02949011.2184 patients were enrolled from Jan 11, 2017, to March 30, 2018, and randomly assigned to receive baloxavir (n=730), placebo (n=729), or oseltamivir (n=725). The modified intention-to-treat population included 1163 patients: 388 in the baloxavir group, 386 in the placebo group, and 389 in the oseltamivir group. 557 (48%) of 1163 patients had influenza A H3N2, 484 (42%) had influenza B, 80 (7%) had influenza A H1N1, 14 patients had a mixed infection, and 28 had infections with non-typable viruses. The median TTIIS was shorter in the baloxavir group (73·2 h [95% CI 67·2 to 85·1]) than in the placebo group (102·3 h [92·7 to 113·1]; difference 29·1 h [95% CI 14·6 to 42·8]; p0·0001). The median TTIIS in the oseltamivir group was 81·0 h (95% CI 69·4 to 91·5), with a difference from the baloxavir group of 7·7 h (-7·9 to 22·7). Adverse events were reported in 183 (25%) of 730 patients in the baloxavir group, 216 (30%) of 727 in the placebo group, and 202 (28%) of 721 in the oseltamivir group. Serious adverse events were noted in five patients in the baloxavir group, nine patients in the placebo group, and eight patients in the oseltamivir group; one case each of hypertension and nausea in the placebo group and two cases of transaminase elevation in the oseltamivir group were considered to be treatment related. Polymerase acidic protein variants with Ile38Thr, Ile38Met, or Ile38Asn substitutions conferring reduced baloxavir susceptibility emerged in 15 (5%) of 290 baloxavir recipients assessed for amino acid substitutions in the virus.Single-dose baloxavir has superior efficacy to placebo and similar efficacy to oseltamivir for ameliorating influenza symptoms in high-risk outpatients. The safety of baloxavir was comparable to placebo. This study supports early therapy for patients at high risk of complications of influenza to speed clinical recovery and reduce complications.Shionogi.

Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ribavirin and recombinant interferon (RBV/rIFN) therapy on the outcomes of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), accounting for time-varying confounders. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS from 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia diagnosed between September 2012 and January 2018. We evaluated the association of RBV/rIFN with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA clearance using marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders. Results Of 349 MERS patients, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-β1a; none received rIFN-β1b). RBV/rIFN was initiated at a median of 2 days (Q1, Q3: 1, 3 days) from intensive care unit admission. Crude 90-day mortality was higher in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126/205 [61.5%]; P = .02]. After adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders using a marginal structural model, RBV/rIFN was not associated with changes in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .73–1.44]; P = .87) or with more rapid MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, .30–1.44]; P = .29). Conclusions In this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-β1a) therapy was commonly used in critically ill MERS patients but was not associated with reduction in 90-day mortality or in faster MERS-CoV RNA clearance., In this observational study accounting for baseline and time-varying confounders, ribavirin and recombinant interferon (rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-β1a) therapy was not associated with reduction in 90-day mortality or in faster MERS-CoV RNA clearance.

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been used in patients with the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, but the effectiveness of this approach has not been studied.Methods: Patients with MERS from 14 Saudi Arabian centers were included in this analysis. Patients who were initially managed with NIV were compared to patients who were managed only with invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive MV).Results: Of 302 MERS critically ill patients, NIV was used initially in 105 (35%) patients, whereas 197 (65%) patients were only managed with invasive MV. Patients who were managed with NIV initially had lower baseline SOFA score and less extensive infiltrates on chest radiograph compared with patients managed with invasive MV. The vast majority (92.4%) of patients who were managed initially with NIV required intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, and were more likely to require inhaled nitric oxide compared to those who were managed initially with invasive MV. ICU and hospital length of stay were similar between NIV patients and invasive MV patients. The use of NIV was not independently associated with 90‐day mortality (propensity score‐adjusted odds ratio 0.61, 95% CI [0.23, 1.60] P = 0.27).Conclusions: In patients with MERS and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, NIV failure was very high. The use of NIV was not associated with improved outcomes.

Efficacy testing will be challenging because of the small pool of donors with sufficiently high antibody titers., We explored the feasibility of collecting convalescent plasma for passive immunotherapy of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection by using ELISA to screen serum samples from 443 potential plasma donors: 196 patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV infection, 230 healthcare workers, and 17 household contacts exposed to MERS-CoV. ELISA-reactive samples were further tested by indirect fluorescent antibody and microneutralization assays. Of the 443 tested samples, 12 (2.7%) had a reactive ELISA result, and 9 of the 12 had reactive indirect fluorescent antibody and microneutralization assay titers. Undertaking clinical trials of convalescent plasma for passive immunotherapy of MERS-CoV infection may be feasible, but such trials would be challenging because of the small pool of potential donors with sufficiently high antibody titers. Alternative strategies to identify convalescent plasma donors with adequate antibody titers should be explored, including the sampling of serum from patients with more severe disease and sampling at earlier points during illness.

Abstract The MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection tReated with A Combination of Lopinavir/ritonavir and intErferon-β1b) investigates the efficacy of a combination therapy of lopinavir/ritonavir and recombinant interferon-β1b provided with standard supportive care, compared to placebo provided with standard supportive care, in hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The MIRACLE trial is designed as a recursive, two-stage, group sequential, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial. The aim of this article is to describe the statistical analysis plan for the MIRACLE trial. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. The MIRACLE trial is the first randomized controlled trial for MERS treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02845843. Registered on 27 July 2016.

These clinical practice guidelines are an update of the guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) in 2009, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This document addresses new information regarding diagnostic testing, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal influenza. It is intended for use by primary care clinicians, obstetricians, emergency medicine providers, hospitalists, laboratorians, and infectious disease specialists, as well as other clinicians managing patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza. The guidelines consider the care of children and adults, including special populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and immunocompromised patients.

The massive outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa between 2013 and 2016 resulted in intense efforts to evaluate the efficacy of several specific countermeasures developed through years of preclinical work, including the first clinical trials for therapeutics and vaccines. In this Review, we discuss how the experience and data generated from that outbreak have helped to advance the understanding of the use of these countermeasures for post-exposure prophylaxis against Ebola virus infection. In future outbreaks, post-exposure prophylaxis could play an important part in reducing community transmission of Ebola virus by providing more immediate protection than does immunisation as well as providing additional protection for health-care workers who are inadvertently exposed over the course of their work. We propose provisional guidance for use of post-exposure prophylaxis in Ebola virus disease and identify the priorities for future preparedness and further research.

Since the 18th century a wealth of knowledge regarding infectious disease pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment has been accumulated from findings of infection challenges in human beings. Partly because of improvements to ethical and regulatory guidance, human challenge studies-involving the deliberate exposure of participants to infectious substances-have had a resurgence in popularity in the past few years, in particular for the assessment of vaccines. To provide an overview of the potential use of challenge models, we present historical reports and contemporary views from experts in this type of research. A range of challenge models and practical approaches to generate important data exist and are used to expedite vaccine and therapeutic development and to support public health modelling and interventions. Although human challenge studies provide a unique opportunity to address complex research questions, participant and investigator safety is paramount. To increase the collaborative effort and future success of this area of research, we recommend the development of consensus frameworks and sharing of best practices between investigators. Furthermore, standardisation of challenge procedures and regulatory guidance will help with the feasibility for using challenge models in clinical testing of new disease intervention strategies.

Background It had been more than 5 years since the first case of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus infection (MERS-CoV) was recorded, but no specific treatment has been investigated in randomized clinical trials. Results from in vitro and animal studies suggest that a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β1b (IFN-β1b) may be effective against MERS-CoV. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of treatment with a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and recombinant IFN-β1b provided with standard supportive care, compared to treatment with placebo provided with standard supportive care in patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS requiring hospital admission. Methods The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. Hospitalized adult patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS will be enrolled in this recursive, two-stage, group sequential, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial. The trial is initially designed to include 2 two-stage components. The first two-stage component is designed to adjust sample size and determine futility stopping, but not efficacy stopping. The second two-stage component is designed to determine efficacy stopping and possibly readjustment of sample size. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Discussion This will be the first randomized controlled trial of a potential treatment for MERS. The study is sponsored by King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Enrollment for this study began in November 2016, and has enrolled thirteen patients as of Jan 24-2018. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02845843. Registered on 27 July 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2427-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND Baloxavir marboxil is a selective inhibitor of influenza cap-dependent endonuclease. It has shown therapeutic activity in preclinical models of influenza A and B virus infections, including strains resistant to current antiviral agents. METHODS We conducted two randomized, double-blind, controlled trials involving otherwise healthy outpatients with acute uncomplicated influenza. After a dose-ranging (10 to 40 mg) placebo-controlled trial, we undertook a placebo- and oseltamivir-controlled trial of single, weight-based doses of baloxavir (40 or 80 mg) in patients 12 to 64 years of age during the 2016-2017 season. The dose of oseltamivir was 75 mg twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in the intention-to-treat infected population. RESULTS In the phase 2 trial, the median time to alleviation of influenza symptoms was 23.4 to 28.2 hours shorter in the baloxavir groups than in the placebo group (P

Two meetings, one sponsored by the Wellcome Trust in 2012 and the other by the Global Virology Foundation in 2013, assembled academic, public health and pharmaceutical industry experts to assess the challenges and opportunities for developing antivirals for the treatment of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections. The practicalities of clinical trials and establishing reliable outcome measures in different target groups were discussed in the context of the regulatory pathways that could accelerate the translation of promising compounds into licensed agents. RSV drug development is hampered by the perceptions of a relatively small and fragmented market that may discourage major pharmaceutical company investment. Conversely, the public health need is far too large for RSV to be designated an orphan or neglected disease. Recent advances in understanding RSV epidemiology, improved point-of-care diagnostics, and identification of candidate antiviral drugs argue that the major obstacles to drug development can and will be overcome. Further progress will depend on studies of disease pathogenesis and knowledge provided from controlled clinical trials of these new therapeutic agents. The use of combinations of inhibitors that have different mechanisms of action may be necessary to increase antiviral potency and reduce the risk of resistance emergence.

Rationale Corticosteroid therapy is commonly used among critically ill patients with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), but its impact on outcomes is uncertain. Analyses of observational studies often do not account for patients’ clinical condition at the time of corticosteroid therapy initiation. Objectives To investigate the association of corticosteroid therapy on mortality and on MERS coronavirus RNA clearance in critically ill patients with MERS. Methods MERS ICU patients were included from 14 Saudi Arabian centers between September 2012 and October 2015. We carried out marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders. Measurements and Main Results Of 309 patients, 151 received corticosteroids. Corticosteroids were initiated at a median of 3.0 days (Quartile Q1, 3: 1.0, 7.0) from ICU admission. Patients who received corticosteroids were more likely to receive invasive ventilation (141/151 [93.4%] vs. 121/158 [76.6%], p≤0.0001) and had higher 90-day crude mortality (112/151 [74.2%] vs. 91/158 [57.6%], p=0.002). Using marginal structural modeling, corticosteroid therapy was not significantly associated with 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.52, 1.07, p=0.12), but was associated with delay in MERS coronavirus RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.72, p=0.005). Conclusions Corticosteroid therapy in patients with MERS was not associated with a difference in mortality after adjustment for time-varying confounders, but was associated with delayed MERS coronavirus RNA clearance. These findings highlight the challenges and importance of adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders when estimating clinical effects of treatments using observational studies.