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.

Altered microRNA expression in severe COVID-19: potential prognostic and pathophysiological role (preprint)

Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is ongoing. The pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection is beginning to be elucidated but the role of microRNAs (miRNAs), small non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression, remains incompletely understood. They play a role in the pathophysiology of viral infections with potential use as biomarkers. The objective of this study was to identify miRNAs as biomarkers of severe COVID-19 and to analyze their role in the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods miRNA expression was measured in nasopharyngeal swabs from 20 patients with severe COVID-19, 21 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and 20 controls. Promising miRNAs to differentiate non-severe from severe COVID-19 patients were identified by differential expression analysis and sparse Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA). ROC analysis, target prediction, GO enrichment and pathway analysis were used to analyze the role and the pertinence of these miRNAs in severe COVID-19. Results The number of expressed miRNAs was lower in severe COVID-19 patients compared to non-severe COVID-19 patients and controls. Among the differentially expressed miRNAs between severe COVID-19 and controls, 5 miRNAs were also differentially expressed between severe and non-severe COVID-19. sPLS-DA analysis highlighted 8 miRNAs, that allowed to discriminate the severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases. Target and functional analysis revealed enrichment for genes involved in viral infections and the cellular response to infection as well as one miRNA, hsa-miR-15b-5p, that targeted the SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The comparison of results of differential expression analysis and discriminant analysis revealed three miRNAs, namely hsa-miR-125a-5p, hsa-miR-491-5p and hsa-miR-200b-3p. These discriminated severe from non-severe cases with areas under the curve ranging from 0.76 to 0.80. Conclusions Our analysis of miRNA expression in nasopharyngeal swabs revealed several miRNAs of interest to discriminate severe and non-severe COVID-19. These miRNAs represent promising biomarkers and possibly targets for antiviral or anti-inflammatory treatment strategies.

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.

The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age-dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies (preprint)

SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every five years of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-β are found in ~20% of deceased patients across age groups. In the general population, they are found in ~1% of individuals aged 20-70 years and in >4% of those >70 years old. With a sample of 1,261 deceased patients and 34,159 uninfected individuals, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to non-carriers. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRD was 17.0[95% CI:11.7-24.7] for individuals under 70 years old and 5.8[4.5-7.4] for individuals aged 70 and over, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRD was 188.3[44.8-774.4] and 7.2[5.0-10.3], respectively. IFRs increased with age, from 0.17%[0.12-0.31] for individuals <40 years old to 26.7%[20.3-35.2] for those ≥80 years old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84%[0.31-8.28] to 40.5%[27.82-61.20] for the same two age groups, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, particularly those neutralizing both IFN-α2 and -ω. Remarkably, IFR increases with age, whereas RRD decreases with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs appears to be second only to age among common predictors of COVID-19 death.

Modeling remdesivir antiviral efficacy in COVID-19 hospitalized patients of the randomized, controlled, open-label DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Despite several clinical studies, the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. We analyzed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads collected in the 29 days following randomization from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial, allocated to either standard of care (SoC, N=329) or SoC + remdesivir for 10 days (N=336). We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in reducing viral production. To identify factors associated with viral kinetics, additional analyses were conducted stratified either on time of treatment initiation ([≤] or > 7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or [≥] 3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by 2-fold on average (95%CI: 1.5-3.2). Using the estimated parameter of the model, simulations predict that remdesivir reduces time to viral clearance by 0.7 day compared to SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (Inter-Quartile Range, IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Exploratory analyses suggest that remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with a high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95%CI: 2.8-25), leading to a predicted median reduction in the time to viral clearance of 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). In summary, our model shows that remdesivir reduces viral production from infected cells by a factor 2, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared to SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high level of viral load at treatment initiation. One sentence summaryRemdesivir reduces the time to SARS-CoV-2 clearance by 1 day in hospitalized patients, and up to 3 days in those with high viral load at admission.

Increased Risk of Severe COVID-19 in Hospitalized Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern Alpha Infection in France: A Multicentre Matched Cohort Study With Retrospective Data Collection (preprint)

Background: The impact of the variant of concern (VOC) Alpha on the severity of COVID-19 is debated and has to be analyzed in different epidemiological situations. We report our analysis in France.Methods: We conducted an exposed/unexposed cohort study with retrospective data collection, comparing patients infected by VOC Alpha to patients infected by historical lineages. Participants were matched on age (+/- 2.5 years), sex and region of hospitalization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of hospitalized participants with severe COVID-19, defined as a WHO-scale >5 or by the need of a non-rebreather mask, occurring up to day 29 after admission. We used a logistic regression model stratified on each matched pair and accounting for factors known to be associated with the severity of the disease (age, BMI and comorbidities) to compare the 2 groups. Findings: We included 650 pairs of patients hospitalized between Jan 1, 2021, and Feb 28, 2021, in 47 hospitals. Median age was 70 years and 61.3% of participants were male. The proportion of participants with comorbidities was high in both groups (85.0% vs 90%, p=0.004). Infection by VOC Alpha was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 (41.7% vs 38.5% - aOR=1.33 95% CI [1.03-1.72]). The rate of mortality was 24.0% vs 19.0% (aHR 1.21 95% CI [0.93-1.58]).Interpretation: Infection by the VOC Alpha was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 during the third COVID-19 epidemic wave in France.Clinical Trial Registration Details: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04863547). Funding Information: The study was funded by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergentes.Declaration of Interests: DC reports HIV grants from Janssen (2017-2018, 2019-2020), personal fees from Janssen (2018) and Gilead (2018, 2020) for lectures on HIV outside the submitted work. CC reports personal fees from Janssen (2018), MSD (2019), Gilead (2018-2020), Theratechnologies (2020) and ViiV Healthcare (2018-2020). HC reports personal fees from MSD (2020) and ViiV Healthcare (2020) for lectures on HIV. GMB reports support for attending meetings and personal fees from BMS, MSD, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer and Gilead for lectures outside the submitted work. JP reports support for attending meetings and personal fees from Gilead, Pfizer and Eumedica Gilead for lectures. DD reports personal fees from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare and Janssen for participation on an advisory Board. Other authors declare that they have no competing interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the SPILF Ethics Committee.

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.

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

ACE inhibitors, AT1 receptor blockers and COVID-19: clinical epidemiology evidences for a continuation of treatments. The ACER-COVID study (preprint)

Aims: The question of interactions between the renin angiotensin aldosterone system drugs and the incidence and prognosis of COVID-19 infection has been raised by the medical community. We hypothesised that if patients treated with ACE inhibitors (ACEI) or AT1 receptor blockers (ARB) were more prone to SARS-CoV2 infection and had a worse prognosis than untreated patients, the prevalence of consumption of these drugs would be higher in patients with COVID-19 compared to the general population. Methods and results: We used a clinical epidemiology approach based on the estimation of standardised prevalence ratio (SPR) of consumption of ACEI and ARB in four groups of patients (including 187 COVID-19 positive) with increasing severity referred to the University hospital of Lille and in three French reference samples (the exhaustive North population (n=1,569,968), a representative sample of the French population (n=414,046), a random sample of Lille area (n=1,584)). The SPRs of ACEI and ARB did not differ as the severity of the COVID-19 patients increased, being similar to the regular consumption of these drugs in the North of France population with the same non-significant increase for both treatment (1.17 [0.83-1.67]). A statistically significant increase in the SPR of ARB (1.56 [1.02-2.39]) was observed in intensive care unit patients only. After stratification on obesity, this increase was limited to the high risk subgroup of obese patients. Conclusions: Our results strongly support the recommendation that ACEI and ARB should be continued in the population and in COVID-19 positive patients, reinforcing the position of several scientific societies.

Characterization and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal and bronchial human airway epithelia (preprint)

In the current COVID-19 pandemic context, proposing and validating effective treatments represents a major challenge. However, the lack of biologically relevant pre-clinical experimental models of SARS-CoV-2 infection as a complement of classic cell lines represents a major barrier for scientific and medical progress. Here, we advantageously used human reconstituted airway epithelial models of nasal or bronchial origin to characterize viral infection kinetics, tissue-level remodeling of the cellular ultrastructure and transcriptional immune signatures induced by SARS-CoV-2. Our results underline the relevance of this model for the preclinical evaluation of antiviral candidates. Foremost, we provide evidence on the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir and the therapeutic potential of the remdesivir-diltiazem combination as a rapidly available option to respond to the current unmet medical need imposed by COVID-19. One Sentence SummaryNew insights on SARS-CoV-2 biology and drug combination therapies against COVID-19.