Pharmacometrics of high-dose ivermectin in early COVID-19 from an open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial (PLATCOV)

Nipah virus disease: what can we do to improve patient care?

The year 2023 marked the 25th anniversary of the first detected outbreak of Nipah virus disease. Despite Nipah virus being a priority pathogen in the WHO Research and Development blueprint, the disease it causes still carries high mortality, unchanged since the first reported outbreaks. Although candidate vaccines for Nipah virus disease exist, developing new therapeutics has been underinvested. Nipah virus disease illustrates the typical market failure of medicine development for a high-consequence pathogen. The unpredictability of outbreaks and low number of infections affecting populations in low-income countries does not make an attractive business case for developing treatments for Nipah virus disease-a situation compounded by methodological challenges in clinical trial design. Nipah virus therapeutics development is not motivated by commercial interest. Therefore, we propose a regionally led, patient-centred, and public health-centred, end-to-end framework that articulates a public health vision and a roadmap for research, development, manufacturing, and access towards the goal of improving patient outcomes. This framework includes co-creating a regulatory-compliant, clinically meaningful, and context-specific clinical development plan and establishing quality standards in clinical care and research capabilities at sites where the disease occurs. The success of this approach will be measured by the availability and accessibility of improved Nipah virus treatments in affected communities and reduced mortality.

Temporal changes in SARS-CoV-2 clearance kinetics and the optimal design of antiviral pharmacodynamic studies: an individual patient data meta-analysis of a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform study (PLATCOV)

BACKGROUND

Effective antiviral drugs prevent hospitalisation and death from COVID-19. Antiviral efficacy can be efficiently assessed in vivo by measuring rates of SARS-CoV-2 clearance estimated from serial viral genome densities quantitated in nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab eluates. We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of unblinded arms in the PLATCOV platform trial to characterise changes in viral clearance kinetics and infer optimal design and interpretation of antiviral pharmacometric evaluations.

METHODS

Serial viral density data were analysed from symptomatic, previously healthy, adult patients (within 4 days of symptom onset) enrolled in a large multicentre, randomised, adaptive, pharmacodynamic, platform trial (PLATCOV) comparing antiviral interventions for SARS-CoV-2. Viral clearance rates over 1 week were estimated under a hierarchical Bayesian linear model with B-splines used to characterise temporal changes in enrolment viral densities and clearance rates. Bootstrap re-sampling was used to assess the optimal duration of follow-up for pharmacometric assessment, where optimal was defined as maximising the expected Z score when comparing effective antivirals with no treatment. PLATCOV is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05041907.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 29, 2021, and Oct 20, 2023, 1262 patients were randomly assigned in the PLATCOV trial. Unblinded data were available from 800 patients (who provided 16 818 oropharyngeal viral quantitative PCR [qPCR] measurements), of whom 504 (63%) were female. 783 (98%) patients had received at least one vaccine dose and 703 (88%) were fully vaccinated. SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance was biphasic (bi-exponential). The first phase (α) was accelerated by effective interventions. For all the effective interventions studied, maximum discriminative power (maximum expected Z score) was obtained when evaluating serial data from the first 5 days after enrolment. Over the 2-year period studied, median viral clearance half-lives estimated over 7 days shortened from 16·6 h (IQR 15·3 to 18·2) in September, 2021, to 9·2 h (8·0 to 10·6) in October, 2023, in patients receiving no antiviral drugs, equivalent to a relative reduction of 44% (95% credible interval [CrI] 19 to 64). A parallel reduction in viral clearance half-lives over time was observed in patients receiving antiviral drugs. For example, in the 158 patients assigned to ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (3380 qPCR measurements), the median viral clearance half-life reduced from 6·4 h (IQR 5·7 to 7·3) in June, 2022, to 4·8 h (4·2 to 5·5) in October, 2023, a relative reduction of 26% (95% CrI -4 to 42).

INTERPRETATION

SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance kinetics in symptomatic, vaccinated individuals accelerated substantially over 2 years of the pandemic, necessitating a change to how new SARS-CoV-2 antivirals are compared (ie, shortening the period of pharmacodynamic assessment). As of writing (October, 2023), antiviral efficacy in COVID-19 can be efficiently assessed in vivo using serial qPCRs from duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily for 5 days after drug administration.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust.

Why Certain Repurposed Drugs Are Unlikely to Be Effective Antivirals to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infections

Most repurposed drugs have proved ineffective for treating COVID-19. We evaluated median effective and toxic concentrations (EC50, CC50) of 49 drugs, mostly from previous clinical trials, in Vero cells. Ratios of reported unbound peak plasma concentrations, (Cmax)/EC50, were used to predict the potential in vivo efficacy. The 20 drugs with the highest ratios were retested in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells, and their CC50 was determined in an expanded panel of cell lines. Many of the 20 drugs with the highest ratios were inactive in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells. Antivirals effective in controlled clinical trials had unbound Cmax/EC50 ≥ 6.8 in Calu-3 or Caco-2 cells. EC50 of nucleoside analogs were cell dependent. This approach and earlier availability of more relevant cultures could have reduced the number of unwarranted clinical trials.

Binding behavior of receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ivermectin

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), sparked an international debate on effective ways to prevent and treat the virus. Specifically, there were many varying opinions on the use of ivermectin (IVM) throughout the world, with minimal research to support either side. IVM is an FDA-approved antiparasitic drug that was discovered in the 1970s and was found to show antiviral activity. The objective of this study is to examine the binding behavior and rates of association and dissociation between SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD), IVM, and their combination using aminopropylsilane (APS) biosensors as surrogates for the hydrophobic interaction between the viral protein and human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors to determine the potential of IVM as a repurposed drug for SARS-CoV-2 prevention and treatment. The IVM, RBD, and combination binding kinetics were analyzed using biolayer interferometry (BLI) and validated with multiple in silico techniques including protein-ligand docking, molecular dynamics simulation, molecular mechanics-generalized Born surface area (MM-GBSA), and principal component analysis (PCA). Our results suggest that with increasing IVM concentrations the association rate with the hydrophobic biosensor increases with a simultaneous decrease in dissociation. Significant kinetic changes to RBD, when combined with IVM, were found only at a concentration a thousand times the approved dosage with minimal changes found over a 35-min time period. Our study suggests that IVM is not an effective preventative or treatment method at the currently approved dosage.

Clinical antiviral efficacy of favipiravir in early COVID-19 (PLATCOV): an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial

In early symptomatic COVID-19 treatment, high dose oral favipiravir did not accelerate viral clearance.

BACKGROUND

Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries.

METHODS

In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]), assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907) on 13/09/2021.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients given favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug; a -1% (95% credible interval: -14 to 14%) difference. High dose favipiravir was well-tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. The viral clearance rate estimated from quantitative measurements of oropharyngeal eluate viral densities assesses the antiviral efficacy of drugs in vivo with comparatively few studied patients.

Antiviral efficacy of molnupiravir versus ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir in patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLATCOV): an open-label, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive trial

BACKGROUND

Molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir are the two leading oral COVID-19 antiviral treatments, but their antiviral activities in patients have not been compared directly. The aim of this ongoing platform trial is to compare different antiviral treatments using the rate of viral clearance as the measure of antiviral effect.

METHODS

PLATCOV is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial running in Thailand, Brazil, Pakistan, and Laos. The component of the trial reported here was conducted in the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We recruited low-risk adult patients aged 18-50 years with early symptomatic COVID-19 (<4 days of symptoms). Eligible patients were randomly assigned using block randomisation via a centralised web app to one of seven treatment groups: molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, casirivimab-imdevimab, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, favipiravir, fluoxetine, or no study drug. The no study drug group comprised a minimum proportion of 20% of patients at all times, with uniform randomisation ratios applied across the active treatment groups. Results for the concurrently randomised molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and no study drug groups are reported here. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as patients with more than 2 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed in all participants who took at least one dose of the medication. The viral clearance rate was derived under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 1 week (18 measurements). Treatment groups with a probability of more than 0·9 that viral clearance was accelerated by more than 20% compared with no drug entered a non-inferiority comparison (with a 10% non-inferiority margin) compared with the platform's current most effective drug. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05041907.

FINDINGS

Between June 6, 2022, and Feb 23, 2023, 209 patients in Thailand were enrolled and concurrently randomly assigned to molnupiravir (n=65), ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (n=59), or no study drug (n=85). 129 (62%) of the patients were female and 80 (38%) were male. Relative to the no study drug group, the rates of viral clearance were 37% (95% credible interval 16-65) faster with molnupiravir and 84% (54-119) faster with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. In the non-inferiority comparison, viral clearance was 25% (10-38) slower with molnupiravir than ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Molnupiravir was removed from the study platform when it reached the prespecified inferiority margin of 10% compared with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Median estimated viral clearance half-lives were 8·5 h (IQR 6·7-10·1) with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, 11·6 h (8·6-15·4) with molnupiravir, and 15·5 h (11·9-21·2) with no study drug. Viral rebound occurred more frequently following nirmatrelvir (six [10%] of 58) compared with the no study drug (one [1%] of 84; p=0·018) or the molnupiravir (one [2%] of 65; p=0·051) groups. Persistent infections following molnupiravir had more viral mutations (three of nine patients had an increased number of single nucleotide polymorphisms in samples collected at 7 or more days compared with those at baseline) than after nirmatrelvir (zero of three) or no study drug (zero of 19). There were no adverse events of grade 3 or worse, or serious adverse events in any of the reported treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Both molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir accelerate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in patients with COVID-19, but the antiviral effect of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir was substantially greater. Measurement of oropharyngeal viral clearance rates provides a rapid and well tolerated approach to the assessment and comparison of antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19. It should be evaluated in other acute viral respiratory infections.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Clinical Antiviral Efficacy of Remdesivir in Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Adaptive Platform Trial (PLATCOV)

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty over the therapeutic benefit of parenteral remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in varying treatment guidelines.

METHODS

In a multicenter open-label, controlled, adaptive, pharmacometric platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to 1 of 8 treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200 mg followed by 100 mg daily for 5 days) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) clearance (estimated under a linear model fit to the daily log10 viral densities, days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates, in a modified intention-to-treat population. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907).

RESULTS

The 2 study arms enrolled 131 patients (remdesivir n = 67, no study drug n = 64) and estimated viral clearance rates from a median of 18 swab samples per patient (a total of 2356 quantitative polymerase chain reactions). Under the linear model, compared with the contemporaneous control arm (no study drug), remdesivir accelerated mean estimated viral clearance by 42% (95% credible interval, 18%-73%).

CONCLUSIONS

Parenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric assessment of therapeutics using the method described can determine in vivo clinical antiviral efficacy rapidly and efficiently.