The CARAMAL study could not assess the effectiveness of rectal artesunate in treating suspected severe malaria.

CARAMAL was a large observational study which recorded mortality in children with suspected severe malaria before and after the roll-out of rectal artesunate in Nigeria, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The results of CARAMAL have had a huge impact on public health policy leading to a World Health Organization moratorium on the roll-out of rectal artesunate. The conclusion reported in the abstract uses strong causal language, stating that "pre-referral RAS [rectal artesunate suppositories] had no beneficial effect on child survival". We argue that this causal interpretation of the study results is not justified. Data from the CARAMAL study inform chiefly on the strengths and weaknesses of referral systems in these three countries and do not inform reliably as to the beneficial effect of providing access to a known life-saving treatment.

Definitions matter: Heterogeneity of COVID-19 disease severity criteria and incomplete reporting compromise meta-analysis

Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation ‘living' guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated, 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate;3 mild-severe;18 mild-critical;5 moderate-severe;8 moderate-critical;10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations;notably extrapolation of "lack of therapeutic benefit” shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19. Achieving this goal will require improved coordination of the main stakeholders developing treatment guidelines and medicine regulatory agencies. Open science, including prompt data sharing, should become the standard to allow IPD meta-analyses.

Pharmacometrics of high-dose ivermectin in early COVID-19 from an open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial (PLATCOV).

Background: There is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infections. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has clinically 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 oral ivermectin (600 µg/kg daily for 7 days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600 mg/600 mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the comparison of viral clearance rates in the modified intention-to-treat population. This was derived from daily log10 viral densities in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing trial is registered at https://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. Following ivermectin, the mean estimated rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance was 9.1% slower (95% confidence interval [CI] -27.2% to +11.8%; n=45) than in the no drug arm (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) vs. n=41). Conclusions: High-dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric evaluation of viral clearance rate from frequent serial oropharyngeal qPCR viral density estimates is a highly efficient and well-tolerated method of assessing SARS-CoV-2 antiviral therapeutics in vitro. Funding: 'Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV)' is supported by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. Clinical trial number: NCT05041907.

Definitions matter: Heterogeneity of COVID-19 disease severity criteria and incomplete reporting compromise meta-analysis.

Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation 'living' guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated, 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate; 3 mild-severe; 18 mild-critical; 5 moderate-severe; 8 moderate-critical; 10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations; notably extrapolation of "lack of therapeutic benefit" shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19. Achieving this goal will require improved coordination of the main stakeholders developing treatment guidelines and medicine regulatory agencies. Open science, including prompt data sharing, should become the standard to allow IPD meta-analyses.

Characterizing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Clearance Kinetics to Improve the Design of Antiviral Pharmacometric Studies.

A consensus methodology for the pharmacometric assessment of candidate SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drugs would be useful for comparing trial results and improving trial design. The time to viral clearance, assessed by serial qPCR of nasopharyngeal swab samples, has been the most widely reported measure of virological response in clinical trials, but it has not been compared formally with other metrics, notably model-based estimates of the rate of viral clearance. We analyzed prospectively gathered viral clearance profiles from 280 infection episodes in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. We fitted different phenomenological pharmacodynamic models (single exponential decay, bi-exponential, penalized splines) and found that the clearance rate, estimated from a mixed effects single exponential decay model, is a robust pharmacodynamic summary of viral clearance. The rate of viral clearance, estimated from viral densities during the first week following peak viral load, provides increased statistical power (reduced type 2 error) compared with time to clearance. Antiviral effects approximately equivalent to those with currently used and recommended SARS-CoV-2 antiviral treatments, notably nirmatrelvir and molnupiravir, can be detected from randomized trials with sample sizes of only 35 to 65 patients per arm. We recommend that pharmacometric antiviral assessments should be conducted in early COVID-19 illness with serial qPCR samples taken over 1 week.

Pharmacometric and Electrocardiographic Evaluation of Chloroquine and Azithromycin in Healthy Volunteers.

Chloroquine and azithromycin were developed in combination for the preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy, and more recently were proposed as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment options. Billions of doses of chloroquine have been administered worldwide over the past 70 years but concerns regarding cardiotoxicity, notably the risk of torsades de pointes (TdP), remain. This investigation aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetics and electrocardiographic effects of chloroquine and azithromycin observed in a large previously conducted healthy volunteer study. Healthy adult volunteers (n = 119) were randomized into 5 arms: placebo, chloroquine alone (600 mg base), or chloroquine with either 500 mg, 1,000 mg, or 1,500 mg of azithromycin all given daily for 3 days. Chloroquine and azithromycin levels, measured using liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, and electrocardiograph intervals were recorded at frequent intervals. Time-matched changes in the PR, QRS, and heart rate-corrected JT, and QT intervals were calculated and the relationship with plasma concentrations was evaluated using linear and nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Chloroquine and azithromycin pharmacokinetics were described satisfactorily by two- and three-compartment distribution models, respectively. No drug-drug interaction between chloroquine and azithromycin was observed. Chloroquine resulted in concentration-dependent prolongation of the PR, QRS, JTc and QTc intervals with a minimal additional effect of azithromycin. QRS widening contributed ~ 28% of the observed QT prolongation. Chloroquine causes significant concentration-dependent delays in both ventricular depolarization and repolarization. Co-administration of azithromycin did not significantly increase these effects. The arrhythmogenic risk of TdP associated with chloroquine may have been substantially overestimated in studies which did not separate electrocardiograph QRS and JT prolongation.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).

COVID-19 prevention and treatment: A critical analysis of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine clinical pharmacology.

Nicholas White and coauthors discuss chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine pharmacology in the context of possible treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Concentration-dependent mortality of chloroquine in overdose.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are used extensively in malaria and rheumatological conditions, and now in COVID-19 prevention and treatment. Although generally safe they are potentially lethal in overdose. In-vitro data suggest that high concentrations and thus high doses are needed for COVID-19 infections, but as yet there is no convincing evidence of clinical efficacy. Bayesian regression models were fitted to survival outcomes and electrocardiograph QRS durations from 302 prospectively studied French patients who had taken intentional chloroquine overdoses, of whom 33 died (11%), and 16 healthy volunteers who took 620 mg base chloroquine single doses. Whole blood concentrations of 13.5 µmol/L (95% credible interval 10.1-17.7) were associated with 1% mortality. Prolongation of ventricular depolarization is concentration-dependent with a QRS duration >150 msec independently highly predictive of mortality in chloroquine self-poisoning. Pharmacokinetic modeling predicts that most high dose regimens trialled in COVID-19 are unlikely to cause serious cardiovascular toxicity.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are closely-related drugs used for the treatment of malaria and rheumatological conditions, such as lupus. Laboratory tests have indicated that these drugs could also be used against the virus that causes COVID-19. Given the urgent need, these drugs have been fast-tracked into large-scale clinical trials, bypassing the usual stages that would provide estimates for suitable dosage. The dosage is a critical factor in a clinical trial: too low and the drug will not have an effect, too high and the side effects may counteract any potential benefits. Laboratory tests suggest that higher doses of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are needed for treating COVID-19 compared to malaria or lupus. However, there are concerns about the high doses used in some trials, as the drugs can have lethal side effects. Indeed, chloroquine has been used extensively in suicide attempts, particularly in France. To address these concerns, Watson et al. set out to determine the highest dosage of chloroquine (and thus of hydroxychloroquine, approximately) that does not cause unacceptable side effects. First, data was analysed regarding the concentration of chloroquine in the blood of 302 patients who had intentionally overdosed on the drug, since this concentration is tightly correlated with their risk of death. Watson et al. used a statistical model to calculate the maximal chloroquine concentration in a person's blood associated with a one per cent risk of death. This is taken to be the threshold above which any potential benefit of chloroquine treatment would be outweighed by the possibility of lethal toxicity. Watson et al. also estimated the relationship between chloroquine concentrations and changes in electrocardiogram patterns, which record the electrical activity of the heart. This makes it possible to determine whether a high dose of chloroquine has led to dangerous levels in the blood. Using a mathematical model of how chloroquine is metabolised, Watson et al. predicted that most of the trials that tested chloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 did not reach the calculated threshold concentration. An exception was the CloroCovid-19 trial in Brazil, which was stopped early because people in the higher dosage group suffered more heart problems and died in greater numbers than those in the lower dosage group. Two large randomised trials, RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY, have shown no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19, changing clinical practice worldwide. Both of these trials used high doses resulting in higher hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine concentrations than normally observed in the treatment of malaria or rheumatological conditions. The results from Watson et al demonstrate that the lack of benefit seen in these two large clinical trials is not due to the drug dosage being too high.