Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19.

METHODS

This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial.

INTERPRETATION

We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive.

FUNDING

Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.

Novel antisense therapy targeting microRNA-132 in patients with heart failure

Background

Cardiac microRNA-132-3p (miR-132) levels are increased in patients with heart failure (HF) and mechanistically drive cardiac remodelling processes. CDR132L, a specific antisense oligonucleotide, is a first-in-class miR-132 inhibitor that attenuates and even reverses HF in preclinical models.

Purpose

The aim of the current clinical Phase 1b study was to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, target engagement, and exploratory pharmacodynamic effects of CDR132L in patients on standard-of-care therapy for chronic ischaemic HF in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-escalation study.

Methods

Patients had left ventricular ejection fraction between ≥30% and <50% or amino terminal fragment of pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) >125 ng/L at screening. Twenty-eight patients were randomized to receive CDR132L (0.32, 1, 3, and 10 mg/kg body weight) or placebo (0.9% saline) in two intravenous infusions, 4 weeks apart in four cohorts of seven (five verum and two placebo) patients each.

Results

CDR132L was safe and well tolerated, without apparent dose-limiting toxicity. A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic dose modelling approach suggested an effective dose level at ≥1 mg/kg CDR132L. CDR132L treatment resulted in a dose-dependent, sustained miR-132 reduction in plasma. Patients given CDR132L ≥1 mg/kg displayed median 23.3% NT-proBNP reduction, vs. 0.9% median increase in the control group. CDR132L treatment induced significant QRS narrowing and positive trends for cardiac fibrosis biomarkers.

Conclusions

This study is the first clinical trial of an antisense drug in HF patients. CDR132L was safe and well tolerated, confirmed linear plasma pharmacokinetics with no signs of accumulation, and suggests cardiac functional improvements. The indicative efficacy of this drug is very encouraging justifying additional clinical studies to confirm the beneficial CDR132L pharmacodynamic effects for the treatment of HF.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Cardior Pharmaceuticals GmbH

The suppression of gastro-oesophageal reflux by alginates

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare alginate products with the same amount of active ingredients but different dosage forms, in the suppression of reflux provoked by a standard meal in healthy human volunteers, using ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring.

METHODS

This was a single centre, randomised, open, three-period crossover, controlled study comparing Gaviscon Advance (10 ml) with a control (10 ml water) and with a new tablet product containing the same active ingredients as Gaviscon Advance. Volunteers who had oesophageal pH < 4 for at least 2% of the 4-h period after ingestion of a test meal followed by control at a reflux screening visit were included in the study.

RESULTS

The difference between Gaviscon Advance and control in the mean angular transformed percentage of time for which oesophageal pH fell below four was statistically significant (p < 0.0001) demonstrating the sensitivity of the method. No significant difference between the two alginate products was found based on the least squares adjusted mean angular transformed percentage of time for which pH fell below four. There were also no significant differences between the two alginate dosage forms in the angular transformed percentage of time for which oesophageal pH fell below five and in the log-transformed number of occasions on which oesophageal pH fell below four and five.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study shows that alginate reflux suppressants containing a low amount of antacid are effective in suppressing acid reflux and that suspension and tablet forms are able to give equivalent acid suppression.