Sarilumab plus standard of care vs standard of care for the treatment of severe COVID-19: a phase 3, randomized, open-labeled, multi-center study (ESCAPE study).

Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81-94] in arm A vs 85% [74-93], HR 1.07 [0.8-1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% [77-96] vs 79% [63-91], HR 1.55 [0.9-2.6]; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% [79-96]) vs (73% [55-89], HR 1.53 [0.9-2.7]; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results. Funding: This study was supported by INMI "Lazzaro Spallanzani" Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.

Safety and serum distribution of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody MAD0004J08 after intramuscular injection.

The emerging threat represented by SARS-CoV-2 variants, demands the development of therapies for better clinical management of COVID-19. MAD0004J08 is a potent Fc-engineered monoclonal antibody (mAb) able to neutralize in vitro all current SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) including the omicron variant even if with significantly reduced potency. Here we evaluated data obtained from the first 30 days of a phase 1 clinical study (EudraCT N.: 2020-005469-15 and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04932850). The primary endpoint evaluated the percentage of severe adverse events. Secondary endpoints evaluated pharmacokinetic and serum neutralization titers. A single dose administration of MAD0004J08 via intramuscular (i.m.) route is safe and well tolerated, resulting in rapid serum distribution and sera neutralizing titers higher than COVID-19 convalescent and vaccinated subjects. A single dose administration of MAD0004J08 is also sufficient to effectively neutralize major SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (alpha, beta, gamma and delta). MAD0004J08 can be a major advancement in the prophylaxis and clinical management of COVID-19.

Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19-Related Hospitalization among PLWH.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence for how HIV influences COVID-19 infection. The aim of this study was to compare characteristics at presentation and the clinical outcomes of people living with HIV (PLWH) versus HIV-negative patients (non-PLWH) hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Primary endpoint: time until invasive ventilation/death. Secondary endpoints: time until ventilation/death, time until symptoms resolution. RESULTS: A total of 1647 hospitalized patients were included (43 (2.6%) PLWH, 1604 non-PLWH). PLWH were younger (55 vs. 61 years) and less likely to be with PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg compared with non-PLWH. Among PLWH, nadir of CD4 was 185 (75-322) cells/µL; CD4 at COVID-19 diagnosis was 272 cells/µL (127-468) and 77% of these were virologically suppressed. The cumulative probability of invasive mechanical ventilation/death at day 15 was 4.7% (95%CI 1.2-17.3) in PLWH versus 18.9% (16.9-21.1) in non-PLWH (p = 0.023). The cumulative probability of non-invasive/invasive ventilation/death at day 15 was 20.9% (11.5-36.4) in PLWH versus 37.6% (35.1-40.2) in non-PLWH (p = 0.044). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of invasive mechanical ventilation/death of PLWH was 0.49 (95% CI 0.12-1.96, p = 0.310) versus non-PLWH; similarly, aHR of non-invasive/invasive ventilation/death of PLWH was 1.03 (95% CI 0.53-2.00, p = 0.926). CONCLUSION: A less-severe presentation of COVID-19 at hospitalization was observed in PLWH compared to non-PLWH; no difference in clinical outcomes could be detected.