Development of Next-Generation COVID-19 Vaccines: BARDA Supported Phase 2b Study Designs.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines were quickly and successfully developed and deployed, saving millions of lives globally. While first generation vaccines are safe and effective in preventing disease caused by SARSCoV-2, next-generation vaccines have the potential to improve efficacy and safety. Vaccines delivered by a mucosal route may elicit greater protective immunity at respiratory surfaces thereby reducing transmission. Inclusion of viral antigens in addition to the spike protein may enhance protection against emerging variants of concern. Next-generation vaccine platforms with a new mechanism of action may necessitate efficacy trials to fulfill regulatory requirements. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) will be supporting Phase 2b clinical trials of candidate next-generation vaccines. The primary endpoint will be improved efficacy in terms of symptomatic disease relative to a currently approved COVID-19 vaccine. In this paper, we discuss the planned endpoints and potential challenges to this complex program.

Functional properties of measles virus proteins derived from a subacute sclerosing panencephalitis patient who received repeated remdesivir treatments.

Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a rare but fatal late neurological complication of measles, caused by persistent measles virus (MeV) infection of the central nervous system. There are no drugs approved for the treatment of SSPE. Here, we followed the clinical progression of a 5-year-old SSPE patient after treatment with the nucleoside analog remdesivir, conducted a post-mortem evaluation of the patient's brain, and characterized the MeV detected in the brain. The quality of life of the patient transiently improved after the first two courses of remdesivir, but a third course had no further clinical effect, and the patient eventually succumbed to his condition. Post-mortem evaluation of the brain displayed histopathological changes including loss of neurons and demyelination paired with abundant presence of MeV RNA-positive cells throughout the brain. Next-generation sequencing of RNA isolated from the brain revealed a complete MeV genome with mutations that are typically detected in SSPE, characterized by a hypermutated M gene. Additional mutations were detected in the polymerase (L) gene, which were not associated with resistance to remdesivir. Functional characterization showed that mutations in the F gene led to a hyperfusogenic phenotype predominantly mediated by N465I. Additionally, recombinant wild-type-based MeV with the SSPE-F gene or the F gene with the N465I mutation was no longer lymphotropic but instead efficiently disseminated in neural cultures. Altogether, this case encourages further investigation of remdesivir as a potential treatment of SSPE and highlights the necessity to functionally understand SSPE-causing MeV.IMPORTANCEMeasles virus (MeV) causes acute, systemic disease and remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in humans. Despite the lack of known entry receptors in the brain, MeV can persistently infect the brain causing the rare but fatal neurological disorder subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). SSPE-causing MeVs are characterized by a hypermutated genome and a hyperfusogenic F protein that facilitates the rapid spread of MeV throughout the brain. No treatment against SSPE is available, but the nucleoside analog remdesivir was recently demonstrated to be effective against MeV in vitro. We show that treatment of an SSPE patient with remdesivir led to transient clinical improvement and did not induce viral escape mutants, encouraging the future use of remdesivir in SSPE patients. Functional characterization of the viral proteins sheds light on the shared properties of SSPE-causing MeVs and further contributes to understanding how those viruses cause disease.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Tocilizumab and remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" was 14 (95% CI 12-15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11-16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Compassionate Use of Remdesivir in Children With Severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its efficacy and safety in children are unknown. We describe outcomes in children with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir. METHODS: Seventy-seven hospitalized patients <18 years old with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection received remdesivir through a compassionate-use program between March 21 and April 22, 2020. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg daily subsequently for children ≥40 kg and 5 mg/kg on day 1 and 2.5 mg/kg daily subsequently for children <40 kg, given intravenously). Clinical data through 28 days of follow-up were collected. RESULTS: Median age was 14 years (interquartile range 7-16, range <2 months to 17 years). Seventy-nine percent of patients had ≥1 comorbid condition. At baseline, 90% of children required supplemental oxygen and 51% required invasive ventilation. By day 28 of follow-up, 88% of patients had a decreased oxygen-support requirement, 83% recovered, and 73% were discharged. Among children requiring invasive ventilation at baseline, 90% were extubated, 80% recovered, and 67% were discharged. There were 4 deaths, of which 3 were attributed to COVID-19. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (16%). Most adverse events were related to COVID-19 or comorbid conditions. Laboratory abnormalities, including elevations in transaminase levels, were common; 61% were grades 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: Among 77 children treated with remdesivir for severe COVID-19, most recovered and the rate of serious adverse events was low.

Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Drug-Interaction Profile of Remdesivir, a SARS-CoV-2 Replication Inhibitor.

Remdesivir (RDV, Veklury®) is a once-daily, nucleoside ribonucleic acid polymerase inhibitor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 replication. Remdesivir has been granted approvals in several countries for use in adults and children hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Inside the cell, remdesivir undergoes metabolic activation to form the intracellular active triphosphate metabolite, GS-443902 (detected in peripheral blood mononuclear cells), and ultimately, the renally eliminated plasma metabolite GS-441524. This review discusses the pre-clinical pharmacology of RDV, clinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics/concentration-QT analysis, rationale for dose selection for treatment of patients with COVID-19, and drug-drug interaction potential based on available in vitro and clinical data in healthy volunteers. Following single-dose intravenous administration over 2 h of an RDV solution formulation across the dose range of 3-225 mg in healthy participants, RDV and its metabolites (GS-704277and GS-441524) exhibit linear pharmacokinetics. Following multiple doses of RDV 150 mg once daily for 7 or 14 days, major metabolite GS-441524 accumulates approximately 1.9-fold in plasma. Based on pharmacokinetic bridging from animal data and available human data in healthy volunteers, the RDV clinical dose regimen of a 200-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 100-mg maintenance doses for 4 or 9 days was selected for further evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety. Results showed high intracellular concentrations of GS-443902 suggestive of efficient conversion from RDV into the triphosphate form, and further supporting this clinical dosing regimen for the treatment of COVID-19. Mathematical drug-drug interaction liability predictions, based on in vitro and phase I data, suggest RDV has low potential for drug-drug interactions, as the impact of inducers or inhibitors on RDV disposition is minimized by the parenteral route of administration and extensive extraction. Using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, RDV is not predicted to be a clinically significant inhibitor of drug-metabolizing enzymes or transporters in patients infected with COVID-19 at therapeutic RDV doses.

PREVAIL IV: A Randomized, Double-Blind, 2-Phase, Phase 2 Trial of Remdesivir vs Placebo for Reduction of Ebola Virus RNA in the Semen of Male Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Ebola virus RNA persists in the semen of male Ebola survivors for months to years after the acute infection, and male-to-female sexual transmission of the virus is well documented. We investigated whether remdesivir can safely reduce persistence of seminal Ebola virus RNA. METHODS: We recruited men with persistent seminal Ebola RNA in Liberia and Guinea. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous remdesivir (GS-5734; Gilead Sciences) or matching placebo administered once daily by intravenous infusion over 1 hour on 5 consecutive days. Stratification was by country and number of positive (1 or 2) preenrollment semen tests. We evaluated the difference in mean assay negativity rate (ANR), that is, the proportion of negative tests for each participant in each group in the treatment (days 1-28) and follow-up (months 2-6) phases on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: We enrolled 38 men from July 2016 through June 2018. The mean treatment phase ANRs were 85% (standard deviation [SD] = 24%) and 76% (SD = 30%) in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively (P = .270). The mean follow-up phase ANRs were 96% (SD = 10%) and 81% (SD = 29%) in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively (P = .041). The 5-day remdesivir regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: In this small trial, remdesivir 100 mg/day for 5 days safely reduced the presence of Ebola virus RNA in the semen of Ebola survivors 2 to 6 months after administration. A larger follow-up study is necessary to confirm results. Clinical Trials Registration . NCT02818582.

A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown. Objective: To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group. Results: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Remdesivir, An Antiviral for Treatment of COVID-19, in Healthy Subjects.

Remdesivir (RDV), a single diastereomeric monophosphoramidate prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has potent in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RDV received the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s emergency use authorization in the United States and approval in Japan for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This report describes two phase I studies that evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of single escalating and multiple i.v. doses of RDV (solution or lyophilized formulation) in healthy subjects. Lyophilized formulation was evaluated for potential future use in clinical trials due to its storage stability in resource-limited settings. All adverse events were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Overall, RDV exhibited a linear profile following single-dose i.v. administration over 2 hours of RDV solution formulation across the dose range of 3-225 mg. Both lyophilized and solution formulations provided comparable PK parameters. High intracellular concentrations of the active triphosphate (~ 220-fold to 370-fold higher than the in vitro half-maximal effective concentration against SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate) were achieved following infusion of 75 mg or 150 mg lyophilized formulation over 30 minutes or 2 hours. Following multiple-doses of RDV 150 mg once daily for 7 or 14 days, RDV exhibited a PK profile similar to single-dose administration. Metabolite GS-441524 accumulated ~ 1.9-fold after daily dosing. Overall, RDV exhibited favorable safety and PK profiles that supported once-daily dosing.

Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: In total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P = 0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P = 0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.).

Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has shown in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We provided remdesivir on a compassionate-use basis to patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Patients were those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or who were receiving oxygen support. Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. This report is based on data from patients who received remdesivir during the period from January 25, 2020, through March 7, 2020, and have clinical data for at least 1 subsequent day. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients hospitalized for severe Covid-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%). Measurement of efficacy will require ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences.).

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Although several experimental therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been developed, the safety and efficacy of the most promising therapies need to be assessed in the context of a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a trial of four investigational therapies for EVD in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an outbreak began in August 2018. Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled. All patients received standard care and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to intravenous administration of the triple monoclonal antibody ZMapp (the control group), the antiviral agent remdesivir, the single monoclonal antibody MAb114, or the triple monoclonal antibody REGN-EB3. The REGN-EB3 group was added in a later version of the protocol, so data from these patients were compared with those of patients in the ZMapp group who were enrolled at or after the time the REGN-EB3 group was added (the ZMapp subgroup). The primary end point was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P = 0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P = 0.002). A shorter duration of symptoms before admission and lower baseline values for viral load and for serum creatinine and aminotransferase levels each correlated with improved survival. Four serious adverse events were judged to be potentially related to the trial drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Both MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Scientifically and ethically sound clinical research can be conducted during disease outbreaks and can help inform the outbreak response. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PALM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03719586.).

Switching to Fixed-Dose Bictegravir, Emtricitabine, and Tenofovir Alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in Virologically Suppressed HIV-1 Infected Women: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Active-Controlled, Phase 3, Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bictegravir, coformulated with emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination (B/F/TAF), is recommended for treatment of HIV-1-infection. Multiple studies of B/F/TAF in treatment-naive and virologically suppressed cohorts have shown high efficacy and tolerability with no treatment-emergent resistance through 48 weeks. Participants in these studies have been predominantly men. We report 48-week results from a phase 3 study evaluating switching to B/F/TAF, specifically in a globally distributed trial population of women. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, noninferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02652624), women living with HIV who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL) on a regimen containing either TAF or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were randomly assigned (1:1) to switch to B/F/TAF (50/200/25 mg) or stay on baseline regimen (SBR) once daily for 48 weeks. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (U.S. Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm); prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%. FINDINGS: We randomized 472 participants and treated 470 (234 B/F/TAF, 236 SBR). Switching to B/F/TAF was noninferior to SBR for the primary outcome, as 1.7% (4/234) vs 1.7% (4/236) had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (difference 0.0%, 95.001% confidence interval: -2.9% to 2.9%). No individual receiving B/F/TAF developed treatment-emergent resistance. Both treatments were well-tolerated; no participant discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Fixed-dose combination B/F/TAF provides a safe and efficacious option for ongoing treatment of HIV in women. This study contributes important data on safety, tolerability, and outcomes of antiretroviral therapy among women living with HIV.

Brief Report: Efficacy and Safety of Switching to Coformulated Elvitegravir, Cobicistat, Emtricitabine, and Tenofovir Alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) in Virologically Suppressed Women.

BACKGROUND: The integrase inhibitor regimen [elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)] demonstrated superior efficacy when compared with a protease inhibitor regimen [ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV + RTV) and FTC/TDF] in 575 treatment-naive women at week 48. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to a TAF-based, single-tablet regimen containing elvitegravir, cobicistat, FTC, and tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) versus remaining on ATV + RTV plus FTC/TDF. METHODS: After completing the initial randomized, blinded phase, virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) women on ATV + RTV plus FTC/TDF were rerandomized (3:1) to receive open-label E/C/F/TAF versus remaining on their current regimen. The primary end point was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 48 (U.S. FDA snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 12%. Safety [adverse events (AEs)] and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 575 women originally randomized and treated in the blinded phase, 159 were rerandomized to switch to E/C/F/TAF and 53 to remain on ATV + RTV plus FTC/TDF. At week 48, virologic suppression was maintained in 150 (94%) of women on E/C/F/TAF and 46 (87%) on ATV + RTV plus FTC/TDF [difference 7.5% (95% confidence interval -1.2% to 19.4%)], demonstrating noninferiority of E/C/F/TAF to ATV + RTV and FTC/TDF. Incidence of AEs was similar between groups; study drug-related AEs were more common with E/C/F/TAF (11% versus 4%). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to E/C/F/TAF was noninferior to continuing ATV + RTV plus FTC/TDF in maintaining virologic suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks.

Lack of clinically important PK interaction between coformulated ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide.

The drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential between the fixed-dose combinations of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir 90/400 mg for hepatitis C virus and emtricitabine/rilpivirine/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 200/25/25 mg for HIV was evaluated in a randomized, open-label, single-center, multiple-dose, 3-way, 6-sequence, crossover Phase 1 study in 42 healthy subjects. Emtricitabine/rilpivirine/TAF had no relevant effect on the pharmacokinetic parameters of maximum concentration [Cmax ] and area under the concentration versus time curve over the dosing interval [AUCtau ] for ledipasvir, sofosbuvir, and the metabolites GS-566500 and GS-331007. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir had no effect on the Cmax and AUCtau for rilpivirine and emtricitabine. The Cmax and AUCtau of tenofovir, the major metabolite of TAF, were increased by 62% and 75%, respectively. However, the resulting absolute tenofovir exposures were markedly lower than the historical tenofovir exposures following tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and, as such, were not considered to be clinically relevant. In contrast, additional adverse effect monitoring is recommended upon coadministration of ledipasvir and TDF due to elevated tenofovir exposures resulting from the DDI. This difference is explained by the fact that TAF 25 mg results in markedly lower (~90%) plasma tenofovir exposure compared to TDF 300 mg. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and emtricitabine/rilpivirine/TAF were generally well tolerated when administered alone or in combination. HIV/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients can coadminister ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and emtricitabine/rilpivirine/TAF without dosage adjustments.

Week 48 resistance analysis of Elvitegravir/Cobicistat/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir DF versus Atazanavir + Ritonavir + Emtricitabine/Tenofovir DF in HIV-1 infected women (WAVES study GS-US-236-0128).

Background Women and those with non-B subtype HIV-1 are typically underrepresented in clinical trials. WAVES (GS-US-236-0128) was a double-blind phase 3b study among treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected women that demonstrated that elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF; N = 289) was superior to atazanavir + ritonavir + FTC/TDF (ATV + RTV + FTC/TDF; N = 286) for HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL by FDA snapshot analysis at week 48. Here, we describe resistance development through week 48 in women with virologic failure and determine the impact of pre-existing mutations and HIV-1 subtype on viral suppression. Methods Genotypic analyses (population and deep sequencing) and phenotypic analyses of HIV-1 protease, reverse transcriptase (RT), and integrase (IN) were performed. The resistance analysis population (participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 400 copies/mL at confirmed virologic failure, at discontinuation ≥ week 8, or at week 48) had genotypic and phenotypic analyses at failure and baseline. Results The proportion of women qualifying for resistance analyses was similar between treatment groups (6.2% EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF; 7.3% ATV + RTV + FTC/TDF). Emergent resistance was rare (0% EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF; 1% ATV + RTV + FTC/TDF - 3 with M184V/I in RT). Deep sequencing of HIV-1 did not detect additional resistance development. Pre-existing mutations did not lead to virologic failure; most with the polymorphic primary IN substitution T97A (92%), or with substitutions in RT (i.e. A62V, V90I, K103N, or E138A/G/K/Q; 68-82%) demonstrated virologic suppression at week 48, with no resistance development except for one patient with M184V and pre-existing K103N in the ATV + RTV + FTC/TDF group. Most participants (74%) had non-B HIV-1, and subtype did not affect outcome. Conclusions Emergent resistance to study drugs was rare in this study of women, with no resistance observed among EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF-treated participants, despite a high proportion of participants with natural or transmitted viral mutations and non-B HIV-1 subtypes.

Switching from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir alafenamide is a prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90% compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, thereby decreasing bone and renal risks. The coformulation of rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide has recently been approved, and we aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to this regimen compared with remaining on coformulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled at 120 hospitals and outpatient clinics in eight countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to continue a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz (600 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02345226. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 27, 2015, 875 participants were randomly assigned and treated (438 with rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide and 437 with efavirenz, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Viral suppression at week 48 was maintained in 394 (90%) of 438 participants assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide regimen and 402 (92%) of 437 assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen (difference -2·0%, 95·001% CI -5·9 to 1·8), demonstrating non-inferiority. 56 (13%) of 438 in participants in the rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group experienced treatment-related adverse events compared with 45 (10%) of 437 in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir alafenamide, a tenofovir prodrug, results in 90% lower tenofovir plasma concentrations than does tenofovir disproxil fumarate, thereby minimising bone and renal risks. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to a single-tablet regimen containing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with remaining on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screened and enrolled at 119 hospitals in 11 countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of either rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to remain on a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo, once daily for 96 weeks. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug and were on the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen before screening were included in primary efficacy analyses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with less than 50 copies per mL of plasma HIV-1 RNA at week 48 (by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 25, 2015, 630 participants were randomised (316 to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 314 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). At week 48, 296 (94%) of 316 participants on tenofovir alafenamide and 294 (94%) of 313 on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had maintained less than 50 copies per mL HIV-1 RNA (difference -0·3%, 95·001% CI -4·2 to 3·7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Numbers of adverse events were similar between groups. 20 (6%) of 316 participants had study-drug related adverse events in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with 37 (12%) of 314 in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group; none of these were serious. INTERPRETATION: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to continuing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.