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

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

Incidence of diabetes in HIV-infected patients treated with first-line integrase strand transfer inhibitors: a French multicentre retrospective study

International audienceAbstract Background Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are increasingly used in patients living with HIV due to their safety, effectiveness and high genetic barrier. However, an association with weight gain has recently been suggested and several cases of diabetes mellitus have been reported with raltegravir and dolutegravir. The long-time metabolic impact of these recent molecules remains unclear. Objectives To assess if an INSTI as a third agent is statistically associated with new-onset diabetes mellitus compared with an NNRTI or a PI. Patients and methods Patients undergoing first-line combined ART (cART) without diabetes at baseline were retrospectively included from the Dat’AIDS French cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02898987). Incident diabetes mellitus was defined as a notification of new diabetes in the medical history, a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level superior to 7.5% or the start of a diabetes therapy following the initiation of ART. Results From 2009 to 2017, 19 462 patients were included, among which 265 cases of diabetes mellitus occurred. Multivariate and survival analyses did not highlight an increase in new-onset diabetes in patients undergoing cART with an INSTI as a third agent compared with an NNRTI or a PI. BMI >30 kg/m2, age >37 years old (in survival analysis), black race or Hispanic ethnicity, arterial hypertension and AIDS were associated with a higher proportion of incident diabetes. Conclusions INSTIs were not statistically associated with new-onset diabetes. However, clinicians should remain aware of this possible metabolic comorbidity, particularly in patients with a high BMI and older patients

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors and neuropsychiatric adverse events in a large prospective cohort

To analyse the frequency and causes of treatment discontinuation in patients who were treated with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), with a focus on neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs)

Doravirine plus lamivudine two-drug regimen as maintenance antiretroviral therapy in people living with HIV: a French observational study

International audienceBackground: Two-drug regimens based on integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) and boosted PIs have entered recommended ART. However, INSTIs and boosted PIs may not be suitable for all patients. We aimed to report our experience with doravirine/lamivudine as maintenance therapy in people living with HIV (PLWH) followed in French HIV settings.Methods: This observational study enrolled all adults who initiated doravirine/lamivudine between 1 September 2019 and 31 October 2021, in French HIV centres participating in the Dat'AIDS cohort. The primary outcome was the rate of virological success (plasma HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL) at Week (W)48. Secondary outcomes included: rate of treatment discontinuation for non-virological reasons, evolution of CD4 count and CD4/CD8 ratio over follow-up.Results: Fifty patients were included, with 34 (68%) men; median age: 58 years (IQR 51-62), ART duration: 20 years (13-23), duration of virological suppression: 14 years (8-19), CD4 count: 784 cells/mm3 (636-889). Prior to switching, all had plasma HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL. All but three were naive to doravirine, and 36 (72%) came from a three-drug regimen. Median follow-up was 79 weeks (IQR 60-96). Virological success rate at W48 was 98.0% (95% CI 89.4-99.9). One virological failure occurred at W18 (HIV-RNA = 101 copies/mL) in a patient who briefly discontinued doravirine/lamivudine due to intense nightmares; there was no resistance at baseline and no resistance emergence. There were three strategy discontinuations for adverse events (digestive disorders: n = 2; insomnia: n = 1). There was no significant change in CD4/CD8 ratio, while CD4 T cell count significantly increased.Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest that doravirine/lamivudine regimens can maintain high levels of viral suppression in highly ART-experienced PLWH with long-term viral suppression, and good CD4+ T cell count