A linked physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for hydroxychloroquine and metabolite desethylhydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+) populations.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for malaria, systemic and chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Because HCQ has a proposed multimodal mechanism of action and a well-established safety profile, it is often investigated as a repurposed therapeutic for a range of indications. There is a large degree of uncertainty in HCQ pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters which complicates dose selection when investigating its use in new disease states. Complications with HCQ dose selection emerged as multiple clinical trials investigated HCQ as a potential therapeutic in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to uncertainty in baseline HCQ PK parameters, it was not clear if disease-related consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 would be expected to impact the PK of HCQ and its primary metabolite desethylhydroxychloroquine (DHCQ). To address the question whether SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 impacted HCQ and DHCQ PK, dried blood spot samples were collected from SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+) participants administered HCQ. When a previously published physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was used to fit the data, the variability in exposure of HCQ and DHCQ was not adequately captured and DHCQ concentrations were overestimated. Improvements to the previous PBPK model were made by incorporating the known range of blood to plasma concentration ratios (B/P) for each compound, adjusting HCQ and DHCQ distribution settings, and optimizing DHCQ clearance. The final PBPK model adequately captured the HCQ and DHCQ concentrations observed in SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+)participants, and incorporating COVID-19-associated changes in cytochrome P450 activity did not further improve model performance for the SARS-CoV-2(+) population.

Using time-weighted average change from baseline of SARS-CoV-2 viral load to assess impact of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment for COVID-19.

Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated no clinical benefit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for either postexposure prophylaxis or early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using data from these studies, we calculated the time-weighted average change from baseline SARS-CoV-2 viral load and demonstrated that HCQ did not affect viral clearance.

Implementation of a fully remote randomized clinical trial with cardiac monitoring.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged researchers performing clinical trials to develop innovative approaches to mitigate infectious risk while maintaining rigorous safety monitoring. Methods: In this report we describe the implementation of a novel exclusively remote randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04354428) of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of the SARS-CoV-2-mediated COVID-19 disease which included cardiovascular safety monitoring. All study activities were conducted remotely. Self-collected vital signs (temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate, and oxygen saturation) and electrocardiographic (ECG) measurements were transmitted digitally to investigators while mid-nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing were shipped. ECG collection relied on a consumer device (KardiaMobile 6L, AliveCor Inc.) that recorded and transmitted six-lead ECGs via participants' internet-enabled devices to a central core laboratory, which measured and reported QTc intervals that were then used to monitor safety. Results: Two hundred and thirty-one participants uploaded 3245 ECGs. Mean daily adherence to the ECG protocol was 85.2% and was similar to the survey and mid-nasal swab elements of the study. Adherence rates did not differ by age or sex assigned at birth and were high across all reported race and ethnicities. QTc prolongation meeting criteria for an adverse event occurred in 28 (12.1%) participants, with 2 occurring in the placebo group, 19 in the hydroxychloroquine group, and 7 in the hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin group. Conclusions: Our report demonstrates that digital health technologies can be leveraged to conduct rigorous, safe, and entirely remote clinical trials.

Detection and Kinetics of Subgenomic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RNA Viral Load in Longitudinal Diagnostic RNA-Positive Samples.

While detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by diagnostic reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is highly sensitive for viral RNA, the nucleic acid amplification of subgenomic RNAs (sgRNAs) that are the product of viral replication may more accurately identify replication. We characterized the diagnostic RNA and sgRNA detection by RT-PCR from nasal swab samples collected daily by participants in postexposure prophylaxis or treatment studies for SARS-CoV-2. Among 1932 RT-PCR-positive swab samples with sgRNA tests, 40% (767) had detectable sgRNA. Above a diagnostic RNA viral load (VL) threshold of 5.1 log10 copies/mL, 96% of samples had detectable sgRNA with VLs that followed a linear trend. The trajectories of diagnostic RNA and sgRNA VLs differed, with 80% peaking on the same day but duration of sgRNA detection being shorter (8 vs 14 days). With a large sample of daily swab samples we provide comparative sgRNA kinetics and a diagnostic RNA threshold that correlates with replicating virus independent of symptoms or duration of illness.

Comparison of Racial, Ethnic, and Geographic Location Diversity of Participants Enrolled in Clinic-Based vs 2 Remote COVID-19 Clinical Trials.

Importance: Racial and ethnic diversity among study participants is associated with improved generalizability of clinical trial results and may address inequities in evidence that informs public health strategies. Novel strategies are needed for equitable access and recruitment of diverse clinical trial populations. Objective: To investigate demographic and geographical location data for participants in 2 remote COVID-19 clinical trials with online recruitment and compare with those of a contemporaneous clinic-based COVID-19 study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from 3 completed, prospective randomized clinical trials conducted at the same time: 2 remotely conducted studies (the Early Treatment Study and Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 Postexposure Prophylaxis [PEP] Study) and 1 clinic-based study of convalescent plasma (the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19 study). Data were collected from March to August 2020 with 1 to 28 days of participant follow-up. All studies had clinical sites in Seattle, Washington; the 2 remote trials also had collaborating sites in New York, New York; Syracuse, New York; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Los Angeles, California. Two remote trials with inclusive social media strategies enrolled 929 participants with recent SARS-CoV-2 exposure (Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 PEP Trial) and 231 participants with COVID-19 infection (Early Treatment Study); the clinic-based Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19 study enrolled 250 participants with recent COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed from April to August 2021. Interventions: Remote trials used inclusive social media strategies and clinician referral for recruitment and telehealth, courier deliveries, and self-collected nasal swabs for remotely conducted study visits. For the clinic-based study, participants were recruited via clinician referral and attended in-person visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: Google Analytics data were used to measure online participant engagement and recruitment. Participant demographics and geographical location data from remote trials were pooled and compared with those of the clinic-based study. Statistical comparison of demographic data was limited to participants with COVID infections (ie, those in the remotely conducted Early Treatment Study vs those in the clinic-based study) to improve accuracy of comparison given that the Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 PEP Trial enrolled participants with COVID-19 exposures and thus had different enrollment criteria. Results: A total of 1410 participants were included. Among 1160 participants in remote trials and 250 participants in the clinic-based trial, the mean (range) age of participants was 39 (18-80) years vs 50 (19-79) years and 676 individuals (58.3%) vs 131 individuals (52.4%) reported female sex. The Early Treatment Study with inclusive social media strategies enrolled 231 participants in 41 US states with increased rates of racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity compared with participants in the clinic-based study. Among 228 participants in the remotely conducted Early Treatment Study with race data vs participants in the clinic-based study, 39 individuals (17.1%) vs 1 individual (0.4%) identified as Alaska Native or American Indian, 11 individuals (4.8%) vs 22 individuals (8.8%) identified as Asian, 26 individuals (11.4%) vs 4 individuals (1.6%) identified as Black, 3 individuals (1.3%) vs 1 individual identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 117 individuals (51.3%) vs 214 individuals (85.6%) identified as White, and 32 individuals (14.0%) vs 8 individuals (3.2%) identified as other race (P < .001). Among 230 individuals in the Early Treatment Study vs 236 individuals in the clinic-based trial with ethnicity data, 71 individuals (30.9%) vs 11 individuals (4.7%) identified as Hispanic or Latinx (P<.001). There were 29 individuals in the Early Treatment Study with nonurban residences (ie, rural, small town, or peri-urban; 12.6%) vs 6 of 248 individuals in the clinic-based trial with residence data (2.4%) (P < .001). In remote trial online recruitment, the highest engagement was with advertisements on social media platforms; among 125 147 unique users with age demographics who clicked on online recruitment advertisements, 84 188 individuals (67.3%) engaged via Facebook. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that remote clinical trials with online advertising may be considered as a strategy to improve diversity among clinical trial participants.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for treatment of early SARS-CoV-2 infection among high-risk outpatient adults: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for outpatients with COVID-19 could reduce morbidity and prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, three-arm (1:1:1) placebo-equivalent controlled trial conducted remotely throughout the United States, adult outpatients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (400 mg BID x1day, followed by 200 mg BID x9days) with or without azithromycin (AZ) (500 mg, then 250 mg daily x4days) or placebo-equivalent (ascorbic acid (HCQ) and folic acid (AZ)), stratified by risk for progression to severe COVID-19 (high-risk vs. low-risk). Self-collected nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 PCR, FLUPro symptom surveys, EKGs and vital signs were collected daily. Primary endpoints were: (a) 14-day progression to lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalization, or death; (b) 14-day time to viral clearance; secondary endpoints included time to symptom resolution (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04354428). Due to the low rate of clinical outcomes, the study was terminated for operational futility. FINDINGS: Between 15th April and 27th July 2020, 231 participants were enrolled and 219 initiated medication a median of 5.9 days after symptom onset. Among 129 high-risk participants, incident LRTI occurred in six (4.7%) participants (two control, four HCQ/AZ) and COVID-19 related hospitalization in seven (5.4%) (four control, one HCQ, two HCQ/AZ); no LRTI and two (2%) hospitalizations occurred in the 102 low-risk participants (one HCQ, one HCQ/AZ). There were no deaths. Among 152 participants with viral shedding at enrollment, median time to clearance was 5 days (95% CI=4-6) in HCQ, 6 days (95% CI=4-8) in HCQ/AZ, and 8 days (95% CI=6-10) in control. Viral clearance was faster in HCQ (HR=1.62, 95% CI=1.01-2.60, p = 0.047) but not HCQ/AZ (HR=1.25, p = 0.39) compared to control. Among 197 participants who met the COVID-19 definition at enrollment, time to symptom resolution did not differ by group (HCQ: HR=1.02, 95% CI-0.63-1.64, p = 0.95, HCQ/AZ: HR=0.91, 95% CI=0.57-1.45, p = 0.70). INTERPRETATION: Neither HCQ nor HCQ/AZ shortened the clinical course of outpatients with COVID-19, and HCQ, but not HCQ/AZ, had only a modest effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. HCQ and HCQ/AZ are not effective therapies for outpatient treatment of SARV-CoV-2 infection. FUNDING: The COVID-19 Early Treatment Study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-017062) through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Science (ITHS) grant support (UL1 TR002319), KL2 TR002317, and TL1 TR002318 from NCATS/NIH funded REDCap. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. PAN and MJA were supported by the Mayo Clinic Windland Smith Rice Comprehensive Sudden Cardiac Death Program.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04354428.