Background The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. Methods DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir–ritonavir, lopinavir–ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04315948 . Findings Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporea...

Background: As COVID-19 cases continue to rise globally, evidence from large randomized controlled trials is still lacking. Currently, numerous trials testing potential treatment and preventative options are being undertaken all over the world. Objectives: We summarized all registered clinical trials examining treatment and prevention options for COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the quality of the retrieved studies. Data sources: Clinicaltrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched. Study eligibility criteria: Registered clinical trials examining treatment and/or prevention options for COVID-19 were included. No language, country or study design restrictions were applied. We excluded withdrawn or cancelled studies and trials not reporting therapeutic or preventative strategies for COVID-19. Participants and interventions: No restrictions in terms of participants' age and medical background or type of intervention were enforced. Methods: The registries were searched using the term 'coronavirus' or 'COVID-19' from their inception until 26 March 2020. Additional manual search of the registries was also performed. Eligible studies were summarized and tabulated. Interventional trials were methodologically analysed, excluding expanded access studies and trials testing traditional Chinese medicine. Results: In total, 309 trials evaluating therapeutic management options, 23 studies assessing preventive strategies and three studies examining both were retrieved. Finally, 214 studies were methodologically reviewed. Interventional treatment studies were mostly randomized (n ¼ 150/198, 76%) and open label (n ¼ 73/198, 37%) with a median number of planned inclusions of 90 (interquartile range 40e200). Major categories of interventions that are currently being investigated are discussed. Conclusions: Numerous clinical trials have been registered since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarized data on these trials will assist physicians and researchers to promote patient care and guide future research efforts for COVID-19 pandemic containment.

Background: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between “cure” and “death” represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of “recovered” versus “not recovered.” Methods: We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials. Results: Power for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time. Discussion: Time-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

C, Mentre F, on behalf of the DisCoVeRy study group, An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Clinical Microbiology and Infection,

BackgroundAlthough a number of antiviral agents have been evaluated for coronaviruses there are no approved drugs available. To provide an overview of the landscape of therapeutic research for COVID-19, we conducted a review of registered clinical trials. MethodsA review of currently registered clinical trials was performed on registries, including the Chinese (chictr.org.cn) and US (clinicaltrials.gov) databases to identify relevant studies up to March, 7 th 2020. FindingsOut of the 353 studies identified, 115 clinical trials were selected for data extraction. Phase IV trials were the most commonly reported study type (n=27, 23%). However, 62 trials (54%) did not describe the phase of the study. Eighty percent (n=92) of the trials were randomized with parallel assignment and the median number of planned inclusions was 63 (IQR, 36-120). Open-label studies were the most frequent (46%) followed by double-blind (13%) and single blind studies (10%). The most frequently assessed therapies were: stem cells therapy (n=23 trials), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=15), chloroquine (n=11), umifenovir (n=7), hydroxychloroquine (n=7), plasma treatment (n=7), favipiravir (n=7), methylprednisolone (n=5), and remdesivir (n=5). Remdesivir was tested in 5 trials with a median of 400 (IQR, 394-453) planned inclusions per trial, while stem cells therapy was tested in 23 trials, but had a median of 40 (IQR, 23-60) planned inclusions per trial. Lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with the highest total number of planned inclusions (2606) followed by remdesivir (2155). Only 52% of the clinical trials reported the treatment dose (n=60) and only 34% (n=39) the duration. The primary outcome was clinical in 76 studies (66%), virological in 27 (23%); radiological in 9 (8%) or immunological in three studies (3%). InterpretationNumerous clinical trials have been registered since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, however, a number of information regarding drugs or trial design were lacking.

Background/Aims: Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia to some extent, are endemic for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection which could be associated with high mortality and comorbidities risk. However, limited data characterizing this CHB population exists. Our aim was to characterize and compare CHB patients in 2015 with those in 2010 and 2012 in Saudi Arabia. Patients and Methods: We conducted and compared three cross-sectional analyses of adult patients with CHB defined as either positive hepatitis B surface antigen or documented CHB history in 2010, 2012, and 2015. Data were accessed from the multicenter Systematic Observatory Liver Disease Registry (SOLID). Results: A total of 765 CHB patients were identified in 2010 ( n = 274), 2012 ( n = 256), and 2015 ( n = 235). Median age was significantly higher in 2015 (47 years) compared to 2010 and 2012 (42 years;P < 0.05). The proportions of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (range 1–12%) and cirrhosis (range 5–23%) were significantly higher in 2015 compared to 2010 and 2012 ( P < 0.05). Compared to 2010, patients in 2015 had significantly ( P < 0.05) higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (10% vs. 4%) and hyperbilirubinemia (18% vs. 9%). Although not significant, there was a numerical increase in 2015 in chronic kidney disease (9% vs. 7% in 2010; P = 0.559) and hepatic steatosis (32% vs. 25% in 2010; P = 0.074). Significantly more patients in 2015 ( P < 0.05) were treatment experienced (23% vs. 5% in 2010/2012) and switched treatment (17% vs. 1–2% in 2010/2012). Conclusions: Between 2010 and 2015, the CHB population in Saudi Arabia had significantly aged and was more likely to develop liver disease sequelae and other comorbidities.

Background The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. Objectives To estimate the effect of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Methods We analysed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT 04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23), randomized to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Additional analyses were conducted stratified on time of treatment initiation (≤7 or &gt;7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (&lt; or ≥3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). Results In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by infected cells by 2-fold on average (95% CI: 1.5–3.2-fold). Model-based simulations predict that remdesivir reduced time to viral clearance by 0.7 days compared with SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (IQR: 0.0–1.3 days). Remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95% CI: 2.8–25-fold) and the median time to viral clearance by 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9–4.5 days). Conclusions Remdesivir halved viral production, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared with SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high viral load at randomization.