Comparing Prospective Incident Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Rates During Successive Waves of Delta and Omicron in Johannesburg, South Africa.

In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures.

Barriers to Worldwide Access for Paxlovid, a New Treatment for COVID-19.

Pfizer and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) have reached a voluntary licensing agreement for Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir+ritonavir), a novel antiviral for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) taken orally in the first 5 days from symptom onset. The Pfizer-MPP deal enables 95 low- and middle-income countries (L/MICs) to access affordable biosimilars. Generics are delayed awaiting bioequivalence testing and may be ineffective in L/MICs with reduced testing capacity, which comprise only 10% of global diagnoses. Thirty-nine percent of diagnoses originate in MICs forced to pay high prices due to exclusion from the Pfizer-MPP deal. The cost-effectiveness of Paxlovid could be limited compared with the creation of sustainable vaccine infrastructure in these nations, delaying socioeconomic pandemic recovery. Furthermore, Paxlovid may not be cost-effective in vaccinated populations, and concerns remain over ritonavir drug interactions with COVID-19 comorbidity medications. We call for expanded coverage by the Paxlovid-MPP deal and greater access to testing.

Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials.

Background: Five severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are approved in North America and/or Europe: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Novavax. Other vaccines have been developed, including Sinopharm, SinoVac, QazVac, Covaxin, Soberana, Zifivax, Medicago, Clover, and Cansino, but they are not approved in high-income countries. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved and -unapproved vaccines in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic review of trial registries identified RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2). In the meta-analysis, relative risks of symptomatic infection and severe disease were compared for each vaccine versus placebo, using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel Tests (random effects method). Results: Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 1 was excluded for high-risk of bias. Ten RCTs evaluated 5 approved vaccines and 11 RCTs evaluated 9 unapproved vaccines. In the meta-analysis, prevention of symptomatic infection was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-92%) for approved vaccines versus 72% (95% CI, 66%-77%) for unapproved vaccines, with no significant difference between vaccine types (P = .12). Prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94% (95% CI, 75%-98%) for approved vaccines versus 86% (95% CI, 76%-92%) for unapproved vaccines (P = .33). The risk of serious adverse events was similar between vaccine types (P = .12). Conclusions: This meta-analysis of 21 RCTs in 390 459 participants showed no significant difference in efficacy between the FDA/EMA-approved and -unapproved vaccines for symptomatic or severe infection. Differences in study design, endpoint definitions, variants, and infection prevalence may have influenced results. New patent-free vaccines could lower costs of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns significantly.

Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

OBJECTIVES: The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. RESULTS: We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search. CONCLUSION: Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

Making a COVID-19 vaccine that works for everyone: ensuring equity and inclusivity in clinical trials.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality and morbidity have been shown to increase with deprivation and impact non-White ethnicities more severely. Despite the extra risk Black, Asian and Minority Ethnicity (BAME) groups face in the pandemic, our current medical research system seems to prioritise innovation aimed at people of European descent. We found significant difficulties in assessing baseline demographics in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines, displaying a lack of transparency in reporting. Further, we found that most of these trials take place in high-income countries, with only 25 of 219 trials (11.4%) taking place in lower middle- or low-income countries. Trials for the current best vaccine candidates (BNT162b2, ChadOx1, mRNA-173) recruited 80.0% White participants. Underrepresentation of BAME groups in medical research will perpetuate historical distrust in healthcare processes, and poses a risk of unknown differences in efficacy and safety of these vaccines by phenotype. Limiting trial demographics and settings will mean a lack of global applicability of the results of COVID-19 vaccine trials, which will slow progress towards ending the pandemic.

Missing clinical trial data: the evidence gap in primary data for potential COVID-19 drugs.

BACKGROUND: Several drugs are being repurposed for the treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic based on in vitro or early clinical findings. As these drugs are being used in varied regimens and dosages, it is important to enable synthesis of existing safety data from clinical trials. However, availability of safety information is limited by a lack of timely reporting of overall clinical trial results on public registries or through academic publication. We aimed to analyse the evidence gap in this data by conducting a rapid review of results posting on ClinicalTrials.gov and in academic publications to quantify the number of trials missing results for drugs potentially being repurposed for COVID-19. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for 19 drugs that have been identified as potential treatments for COVID-19. Relevant clinical trials for any prior indication were listed by identifier (NCT number) and checked for results and for timely result reporting (within 395 days of the primary completion date). Additionally, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to identify publications of results not listed on the registry. A second, blinded search of 10% of trials was conducted to assess reviewer concordance. RESULTS: Of 3754 completed trials, 1516 (40.4%) did not post results on ClinicalTrials.gov or in the academic literature. Tabular results were available on ClinicalTrials.gov for 1172 (31.2%) completed trials. A further 1066 (28.4%) had published results in the academic literature, but did not report results on ClinicalTrials.gov . Key drugs missing clinical trial results include hydroxychloroquine (37.0% completed trials unreported), favipiravir (77.8%) and lopinavir (40.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There is an important evidence gap for the safety of drugs being repurposed for COVID-19. This uncertainty could cause unnecessary additional morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. We recommend caution in experimental drug use for non-severe disease and urge clinical trial sponsors to report missing results retrospectively.

A review of the safety of favipiravir - a potential treatment in the COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: Repurposing broad-spectrum antivirals is an immediate treatment opportunity for 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Favipiravir is an antiviral previously indicated for influenza and Ebola, which has shown some promise in early trials for treatment of COVID-19. We aim to review existing favipiravir safety evidence, which is vital to informing the potential future use of favipiravir in COVID-19. METHODS: A search was conducted across EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, supplemented by relevant grey-literature and ClinicalTrials.gov. All studies assessing the use of favipiravir in humans by 27 March 2020 were considered for inclusion. Further analysis of available safety data from phase 2 and 3 studies was undertaken. Data extracted were adverse events (AEs) grade 1-4, serious AEs and discontinuation for AEs. Specific AEs of interest highlighted in early-phase studies, including gastrointestinal AEs and hyperuricaemia, were also examined. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were identified as potential sources of evidence of the clinical safety of favipiravir. Six were phase 2 and 3 studies reporting relevant safety data for statistical comparison, representing a total of 4299 participants, an estimated 175 person-years-of-follow-up (PYFU). Comparator drugs were oseltamivir, umifenovir, lopinavir/ritonavir or placebo. Study follow-up was between 5 and 21 days. The proportions of grade 1-4 AEs on favipiravir was 28.2% vs 28.4% (P = n.s.) in the comparison arms. The proportion of discontinuations due to AEs on favipiravir was 1.1% vs 1.2% (P = n.s.) in the comparison arms. For serious AEs the proportion was 0.4% in both arms (P = n.s.). There were significantly fewer gastrointestinal AEs occurring on favipiravir vs comparators [8.7% vs 11.5%; P = 0.003]. Favipiravir showed significantly more uric acid elevations than comparators [5.8% vs 1.3%; P<0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: Favipiravir demonstrates a favourable safety profile regarding total and serious AEs. However, safety concerns remain: hyperuricaemia, teratogenicity and QTc prolongation have not yet been adequately studied. Favipiravir may be safe and tolerable in short-term use, but more evidence is needed to assess the longer-term effects of treatment. Given the limitations of the evidence and unresolved safety concerns, caution is warranted in the widespread use of favipiravir against pandemic COVID-19.