Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19 (preprint)

Background: We investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Methods: We conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results: Between October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41-0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). Conclusions: Addition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).

Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19 (preprint)

BackgroundImmune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care. MethodsWe conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. ResultsA total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections. ConclusionsInfliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).

Effect of Opaganib on Supplemental Oxygen and Mortality in Patients with Severe SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia (preprint)

Rationale There are few treatment options for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Opaganib is an oral treatment under investigation. Objective Evaluate opaganib treatment in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2/3 trial was conducted in 60 sites worldwide from August 2020 to July 2021. Patients received either opaganib (n=230; 500mg twice daily) or matching placebo (n=233) for 14 days. Main Outcome Measurements Primary outcome was the proportion of patients no longer requiring supplemental oxygen by day 14. Secondary outcomes included changes in the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement, viral clearance, intubation, and mortality at 28- and 42-days. Main Results Pre-specified primary and secondary outcome analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant benefit (except for time to viral clearance). Post-hoc analysis revealed the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at baseline was prognostic for opaganib treatment responsiveness and corresponded to disease severity markers. Patients with FiO2 levels at or below the median value ([≤]60%) had better outcomes after opaganib treatment (n=117) compared to placebo (n=134). The proportion of patients with [≤]60% FIO2 at baseline that no longer required supplemental oxygen (at least 24 hours) by day 14 of opaganib treatment increased (76.9% vs 63.4%: p-value =0.033). There was a 62.6% reduction in intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.84% vs 17.91%; p-value=0.012) and a clinically meaningful 62% reduction in mortality (5.98% vs 16.7%; p-value=0.019) by day 42. No new safety concerns observed. Conclusions Post-hoc analysis supports opaganib benefit in COVID-19 severe pneumonia patients that require lower supplemental oxygen ([≤]60% FiO2). Further studies are warranted.

Homologous and heterologous boosting of the ChAdOx1-S1-S COVID-19 vaccine with the SCB-2019 vaccine candidate: a randomized, observer-blinded, controlled, phase 2 study (preprint)

Background: Ongoing outbreaks of COVID-19 have been associated with waning immunity following primary immunizations and emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants. Heterologous boosters have been suggested to maintain population immunity. Methods: In this study of heterologous boosters we assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity of booster doses of different formulations of alum-adjuvanted SCB-2019 vaccine (9 g SCB-2019 with or without CpG-1018 adjuvant, or 30 g SCB-2019 with CpG-1018) in Brazilian adults primed with ChAdOx1-S vector vaccine. S-protein and ACE2 binding antibodies were measured by ELISA on Days 1, 15 and 29. Participants self-reported solicited adverse events and reactions. Results: All SCB-2019 formulations increased ELISA antibodies against S-protein and ACE2 to a greater extent than ChAdOx1-S. After 30 g SCB-2019+CpG+alum titers against wild-type S-protein and ACE2 were significantly higher than after ChAdOx1-S on Days 15 and 29, as were GMTs for neutralizing antibodies against wild-type strain and Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants. Boosting with SCB-2019 or ChAdOx1-S was well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious or severe adverse events. Conclusions: Heterologous boosting with SCB-2019 of ChAdOx1-S-primed adults was more efficient in increasing immunity against wild-type strain and SARS-CoV-2 variants than a homologous ChAdOx1-S booster, highest responses being with the 30 g SCB-2019+CpG+alum formulation.

Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in Brazil; an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial (preprint)

Background Emerging evidence shows the substantial real-world impact of authorised vaccines against COVID-19 and provides insight into the potential role of vaccines in curbing the pandemic. However, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of vaccines against different variants of the virus. Here we assessed efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) against lineages of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in Brazil from June 2020 until early 2021. Methods Participants aged 18 and above were enrolled into a randomised phase 3 trial of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or control (1st dose: Men ACWY vaccine, 2nd dose: normal saline). Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing was performed if participants developed symptoms of COVID-19 (cough, shortness of breath, fever >37.8°C, ageusia, anosmia). Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2, sequenced, and viral load determined. For those samples where a genotype could not be ascertained from sequencing, allele specific PCR was performed. The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were unblinded after the vaccine was authorised for use, and the control participants offered vaccination. Infections occurring after unblinding were excluded from analysis. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 100% x (1 – relative risk (RR)), where RR was estimated from a robust Poisson model. The trial is registered at ISRCTN89951424. Findings 9433 participants were eligible for inclusion in the pre-specified primary efficacy population, having reached more than 14 days after a second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, of whom 307 were NAAT+, in this post-hoc analysis. From June 2020 to February 2021, the two most frequently identified lineages were P.2 (N=153) and B.1.1.28 (N=49). P.1 emerged during the study (N=18) but became dominant only after study unblinding. Viral loads were highest amongst those with P.1 infection. Vaccine efficacy (VE) for B.1.1.33 (88.2%, 95%CI 5, 99), B.1.1.28 (73%, 95% CI, 46, 86), P.2 (69% 95% CI, 55, 78) and P.1 (64%, 95% CI, -2, 87) was estimated. In participants who had received two doses of vaccine, one COVID-19 hospitalisation occurred in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 18 in the control group, with VE against hospitalisation 95% (95% CI 61, 99). There were 2 COVID-19 deaths in the control group and none in the vaccine group. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 provides high efficacy against hospitalisation, severe disease and death from COVID-19 in Brazil and there is strong evidence of protection being maintained against P.2, despite the presence of the spike protein mutation E484K. Real world effectiveness studies are ongoing in Brazil to further establish protection against P.1 and other emerging variants.

A Randomized Trial of Otilimab in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia (OSCAR) (preprint)

BACKGROUNDIncreasing age is a risk factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality; emerging science implicates GM-CSF and dysregulated myeloid cell responses in the pathophysiology of severe COVID-19. METHODSWe conducted a large, global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating a single 90 mg infusion of otilimab (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal) plus standard of care in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 respiratory failure and systemic inflammation, stratified by age and clinical status. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28; secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality at Day 60. RESULTSOverall, 806 patients were randomized (1:1); 71% of patients receiving otilimab were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% receiving placebo, although this did not reach statistical significance (model-adjusted difference 5.3% [95% CI -0.8, 11.4]; p=0.09). However, there was a benefit in the pre-defined [≥]70-year age group (model-adjusted difference 19.1% [95% CI 5.2, 33.1]; nominal p=0.009); these patients also had a reduction of 14.4% (95% CI 0.9, 27.9%; nominal p=0.04) in model-adjusted all-cause mortality at Day 60. Safety findings were comparable between otilimab and placebo, and consistent with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONSAlthough not statistically significant in the overall population, otilimab demonstrated a substantial benefit in patients aged [≥]70, possibly reflecting a population that could benefit from therapeutic blocking of GM-CSF in severe COVID-19 where myeloid cell dysregulation is predominant. These findings are being confirmed in a further cohort of patients aged [≥]70 in Part 2 of this study. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04376684).

Single Dose Administration, And The Influence Of The Timing Of The Booster Dose On Immunogenicity and Efficacy Of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine (preprint)

Background: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, MHRA, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of between 4 and 12 weeks. The planned rollout in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later.Here we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered.Methods: We present data from phase III efficacy trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the United Kingdom and Brazil, and phase I/II clinical trials in the UK and South Africa, against symptomatic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The data cut-off date for these analyses was 7th December 2020. The accumulated cases of COVID-19 disease at this cut-off date exceeds the number required for a pre-specified final analysis, which is also presented. As previously described, individuals over 18 years of age were randomised 1:1 to receive two standard doses (SD) of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5x1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine/saline placebo. In the UK trial efficacy cohort a subset of participants received a lower dose (LD, 2.2x1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. All cases with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis, by a blinded independent endpoint review committee. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.Findings: 17,177 baseline seronegative trial participants were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis, 8948 in the UK, 6753 in Brazil and 1476 in South Africa, with 619 documented NAAT +ve infections of which 332 met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection >14 days post dose 2.The primary analysis of overall vaccine efficacy >14 days after the second dose including LD/SD and SD/SD groups, based on the prespecified criteria was 66.7% (57.4%, 74.0%). There were no hospitalisations in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21 day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group.Vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination was 76% (59%, 86%), and modelled analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3 month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 day (GMR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.74).In the SD/SD group, after the second dose, efficacy was higher with a longer prime-boost interval: VE 82.4% 95%CI 62.7%, 91.7% at 12+ weeks, compared with VE 54.9%, 95%CI 32.7%, 69.7% at <6 weeks. These observations are supported by immunogenicity data which showed binding antibody responses more than 2-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with and interval of less than 6 weeks GMR 2.19 (2.12, 2.26) in those who were 18-55 years of age.Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination programmes aimed at vaccinating a large proportion of the population with a single dose, with a second dose given after a 3 month period is an effective strategy for reducing disease, and may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term.Trial Registration: Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.Funding: UKRI, NIHR, CEPI, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D’OR, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and Astra Zeneca.Conflict of Interest: Oxford University has entered into a partnership with Astra Zeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. SCG is co-founder of Vaccitech (collaborators in the early development of this vaccine candidate) and named as an inventor on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. TL is named as aninventor on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and was a consultant to Vaccitech for an unrelated project. PMF is a consultant to Vaccitech. AJP is Chair of UK Dept.Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI), but does not participate in discussions on COVID-19 vaccines, and is a member of the WHO’sSAGE. AJP and SNF are NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of DHSC, JCVI, NIHR or WHO. AVSH reports personal feesfrom Vaccitech, outside the submitted work and has a patent on ChAdOx1 licensed to Vaccitech, and may benefit from royalty income to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and sublicensees. MS reports grants from NIHR, non-financial support fromAstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants from Janssen, grants fromGlaxoSmithKline, grants from Medimmune, grants from Novavax, grants and non-financialsupport from Pfizer, grants from MCM, outside the submitted work. CG reports personal fees from the Duke Human Vaccine Institute, outside of the submitted work. SNF reports grants from Janssen and Valneva, outside the submitted work. ADD reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. In addition, ADD has a patent manufacturingprocess for ChAdOx vectors with royalties paid to AstraZeneca, and a patent ChAdOx2 vector with royalties paid to AstraZeneca. The other authors declare no competing interests.