Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a rare but fatal late neurological complication of measles, caused by persistent measles virus (MeV) infection of the central nervous system. There are no drugs approved for the treatment of SSPE. Here, we followed the clinical progression of a 5-year-old SSPE patient after treatment with the nucleoside analog remdesivir, conducted a post-mortem evaluation of the patient's brain, and characterized the MeV detected in the brain. The quality of life of the patient transiently improved after the first two courses of remdesivir, but a third course had no further clinical effect, and the patient eventually succumbed to his condition. Post-mortem evaluation of the brain displayed histopathological changes including loss of neurons and demyelination paired with abundant presence of MeV RNA-positive cells throughout the brain. Next-generation sequencing of RNA isolated from the brain revealed a complete MeV genome with mutations that are typically detected in SSPE, characterized by a hypermutated M gene. Additional mutations were detected in the polymerase (L) gene, which were not associated with resistance to remdesivir. Functional characterization showed that mutations in the F gene led to a hyperfusogenic phenotype predominantly mediated by N465I. Additionally, recombinant wild-type-based MeV with the SSPE-F gene or the F gene with the N465I mutation was no longer lymphotropic but instead efficiently disseminated in neural cultures. Altogether, this case encourages further investigation of remdesivir as a potential treatment of SSPE and highlights the necessity to functionally understand SSPE-causing MeV.IMPORTANCEMeasles virus (MeV) causes acute, systemic disease and remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in humans. Despite the lack of known entry receptors in the brain, MeV can persistently infect the brain causing the rare but fatal neurological disorder subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). SSPE-causing MeVs are characterized by a hypermutated genome and a hyperfusogenic F protein that facilitates the rapid spread of MeV throughout the brain. No treatment against SSPE is available, but the nucleoside analog remdesivir was recently demonstrated to be effective against MeV in vitro. We show that treatment of an SSPE patient with remdesivir led to transient clinical improvement and did not induce viral escape mutants, encouraging the future use of remdesivir in SSPE patients. Functional characterization of the viral proteins sheds light on the shared properties of SSPE-causing MeVs and further contributes to understanding how those viruses cause disease.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, vaccines were quickly and successfully developed and deployed, saving millions of lives globally. While first-generation vaccines are safe and effective in preventing disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, next-generation vaccines have the potential to improve efficacy and safety. Vaccines delivered by a mucosal route may elicit greater protective immunity at respiratory surfaces, thereby reducing transmission. Inclusion of viral antigens in addition to the spike protein may enhance protection against emerging variants of concern. Next-generation vaccine platforms with a new mechanism of action may necessitate efficacy trials to fulfill regulatory requirements. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) will be supporting Phase 2b clinical trials of candidate next-generation vaccines. The primary endpoint will be improved efficacy in terms of symptomatic disease relative to a currently approved COVID-19 vaccine. In this paper, we discuss the planned endpoints and potential challenges to this complex program.

ImportanceThe pharmacokinetics of abatacept and the association between abatacept exposure and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 are unknown.ObjectiveTo characterize abatacept pharmacokinetics, relate drug exposure with clinical outcomes, and evaluate the need for dosage adjustments.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis study is a secondary analysis of data from the ACTIV-1 (Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines) Immune Modulator (IM) randomized clinical trial conducted between October 16, 2020, and December 31, 2021. The trial included hospitalized adults who received abatacept in addition to standard of care for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. Data analysis was performed between September 2022 and February 2024.ExposureSingle intravenous infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 1000 mg).Main Outcomes and MeasuresMortality at day 28 was the primary outcome of interest, and time to recovery at day 28 was the secondary outcome. Drug exposure was assessed using the projected area under the serum concentration time curve over 28 days (AUC0-28). Logistic regression modeling was used to analyze the association between drug exposure and 28-day mortality, adjusted for age, sex, and disease severity. The association between time to recovery and abatacept exposure was examined using Fine-Gray modeling with death as a competing risk, and was adjusted for age, sex, and disease severity.ResultsOf the 509 patients who received abatacept, 395 patients with 848 serum samples were included in the population pharmacokinetic analysis. Their median age was 55 (range, 19-89) years and most (250 [63.3%]) were men. Abatacept clearance increased with body weight and more severe disease activity at baseline. Drug exposure was higher in patients who survived vs those who died, with a median AUC0-28 of 21 428 (range, 8462-43 378) mg × h/L vs 18 262 (range, 9628-27 507) mg × h/L (P < .001). Controlling for age, sex, and disease severity, an increase of 5000 units in AUC0-28 was associated with lower odds of mortality at day 28 (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35-0.79]; P = .002). For an AUC0-28 of 19 400 mg × h/L or less, there was a higher probability of recovery at day 28 (hazard ratio, 2.63 [95% CI, 1.70-4.08] for every 5000-unit increase; P < .001). Controlling for age, sex, and disease severity, every 5000-unit increase in AUC0-28 was also associated with lower odds of a composite safety event at 28 days (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.63]; P < .001). Using the dosing regimen studied in the ACTIV-1 IM trial, 121 of the 395 patients (30.6%) would not achieve an abatacept exposure of at least 19 400 mg × h/L, particularly at the extremes of body weight. Using a modified, higher-dose regimen, only 12 patients (3.0%) would not achieve the hypothesized target abatacept exposure.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, patients who were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and achieved higher projected abatacept exposure had reduced mortality and a higher probability of recovery with fewer safety events. However, abatacept clearance was high in this population, and the current abatacept dosing (10 mg/kg intravenously with a maximum of 1000 mg) may not achieve optimal exposure in all patients.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940

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 antispike 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; p(interaction)=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. Copyright (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Remdesivir (RDV, Veklury®) is a once-daily, nucleoside ribonucleic acid polymerase inhibitor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 replication. Remdesivir has been granted approvals in several countries for use in adults and children hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Inside the cell, remdesivir undergoes metabolic activation to form the intracellular active triphosphate metabolite, GS-443902 (detected in peripheral blood mononuclear cells), and ultimately, the renally eliminated plasma metabolite GS-441524. This review discusses the pre-clinical pharmacology of RDV, clinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics/concentration-QT analysis, rationale for dose selection for treatment of patients with COVID-19, and drug–drug interaction potential based on available in vitro and clinical data in healthy volunteers. Following single-dose intravenous administration over 2 h of an RDV solution formulation across the dose range of 3–225 mg in healthy participants, RDV and its metabolites (GS-704277and GS-441524) exhibit linear pharmacokinetics. Following multiple doses of RDV 150 mg once daily for 7 or 14 days, major metabolite GS-441524 accumulates approximately 1.9-fold in plasma. Based on pharmacokinetic bridging from animal data and available human data in healthy volunteers, the RDV clinical dose regimen of a 200-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 100-mg maintenance doses for 4 or 9 days was selected for further evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety. Results showed high intracellular concentrations of GS-443902 suggestive of efficient conversion from RDV into the triphosphate form, and further supporting this clinical dosing regimen for the treatment of COVID-19. Mathematical drug–drug interaction liability predictions, based on in vitro and phase I data, suggest RDV has low potential for drug–drug interactions, as the impact of inducers or inhibitors on RDV disposition is minimized by the parenteral route of administration and extensive extraction. Using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, RDV is not predicted to be a clinically significant inhibitor of drug-metabolizing enzymes or transporters in patients infected with COVID-19 at therapeutic RDV doses.

Background We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. Methods In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged >= 18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Findings Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1.07 [95% CI 0.74-1.56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0.98 [95% CI 0.67-1.43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1.08 [0.74-1.58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1.00 [0.68-1.46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1.12 [95% CI 0.91-1.37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1.08 [0.88-1.32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Interpretation Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background. Ebola virus RNA persists in the semen of male Ebola survivors for months to years after the acute infection, and male-to-female sexual transmission of the virus is well documented. We investigated whether remdesivir can safely reduce persistence of seminal Ebola virus RNA. Methods. We recruited men with persistent seminal Ebola RNA in Liberia and Guinea. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous remdesivir (GS-5734; Gilead Sciences) or matching placebo administered once daily by intravenous infusion over 1 hour on 5 consecutive days. Stratification was by country and number of positive (1 or 2) preenrollment semen tests. We evaluated the difference in mean assay negativity rate (ANR), that is, the proportion of negative tests for each participant in each group in the treatment (days 1-28) and follow-up (months 2-6) phases on an intention-to-treat basis. Results. We enrolled 38 men from July 2016 through June 2018. The mean treatment phase ANRs were 85% (standard deviation [SD]=24%) and 76% (SD=30%) in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively (P=.270). The mean follow-up phase ANRs were 96% (SD=10%) and 81% (SD=29%) in the remdesivir and placebo arms, respectively (P=.041). The 5-day remdesivir regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns. Conclusions. In this small trial, remdesivir 100 mg/day for 5 days safely reduced the presence of Ebola virus RNA in the semen of Ebola survivors 2 to 6 months after administration. A larger follow-up study is necessary to confirm results.

OBJECTIVES: Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its efficacy and safety in children are unknown. We describe outcomes in children with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir. METHODS: Seventy-seven hospitalized patients <18 years old with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection received remdesivir through a compassionate-use program between March 21 and April 22, 2020. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg daily subsequently for children >= 40 kg and 5 mg/kg on day 1 and 2.5 mg/kg daily subsequently for children <40 kg, given intravenously). Clinical data through 28 days of follow-up were collected. RESULTS: Median age was 14 years (interquartile range 7-16, range <2 months to 17 years). Seventy-nine percent of patients had >= 1 comorbid condition. At baseline, 90% of children required supplemental oxygen and 51% required invasive ventilation. By day 28 of follow-up, 88% of patients had a decreased oxygen-support requirement, 83% recovered, and 73% were discharged. Among children requiring invasive ventilation at baseline, 90% were extubated, 80% recovered, and 67% were discharged. There were 4 deaths, of which 3 were attributed to COVID-19. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (16%). Most adverse events were related to COVID-19 or comorbid conditions. Laboratory abnormalities, including elevations in transaminase levels, were common; 61% were grades 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: Among 77 children treated with remdesivir for severe COVID-19, most recovered and the rate of serious adverse events was low.

In their Letter to the Editor “Remdesivir for COVID-19: Why Not Dose Higher?” Yan and Muller assert that the clinical efficacy of remdesivir at its currently approved dose (200 mg intravenously [i.v.] on day 1 followed by 100 mg/day i.v. for up to 9 days) is questionable and advocate for higher dosing. However, the totality of the available data demonstrates that remdesivir, at its current dose, is a safe and efficacious treatment for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” was 14 (95% CI 12–15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11–16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78–1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Background: Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19 Here we report safety of RDV in patients with moderate COVID-19 Methods: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) in hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation \u003e94% on room air Patients were randomly assigned to receive RDV (5 or 10 days) or standard of care (SOC) RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1, 100 mg daily thereafter Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated through the day 11 data cut;safety data through day 28 will be presented at the meeting Results: 584 patients were randomized and treated (5d RDV: n=191;10d RDV, n=193;SOC: n=200) Baseline characteristics were balanced among groups;median (range) age was 57y (12-95y), 39% were female and 19% Black, 39% had arterial hypertension, 15% hyperlipidemia, 11% asthma Briefly, across both the 5d and 10d arms, RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of Grade 3 or 4 AEs and fewer SAEs compared to SOC (Table) AEs more common with RDV vs SOC included nausea, headache, and hypokalemia Overall, across the 3 arms, incidence of AEs leading to discontinuation and death were low and no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters were observed In addition, median changes in renal and liver function tests from baseline were not statistically significant between the RDV 5d and RDV 10d groups compared to the SOC only group at d14 (Table 1) Conclusion: RDV given for 5d or 10d was well tolerated in patients with moderate COVID-19 No clinically significant safety signals were observed with RDV vs SOC (Figure Presented)

Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report baseline characteristics associated with clinical improvement at day (d) 14. Methods We enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation >94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV once daily plus standard of care (SoC), or SoC only. For this analysis, patients were followed through discharge, d14, or death. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics associated with clinical improvement in oxygen support (≥2-point improvement on a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from discharge to death) were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression methods. Results 584 patients were randomized and treated (5/10d RDV, n=384; SoC: n=200). 159 (27%) were ≥65y, 227 (39%) female, 328 (61%) white, 102 (19%) Asian, and 99 (19%) Black. 252 participants (43%) were enrolled in Europe, 260 (45%) North America (NA), and 72 (12%) in Asia. Most patients (483 [83%]) were not on supplemental oxygen but required medical care at baseline. In a multivariable model, 5/10d RDV was significantly positively associated with clinical improvement (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.65; p=0.0226). Significant covariables positively associated with clinical improvement included age < 65y (p< 0.0001) and region of treatment (Europe and NA vs Asia, p< 0.0001 each; Table); other examined factors were not significantly associated with clinical improvement, including gender, race, ethnicity, baseline oxygen support, duration of symptoms and hospitalization, obesity, and baseline transaminase levels. Table 1. Conclusion In moderate COVID-19 patients, after adjusting for treatment arm, age < 65y and region (NA vs Asia; Europe vs Asia) were associated with higher rates of clinical improvement. These observations recapitulate younger age as positive prognostic factor, and highlight the differences in the impact of the pandemic globally. Disclosures Antonella Castagna, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Shu Cheong Hui, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Kathleen M. Mullane, DO, PharmD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Mamta Jain, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) Massimo Galli, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Shan-Chwen Chang, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hailin Huang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Christoph Lübbert, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Enrique Navas Elorza, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Mark McPhail, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) shortens time to recovery time in patients with severe COVID-19. Its effect in patients with moderate COVID-19 remains unclear. Methods We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive up to 5d or 10d of RDV with standard of care (SoC), or SoC alone; patients could be discharged prior to completing per-protocol assigned treatment duration. RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on d1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Patients were evaluated daily while hospitalized, and via telephone if discharged. The primary endpoint was clinical status on d11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. Results regarding the primary endpoint are expected to be published before IDWeek 2020; we plan to present d28 results at the meeting. Results In total, 584 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (191, 5d RDV; 193, 10d RDV; 200, SoC). By d11, ³ 2 point improvement on the ordinal scale occurred in 70% of patients in the 5d arm, 65% in the 10d arm, and 61% in the SoC arm. Patients in the 5d RDV arm were significantly more likely to have an improvement in clinical status than those receiving SoC (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–2.48; P=0.017); OR of improvement for the 10d RDV arm compared to SoC was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.88–1.95]; p=0.183). This improvement in the 5-day arm over the SOC arm was noted from d6 through d11. We observed a peak of discharges corresponding with the assigned treatment duration of RDV, with increased discharges at d6 in the 5-day arm and at d11 in the 10-day arm. A worsening of clinical status of ≥ 1 point in the ordinal scale was observed more commonly in the SoC am (n=19, 10%) versus the 5d RDV (n=7, 4%) and 10d RDV (n=9, 5%). Conclusion RDV for up to 5 days was superior to SoC in improving the clinical status of patients with moderate COVID-19 by d11. We will report d28 outcomes at the meeting. Disclosures Francisco M. Marty, MD, Allovir (Consultant)Amplyx (Consultant)Ansun (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Avir (Consultant)Cidara (Scientific Research Study Investigator)F2G (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kyorin (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)New England Journal of Medicine (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium for Video)Regeneron (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ReViral (Consultant)Scynexis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Symbio (Consultant)Takeda (Scientific Research Study Investigator)United Medical (Consultant)WHISCON (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Prashant Malhotra, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Massimo Galli, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Louis Yi Ann Chai, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Lijie Zhong, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Michael Brown, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Ane Josune Goikoetxea, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Mamta Jain, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) David Shu Cheong Hui, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Enos Bernasconi, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Christoph Spinner, MD, AbbVie (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)MSD (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)

BACKGROUND:Remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has shown in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS:We provided remdesivir on a compassionate-use basis to patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Patients were those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or who were receiving oxygen support. Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. This report is based on data from patients who received remdesivir during the period from January 25, 2020, through March 7, 2020, and have clinical data for at least 1 subsequent day. RESULTS:Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS:In this cohort of patients hospitalized for severe Covid-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%). Measurement of efficacy will require ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences.).

Abstract Background Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Here we report safety of RDV in patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) in hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned to receive RDV (5 or 10 days) or standard of care (SOC). RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were evaluated through the day 11 data cut; safety data through day 28 will be presented at the meeting. Results 584 patients were randomized and treated (5d RDV: n=191; 10d RDV, n=193; SOC: n=200). Baseline characteristics were balanced among groups; median (range) age was 57y (12-95y), 39% were female and 19% Black, 39% had arterial hypertension, 15% hyperlipidemia, 11% asthma. Briefly, across both the 5d and 10d arms, RDV was well tolerated with a similar rate of Grade 3 or 4 AEs and fewer SAEs compared to SOC (Table). AEs more common with RDV vs SOC included nausea, headache, and hypokalemia. Overall, across the 3 arms, incidence of AEs leading to discontinuation and death were low and no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters were observed. In addition, median changes in renal and liver function tests from baseline were not statistically significant between the RDV 5d and RDV 10d groups compared to the SOC only group at d14 (Table 1). Table 1. Conclusion RDV given for 5d or 10d was well tolerated in patients with moderate COVID-19. No clinically significant safety signals were observed with RDV vs SOC. Disclosures Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Mi Young Ahn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gregory Huhn, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Proteus (Grant/Research Support)US National Institutes of Health (Grant/Research Support)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Aruna Subramanian, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Stefan Schmiedel, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Vithika Suri, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Huldrych Günthard, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) D Jose Sanz-Moreno, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Emanuele Nicastri, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA

Remdesivir (RDV), a single diastereomeric monophosphoramidate prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has potent in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). RDV received the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s emergency use authorization in the United States and approval in Japan for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This report describes two phase I studies that evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of single escalating and multiple i.v. doses of RDV (solution or lyophilized formulation) in healthy subjects. Lyophilized formulation was evaluated for potential future use in clinical trials due to its storage stability in resource‐limited settings. All adverse events were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Overall, RDV exhibited a linear profile following single‐dose i.v. administration over 2 hours of RDV solution formulation across the dose range of 3–225 mg. Both lyophilized and solution formulations provided comparable PK parameters. High intracellular concentrations of the active triphosphate (~ 220‐fold to 370‐fold higher than the in vitro half‐maximal effective concentration against SARS‐CoV‐2 clinical isolate) were achieved following infusion of 75 mg or 150 mg lyophilized formulation over 30 minutes or 2 hours. Following multiple‐doses of RDV 150 mg once daily for 7 or 14 days, RDV exhibited a PK profile similar to single‐dose administration. Metabolite GS‐441524 accumulated ~ 1.9‐fold after daily dosing. Overall, RDV exhibited favorable safety and PK profiles that supported once‐daily dosing.

BackgroundRemdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). MethodsWe conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. ResultsIn total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P=0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P=0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%). ConclusionsIn patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.) A randomized trial comparing a 5-day course of intravenous remdesivir with a 10-day course in patients with Covid-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia who were not yet receiving mechanical ventilation showed no significant differences in outcome related to the duration of treatment.

ImportanceRemdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRandomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group.ResultsAmong 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.

BACKGROUND:Bictegravir, coformulated with emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination (B/F/TAF), is recommended for treatment of HIV-1-infection. Multiple studies of B/F/TAF in treatment-naive and virologically suppressed cohorts have shown high efficacy and tolerability with no treatment-emergent resistance through 48 weeks. Participants in these studies have been predominantly men. We report 48-week results from a phase 3 study evaluating switching to B/F/TAF, specifically in a globally distributed trial population of women. METHODS:In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, noninferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02652624), women living with HIV who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL) on a regimen containing either TAF or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were randomly assigned (1:1) to switch to B/F/TAF (50/200/25 mg) or stay on baseline regimen (SBR) once daily for 48 weeks. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (U.S. Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm); prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%. FINDINGS:We randomized 472 participants and treated 470 (234 B/F/TAF, 236 SBR). Switching to B/F/TAF was noninferior to SBR for the primary outcome, as 1.7% (4/234) vs 1.7% (4/236) had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (difference 0.0%, 95.001% confidence interval: -2.9% to 2.9%). No individual receiving B/F/TAF developed treatment-emergent resistance. Both treatments were well-tolerated; no participant discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. INTERPRETATION:Fixed-dose combination B/F/TAF provides a safe and efficacious option for ongoing treatment of HIV in women. This study contributes important data on safety, tolerability, and outcomes of antiretroviral therapy among women living with HIV.

BACKGROUND Although several experimental therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been developed, the safety and efficacy of the most promising therapies need to be assessed in the context of a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS We conducted a trial of four investigational therapies for EVD in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an outbreak began in August 2018. Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled. All patients received standard care and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to intravenous administration of the triple monoclonal antibody ZMapp (the control group), the antiviral agent remdesivir, the single monoclonal antibody MAb114, or the triple monoclonal antibody REGN-EB3. The REGN-EB3 group was added in a later version of the protocol, so data from these patients were compared with those of patients in the ZMapp group who were enrolled at or after the time the REGN-EB3 group was added (the ZMapp subgroup). The primary end point was death at 28 days. RESULTS A total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P=0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P = 0.002). A shorter duration of symptoms before admission and lower baseline values for viral load and for serum creatinine and aminotransferase levels each correlated with improved survival. Four serious adverse events were judged to be potentially related to the trial drugs. CONCLUSIONS Both MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Scientifically and ethically sound clinical research can be conducted during disease outbreaks and can help inform the outbreak response.