Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS: In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). INTERPRETATION: When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health

Remdesivir and Mortality in Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The impact of remdesivir (RDV) on COVID-19 mortality is controversial, and the mortality effect in sub-groups of baseline disease severity has been incompletely explored. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of RDV with mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we compared persons receiving RDV to persons receiving best supportive care (BSC). Patients hospitalized between 2/28/20 - 5/28/20 with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included when they developed COVID-19 pneumonia on chest radiography, and hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen or SpO2 ≤ 94% on room air. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed with time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards regression and multivariable adjustment, including calendar time, baseline patient characteristics, corticosteroid use and effects for hospital. RESULTS: 1,138 patients were enrolled including 286 who received RDV, and 852 treated with BSC, 400 of whom received hydroxychloroquine. Corticosteroids were used in 20.4% of the cohort (12.6% in RDV and 23% in BSC). In persons receiving RDV compared to those receiving BSC the HR (95%CI) for death was 0.46 (0.31 - 0.69) in the univariate model, p CONCLUSION: Treatment with RDV was associated with lower mortality compared to BSC. These findings remain the same in the subgroup with baseline use of low-flow oxygen

Report of the first seven agents in the I-SPY COVID trial: a phase 2, open label, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAn urgent need exists to rapidly screen potential therapeutics for severe COVID-19 or other emerging pathogens associated with high morbidity and mortality.MethodsUsing an adaptive platform design created to rapidly evaluate investigational agents, hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥6 L/min oxygen were randomised to either a backbone regimen of dexamethasone and remdesivir alone (controls) or backbone plus one open-label investigational agent. Patients were enrolled to the arms described between July 30, 2020 and June 11, 2021 in 20 medical centres in the United States. The platform contained up to four potentially available investigational agents and controls available for randomisation during a single time-period. The two primary endpoints were time-to-recovery (<6 L/min oxygen for two consecutive days) and mortality. Data were evaluated biweekly in comparison to pre-specified criteria for graduation (i.e., likely efficacy), futility, and safety, with an adaptive sample size of 40-125 individuals per agent and a Bayesian analytical approach. Criteria were designed to achieve rapid screening of agents and to identify large benefit signals. Concurrently enrolled controls were used for all analyses. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04488081.FindingsThe first 7 agents evaluated were cenicriviroc (CCR2/5 antagonist; n = 92), icatibant (bradykinin antagonist; n = 96), apremilast (PDE4 inhibitor; n = 67), celecoxib/famotidine (COX2/histamine blockade; n = 30), IC14 (anti-CD14; n = 67), dornase alfa (inhaled DNase; n = 39) and razuprotafib (Tie2 agonist; n = 22). Razuprotafib was dropped from the trial due to feasibility issues. In the modified intention-to-treat analyses, no agent met pre-specified efficacy/graduation endpoints with posterior probabilities for the hazard ratios [HRs] for recovery ≤1.5 between 0.99 and 1.00. The data monitoring committee stopped Celecoxib/Famotidine for potential harm (median posterior HR for recovery 0.5, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.28-0.90; median posterior HR for death 1.67, 95% CrI 0.79-3.58).InterpretationNone of the first 7 agents to enter the trial met the prespecified criteria for a large efficacy signal. Celecoxib/Famotidine was stopped early for potential harm. Adaptive platform trials may provide a useful approach to rapidly screen multiple agents during a pandemic.FundingQuantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative is the trial sponsor. Funding for this trial has come from: the COVID R&D Consortium, Allergan, Amgen Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Implicit Bioscience, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc., Roche/Genentech, Apotex Inc., FAST Grant from Emergent Venture George Mason University, The DoD Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), The Department of Health and Human ServicesBiomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and The Grove Foundation. Effort sponsored by the U.S. Government under Other Transaction number W15QKN-16-9-1002 between the MCDC, and the Government

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS: In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77-1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66-1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14-4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29-0·90; pinteraction=0·001). INTERPRETATION: When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health