A Randomised -Controlled Phase 2 trial of Molnupiravir in Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Individuals with Early SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Background Molnupiravir was licensed for treating high-risk patients with COVID-19 based on data from unvaccinated adults. AGILE CST-2 (NCT04746183) Phase II reports safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Methods Adult out-patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within five days of symptom onset were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for five days) or placebo. The primary outcome was time to swab PCR-negativity, compared using a Bayesian model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (Hazard Ratio>1) for molnupiravir over placebo. Secondary outcomes included change in viral titre at day 5, safety and tolerability, clinical progression and patient reported outcome measures. We analysed outcomes after the last participant reached day 29. Findings Of 180 participants randomised (90 molnupiravir, 90 placebo), 50% were vaccinated. Infections with SARS-CoV-2 variants Delta (40%), Alpha (21%), Omicron (21%) and EU1 (16%) were represented. The median time to negative-PCR was 8 versus 11 days for molnupiravir and placebo (HR=1.30, 95% CrI 0.92-1.71, p=0.7 by Logrank and p=0.03 by Breslow-Gehan tests). Although small numbers precluded subgroup analysis, no obvious differences were observed between vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. Using a two-point prior the probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75.4%, which was just below our defined threshold of 80% for establishing superiority. Using an uninformative continuous prior, the probability of HR>1 was 94.7%. As an exploratory analysis, the change in viral titre on day 5 (end of treatment) was significantly greater with molnupiravir compared with placebo. A total of 4 participants reported severe adverse events (grade 3+), 3 of whom were in the placebo arm. Interpretation We found molnupiravir to be well-tolerated, with evidence for high probability of antiviral efficacy in a population of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of viral variants.

Pharmacokinetics of β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine, the active metabolite of prodrug molnupiravir, in non-plasma compartments of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

BackgroundMolnupiravir, an orally administered prodrug of the broadly active, direct-acting antiviral, ribonucleoside analogue {beta}-d-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC) is a promising COVID-19 drug candidate. We characterised the pharmacokinetics of NHC in saliva, nasal secretions and tears of patients enrolled in the phase I AGILE trial (NCT04746183) to understand its potential in preventing infection and transmission. MethodsPatients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, within 5 days of symptom onset with mild-to-moderate disease were randomised to oral molnupiravir 300, 600 or 800 mg twice daily or placebo. Plasma and non-plasma (saliva, nasal secretions and tears) samples were collected at pre-dose, 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 hours post-dose on study days 1 and 5 and molnupiravir and NHC measured by LC/MS with a lower limit of quantification of 2.5 ng/mL in all matrices. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by noncompartmental methods and non-plasma:plasma ratios (RNP:P; based on AUC0-4) calculated. ResultsTwelve participants (n=4 per dosing arm; 75% female) completed the study. NHC Tmax ranged between 1.00-4.00 hours for saliva (n=21) and nasal swabs (n=22) and 0.50-4.00 hours (n=17) for tears compared to 1.00-2.00 hours for plasma (n=19). Median (range) saliva RNP:P pooled across doses was 0.03 (0.01-0.11); n=16. RNP:P for nasal secretions and tears were 0.21 (0.05-0.73); n=17 and 0.22 (0.09-1.05); n=12, respectively. Non-plasma and plasma concentrations were significantly correlated (p<0.0001). ConclusionThese data provide encouraging information regarding the distribution of NHC at sites of viral transmission and have important implications for prophylactic coverage.

An open label, adaptive, phase 1 trial of high-dose oral nitazoxanide in healthy volunteers: an antiviral candidate for SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Repurposing approved drugs may rapidly establish effective interventions during a public health crisis. This has yielded immunomodulatory treatments for severe COVID-19, but repurposed antivirals have not been successful to date because of redundancy of the target in vivo or suboptimal exposures at studied doses. Nitazoxanide is an FDA approved antiparasitic medicine, that physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling has indicated may provide antiviral concentrations across the dosing interval, when repurposed at higher than approved doses. Within the AGILE trial platform (NCT04746183) an open label, adaptive, phase 1 trial in healthy adult participants was undertaken with high dose nitazoxanide. Participants received 1500mg nitazoxanide orally twice-daily with food for 7 days. Primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, optimum dose and schedule. Intensive pharmacokinetic sampling was undertaken day 1 and 5 with Cmin sampling on day 3 and 7. Fourteen healthy participants were enrolled between 18th February and 11th May 2021. All 14 doses were completed by 10/14 participants. Nitazoxanide was safe and well tolerated with no significant adverse events. Moderate gastrointestinal disturbance (loose stools) occurred in 8 participants (57.1%), with urine and sclera discolouration in 12 (85.7%) and 9 (64.3%) participants, respectively, without clinically significant bilirubin elevation. This was self-limiting and resolved upon drug discontinuation. PBPK predictions were confirmed on day 1 but with underprediction at day 5. Median Cmin was above the in vitro target concentration on first dose and maintained throughout. Nitazoxanide administered at 1500mg BID with food was safe and well tolerated and a phase 1b/2a study is now being initiated in COVID-19 patients.

Optimal dose and safety of molnupiravir in patients with early SARS-CoV-2: a phase 1, dose-escalating, randomised controlled study (preprint)

Background AGILE is a phase Ib/IIa platform for rapidly evaluating COVID-19 treatments. In this trial (NCT04746183) we evaluated the safety and optimal dose of molnupiravir in participants with early symptomatic infection. Methods We undertook a dose-escalating, open-label, randomised-controlled (standard-of-care) Bayesian adaptive phase I trial at the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Clinical Research Facility. Participants (adult outpatients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days of symptom onset) were randomised 2:1 in groups of 6 participants to 300mg, 600mg and 800mg doses of molnupiravir orally, twice daily for 5 days or control. A dose was judged unsafe if the probability of 30% or greater dose-limiting toxicity (the primary outcome) over controls was higher than 25%. Secondary outcomes included safety, clinical progression, pharmacokinetics and virologic responses. Results Of 103 volunteers screened, 18 participants were enrolled between 17 July and 30 October 2020. Molnupiravir was well tolerated at 400, 600 or 800mg doses with no serious or severe adverse events. Overall, 4 of 4 (100%), 4 of 4 (100%) and 1 of 4 (25%) of the participants receiving 300, 600 and 800mg molnupiravir respectively, and 5 of 6 (83%) controls, had at least one adverse event, all of which were mild ([≤]grade 2). The probability of [≥]30% excess toxicity over controls at 800mg was estimated at 0.9%. Conclusion Molnupiravir was safe and well tolerated; a dose of 800mg twice-daily for 5 days was recommended for Phase II evaluation.

AGILE: A Seamless Phase I/IIa Platform for the Rapid Evaluation of Candidates for COVID-19 treatment: An update to the structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised platform trial letter (preprint)

Background: There is an urgent unmet clinical need for the identification of novel therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19. A number of COVID-19 late phase trial platforms have been developed to investigate (often repurposed) drugs both in the UK and globally (e.g. RECOVERY led by the University of Oxford and SOLIDARITY led by WHO). There is a pressing need to investigate novel candidates within early phase trial platforms, from which promising candidates can feed into established later phase platforms. AGILE grew from a UK-wide collaboration to undertake early stage clinical evaluation of candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection to accelerate national and global healthcare interventions. Methods: /Design: AGILE is a seamless phase I/IIa platform study to establish the optimum dose, determine the activity and safety of each candidate and recommend whether it should be evaluated further. Each candidate is evaluated in its own trial, either as an open label single arm healthy volunteer study or in patients, randomising between candidate and control usually in a 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate. Each dose is assessed sequentially for safety usually in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified, efficacy is assessed by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. AGILE is completely flexible in that the core design in the master protocol can be adapted for each candidate based on prior knowledge of the candidate (i.e. population, primary endpoint and sample size can be amended). This information is detailed in each candidate specific trial protocol of the master protocol. Discussion: Few approved treatments for COVID-19 are available such as dexamethasone, remdesivir and tociluzimab in hospitalised patients. The AGILE platform aims to rapidly identify new efficacious and safe treatments to help end the current global COVID-19 pandemic. We currently have three candidate specific trials within this platform study that are open to recruitment. Trial registrations: EudraCT Number: 2020-001860-27 14th March 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746183ISRCTN reference: 27106947

Clinical Impact of Molecular Point-of-Care Testing for Suspected COVID-19 in Hospital: A Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomised, Controlled Study (COV-19POC) (preprint)

Background: The management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by the long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals this leads to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission. Rapid, accurate tests are therefore urgently needed for the next wave. Methods: We performed a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study of molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) in adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19. Intervention group patients were tested using the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel at the point-of-care and control patients were tested using laboratory PCR. The primary outcome was time to results. Secondary outcomes included infection control and diagnostic accuracy measures. Findings: 499 patients were tested by POCT and 555 control patients were tested using laboratory PCR. Median (IQR) time to results with POCT was 1.7 (1.6 to 1.9) hours versus 21.3 (16.0 to 27.9) hours in the control group (difference of 19.6 hours, 95%CI 19.0 to 20.3; p<0.0001). Median (IQR) time to arrival in definitive clinical area (i.e. COVID-19 positive or negative ward) was 8.0 (6.0 to 15.0) hours in the POCT group versus 28.8 (23.5 to 38.9) hours in the control group, difference of 20.8 hours (96%CI 18.4 to 21.2; p<0.0001). Sensitivity of the QIAstat-Dx SARS-CoV-2 assay was 99.4% (95%CI 96.9 to 100) compared to 88.1% (95%CI 82.4 to 92.5) with laboratory PCR.Interpretation: POCT was associated with large reductions in time to results and improvements in infection control measures, and had high diagnostic accuracy.Trial Registration: This study is registered ISRCTN:14966673 and has completed.Funding: University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation TrustDeclaration of Interests: TWC has received speaker fees, honoraria, travel reimbursement, and equipment and consumables free of charge for the purposes of research outside of this submitted study, from BioFire diagnostics LLC and BioMerieux. TWC has received consultancy fees from Synairgen research Ltd, Randox laboratories Ltd and Cidara therapeutics. He a member of an advisory board for Roche and a member of two independent data monitoring committees for trials sponsored by Roche. He has acted as the UK chief investigator for an IMP study sponsored by Janssen. All other authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the South Central - Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee: REC reference 20/SC/0138, on the 16th March 2020.

Diagnostic accuracy of a host response point-of-care test for identifying COVID-19 (preprint)

Rationale Management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals this leads to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission and rapid, accurate diagnostic tests are urgently required. The FebriDx is a point-of-care test that detects an antiviral host response protein in finger prick blood within 10 minutes, but its accuracy for the detection of COVID-19 is unknown. Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx in hospitalised patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on FebriDx results compared to the reference standard of PCR, and stratified by duration of symptoms. A multivariable predictive model was developed and underwent internal validation. Results FebriDx was performed on 251 patients and gave a valid result in 248. 118 of 248 (48%) were PCR positive for COVID-19. Sensitivity of FebriDx for the identification of COVID-19 was 93% (110/118; 95% CI 87 to 97%) and specificity was 86% (112/130; 95%CI 79 to 92%). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.73 (95%CI 4.37 to 10.37) and 0.08 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.15) respectively. In the multivariate model diagnosis of COVID-19 was not significantly influenced by clinical symptoms and signs, and FebriDx accuracy was not improved by restricting testing to those with duration of symptoms of less than seven days. Conclusions During the first wave of the pandemic, FebriDx had high sensitivity for the identification of COVID-19 in hospitalised adults and could be deployed as a front door triage tool.