Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

Developing a Rapid Response Single IRB Model for Conducting Research During a Public Health Emergency.

Research is foundational for evidence-based management of patients. Clinical research, however, takes time to plan, conduct, and disseminate-a luxury that is rarely available during a public health emergency. The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) developed a single institutional review board (IRB), with a vision to establish a rapid review resource for a network focused on clinical research of emerging pathogens in the United States. A core aspect of successful initiation of research during a pandemic or epidemic is the ability to operationalize an approach for rapid ethical review of human subject research and conduct those reviews at multiple sites-without losing any of the substantive aspects of ethics review. This process must be cultivated in anticipation of a public health emergency. US guidance for operationalizing IRB review for multisite research in a public health emergency is not well studied and processes are not well established. UNMC sought to address operational gaps and identify the unique procedural needs of rapid response single IRB (RR-sIRB) review of multisite research by conducting a series of preparedness exercises to develop and test the RR-sIRB model. For decades, emergency responder, healthcare, and public health organizations have conducted emergency preparedness exercises to test requirements for emergency response. In this article, we describe 2 types of simulation exercises conducted by UNMC: workshops and tabletops. This effort represents a unique use of emergency preparedness exercises to develop, refine, and test rapid review functions for an sIRB and to validate readiness of regulatory research processes. Such processes are crucial for conducting rapid, ethical, and sound clinical research in public health emergencies.

Prepared to Act: Lessons Learned by the Special Pathogens Research Network, Based on Collaborations with the NIAID-Led Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

The need for well-controlled clinical trials is fundamental to advancing medicine. Care should be taken to maintain high standards in trial design and conduct even during emergency medical events such as an infectious disease outbreak. In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 emerged and rapidly impacted populations around the globe. The need for effective therapeutics was immediately evident, prompting the National Institutes of Health to initiate the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. The Special Pathogens Research Network, made up of 10 Regional Emerging Special Pathogens Treatment Centers, was approached to participate in this trial and readily joined the trial on short notice. By trial closure, the Special Pathogens Research Network sites, making up 19% of all study sites, enrolled 26% of the total participants. The initial resources available and experience in running clinical trials at each treatment center varied from minimal experience and few staff to extensive experience and a large staff. Based on experiences during the first phase of this trial, the Special Pathogens Research Network members provided feedback regarding operational lessons learned and recommendations for conducting future studies during a pandemic. Communication, collaboration, information technology, regulatory processes, and access to resources were identified as important topics to address. Key stakeholders including institutions, institutional review boards, and study personnel must maintain routine communication to efficiently and effectively activate when future research needs arise. Regular and standardized training for new personnel will aid in transitions and project continuity, especially in a rapidly evolving environment. Trainings should include local just-in-time training for new staff and sponsor-designed modules to refresh current staff knowledge. We offer recommendations that can be used by institutions and sponsors to determine goals and needs when preparing to set up this type of trial for critical, short-notice needs.

Advanced Preparation Makes Research in Emergencies and Isolation Care Possible: The Case of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

The optimal time to initiate research on emergencies is before they occur. However, timely initiation of high-quality research may launch during an emergency under the right conditions. These include an appropriate context, clarity in scientific aims, preexisting resources, strong operational and research structures that are facile, and good governance. Here, Nebraskan rapid research efforts early during the 2020 coronavirus disease pandemic, while participating in the first use of U.S. federal quarantine in 50 years, are described from these aspects, as the global experience with this severe emerging infection grew apace. The experience has lessons in purpose, structure, function, and performance of research in any emergency, when facing any threat.