Comparing Prospective Incident Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Rates During Successive Waves of Delta and Omicron in Johannesburg, South Africa.

In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures.

Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials.

Background: Five severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are approved in North America and/or Europe: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Novavax. Other vaccines have been developed, including Sinopharm, SinoVac, QazVac, Covaxin, Soberana, Zifivax, Medicago, Clover, and Cansino, but they are not approved in high-income countries. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved and -unapproved vaccines in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic review of trial registries identified RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2). In the meta-analysis, relative risks of symptomatic infection and severe disease were compared for each vaccine versus placebo, using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel Tests (random effects method). Results: Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 1 was excluded for high-risk of bias. Ten RCTs evaluated 5 approved vaccines and 11 RCTs evaluated 9 unapproved vaccines. In the meta-analysis, prevention of symptomatic infection was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-92%) for approved vaccines versus 72% (95% CI, 66%-77%) for unapproved vaccines, with no significant difference between vaccine types (P = .12). Prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94% (95% CI, 75%-98%) for approved vaccines versus 86% (95% CI, 76%-92%) for unapproved vaccines (P = .33). The risk of serious adverse events was similar between vaccine types (P = .12). Conclusions: This meta-analysis of 21 RCTs in 390 459 participants showed no significant difference in efficacy between the FDA/EMA-approved and -unapproved vaccines for symptomatic or severe infection. Differences in study design, endpoint definitions, variants, and infection prevalence may have influenced results. New patent-free vaccines could lower costs of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns significantly.

Minimum costs to manufacture new treatments for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: 'Repurposing' existing drugs to treat COVID-19 is vital to reducing mortality and controlling the pandemic. Several promising drugs have been identified and are in various stages of clinical trials globally. If efficacy of these drugs is demonstrated, rapid, mass availability at an affordable cost would be essential to ensuring equity and access especially amongst low- and middle-income economies. METHODS: Minimum costs of production were estimated from the costs of active pharmaceutical ingredients using established methodology, which had good predictive accuracy for medicines for hepatitis C and HIV amongst others. Data were extracted from global export shipment records or analysis of the route of chemical synthesis. The estimated costs were compared with list prices from a range of countries where pricing data were available. RESULTS: Minimum estimated costs of production were US $0.93/day for remdesivir, $1.45/day for favipiravir, $0.08/day for hydroxychloroquine, $0.02/day for chloroquine, $0.10/day for azithromycin, $0.28/day for lopinavir/ritonavir, $0.39/day for sofosbuvir/daclatasvir and $1.09/day for pirfenidone. Costs of production ranged between $0.30 and $31 per treatment course (10-28 days). Current prices of these drugs were far higher than the costs of production, particularly in the US. CONCLUSIONS: Should repurposed drugs demonstrate efficacy against COVID-19, they could be manufactured profitably at very low costs, for much less than current list prices. Estimations for the minimum production costs can strengthen price negotiations and help ensure affordable access to vital treatment for COVID-19 at low prices globally.

Retraction to: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofab358.]

Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated for repurposing against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Ivermectin showed in vitro activity against SARS-COV-2, but only at high concentrations. This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 23 randomized clinical trials (3349 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv, and trial registries. The primary meta-analysis was carried out by excluding studies at a high risk of bias. Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.42; P = .66) or hospitalizations (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.11; P = .11). Ivermectin displayed a borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care (mean difference, -1.14 days; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.00; P = .05). There was no significant effect of ivermectin on time to clinical recovery (mean difference, -0.57 days; 95% CI, -1.31 to 0.17; P = .13) or binary clinical recovery (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.50; P = .15). Currently, the World Health Organization recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials. A network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date.

Minimum Manufacturing Costs, National Prices, and Estimated Global Availability of New Repurposed Therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Currently, only dexamethasone, tocilizumab, and sarilumab have conclusively been shown to reduce mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Safe and effective treatments will need to be both affordable and widely available globally to be used alongside vaccination programs. This analysis will estimate and compare potential generic minimum costs of a selection of approved COVID-19 drug candidates with available international list prices. METHODS: We searched for repurposed drugs that have been approved by at least one of the World Health Organization, US Food and Drug Administration, or the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence organizations or at least given emergency use authorization or recommended for off-label prescription. Drug prices were searched for dexamethasone, budesonide, baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, and sarilumab, using active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) data extracted from global shipping records. This was compared with national pricing data from a range of low-, medium-, and high-income countries. Annual API export volumes from India were used to estimate the current availability of each drug. RESULTS: Repurposed therapies can be generically manufactured for some treatments at very low per-course costs, ranging from US $2.58 for intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (or US $0.19 orally) and US $4.34 for inhaled budesonide. No export price data were available for baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, or sarilumab, but courses of these treatments have higher prices, ranging from US $6.67 for baricitinib to US $875.5 for sarilumab. When comparing international list prices, we found wide variations between countries. CONCLUSIONS: Successful management of COVID-19 will require equitable access to treatment for all populations, not just those able to pay high prices. Dexamethasone and budesonide are widely available and affordable, whereas monoclonal antibodies and IV treatment courses are more expensive.

Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments are urgently needed to tackle the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This trial aims to evaluate sofosbuvir and daclatasvir versus standard care for outpatients with mild COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial in outpatients with mild COVID-19. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving sofosbuvir/daclatasvir plus hydroxychloroquine or a control arm receiving hydroxychloroquine alone. The primary endpoint of the trial was symptom alleviation after 7 days of follow-up. The secondary endpoint of the trial was hospital admission. Fatigue, dyspnoea and loss of appetite were investigated after 1 month of follow-up. This study is registered with the IRCT.ir under registration number IRCT20200403046926N1. RESULTS: Between 8 April 2020 and 19 May 2020, 55 patients were recruited and allocated to either the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir treatment arm (n = 27) or the control arm (n = 28). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. There was no significant difference in symptoms at Day 7. One patient was admitted to hospital in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and four in the control arm, but the difference was not significant. After 1 month of follow-up, two patients reported fatigue in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and 16 in the control arm; P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir did not significantly alleviate symptoms after 7 days of treatment compared with control. Although fewer hospitalizations were observed in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm, this was not statistically significant. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir significantly reduced the number of patients with fatigue and dyspnoea after 1 month. Larger, well-designed trials are warranted.

Minimum costs to manufacture new treatments for COVID-19

Introduction: 'Repurposing' existing drugs to treat COVID-19 is vital to reducing mortality and controlling the pandemic. Several promising drugs have been identified and are in various stages of clinical trials globally. If efficacy of these drugs is demonstrated, rapid, mass availability at an affordable cost would be essential to ensuring equity and access especially amongst low- and middle-income economies. Methods: Minimum costs of production were estimated from the costs of active pharmaceutical ingredients using established methodology, which had good predictive accuracy for medicines for hepatitis C and HI V amongst others. Data were extracted from global export shipment records or analysis of the route of chemical synthesis. The estimated costs were compared with list prices from a range of countries where pricing data were available. Results: Minimum estimated costs of production were US $0.93/day for remdesivir, $1.45/day for favipiravir, $0.08/day for hydroxychloroquine, $0.02/day for chloroquine, $0.10/day for azithromycin, $0.28/day for lopinavir/ritonavir, $0.39/day for sofosbuvir/daclatasvir and $1.09/day for pirfenidone. Costs of production ranged between $0.30 and $31 per treatment course (10-28 days). Current prices of these drugs were far higher than the costs of production, particularly in the US. Conclusions: Should repurposed drugs demonstrate efficacy against COVID-19, they could be manufactured profitably at very low costs, for much less than current list prices. Estimations for the minimum production costs can strengthen price negotiations and help ensure affordable access to vital treatment for COVID-19 at low prices globally.

Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir compared with standard of care in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe coronavirus infection (COVID-19): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently no effective antiviral therapy has been found to treat COVID-19. The aim of this trial was to assess if the addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir improved clinical outcomes in patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre, randomized controlled clinical trial in adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 admitted to four university hospitals in Iran. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving sofosbuvir and daclatasvir plus standard care, or a control arm receiving standard care alone. The primary endpoint was clinical recovery within 14 days of treatment. The study is registered with IRCT.ir under registration number IRCT20200128046294N2. RESULTS: Between 26 March and 26 April 2020, 66 patients were recruited and allocated to either the treatment arm (n = 33) or the control arm (n = 33). Clinical recovery within 14 days was achieved by 29/33 (88%) in the treatment arm and 22/33 (67%) in the control arm (P = 0.076). The treatment arm had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization [6 days (IQR 4-8)] than the control group [8 days (IQR 5-13)]; P = 0.029. Cumulative incidence of hospital discharge was significantly higher in the treatment arm versus the control (Gray's P = 0.041). Three patients died in the treatment arm and five in the control arm. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir to standard care significantly reduced the duration of hospital stay compared with standard care alone. Although fewer deaths were observed in the treatment arm, this was not statistically significant. Conducting larger scale trials seems prudent.

Evaluation of the efficacy of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir in combination with ribavirin for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with moderate disease compared with standard care: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic options are urgently needed to tackle the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Repurposing existing pharmaceuticals provides an immediate treatment opportunity. We assessed the efficacy of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir with ribavirin for treating patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single-centre, randomized controlled trial in adults with moderate COVID-19 admitted to the Ghaem Shahr Razi Hospital in Mazandaran Province, Iran. Patients were randomly assigned to 400 mg sofosbuvir, 60 mg daclatasvir and 1200 mg ribavirin (intervention group) or to standard care (control group). The primary endpoint of this study was length of hospital stay. This study is registered by IRCT.ir under the ID: IRCT20200328046886N1. RESULTS: Between 20 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, 48 patients were recruited; 24 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 24 to the control group. The median duration of hospital stay was 6 days in both groups (P = 0.398). The number of ICU admissions in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir/ribavirin group was not significantly lower than the control group (0 versus 4, P = 0.109). There was no difference in the number of deaths between the groups (0 versus 3, P = 0.234). The cumulative incidence of recovery was higher in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir/ribavirin arm (Gray's P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial was too small to make definitive conclusions. There were trends in favour of the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir/ribavirin arm for recovery and lower death rates. However, there was an imbalance in the baseline characteristics between the arms. Larger randomized trials should be conducted to investigate this treatment further.