Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

CAEP 2024 Academic Symposium: adaptive platform trials in emergency medicine in Canada

OBJECTIVE

The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2024 Academic Symposium Panel on adaptive platform trials explored whether adaptive platform trials could be implemented in Canadian emergency departments (EDs). This panel aimed to propose and refine recommendations formulated by the results of a rapid review and responses from a panel of experts about conducting adaptive platform trials in EDs.

METHODS

From November 2023 to May 2024, a rapid review was conducted on the existing logistical and ethical barriers and facilitators to structuring adaptive platform trials in emergency medicine. The emerging themes and ideas were collected and used to conduct individual semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including leaders in emergency medicine research, methodologists and biostatisticians specializing in these designs, patient partners, research personnel, and investigators involved in platform trials across Canada and abroad.

RESULTS

From 23 articles and 17 expert interviews, we identified facilitators and barriers to adaptive platform trials in Canadian emergency medicine spread across five domains: evidence strength and quality, relative advantage, adaptability, complexity, and implementation climate and readiness. The most salient needs according to investigators were purposeful and clinically relevant trial design, methodological expertise, and harmonious collaboration with ethics authorities. We provide 14 recommendations across 4 levels: policy, trialist, site, and patient to address barriers to adaptive platform trials in emergency medicine. For each recommendation, we provided corresponding implementation strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC).

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive trial designs are well suited for emergency settings provided the interventions are both easy for clinicians to administer and relevant enough to ameliorate the practice of emergency medicine. These designs are particularly tailored to tackle confirmatory trials, emerging diseases, and trauma care, but barriers like a chaotic ED, complex statistical and methodological requirements, and regulatory considerations persist and require thoughtful implementation strategies.

Democratising clinical trials research to strengthen primary health care

The World Health Assembly has called for clinical trials to be strengthened, with broader demographic and geographical inclusion of populations. The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of rigorous evidence to maximise the health gains of primary health care, and to identify strategies for strengthening clinical trials in primary care. Clinical trials should evaluate interventions of all kinds, including preventive manoeuvres, diagnostics, health service research questions, behavioural and educational interventions, vaccines, therapeutics, and policies. Single question trials can be inefficient and seldom strengthen health systems. New approaches that develop or strengthen health research infrastructure and embed research in primary care will identify effective interventions faster, how to deliver them better, and more accurately determine to whom they should be applied. When patients and community members, together with researchers, contribute to conception, design, and delivery, research will result in more useful, relevant evidence. Traditional site-based recruitment (where the participant comes to the trial) can be complemented by approaches that give people the opportunity to contribute regardless of where they live and receive their health care (taking the trials to the people). However, this cannot be done until regulation is modernised to make it easier for health-care professionals, researchers, and research participants to co-design, deliver, and implement such trials, and to develop processes to coordinate and monitor progress against goals for budget shifts, delivery, engagement, trials activity, and impact. Strengthening primary care trials is especially important in those regions where primary care is most under-resourced and is key to pandemic preparedness. Not doing so risks widening inequities further.

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Although non-pharmaceutical inventions (NPIs) were used globally to control the spread of COVID-19, their effectiveness remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the evidence on NPIs as implemented in the UK, to allow public health bodies to prepare for future pandemics.

METHODS

We used rapid systematic methods (search date: January 2024) to identify, critically appraise and synthesize interventional, observational and modelling studies reporting on NPI effectiveness in the UK.

RESULTS

Eighty-five modelling, nine observational and three interventional studies were included. Modelling studies had multiple quality issues; six of the 12 non-modelling studies were high quality. The best available evidence was for test and release strategies for case contacts (moderate certainty), which was suggestive of a protective effect. Although evidence for school-related NPIs and universal lockdown was also suggestive of a protective effect, this evidence was considered low certainty. Evidence certainty for the remaining NPIs was very low or inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

The validity and reliability of evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic is weak. To improve evidence generation and support decision-making during future pandemics or other public health emergencies, it is essential to build evaluation into the design of public health interventions.

Economic Considerations in Designs and Modifications of Multiarm, Multistage Adaptive and Adaptive Platform Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

There is uncertainty around whether, and under what circumstances, there is value in embedding economic considerations into multiarm, multistage (MAMS) adaptive, and adaptive platform trial designs. This systematic review was conducted to assess the analytical methods and factors that are considered when incorporating health economic analyses when designing and modifying MAMS adaptive and adaptive platform trials.

METHODS

The review searched for health economic analyses, including planned analyses, of interventions assessed through MAMS adaptive, and adaptive platform trials. The search for articles was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases from their inception to 7 August 2023. The screening for articles was conducted by 2 blinded reviewers who followed a predetermined screening process. A narrative synthesis was conducted on the methods used in the analysis and how the results informed the trial designs and modifications.

RESULTS

The review included 17 articles, of which 4 were the results of economic evaluations, whereas 13 were economic evaluation protocols. No trial was reported using pretrial economic evaluations to inform the trial designs. In 14 articles, it was possible to estimate the costs and benefits of the interventions at the interim analysis stages. There were only 5 interim cost-effectiveness analyses, and 3 of these had informed decisions to drop or maintain trial arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics is being embedded in some MAMS adaptive and adaptive platform trials to inform trial modifications. Nevertheless, the use of economic evidence is limited, both by design and circumstance, despite its potential importance in adopting decisions.

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation.

METHODS

This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Democratising the design and delivery of large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trials in primary care: A personal view

BACKGROUND

Rapid identification of effective treatments for use in the community during a pandemic is vital for the well-being of individuals and the sustainability of healthcare systems and society. Furthermore, identifying treatments that do not work reduces research wastage, spares people unnecessary side effects, rationalises the cost of purchasing and stockpiling medication, and reduces inappropriate medication use. Nevertheless, only a small minority of therapeutic trials for SARS-CoV-2 infections have been in primary care: most opened too late, struggled to recruit, and few produced actionable results. Participation in research is often limited by where one lives or receives health care, and trial participants may not represent those for whom the treatments are intended.

INNOVATIVE TRIALS

The ALIC4E, PRINCIPLE and the ongoing PANORAMIC trial have randomised over 40,500 people with COVID-19. This personal view describes how these trials have innovated in: trial design (by using novel adaptive platform designs); trial delivery (by complementing traditional site-based recruitment ('the patient comes to the research') with mechanisms to enable sick, infectious people to participate without having to leave home ('taking research to the people'), and by addressing the 'inverse research participation law,' which highlights disproportionate barriers faced by those who have the most to contribute, and benefit from, research, and; in transforming the evidence base by evaluating nine medicines to support guidelines and care decisions world-wide for COVID-19 and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship.

CONCLUSION

The PRINCIPLE and PANORAMIC trials represent models of innovation and inclusivity, and exemplify the potential of primary care to lead the way in addressing pressing global health challenges.

Advancements in the Development of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Therapeutics

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, it has occurred five noteworthy variants of concern (VOC). SARS-CoV-2 invades cells by contacting its Spike (S) protein to its receptor on the host cell, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). However, the high frequency of mutations in the S protein has limited the effectiveness of existing drugs against SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly the Omicron variant. Therefore, it is critical to develop drugs that have highly effective antiviral activity against both SARS-CoV-2 and its variants in the future. This review provides an overview of the mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the current progress on anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations.

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK.

METHOD

A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold.

CONCLUSION

At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Perceived Risk for Severe COVID-19 and Oral Antiviral Use Among Antiviral-Eligible US Adults

INTRODUCTION

Oral antiviral medications are important tools for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, their uptake remains low for reasons that are not entirely understood. Our study aimed to assess the association between perceived risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and oral antiviral use among those who were eligible for treatment based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines.

METHODS

We surveyed 4034 non-institutionalized US adults in April 2023, and report findings from 934 antiviral-eligible participants with at least one confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection since December 1, 2021 and no current long COVID symptoms. Survey weights were used to yield nationally representative estimates. The primary exposure of interest was whether participants perceived themselves to be "at high risk for severe COVID-19." The primary outcome was use of a COVID-19 oral antiviral within 5 days of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Only 18.5% of antiviral-eligible adults considered themselves to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 and 16.8% and 15.9% took oral antivirals at any time or within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively. In contrast, 79.8% were aware of antiviral treatments for COVID-19. Perceived high-risk status was associated with being more likely to be aware (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.20]), to be prescribed (aPR 1.47 [95% CI 1.08-2.01]), and to take oral antivirals at any time (aPR 1.61 [95% CI 1.16-2.24]) or within 5 days of infection (aPR 1.72 [95% CI 1.23-2.40]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread awareness of the availability of COVID-19 oral antivirals, more than 80% of eligible US adults did not receive them. Our findings suggest that differences between perceived and actual risk for severe COVID-19 (based on current CDC guidelines) may partially explain this low uptake.

Resilience to emerging infectious diseases and the importance of scientific innovation

This opinion piece emphasies the critical role of translational research in enhancing the UK's resilience against future pandemics. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the lifesaving potential of scientific innovation, including genomic tracking of SARS-CoV-2, vaccine development, data linkage, modelling, and new treatments. These advances, achieved through collaborations between academic institutions, industry, government, public health bodies, and the NHS, occurred at an unprecedented pace. However, the UK's pandemic preparedness planning, as reflected in the 2016 Exercise Cygnus report, notably lacked provision for scientific innovation. This oversight highlights the necessity of integrating innovation and research into future preparedness strategies, not as a luxury but as a vital component of the healthcare infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the importance of surge capacity for diagnostic labs, vaccine development and deployment strategies, real-time research embedded within the NHS, efficient data sharing, clear public communication, and the use of genomic tools for outbreak surveillance and monitoring pathogen response. Despite world-leading aspects of some of the UK's research response, the need to build much of the infrastructure in real-time led to avoidable delays. A proactive approach in incorporating research and innovation into the NHS's operational framework will be needed to ensure swift, evidence-based responses to future pandemics.

Oral COVID-19 Antiviral Uptake Among a Highly Vaccinated US Cohort of Adults With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Between December 2021 and October 2022

Background

We described the oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and molnupiravir (MOV) uptake among a subgroup of highly vaccinated adults in a US national prospective cohort who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 12/2021 and 10/2022.

Methods

We estimate antiviral uptake within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as age- and gender-adjusted antiviral uptake prevalence ratios by antiviral eligibility (based on age and comorbidities), sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical characteristics including vaccination status and history of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID).

Results

NMV/r uptake was 13.6% (95% CI, 11.9%-15.2%) among 1594 participants, and MOV uptake was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.1%) among 1398 participants. NMV/r uptake increased over time (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.9%; between 12/2021 and 3/2022; 16.5%; 95% CI, 13.0%-20.0%; between 4/2022 and 7/2022; and 25.3%; 95% CI, 21.6%-29.0%; between 8/2022 and 10/2022). Participants age ≥65 and those who had comorbidities for severe COVID-19 had higher NMV/r uptake. There was lower NMV/r uptake among non-Hispanic Black participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 2.4%-12.0%; relative to other racial/ethnic groups) and among individuals in the lowest income groups (10.6%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.8%; relative to higher income groups). Among a subset of 278 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12/2021 who also had a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with (vs without) a history of long COVID reported greater NMV/r uptake (22.0% vs 7.9%; P = .001). Among those prescribed NMV/r (n = 216), 137 (63%; 95% CI, 57%-70%) reported that NMV/r was helpful for reducing COVID-19 symptoms.

Conclusions

Despite proven effectiveness against severe outcomes, COVID-19 antiviral uptake remains low among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States. Further outreach to providers and patients to improve awareness of COVID-19 oral antivirals and indications is needed.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use in pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection: a target trial emulation

To date, there is a lack of randomized trial data examining the use of the antiviral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected pregnant persons. This target trial emulation study aimed to address this gap by evaluating the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in nonhospitalized pregnant women with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection. Among patients diagnosed between 16 March 2022 and 5 February 2023, exposure was defined as outpatient nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment within 5 days of symptom onset or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis. Primary outcomes were maternal morbidity and mortality index (MMMI), all-cause maternal death and COVID-19-related hospitalization, while secondary outcomes were individual components of MMMI, preterm birth, stillbirth, neonatal death and cesarean section. One-to-ten propensity-score matching was conducted between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users and nonusers, followed by cloning, censoring and weighting. Overall, 211 pregnant women on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 1,998 nonusers were included. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced 28-day MMMI risk (absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 1.47%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.21-2.34%) but not 28-days COVID-19-related hospitalization (ARR = -0.09%, 95% CI = -1.08% to 0.71%). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was also associated with reduced risks of cesarean section (ARR = 1.58%, 95% CI = 0.85-2.39%) and preterm birth (ARR = 2.70%, 95% CI = 0.98-5.31%). No events of maternal or neonatal death or stillbirth were recorded. The findings suggest that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is an effective treatment in symptomatic pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection.

Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis against COVID-19 for Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Prospective Study in the Omicron Era

Background: tixagevimab/cilgavimab, distributed under the name "Evusheld", was the first available pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 other than vaccination. It received an EUA from the FDA after sufficient trial data showed efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections and subsequent severe disease. Its potential benefits for high-risk immunocompromised patients generated a lot of interest. Individuals with multiple myeloma fall into this category, as they are characterized by attenuated immune responses and, in some cases, vaccines have limited efficacy. Methods: this single-center, prospective study included consecutive patients with multiple myeloma. All individuals were considered high-risk for COVID-19 due to their underlying disease. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as data regarding COVID-19 infection and antibodies, were collected. Patients were administered two intramuscular 150 mg doses of Evusheld and were monitored during the follow-up period. Results: one hundred and eleven multiple myeloma patients were included in this analysis, with a median age of 64 years (range 58-69) and fifty-three were females (47.7%). Fourteen patients (12.6%) had a prior history of COVID-19 and all patients were vaccinated with either three or four doses of mRNA-based vaccines. An increase was observed in the median neutralizing-antibody levels before and after tixagevimab/cilgavimab administration, from 92.6% to 97.3%. The high levels were sustainable, with a median neutralizing-antibody level of 95.4% at 3 months post Evusheld administration. Overall, nine patients (8.1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the follow-up period, at a median of 31 days. There were no SARS-CoV-2- infection-related hospitalizations or deaths. The monoclonal antibody combination was well tolerated, with no infusion-related reactions or major adverse events, and pain at the injection site only was reported by 33 patients (30%). Conclusions: tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) seemed beneficial for patients with multiple myeloma, who presented high neutralizing-antibody levels and a low incidence of COVID-19 during the initial Omicron wave. No new safety concerns emerged. However, novel combinations of monoclonal antibodies against the new circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 are deemed necessary in view of the emergence of immune tolerance.