Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (preprint)

Background: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) is an anti-inflammatory drug that has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. In this initial assessment of DMF, performed at 27 UK hospitals, eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF 120mg twice daily for 2 days followed by 240mg twice daily for 8 days, or until discharge if sooner. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale, assessed using a proportional odds model. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enrolled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.85-1.46; p=0.42). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome. As expected, DMF caused flushing and gastrointestinal symptoms, each in around 6% of patients, but no new adverse effects were identified. Interpretation: In adults hospitalised with COVID-19, DMF was not associated with an improvement in clinical outcomes.

Baricitinib in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial and updated meta-analysis (preprint)

Background: We evaluated the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital because of COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was conducted that included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Findings: Between 2 February 2021 and 29 December 2021, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 hours recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 513 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98; p=0.026). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of 8 previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths) in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.45-0.72). Including the results from RECOVERY into an updated meta-analysis of all 9 completed trials (involving 11,888 randomised patients and 1484 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.89; p<0.001). In RECOVERY, there was no significant excess in death or infection due to non-COVID-19 causes and no excess of thrombosis, or other safety outcomes. Interpretation: In patients hospitalised for COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth.

Immunogenicity and safety of inactivated whole virion Coronavirus vaccine with CpG (VLA2001) in healthy adults aged 18 to 55: a randomised phase 1 /2 clinical trial (preprint)

BackgroundWe assessed the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VLA2001 is a whole-virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine adsorbed to alum with a toll-like receptor 9 agonist adjuvant in healthy volunteers aged 18-55. MethodsThe first 15 participants were enrolled, in groups of 5, to receive two doses, separated by 21 days, of one of three dose concentrations, administered intramuscularly. 138 further participants were randomised 1:1:1 to receive the same 3 dose concentrations, in a double blinded manner. Primary outcomes were solicited adverse reactions 7 days after each vaccination and neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMT) against SARS-CoV-2, 2 weeks after the second vaccination (day 36), measured by live microneutralisation assay against wild-type virus (MNA50). Secondary outcomes included unsolicited adverse events, and humoral and cellular responses at day 36, measured by IgG ELISA against Spike protein and interferon-{gamma} secreting T-cells by ELISpot stimulated with multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04671017, ISRCTN 82411169) FindingsBetween December 16, 2020 and January 21, 2021, 153 participants were enrolled and randomised evenly between the dose groups. The rates of solicited reactions were similar after the first and second doses and between the three dose groups. The most frequent local reactions were tenderness (58{middle dot}2%) and pain (41{middle dot}8%) and systemic reactions were headache (46%) and fatigue (39{middle dot}2%). In the high dose group, two weeks following the second dose, the geometric mean titres were 530.4 (95% CI: 421{middle dot}49, 667{middle dot}52) for neutralizing antibodies and 2147{middle dot}9 (95% CI: 1705{middle dot}98, 2704{middle dot}22) for S-binding antibodies. There was a dose dependent response with 90{middle dot}0% (95% CI:78{middle dot}0%.,97{middle dot}0%) seroconversion (4-fold rise) at day 36 in the high dose group, which was significantly higher than rates in both the medium (73.5%; 95% CI: 59%,85%), CIs) and low dose (51%; 95%CI: 37%,65%) rate, CIs) groups (both p < 0.001). Antigen-specific interferon-{gamma} T-cells reactive against the S, M and N proteins were observed in 76, 36 and 49% of high dose recipients, respectively. InterpretationVLA2001-201 was well tolerated and produced both humoral and cellular immune responses, with a clear dose-response effect. FundingThis study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK The funder had no role in the study design, implementation or analysis.

An adaptive randomized controlled trial of non-invasive respiratory strategies in acute respiratory failure patients with COVID-19 (preprint)

BackgroundBoth continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) have been recommended for acute respiratory failure in COVID-19. However, uncertainty exists regarding effectiveness and safety. MethodsIn the Recovery-Respiratory Support multi-center, three-arm, open-label, adaptive, randomized controlled trial, adult hospitalized patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, deemed suitable for treatment escalation, were randomly assigned to receive CPAP, HFNO, or conventional oxygen therapy. Comparisons were made between each intervention and conventional oxygen therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days. ResultsOver 13-months, 1272 participants were randomized and included in the analysis (380 (29.9%) CPAP; 417 (32.8%) HFNO; 475 (37.3%) conventional oxygen therapy). The need for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days was lower in the CPAP group (CPAP 137 of 377 participants (36.3%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 158 of 356 participants (44.4%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96, P=0.03). There was no difference between HFNO and conventional oxygen therapy (HFNO 184 of 414 participants (44.4%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 166 of 368 participants (45.1%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29, P=0.85). ConclusionsCPAP, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, reduced the composite outcome of intubation or death within 30 days of randomisation in hospitalized adults with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. There was no effect observed, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, with the use of HFNO. (Funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research; ISRCTN 16912075).

Casirivimab and imdevimab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (preprint)

Background: REGEN-COV is a combination of 2 monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab and imdevimab) that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of REGEN-COV in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus a single dose of REGEN-COV 8g (casirivimab 4g and imdevimab 4g) by intravenous infusion (REGEN-COV group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed first among patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at randomisation (seronegative) and then in the overall population. Findings: Between 18 September 2020 and 22 May 2021, 9785 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus REGEN-COV or usual care alone, including 3153 (32%) seronegative patients, 5272 (54%) seropositive patients and 1360 (14%) patients with unknown baseline antibody status. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 451 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.91; p=0.0010). In an analysis involving all randomised patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 944 (20%) of 4839 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 1026 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.86-1.03; p=0.17). The proportional effect of REGEN-COV on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity = 0.001). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) reduced 28-day mortality among patients who were seronegative at baseline.

Multi-modality detection of SARS-CoV-2 in faecal donor samples for transplantation and in asymptomatic emergency surgical admissions (preprint)

IntroductionFaecal transplantation is an evidence based treatment for Clostridiodes difficile. Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to shed the virus in stool for up to 33 days, well beyond the average clearance time for upper respiratory tract shedding. We carried out an analytical and clinical validation of reverse-transcriptase quantitative (RT-qPCR) as well as LAMP, LamPORE and droplet digital PCR in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool from donated samples for FMT, spiked samples and asymptomatic inpatients in an acute surgical unit. MethodsKilled SARS-CoV-2 viral lysate and extracted RNA was spiked into donor stool & FMT and a linear dilution series from 10-1 to 10-5 and tested via RT-qPCR, LAMP, LamPORE and ddPCR against SARS-CoV-2. Patients admitted to the critical care unit with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and sequential asymptomatic patients from acute presentation to an acute surgical unit were also tested. ResultsIn a linear dilution series, detection of the lowest dilution series was found to be 8 copies per microlitre of sample. Spiked lysate samples down to 10-2 dilution were detected in FMT samples using RTQPCR, LamPORE and ddPCR and down to 10-1 with LAMP. In symptomatic patients 5/12 had detectable SARS-CoV-2 in stool via RT-qPCR and 6/12 via LamPORE, and in 1/97 asymptomatic patients via RT-qPCR. ConclusionsRT-qPCR can be detected in FMT donor samples using RT-qPCR, LamPORE and ddPCR to low levels using validated pathways. As previously demonstrated, nearly half of symptomatic and less than one percent of asymptomatic patients had detectable SARS-CoV-2 in stool.

Development and validation of the 4C Deterioration model for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (preprint)

Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 are required to inform clinical management decisions. Among 75,016 consecutive adults across England, Scotland and Wales prospectively recruited to the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study, we developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) using 11 routinely measured variables. We used internal-external cross-validation to show consistent measures of discrimination, calibration and clinical utility across eight geographical regions. We further validated the final model in held-out data from 8,252 individuals in London, with similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.78); calibration-in-the-large 0.01 (-0.04 to 0.06); calibration slope 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02)). Importantly, this model demonstrated higher net benefit than using other candidate scores to inform decision-making. Our 4C Deterioration model thus demonstrates unprecedented clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.

Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score (preprint)

ObjectivesTo develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality for patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DesignProspective observational cohort study: ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study (ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium [4C]). Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited between 21 May and 29 June 2020. Setting260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. ParticipantsAdult patients ([≥]18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 admitted at least four weeks before final data extraction. Main outcome measuresIn-hospital mortality. ResultsThere were 34 692 patients included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 31.7%) and 22 454 in the validation dataset (mortality 31.5%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea, and C-reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C risk stratification score demonstrated high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: AUROC 0.79; 95% CI 0.78 - 0.79; validation cohort 0.78, 0.77-0.79) with excellent calibration (slope = 1.0). Patients with a score [≥]15 (n = 2310, 17.4%) had a 67% mortality (i.e., positive predictive value 67%) compared with 1.0% mortality for those with a score [≤]3 (n = 918, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (AUROC range 0.60-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73). ConclusionsWe have developed and validated an easy-to-use risk stratification score based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. This outperformed existing scores, demonstrated utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify inpatients with covid-19 into different management groups. The 4C Mortality Score may help clinicians identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of dying during current and subsequent waves of the pandemic. Study registrationISRCTN66726260

Features of 16,749 hospitalised UK patients with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol (preprint)

Objective: To characterize the clinical features of patients with severe COVID-19 in the UK. Design: Prospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real-time analysis, using a pre-approved questionnaire adopted by the WHO. Setting: 166 UK hospitals between 6th February and 18th April 2020. Participants: 16,749 people with COVID-19. Interventions: No interventions were performed, but with consent samples were taken for research purposes. Many participants were co-enrolled in other interventional studies and clinical trials. Results: The median age was 72 years [IQR 57, 82; range 0, 104], the median duration of symptoms before admission was 4 days [IQR 1,8] and the median duration of hospital stay was 7 days [IQR 4,12]. The commonest comorbidities were chronic cardiac disease (29%), uncomplicated diabetes (19%), non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease (19%) and asthma (14%); 47% had no documented reported comorbidity. Increased age and comorbidities including obesity were associated with a higher probability of mortality. Distinct clusters of symptoms were found: 1. respiratory (cough, sputum, sore throat, runny nose, ear pain, wheeze, and chest pain); 2. systemic (myalgia, joint pain and fatigue); 3. enteric (abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhoea). Overall, 49% of patients were discharged alive, 33% have died and 17% continued to receive care at date of reporting. 17% required admission to High Dependency or Intensive Care Units; of these, 31% were discharged alive, 45% died and 24% continued to receive care at the reporting date. Of those receiving mechanical ventilation, 20% were discharged alive, 53% died and 27% remained in hospital. Conclusions: We present the largest detailed description of COVID-19 in Europe, demonstrating the importance of pandemic preparedness and the need to maintain readiness to launch research studies in response to outbreaks. Trial documentation: Available at https://isaric4c.net/protocols . Ethical approval in England and Wales (13/SC/0149), and Scotland (20/SS/0028). ISRCTN (pending).