Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.

INTERPRETATION

Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.

Abdominal Insufflation Decreases Blood Loss and Mortality after Porcine Liver Injury

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled intra-abdominal bleeding is a common cause of death in trauma patients in the prehospital and perioperative settings. The detrimental effects of abdominal hypertension are well studied, but the potential therapeutic use of abdominal insufflation for hemostasis has not been fully explored. We measured the effect of abdominal insufflation on blood loss and physiologic outcomes in a swine model of blunt liver injury.

METHODS

Twenty-one anticoagulated swine (32 +/- 3 kg) were anesthesized; laparotomy was performed to localize liver anatomy and to place loose tourniquettes isolating the porta hepatis and supra/infrahepatic vena cava. A captive bolt gun was used to create a grade V hepatic laceration, producing massive parenchymal injury as well as complex tears of the middle and right hepatic veins. Animals were randomized into either control (n = 10) or abdominal insufflation at 20 cm H(2)O pressure (n = 11) groups. Crystalloid was used to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 30 mm Hg. Arterial pressure and other physiologic variables were recorded for 20 minutes. Animals were then sacrificed and blood loss measured.

RESULTS

Blood loss was 69% lower in insufflated animals compared with controls (384 +/- 51 versus 1252 +/- 88 cc, p < 0.001). After 20 minutes, insufflated animals had significantly higher mean arterial blood pressure (32.2 +/- 4.2 versus 21.2 +/- 4.0 mm Hg) and lower total resuscitation volume (195 +/- 83 versus 1356 +/- 95 cc). Three pigs died in the control group (30%), whereas no insufflated animals died (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In a swine model of catastrophic blunt hepatic injury, abdominal insufflation significantly decreased blood loss and mortality.

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761.

FINDINGS

Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Tecovirimat for Clade I MPXV Infection in the Democratic Republic of Congo

BACKGROUND

Tecovirimat is available for the treatment of mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) in Europe and the United States, on the basis of findings from efficacy studies in animals and safety evaluations in healthy humans. Evidence from randomized, controlled trials of safety and efficacy in patients with mpox is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of tecovirimat in patients with mpox in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Patients with at least one mpox skin lesion and positive polymerase-chain-reaction results for clade I MPXV were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive tecovirimat or placebo. All patients received supportive care. The primary end point was resolution of mpox lesions, measured in number of days after randomization. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

From October 7, 2022, through July 9, 2024, a total of 597 patients underwent randomization - 295 to receive tecovirimat and 302 to receive placebo. The median time from randomization to lesion resolution was 7 days with tecovirimat and 8 days with placebo; the competing-risks hazard ratio for lesion resolution was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.31; P = 0.14). Results were similar whether patients began the trial regimen within 7 days after the reported onset of symptoms (competing-risks hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.37) or more than 7 days after onset (competing-risks hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.40). Overall mortality was 1.7%, which was lower than the case fatality rate of 4.6% reported in the DRC in 2023. At 14 days, the percentages of patients who had blood, lesion, and oropharyngeal samples negative for MPXV by PCR were similar in the two groups. Adverse events occurred in 72.9% of the patients in the tecovirimat group and 70.5% of those in the placebo group, and serious adverse events were reported in 5.1% and 5.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Tecovirimat did not reduce the number of days to lesion resolution in patients with mpox caused by clade I MPXV. No safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; PALM007 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05559099.).