Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and illicit drug use and their association with CD4/CD8 cell count ratio in people with controlled HIV: a cross-sectional study (ANRS CO3 AQUIVIH-NA-QuAliV)

International audienceBackground: To evaluate drug use (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other drugs) and its association with mean CD4/CD8 T cell count ratio, a marker of chronic inflammation, in virally suppressed people living with HIV-1 (PLWH) in Nouvelle Aquitaine, France. Methods: A multi-centric, cross-sectional analysis was conducted in 2018–19 in the QuAliV study—ANRS CO3 AQUIVIH-NA cohort. Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use (poppers, cocaine, amphetamines, synthetic cathinones, GHB/GBL) were self-reported. CD4 and CD8 T cell counts and viral load measures, ± 2 years of self-report, and other characteristics were abstracted from medical records. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, HIV risk group, time since HIV diagnosis, and other drug use were fit for each drug and most recent CD4/CD8 ratio. Results: 660 PLWH, aged 54.7 ± 11.2, were included. 47.7% [315/660] had a CD4/CD8 ratio of < 1. Their mean CD4/CD8 ratio was 1.1 ± 0.6. 35% smoked; 40% were considered to be hazardous drinkers or have alcohol use disorder; 19.9% used cannabis and 11.9% other drugs. Chemsex-associated drug users’ CD4/CD8 ratio was on average 0.226 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] − 0.383, − 0.070) lower than that of non-users in univariable analysis (p = 0.005) and 0.165 lower [95% CI − 0.343, 0.012] in multivariable analysis (p = 0.068). Conclusions: Mean differences in CD4/CD8 ratio were not significantly different in tobacco, alcohol and cannabis users compared to non-users. However, Chemsex-associated drug users may represent a population at risk of chronic inflammation, the specific determinants of which merit further investigation. Trial registration number: NCT03296202. © 2023, The Author(s)

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

External validation of the PAGE-B score for HCC risk prediction in people living with HIV/HBV coinfection

Background & Aims: HBV coinfection is common among people living with HIV (PLWH) and is the most important cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While risk prediction tools for HCC have been validated in patients with HBV monoinfection, they have not been evaluated in PLWH. Thus, we performed an external validation of PAGE-B in people with HIV/HBV coinfection. Methods: We included data on PLWH from four European cohorts who were positive for HBsAg and did not have HCC before starting tenofovir. We estimated the predictive performance of PAGE-B for HCC occurrence over 15 years in patients receiving tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy. Model discrimination was assessed after multiple imputation using Cox regression with the prognostic index as a covariate, and by calculating Harrell's c-index. Calibration was assessed by comparing our cumulative incidence with the PAGE-B derivation study using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: In total, 2,963 individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection on tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy were included. PAGE-B was <10 in 26.5%, 10–17 in 57.7%, and ≥18 in 15.7% of patients. Within a median follow-up of 9.6 years, HCC occurred in 68 individuals (2.58/1,000 patient-years, 95% CI 2.03–3.27). The regression slope of the prognostic index for developing HCC within 15 years was 0.93 (95% CI 0.61–1.25), and the pooled c-index was 0.77 (range 0.73–0.80), both indicating good model discrimination. The cumulative incidence of HCC was lower in our study compared to the derivation study. A PAGE-B cut-off of <10 had a negative predictive value of 99.4% for the development of HCC within 5 years. Restricting efforts to individuals with a PAGE-B of ≥10 would spare unnecessary HCC screening in 27% of individuals. Conclusions: For individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection, PAGE-B is a valid tool to determine the need for HCC screening. Impact and implications: Chronic HBV infection is the most important cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among people living with HIV. Valid risk prediction may enable better targeting of HCC screening efforts to high-risk individuals. We aimed to validate PAGE-B, a risk prediction tool that is based on age, sex, and platelets, in 2,963 individuals with HIV/HBV coinfection who received tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy. In the present study, PAGE-B showed good discrimination, adequate calibration, and a cut-off of <10 had a negative predictive value of 99.4% for the development of HCC within 5 years. These results indicate that PAGE-B is a simple and valid risk prediction tool to determine the need for HCC screening among people living with HIV and HBV