Ensuring quality control in a COVID-19 clinical trial during the pandemic: The experience of the Inserm C20-15 DisCoVeRy study.

SETTING: Health measures taken during the pandemic deeply modified the clinical research practices. At the same time, the demand for the results of the COVID-19 trials was urgent. Thus, the objective of this article is to share Inserm's experience in ensuring quality control in clinical trials in this challenging context. OBJECTIVES: DisCoVeRy is a phase III randomized study that aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of 4 therapeutic strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients. Between March, 22nd 2020 and January, 20th 2021, 1309 patients were included. In order to guarantee the best quality of data, the Sponsor had to adapt to the current sanitary measures and to their impact on clinical research activity, notably by adapting Monitoring Plan objectives, involving the research departments of the participating hospitals and a network of clinical research assistants (CRAs). RESULTS: Overall, 97 CRAs were involved and performed 909 monitoring visits. The monitoring of 100% of critical data for all patients included in the analysis was achieved, and despite of the pandemic context, a conform consent was recovered for more than 99% of patients. Results of the study were published in May and September 2021. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The main monitoring objective was met thanks to the mobilization of considerable personnel resources, within a very tight time frame and external hurdles. There is a need for further reflection to adapt the lessons learned from this experience to the context of routine practice and to improve the response of French academic research during a future epidemic.

Management of pharmacovigilance during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis by the safety department of an academic sponsor: Lessons learnt and challenges from the EU DisCoVeRy clinical trial.

The current COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional health situation, including for drug use. As there was no known effective drug for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, different drug candidates were proposed. In this article, we present the challenges for an academic Safety Department to manage the global safety of a European trial during the pandemic. The National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) conducted a European multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving three repurposed and one-in development drugs (lopinavir/ritonavir, IFN-ß1a, hydroxychloroquine, and remdesivir) in adults hospitalized with COVID-19. From 25 March 2020 to 29 May 2020, the Inserm Safety Department had to manage 585 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) initial notification and 396 follow-up reports. The Inserm Safety Department's staff was mobilized to manage these SAEs and to report Expedited safety reports to the competent authorities within the legal timeframes. More than 500 queries were sent to the investigators due to a lack of or incoherent information on SAE forms. At the same time, the investigators were overwhelmed by the management of patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. These particular conditions of missing data and lack of accurate description of adverse events made evaluation of the SAEs very difficult, particularly the assessment of the causal role of each investigational medicinal product. In parallel, working difficulties were accentuated by the national lockdown, frequent IT tool dysfunctions, delayed implementation of monitoring and the absence of automatic alerts for SAE form modification. Although COVID-19 is a confounding factor per se, the delay in and quality of SAE form completion and the real-time medical analysis by the Inserm Safety Department were major issues in the quick identification of potential safety signals. To conduct a high-quality clinical trial and ensure patient safety, all stakeholders must take their roles and responsibilities.

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134. FINDINGS: Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (pinteraction=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated. FUNDING: EU-RESPONSE.

‘Which severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from High dose dexamethasone? A Bayesian reanalysis of a randomized clinical trial (preprint)

Background: The respective benefits of high and low doses of dexamethasone (DXM) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) and acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial, with two large triple-blind RCTs reaching opposite conclusions. In the COVIDICUS trial, we argued against any additional benefit of high-dose dexamethasone (DXM20). We aimed to explore whether some specific patient phenotypes could benefit from DXM20 compared to the standard of care dose of DXM (DXMSoC). Methods: We performed a post hoc exploratory Bayesian analysis of 473 patients who received either DXM6 or DXM20 in the COVIDICUS trial. The primary outcome was the 60-day mortality rate of DXM20 over DXMSoC, with the treatment effect measured on the posterior mean of relative risk (RR) estimated using a beta-binomial model with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrI). Bayesian measures of interaction quantified the probability of interaction (Pr Interact) that the RR of 60-day death differed across the subsets by 20%. Results: Overall, the posterior mean RR of Day 60 mortality was 1.06 with a 95% credible confidence interval (0.77 to 1.44) and a posterior probability of benefit and harm of 27.0% and 50.5%, respectively. There was some evidence of treatment by subset interaction according to age, with the benefit increasing in patients aged below 70 years (RR=0.74, 95% CrI 0.41-1.22) compared to those aged above 70 (RR=1.12, 95% CrI 0.77 to 1.60) (Pr Interact, 77%), when the time since symptoms onset was lower than 7 days (RR=0.66, 95% CrI 0. 36 to 1.09) compared to 7 days or more (RR=1.15, 95% CrI 0.76 to 1.67) (Pr Interact, 90%) and in patients receiving remdesivir (RR=0.62, 95% CrI 0.29 to 1.14) compared to those who did not (RR=1.12, 95% CrI 0.78 to 1.58) (Pr Interact, 88%). Conclusions: In this exploratory post hoc Bayesian analysis, compared with standard-of-care DXM, high-dose DXM may benefit patients aged less than 70 years with severe ARF that occurred less than 7 days after symptoms onset. The use of remdesivir may also favour the benefit of DXM20. Further analysis is needed to confirm these findings. Trial registration: NCT04344730, date of registration April 14, 2020 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04344730?term=NCT04344730&draw=2&rank=1); EudraCT: 2020-001457-43 (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-001457-43).

High-Dose Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The COVIDICUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated. Objectives: To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021. Interventions: Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.

Effect of remdesivir on viral dynamics in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: a modelling analysis of the randomized, controlled, open-label DisCoVeRy trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. METHODS: We analysed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23), randomized to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Additional analyses were conducted stratified on time of treatment initiation (≤7 or >7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or ≥3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). RESULTS: In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by infected cells by 2-fold on average (95% CI: 1.5-3.2-fold). Model-based simulations predict that remdesivir reduced time to viral clearance by 0.7 days compared with SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95% CI: 2.8-25-fold) and the median time to viral clearance by 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir halved viral production, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared with SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high viral load at randomization.

Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. METHODS: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). INTERPRETATION: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. FUNDING: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Two original observations concerning bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in intensive care units during the first wave of the epidemic in France.

Among 197 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in ICU, 88 (44.7%) experienced at least one bacterial infection, with pneumonia (39.1%) and bloodstream infections (15,7%) being the most frequent. Unusual findings include frequent suspicion of bacterial translocations originating from the digestive tract as well as bacterial persistence in the lungs despite adequate therapy.