Tixagevimab-cilgavimab (AZD7442) for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (preprint)

Background Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442) are two monoclonal antibodies developed by AstraZeneca for the pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Its effectiveness and safety in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was not known at the outset of this trial. Methods DisCoVeRy is a phase 3, adaptive, multicentre, randomized, controlled trial conducted in 63 sites in Europe. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or tixagevimab-cilgavimab in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Several clinical, virological, immunological and safety endpoints were also assessed. Findings Due to slow enrolment, recruitment was stopped on July 1st, 2022. The antigen positive modified intention-to-treat population (mITT) was composed of 173 participants randomized to tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n=91) or placebo (n=82), 91.9% (159/173) with supplementary oxygen, and 47.4% (82/173) previously vaccinated at inclusion. There was no significant difference in the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale at day 15 between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95%CI [0.54-1.61]; p=0.81) nor in any clinical, virological or safety secondary endpoints. In the global mITT (n=226), neutralization antibody titers were significantly higher in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group/patients compared to placebo at day 3 (Least-square mean differences (LSMD) 1.44, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [1.20-1.68]; p < 10-23) and day 8 (LSMD 0.91, 95%CI [0.64-1.18]; p < 10-8) and it was most important for patients infected with a pre-omicron variant, both at day 3 (LSMD 1.94, 95% CI [1.67-2.20], p < 10-25) and day 8 (LSMD 1.17, 95% CI [0.87-1.47], p < 10-9), with a significant interaction (p < 10-7 and p=0.01 at days 3 and 8, respectively). Interpretation There were no significant differences between tixagevimab-cilgavimab and placebo in clinical endpoints, however the trial lacked power compared to prespecified calculations. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab was well tolerated, with low rates of treatment related events.

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma to treat hospitalised COVID-19 patients with or without underlying immunodeficiency: a randomized clinical trial (preprint)

Background: Efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in COVID-19 pneumonia is uncertain. Early transfusion of high antibody titre CCP may be beneficial, especially in case of underlying immunosuppression. Methods: The CORIPLASM study was a multicentric, open-label, Bayesian randomised clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of CCP in patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, including patients with underlying immunosuppression. Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 for less than 9 days were assigned to receive 2 plasma units/day over 2 days (CCP) or usual care (UC) alone. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with a WHO-Clinical Progression Score (CPS) >= 6 on the 10-point scale on day 4 and survival without ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by day 14. Main analysis was conducted on the whole population and a planned subgroup analysis was performed according to immunosuppression status. Findings: A total of 120 patients were recruited between April 16, 2020, and April 21, 2021, and assigned to CCP (n=60) or UC (n=60) with a 28 day-follow-up. The median time from symptoms onset to randomisation (days) was 7.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 5.0-9.0] and 7.0 [IQR 4.0-8.5] in CCP and UC, respectively. Thirteen (22%) patients with CCP had a WHO-CPS >= 6 at day 4 versus 8 (13%) with UC, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71 to 5.24]. By d14, 19 (31.6%) patients with CCP and 20 (33.3%) patients with UC had ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment or had died. Cumulative incidence of death was 3 (5%) with CCP and 8 (13%) with UC at d14 (aHR 0.40 [95%CI 0.10 -1.53]), and 7 (12%) with CCP and 12 (20%) with UC at day 28 (aHR 0.51 [95% CI 0.20-1.32]). Subgroup analysis indicated that CCP might be associated with a lower mortality in patients with underlying immunosuppression (HR 0.37 [95% CI 0.14-0.97]). Serious adverse events were noted in 30 (50%) and 26 (43%) patients with CCP or UC, respectively. Interpretation: CCP treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with mild-to-moderate form COVID-19 pneumonia but was associated with reduced mortality in the subgroup of immunosuppressed patients. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04345991

Immunogenicity and Safety of Beta Adjuvanted Recombinant Booster Vaccine (preprint)

Background. Variant-adaptated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as boosters are needed to increase a broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. New adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccines as heterologous boosters could maximize the response. Methods. In this randomized, single-blinded, multicenter trial, adults who had received two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) 3 to7 months before were randomly assigned to receive a boost of BNT162b2, Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV D614 (monovalent parental formulation) or SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV B.1.351 vaccine (monovalent Beta formulation). The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects with a [≥] 10-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers for the Wuhan (D614) and B.1.351 (Beta) SARS-CoV-2 viral strains between day 0 and day 15. Findings. The percentages of participants whose neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan (D614) SARS-CoV-2 strain increased by a factor [≥]10 between day 0 and day 15 was 55.3% (95% CI 43.4-66.7) in MV D614 group (n=76), 76.1% (64.5-85.4) in MV B.1.351 (Beta) group (n=71) and 63.2% (51.3-73.9) in BNT162b2 group (n=76). These percentages were 44.7% (33.3-56.6), 84.5% (74.0-92.0) and 51.3% (39.6-63.0) for the B.1.351 (Beta) viral strain, respectively. Higher neutralizing antibodies rates against Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants were also elicited after Sanofi/GSK MV Beta vaccine compared to the other vaccines. Comparable reactogenicity profile was observed with the three vaccines. Interpretation. Heterologous boosting with the Sanofi/GSK Beta formulation vaccine resulted in a higher neutralizing antibody response against Beta variant but also the original strain and Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants, compared with mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine or the Sanofi/GSK MVD614 formulation. New vaccines containing Beta spike protein may represent an interesting strategy for broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants.

Remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results from the DisCoVeRy randomised, controlled, open-label trial (preprint)

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily 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. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). Interpretation: Remdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.

An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 – Final results from the DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Objectives We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. Methods We conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity ( NCT04315948 , EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. Results The intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a, n=147; hydroxychloroquine, n=150; control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36); lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08); hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. Conclusion In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Convalescent plasma improves overall survival in patients with B-cell lymphoid malignancies and COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort and propensity score analysis (preprint)

Patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 display a high mortality rate. In such patients, immunosuppression due to underlying disease and previous specific treatment impair humoral response, limiting viral clearance. Thus, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy appears as a promising approach through the transfer of neutralizing antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2. We report the effect of CCP in a cohort of 112 patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 and a propensity score analysis on subgroups of patients with B-cell lymphoid disease treated (n=81) or not (n=120) with CCP between 1 May 2020 and 1 April 2021. The overall survival of the whole cohort was 65% [56-74.9] and 77.5% [68.5-87.7] for patients with B-cell neoplasm. Prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies therapy was associated with better overall survival whereas age, high blood pressure, and COVID-19 severity were associated with a poor outcome. After an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach, we observed in anti-CD20-exposed patients with B-cell lymphoid disease a decreased mortality of 63% (95% CI=31%-80%) in the CCP-treated group compared to the CCP-untreated subgroup, confirmed in the other sensitivity analyses. Convalescent plasma may be beneficial in COVID-19 patients with B-cell neoplasm who are unable to mount a humoral immune response.

High seroconversion rate and SARS-CoV-2 Delta neutralization in PLWHIV vaccinated with BNT162b2 (preprint)

Objectives To assess the humoral and cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant after BNT162b2 vaccination in PLWHIV. Design Multicenter cohort study of PLWHIV, with a CD4 cell count <500/mm 3 and a viral load <50 copies/ml on stable antiretroviral therapy for at least 3 months. Methods Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain IgG antibodies (anti-RBD IgG) were quantified and their neutralization capacity was evaluated using an ELISA (GenScript) and a virus neutralization test (VNT), against historical strain, Beta and Delta variants before vaccination (day 0) and one month after a complete vaccination schedule (M1). Results 97 patients were enrolled in the study: 85 received 2 vaccine doses (11 previous COVID-19 and 1 premature exit). The seroconversion rate in anti-RBD IgG was 97% CI95[90%; 100%] at M1. Median (IQR) anti-RBD IgG titer was 0.97 (0.97-5.3) BAU/ml at D0 and 1219 (602-1929) at M1. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) capacity improved between D0 (15% CI95[8%; 23%]) and M1 (94% CI95[87%; 98%]) with the GenScript assay (p<0.0001). At M1, NAbs against historical strain, Beta and Delta variants were present in 82%, 77% and 84% patients respectively. The seroconversion rate and median anti-RBD IgG were 91% and 852 BAU/ml in patients with CD4<250/mm3 (n=13) and 98% and 1270 BAU/ml in patients with CD4>250/mm 3 (n=64) (p=0.3994). 73% of patients with CD4<250 had NAbs and 97% of those with CD4>250 (p=0.0130). The NAbs against Beta variant was elicited in 50% in CD4<250 and in 81% in CD4>250 (p=0.0292). No change in CD4 + or CD8 + T cells count was observed while a decrease of CD19 + B cells count was observed (208 ±124 cells/mm3 at D0 vs 188 ±112 cells/mm3 at M1, p<0.01). No notable adverse effects or COVID-19 were reported. Conclusions These results show a high seroconversion rate with a Delta neutralization in PLWHIV patients after a complete BNT162b2 vaccination schedule.

Cumulative Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Associated Risk Factors Among Frontline Health Care Workers in Paris, France: The SEROCOV Prospective Cohort Study (preprint)

Objective: With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. Methods In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 1,062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95%CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); active smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Conclusion The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk. Trial registration: The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A Randomised, Controlled, Open-Label Trial (preprint)

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418; remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study; grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work; and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France); it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of XAV-19, a swine glyco-humanized polyclonal anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody, for COVID-19-related moderate pneumonia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIa study (preprint)

Background: We assessed the pharmacokinetics and safety of XAV-19, a swine glyco-humanized polyclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2, in COVID-19-related moderate pneumonia. In vitro, 100% neutralization activity is seen with XAV-19 concentrations above 5 microg/mL. Methods: In this phase 2a trial, adults with COVID-19-related moderate pneumonia of [≤]10 days duration were randomized to infusion of XAV-19 0.5 mg/kg at day 1 and day 5 (group 1), 2 mg/kg at day 1 and day 5 (group 2), 2 mg/kg at day 1 (group 3) or placebo. Results: Eighteen patients (n=7 for group 1, n=1 for group 2, n=5 for group 3, and n=5 for placebo) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups, XAV-19 serum concentrations (microg/mL, median, range) at Cmax and at day 8 were 9.1 (5.2-18.1) and 6.4 (2.8-11.9), 71.5 and 47.2, and 50.4 (29.1-55.0) and 20.3 (12.0-22.7) for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (p=0.012). Terminal half-life (median, range) was estimated at 11.4 (5.5-13.9) days for 2 mg/kg of XAV-19 at day 1. Serum XAV-19 concentrations were above the target concentration of 10 microg/mL (tow fold the in vitro 100% inhibitory concentration [IC100]) from the end of perfusion to more than 8 days for XAV-19 2 mg/kg at day 1. No hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions were reported during treatment, there was no discontinuation for adverse events and no serious adverse events related to study drug. Conclusions: Single intravenous dose of 2 mg/kg of XAV-19 demonstrated high serum concentrations, predictive of potent durable neutralizing activity with good tolerability.

Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among frontline health care workers in Paris, France: the SEROCOV prospective cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundWith the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. MethodsIn this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. ResultsAmong 1,062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95%CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); active smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. ConclusionThe rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk. Key messagesO_LIDuring the first epidemic wave, 14.6% of 1,062 first-line Health Care Workers had a positive serology and/or RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. C_LIO_LIMost infections occurred early C_LIO_LIRisk was increased by working in infectious diseases (OR 4.22, 95% confidence interval [0.92; 18.28]), emergency (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and intensive care units (1.80, [0.38; 8.58]) C_LIO_LIBeing an active smoker was protective (0.36 [0.21; 0.3]). C_LI

Cumulative Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Associated Risk Factors Among Frontline Health Care Workers in Paris, France: The SEROCOV Prospective Cohort Study (preprint)

Background: With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern.Methods: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from COVID-19 frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive serology and/or positive RT-PCR result) at M3. Secondary outcomes were positive serology for SARS-CoV-2 at M0, M1 and M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression.Findings: Among 1,062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Seroprevalence at M0, M1, and M3 was 5.9% [4.7; 7.5], 12.9% [10.9; 15.1] and 13.0% [11.1; 15.2], respectively. Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95%CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); active smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3.Interpretation: The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. Seroprevalence in May was higher than in the general population. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial Registration: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690Funding Statement: The sponsor of the study was Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), with study management by URC Pitié-Salpêtrière. This study was funded by the French Ministry of Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique) and the French Agency for Research (Fond d’amorçage de l’Agence National pour la Recherche).Declaration of Interests: None to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: The SEROCOV study was approved by the ethics committee (CPP Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer I, approval no. 2-20-023 id7257) and all participants signed informed consent before inclusion.

Antiviral drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 - the DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Background: Lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine efficacy for COVID-19 have been evaluated, but detailed evaluation is lacking. Objective: To determine the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir for improving the clinical, virological outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients. Design: Open-label, randomized, adaptive, controlled trial. Setting: Multi-center trial with patients from France. Participants: 583 COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support Intervention: Standard of care (SoC, control), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg lopinavir and 100 mg ritonavir every 12h for 14 days), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-beta-1a (44 micrograms of subcutaneous IFN-beta-1a on days 1, 3, and 6), SoC plus hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice on day 1 then 400 mg once daily for 9 days) or SoC plus remdesivir (200 mg intravenously on day 1 then 100 mg once-daily for hospitalization duration or 10 days). Measurements: The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens and safety analyses. Results: Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for the WHO 7-point ordinal scale were not in favor of investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, aOR 0.83, 95%CI, 0.55 to 1.26, P=0.39; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a versus control, aOR 0.69, 95%CI, 0.45 to 1.04, P=0.08; hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.41, P=0.75. No significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract was evidenced. Lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatments were significantly associated with more SAE. Limitations: Not a placebo-controlled, no anti-inflammatory agents tested. Conclusion: No improvement of the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract specimens by studied drugs. This comforts the recent Solidarity findings. Registration: NCT04315948. Funding: PHRC 2020, Dim OneHealth, REACTing