Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed

Mapping the medical outcomes study HIV health survey (MOS-HIV) to the EuroQoL 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) utility index

10.1186/s12955-019-1135-8Health and Quality of Life Outcomes1718

The cost‐effectiveness of prophylaxis strategies for individuals with advanced HIV starting treatment in Africa

Introduction Many HIV‐positive individuals in Africa have advanced disease when initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) so have high risks of opportunistic infections and death. The REALITY trial found that an enhanced‐prophylaxis package including fluconazole reduced mortality by 27% in individuals starting ART with CD4 <100 cells/mm3. We investigated the cost‐effectiveness of this enhanced‐prophylaxis package versus other strategies, including using cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing, in individuals with CD4 <200 cells/mm3 or <100 cells/mm3 at ART initiation and all individuals regardless of CD4 count. Methods The REALITY trial enrolled from June 2013 to April 2015. A decision‐analytic model was developed to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of six management strategies in individuals initiating ART in the REALITY trial countries. Strategies included standard‐prophylaxis, enhanced‐prophylaxis, standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole; and three CrAg testing strategies, the first stratifying individuals to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or standard‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐negative), the second to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or enhanced‐prophylaxis without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative) and the third to standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole (CrAg‐positive) or without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative). The model estimated costs, life‐years and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) over 48 weeks using three competing mortality risks: cryptococcal meningitis; tuberculosis, serious bacterial infection or other known cause; and unknown cause. Results Enhanced‐prophylaxis was cost‐effective at cost‐effectiveness thresholds of US$300 and US$500 per QALY with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$157 per QALY in the CD4 <200 cells/mm3 population providing enhanced‐prophylaxis components are sourced at lowest available prices. The ICER reduced in more severely immunosuppressed individuals (US$113 per QALY in the CD4 <100 cells/mm3 population) and increased in all individuals regardless of CD4 count (US$722 per QALY). Results were sensitive to prices of the enhanced‐prophylaxis components. Enhanced‐prophylaxis was more effective and less costly than all CrAg testing strategies as enhanced‐prophylaxis still conveyed health gains in CrAg‐negative patients and savings from targeting prophylaxis based on CrAg status did not compensate for costs of CrAg testing. CrAg testing strategies did not become cost‐effective unless the price of CrAg testing fell below US$2.30. Conclusions The REALITY enhanced‐prophylaxis package in individuals with advanced HIV starting ART reduces morbidity and mortality, is practical to administer and is cost‐effective. Efforts should continue to ensure that components are accessed at lowest available prices

Late Presentation With HIV in Africa: Phenotypes, Risk, and Risk Stratification in the REALITY Trial.

This article has been accepted for publication in Clinical Infectious Diseases Published by Oxford University PressBackground: Severely immunocompromised human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals have high mortality shortly after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). We investigated predictors of early mortality and "late presenter" phenotypes. Methods: The Reduction of EArly MortaLITY (REALITY) trial enrolled ART-naive adults and children ≥5 years of age with CD4 counts .1). Results: Among 1711 included participants, 203 (12%) died. Mortality was independently higher with older age; lower CD4 count, albumin, hemoglobin, and grip strength; presence of World Health Organization stage 3/4 weight loss, fever, or vomiting; and problems with mobility or self-care at baseline (all P < .04). Receiving enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis independently reduced mortality (P = .02). Of five late-presenter phenotypes, Group 1 (n = 355) had highest mortality (25%; median CD4 count, 28 cells/µL), with high symptom burden, weight loss, poor mobility, and low albumin and hemoglobin. Group 2 (n = 394; 11% mortality; 43 cells/µL) also had weight loss, with high white cell, platelet, and neutrophil counts suggesting underlying inflammation/infection. Group 3 (n = 218; 10% mortality) had low CD4 counts (27 cells/µL), but low symptom burden and maintained fat mass. The remaining groups had 4%-6% mortality. Conclusions: Clinical and laboratory features identified groups with highest mortality following ART initiation. A screening tool could identify patients with low CD4 counts for prioritizing same-day ART initiation, enhanced prophylaxis, and intensive follow-up. Clinical Trials Registration: ISRCTN43622374.REALITY was funded by the Joint Global Health Trials Scheme (JGHTS) of the UK Department for International Development, the Wellcome Trust, and Medical Research Council (MRC) (grant number G1100693). Additional funding support was provided by the PENTA Foundation and core support to the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (grant numbers MC_UU_12023/23 and MC_UU_12023/26). Cipla Ltd, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme donated drugs for REALITY, and ready-to-use supplementary food was purchased from Valid International. A. J. P. is funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 108065/Z/15/Z). J. A. B. is funded by the JGHTS (grant number MR/M007367/1). The Malawi-Liverpool–Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, University of Malawi College of Medicine (grant number 101113/Z/13/Z) and the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi (grant number 203077/Z/16/Z) are supported by strategic awards from the Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom. Permission to publish was granted by the Director of KEMRI. This supplement was supported by funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19

BackgroundEnsovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.ObjectiveTo investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone.DesignDouble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978).SettingMultinational, multicenter trial.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionIntravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo.MeasurementsEnsovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90.ResultsAn independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;247) or placebo (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.68; OR&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;1 would favor ensovibep).LimitationThe trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome.ConclusionCompared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health

Raltegravir-intensified initial antiretroviral therapy in advanced HIV disease in Africa: A randomised controlled trial

Background In sub-Saharan Africa, individuals infected with HIV who are severely immunocompromised have high mortality (about 10%) shortly after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). This group also has the greatest risk of morbidity and mortality associated with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), a paradoxical response to successful ART. Integrase inhibitors lead to significantly more rapid declines in HIV viral load (VL) than all other ART classes. We hypothesised that intensifying standard triple-drug ART with the integrase inhibitor, raltegravir, would reduce HIV VL faster and hence reduce early mortality, although this strategy could also risk more IRIS events. Methods and findings In a 2×2×2 factorial open-label parallel-group trial, treatment-naive adults, adolescents, and children >5 years old infected with HIV, with cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) 0.7) and despite significantly greater VL suppression with raltegravir-intensified ART at 4 weeks (343/836 [41.0%] versus 113/841 [13.4%] with standard ART, p < 0.001) and 12 weeks (567/789 [71.9%] versus 415/803 [51.7%] with standard ART, p < 0.001). Through 48 weeks, there was no evidence of differences in mortality (aHR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.76–1.28], p = 0.91); in serious (aHR = 0.99 [0.81–1.21], p = 0.88), grade-4 (aHR = 0.88 [0.71–1.09], p = 0.29), or ART-modifying (aHR = 0.90 [0.63–1.27], p = 0.54) adverse events (the latter occurring in 59 [6.5%] participants with raltegravir-intensified ART versus 66 [7.3%] with standard ART); in events judged compatible with IRIS (occurring in 89 [9.9%] participants with raltegravir-intensified ART versus 86 [9.5%] with standard ART, p = 0.79) or in hospitalisations (aHR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.76–1.17], p = 0.59). At 12 weeks, one and two raltegravir-intensified participants had predicted intermediate-level and high-level raltegravir resistance, respectively. At 48 weeks, the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) mutation K219E/Q (p = 0.004) and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) mutations K101E/P (p = 0.03) and P225H (p = 0.007) were less common in virus from participants with raltegravir-intensified ART, with weak evidence of less intermediate- or high-level resistance to tenofovir (p = 0.06), abacavir (p = 0.08), and rilpivirine (p = 0.07). Limitations of the study include limited clinical, radiological, and/or microbiological information for some participants, reflecting available services at the centres, and lack of baseline genotypes. Conclusions Although 12 weeks of raltegravir intensification was well tolerated and reduced HIV viraemia significantly faster than standard triple-drug ART during the time of greatest risk for early death, this strategy did not reduce mortality or clinical events in this group and is not warranted. There was no excess of IRIS-compatible events, suggesting that integrase inhibitors can be used safely as part of standard triple-drug first-line therapy in severely immunocompromised individuals. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01825031