Antidepressant use and its association with 28-day mortality in inpatients with SARS-CoV-2: Support for the FIASMA model against COVID-19

To reduce Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality and morbidity, widely available oral COVID-19 treatments are urgently needed. Certain antidepressants, such as fluvoxamine or fluoxetine, may be beneficial against COVID-19. We included 388,945 adult inpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at 36 AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris) hospitals from 2 May 2020 to 2 November 2021. We compared the prevalence of antidepressant use at admission in a 1:1 ratio matched analytic sample with and without COVID-19 (N = 82,586), and assessed its association with 28-day all-cause mortality in a 1:1 ratio matched analytic sample of COVID-19 inpatients with and without antidepressant use at admission (N = 1482). Antidepressant use was significantly less prevalent in inpatients with COVID-19 than in a matched control group of inpatients without COVID-19 (1.9% versus 4.8%; Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.38; 95%CI = 0.35-0.41

Association between antidepressant use and ED or hospital visits in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2

Antidepressants have previously been associated with better outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but their effect on clinical deterioration among ambulatory patients has not been fully explored. The objective of this study was to assess whether antidepressant exposure was associated with reduced emergency department (ED) or hospital visits among ambulatory patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This retrospective cohort study included adult patients (N = 25 034) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test performed in a non-hospital setting. Logistic regression analyses tested associations between home use of antidepressant medications and a composite outcome of ED visitation or hospital admission within 30 days. Secondary exposures included individual antidepressants and antidepressants with functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase (FIASMA) activity. Patients with antidepressant exposure were less likely to experience the primary composite outcome compared to patients without antidepressant exposure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-0.99, p = 0.04). This association was only observed with daily doses of at least 20 mg fluoxetine-equivalent (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.99, p = 0.04), but not with daily doses lower than 20 mg fluoxetine-equivalent (aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80-1.11, p = 0.48). In exploratory secondary analyses, the outcome incidence was also reduced with exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-0.99, p = 0.04), bupropion (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, p = 0.005), and FIASMA antidepressant drugs (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.99, p = 0.03). Antidepressant exposure was associated with a reduced incidence of emergency department visitation or hospital admission among SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, in a dose-dependent manner. These data support the FIASMA model of antidepressants\u27 effects against COVID-19

SSRIs differentially modulate the effects of pro-inflammatory stimulation on hippocampal plasticity and memory via sigma 1 receptors and neurosteroids

Certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical models, and recent clinical studies suggest that fluvoxamine can prevent deterioration in patients with COVID-19, possibly through activating sigma 1 receptors (S1Rs). Here we examined potential mechanisms contributing to these effects of fluvoxamine and other SSRIs using a well-characterized model of pro-inflammatory stress in rat hippocampal slices. When hippocampal slices are exposed acutely to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a strong pro-inflammatory stimulus, basal synaptic transmission in the CA1 region remains intact, but induction of long-term potentiation (LTP), a form of synaptic plasticity thought to contribute to learning and memory, is completely disrupted. Administration of low micromolar concentrations of fluvoxamine and fluoxetine prior to and during LPS administration overcame this LTP inhibition. Effects of fluvoxamine required both activation of S1Rs and local synthesis of 5-alpha reduced neurosteroids. In contrast, the effects of fluoxetine did not involve S1Rs but required neurosteroid production. The ability of fluvoxamine to modulate LTP and neurosteroid production was mimicked by a selective S1R agonist. Additionally, fluvoxamine and fluoxetine prevented learning impairments induced by LPS in vivo. Sertraline differed from the other SSRIs in blocking LTP in control slices likely via S1R inverse agonism. These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that S1Rs and neurosteroids play key roles in the anti-inflammatory effects of certain SSRIs and that these SSRIs could be beneficial in disorders involving inflammatory stress including psychiatric and neurodegenerative illnesses

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: The TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (\u3e80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18-102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52-0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53-0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21-0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36-1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01-0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital. FUNDING: FastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Fluvoxamine for outpatient management of COVID-19 to prevent hospitalization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance: Widely available and affordable options for the outpatient management of COVID-19 are needed, particularly for therapies that prevent hospitalization. Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of the available randomized clinical trial evidence for fluvoxamine in the outpatient management of COVID-19. Data Sources: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection: Studies with completed outpatient trials with available results that compared fluvoxamine with placebo were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed and study details in terms of inclusion criteria, trial demographics, and the prespecified outcome of all-cause hospitalization were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and a bayesian random effects meta-analysis with different estimates of prior probability was conducted: a weakly neutral prior (50% chance of efficacy with 95% CI for risk ratio [RR] between 0.5 and 2.0) and a moderately optimistic prior (85% chance of efficacy). A frequentist random-effects meta-analysis was conducted as a senstivity analysis, and the results were contextualized by estimating the probability of any association (RR ≤ 1) and moderate association (RR ≤ 0.9) with reduced hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause hospitalization. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials and included 2196 participants. The RRs for hospitalization were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.08) for the bayesian weakly neutral prior, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the bayesian moderately optimistic prior, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97) for the frequentist analysis. Depending on the scenario, the probability of any association with reduced hospitalization ranged from 94.1% to 98.6%, and the probability of moderate association ranged from 81.6% to 91.8%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 3 trials, under a variety of assumptions, fluvoxamine showed a high probability of being associated with reduced hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. Ongoing randomized trials are important to evaluate alternative doses, explore the effectiveness in vaccinated patients, and provide further refinement to these estimates. Meanwhile, fluvoxamine could be recommended as a management option, particularly in resource-limited settings or for individuals without access to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy or direct antivirals

The STOP COVID 2 study: Fluvoxamine vs placebo for outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19, a fully remote randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Prior randomized clinical trials have reported benefit of fluvoxamine ≥200 mg/d vs placebo for patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully remote multisite clinical trial evaluated whether fluvoxamine prevents clinical deterioration in higher-risk outpatients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Between December 2020 and May 2021, nonhospitalized US and Canadian participants with confirmed symptomatic infection received fluvoxamine (50 mg on day 1, 100 mg twice daily thereafter) or placebo for 15 days. The primary modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population included participants who started the intervention within 7 days of symptom onset with a baseline oxygen saturation ≥92%. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization, defined as having both (1) shortness of breath (severity ≥4 on a 0-10 scale or requiring hospitalization) RESULTS: A total of 547 participants were randomized and met mITT criteria (n = 272 fluvoxamine, n = 275 placebo). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping early for futility related to lower-than-predicted event rates and declining accrual concurrent with vaccine availability in the United States and Canada. Clinical deterioration occurred in 13 (4.8%) participants in the fluvoxamine group and 15 (5.5%) participants in the placebo group (absolute difference at day 15, 0.68%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 4.4%; log-rank CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not find fluvoxamine efficacious in preventing clinical deterioration in unvaccinated outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. It was stopped early and underpowered due to low primary outcome rates. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04668950

Ex vivo drug response profiling for response and outcome prediction in hematologic malignancies: the prospective non-interventional SMARTrial

Ex vivo drug response profiling is a powerful tool to study genotype-drug response associations and is being explored as a tool set for precision medicine in cancer. Here we conducted a prospective non-interventional trial to investigate feasibility of ex vivo drug response profiling for treatment guidance in hematologic malignancies (SMARTrial, NCT03488641 ). The primary endpoint to provide drug response profiling reports within 7 d was met in 91% of all study participants (N = 80). Secondary endpoint analysis revealed that ex vivo resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs predicted chemotherapy treatment failure in vivo. We confirmed the predictive value of ex vivo response to chemotherapy in a validation cohort of 95 individuals with acute myeloid leukemia treated with daunorubicin and cytarabine. Ex vivo drug response profiles improved ELN-22 risk stratification in individuals with adverse risk. We conclude that ex vivo drug response profiling is clinically feasible and has the potential to predict chemotherapy response in individuals with hematologic malignancies beyond clinically established genetic markers

Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

Funder: NCI U24CA211006Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts