ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine and fluvoxamine were repurposed for the treatment of early COVID-19 based on their antiviral activity in vitro, and observational and clinical trial evidence suggesting they prevented progression to severe disease. However, these SSRIs have not been recommended in guidelines and their antiviral activity in vivo has not been characterised. MethodsPLATCOV is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial running in Thailand, Brazil, Pakistan, and Laos. We recruited low-risk adult outpatients aged 18-50 with early symptomatic COVID-19 (symptoms <4 days). Patients were assigned using block randomisation to one of eleven treatment arms including oral fluoxetine (40mg/day for 7 days), or no study drug. Uniform randomisation ratios were applied across the active treatment groups while the no study drug group comprised [≥]20% of patients at all times. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (>2 days follow-up). The viral clearance rate was estimated under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over one week (18 measurements per patient). This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). FindingsBetween 5 April 2022 and 8 May 2023 271 patients were concurrently randomised to either fluoxetine (n=120) or no study drug (n=151). Fluoxetine was well tolerated and accelerated the rate of viral clearance relative to the no study drug arm by 15% (95% credible interval (CrI): 2% to 34%). In a pooled meta-analysis including all unblinded patients the antiviral activity of fluoxetine was substantially less than ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir-85% increase in rate of viral clearance (95% CrI: 61 to 112%); and less than remdesivir 35% (14 to 59%), molnupiravir 37% (18 to 60%), and casirivimab/imdevimab 29% (10 to 48%). InterpretationFluoxetine has in vivo antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Although the level of antiviral efficacy is substantially less than with other currently available antiviral drugs, fluoxetine might still be useful in prophylaxis where less antiviral effect is required. FundingWellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. Evidence before this studyThe SSRIs fluoxetine and fluvoxamine have been proposed as COVID-19 therapeutics based initially on observational, randomised trial and in vitro evidence. The observational reports suggested that patients taking SSRIs had a reduced probability of developing severe COVID-19 and dying. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies in English up until the 30th November 2023 using the search terms "fluoxetine", "fluvoxamine" and "COVID-19" with the search restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Eight outpatient fluvoxamine RCTs were identified. There were no fluoxetine RCTs in outpatients. A meta-analysis of available RCTs is compatible with a moderate reduction in hospitalisation and death in COVID-19 patients with an estimated risk ratio of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.62,1.01). Added value of the studyWe showed that in early COVID-19 illness the SSRI fluoxetine has weak antiviral activity in vivo. This activity is substantially less than other available antivirals such as ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir. The pharmacometric approach described here provides a quantitative measure of in vivo antiviral effects with tractable sample sizes. Implications of available evidenceFluoxetine has weak in vivo antiviral activity in early COVID-19. This is insufficient for treatment but, as less antiviral activity is required to prevent an infection, fluoxetine could still be beneficial in prophylaxis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
BackgroundEffective antiviral drugs prevent hospitalisation and death in COVID-19. Antiviral efficacy can be assessed efficiently in-vivo by measuring rates of SARS-CoV-2 clearance estimated from serial viral densities measured in nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab eluates. The changing epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection has substantially affected viral clearance kinetics and thus the optimal design and interpretation of antiviral pharmacometric evaluations. MethodsSerial viral density data were analysed from patients enrolled in a large multicentre randomised adaptive pharmacodynamic platform trial (PLATCOV) comparing antiviral interventions for SARS-CoV-2. Viral clearance rates over one week were estimated and boot-strap re-sampling was used to assess the optimal duration of follow-up for pharmacometric assessment, where optimal is defined as maximising the expected z-score. ResultsBetween 29 September 2021 and 20 October 2023, 1264 patients were randomised. Unblinded data were available from 800 patients (16,818 oropharyngeal viral qPCR measurements). SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance was biphasic (bi-exponential). The first phase () was accelerated by effective interventions. For all the effective interventions studied, maximum discriminative power (maximum expected z-score) was obtained when evaluating serial data from the first 5 days after enrolment. Over the two year period studied, median viral clearance half-lives estimated over 7 days have shortened from 16.8 hours in September 2021 to 9.3 hours in October 2023 in patients receiving no antiviral drugs, equivalent to a relative reduction of 44% [95% credible interval (CrI): 17 to 67%]. A parallel trend was observed in treated patients. In the ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir arm the median clearance half-life declined from 6.6 hours in June 2022 to 4.8 hours in October 2023, a relative reduction of 26% [95%CrI: -4 to 42%]. ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 viral clearance kinetics in symptomatic vaccinated individuals have accelerated substantially over the past two years. Antiviral efficacy in COVID-19 can now be assessed efficiently in-vivo using serial qPCRs from duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily for 5 days after drug administration. FundingWellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
Background: Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries. Methods: In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT) was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). Results: In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients administered favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug -1% (95% CI: -14 to 14% change). High dose favipiravir was well tolerated. Interpretation: Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundUncertainty over the therapeutic benefit provided by parenteral remdesivir in COVID-19 has resulted in varying treatment guidelines. Early in the pandemic the monoclonal antibody cocktail, casirivimab/imdevimab, proved highly effective in clinical trials but because of weak or absent in vitro activity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 subvariant, it is no longer recommended. MethodsIn a multicenter open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of eight treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200mg followed by 100mg daily for five days), casirivimab/imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the viral clearance rate in the modified intention-to-treat population derived from daily log10 viral densities (days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). ResultsAcceleration in mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance, compared with the contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=64), was 42% (95%CI 18 to 73%) for remdesivir (n=67). Acceleration with casirivimab/imdevimab was 58% (95%CI: 10 to 120) in Delta (n=13), and 20% (95%CI: 3 to 43) in Omicron variant (n=61) infections compared with contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=84). In a post hoc subgroup analysis viral clearance was accelerated by 8% in BA.1 (95%CI: -21 to 59) and 23% (95%CI: 3 to 49) in BA.2 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants. ConclusionsParenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Despite substantially reduced in vitro activities, casirivimab/imdevimab retains in vivo antiviral activity against COVID-19 infections caused by currently prevalent Omicron subvariants. Brief summaryIn early symptomatic COVID-19 remdesivir accelerated viral clearance by 42% while the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab accelerated clearance by approximately 60% in SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infections, and by approximately 25% in infections with Omicron subvariants BA.2 and BA.5.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: There is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has significant antiviral activity in vivo is uncertain. Methods: In a multicentre open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of six treatment arms including high dose ivermectin (600micrograms/kg daily for seven days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. Viral clearance rates were derived from daily duplicate oropharyngeal quantitative PCR measurements. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). Results: Randomization to the ivermectin arm was stopped after enrolling 205 patients into all arms, as the prespecified futility threshold was reached. Compared with the no study drug arm, the mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance following ivermectin was 9.1% slower [95%CI -27.2% to +11.8%; n=45 versus n=41], whereas in a preliminary analysis of the casirivimab/imdevimab arm it was 52.3% faster [95%CI +7.0% to +115.1%; n=10 (Delta variant) versus n=41]. Conclusions: High dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Measured in this way viral clearance rate is a valuable
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods and Findings We develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. Conclusions There is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have been focussed on hospitalised-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of current and proposed treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods: First, we used a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care pathways to explore the potential impact of dexamethasone - the main treatment currently for hospitalised COVID-19 patients - under scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) the efficacy of dexamethasone in the absence of supportive care. We then fit the model to the observed epidemic trajectory to-date in 165 countries and analysed the potential future impact of dexamethasone in different countries, regions, and country-income strata. Finally, we constructed hypothetical profiles of novel therapeutics based on current trials, and compared the potential impact of each under different circumstances. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. Findings: We find the potential benefit dexamethasone is severely limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). However, therapeutics for different patient populations (in particular, those not in hospital and early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (in particular, reducing disease severity or infectiousness) could have much greater benefits. Such therapeutics would have particular value in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics, even if the efficacy or achievable coverage of such therapeutics is lower in comparison to other types. Interpretation: People in low-income countries will benefit the least from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have focussed on hospitalised-patients with adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have much greater impact. Such therapeutics may be feasible and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority. Funding: None to declare. Declaration of Interest: None to declare.