ABSTRACT
BackgroundUncertainty over the therapeutic benefit provided by parenteral remdesivir in COVID-19 has resulted in varying treatment guidelines. Early in the pandemic the monoclonal antibody cocktail, casirivimab/imdevimab, proved highly effective in clinical trials but because of weak or absent in vitro activity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 subvariant, it is no longer recommended. MethodsIn a multicenter open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of eight treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200mg followed by 100mg daily for five days), casirivimab/imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the viral clearance rate in the modified intention-to-treat population derived from daily log10 viral densities (days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). ResultsAcceleration in mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance, compared with the contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=64), was 42% (95%CI 18 to 73%) for remdesivir (n=67). Acceleration with casirivimab/imdevimab was 58% (95%CI: 10 to 120) in Delta (n=13), and 20% (95%CI: 3 to 43) in Omicron variant (n=61) infections compared with contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=84). In a post hoc subgroup analysis viral clearance was accelerated by 8% in BA.1 (95%CI: -21 to 59) and 23% (95%CI: 3 to 49) in BA.2 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants. ConclusionsParenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Despite substantially reduced in vitro activities, casirivimab/imdevimab retains in vivo antiviral activity against COVID-19 infections caused by currently prevalent Omicron subvariants. Brief summaryIn early symptomatic COVID-19 remdesivir accelerated viral clearance by 42% while the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab accelerated clearance by approximately 60% in SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infections, and by approximately 25% in infections with Omicron subvariants BA.2 and BA.5.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThere is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has significant antiviral activity in vivo is uncertain. MethodsIn a multicentre open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of six treatment arms including high dose ivermectin (600{micro}g/kg daily for seven days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. Viral clearance rates were derived from daily duplicate oropharyngeal quantitative PCR measurements. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). ResultsRandomization to the ivermectin arm was stopped after enrolling 205 patients into all arms, as the prespecified futility threshold was reached. Compared with the no study drug arm, the mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance following ivermectin was 9.1% slower [95%CI -27.2% to +11.8%; n=45 versus n=41], whereas in a preliminary analysis of the casirivimab/imdevimab arm it was 52.3% faster [95%CI +7.0% to +115.1%; n=10 (Delta variant) versus n=41]. ConclusionsHigh dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Measured in this way viral clearance rate is a valuable pharmacodynamic measure in assessing antiviral COVID-19 therapeutics in vivo. Funding"Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV)" is funded by the Wellcome Therapeutics Accelerator (223195/Z/21/Z). ImpactO_LIRate of viral clearance determined from daily duplicate oropharyngeal swabs over one week is an efficient measure of antiviral efficacy in early COVID-19 infection. C_LIO_LIHigh dose ivermectin did not demonstrate measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19 infection. C_LI
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods and FindingsWe develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. ConclusionsThere is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have been focussed on hospitalised-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.
