OBJECTIVES:Poorly targeted antibiotic use in primary care is a driver of antimicrobial resistance. Electronic clinical decision support algorithms (eCDSAs) integrating point-of-care tests may improve prescribing. We evaluated the impact of an eCDSA on antibiotic prescriptions among febrile patients attending primary health centres in Cambodia. METHODS:In this cluster randomised controlled trial, 30 PHCs in Battambang Province were randomised (1:1) to either adopt the eCDSA or routine care. The eCDSA integrated clinical assessment with pulse oximetry and C-reactive protein tests. Patients aged ≥1 year with acute febrile illness were eligible. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics, using an age- and sex-adjusted generalised linear mixed model, incorporating PHC as a random effect. Secondary outcomes included hospital referral rates and self-reported recovery at 7 and 14 days. RESULTS:Between May 2024 and January 2025, 4752 patients were enrolled (2324 intervention; 2428 control). Crude proportions of patients prescribed antibiotics were 56.1% and 60.5% in intervention and control arms, respectively. No difference in prescribing rates between the arms was detected (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.64; 95% CI: 0.20-1.99; P = 0.44). Among patients for whom the eCDSA did not recommend antibiotics, almost half (45.6%) received a prescription. Hospital referral was rare (2.0%) and most patients reported full recovery within 7 days (94.3%). CONCLUSION:This eCDSA did not reduce antibiotic prescription in this setting. Relatively low adherence to the eCDSA's recommendations suggests that, to support a change in prescribing behaviour, future iterations of this intervention should incorporate enhanced training, greater adaptation to local health sector, and deeper engagement with frontline healthcare workers.

Background: Ensitrelvir is an oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19 with the same molecular target as ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir - the current oral first-line treatment. There have been no direct comparisons between the two drugs. Methods: In an open label controlled adaptive pharmacometric platform trial, low-risk adult patients aged 18-60 years with early symptomatic COVID-19 (<4 days of symptoms) were randomised concurrently to one of eight treatment arms including ensitrelvir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and no study drug. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), defined as patients with >3 days of follow-up. Viral clearance rate was derived under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over five days (14 measurements). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ([NCT05041907][1]). Findings: Between March 2023 and April 2024 the three study arms randomised 604 patients concurrently in Thailand and Lao PDR (ensitrelvir 202; ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir 207; no study drug 195) among 903 patients enrolled. All patients recovered uneventfully. Ensitrelvir was very well tolerated and did not cause dysgeusia. Median (interquartile range) estimated SARS-CoV-2 clearance half-lives were 5.9 hours (4.0 to 8.6) with ensitrelvir; 5.2 hours (3.8 to 6.6) with nirmatrelvir; and 11.6 hours (8.1 to 14.5) with no study drug. Viral clearance following ensitrelvir was 82% (95% credible interval, CrI: 61 to 104%) faster than no study drug and 16% (95% CrI: 5 to 25%) slower than ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Viral rebound occurred in 15 (7%) of the nirmatrelvir group and 10 (5%) of the ensitrelvir group (p=0.4). Conclusions: Both ensitrelvir and nirmatrelvir markedly accelerate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance. Ensitrelvir is an efficacious and well tolerated alternative to currently available antivirals in treating COVID-19. Funding: Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV) is supported by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Trial NCT05041907 ### Funding Statement Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV) is supported by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The trial was approved by local and national research ethics boards in Thailand (Faculty of Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee, Mahidol University FTMEC Ref: TMEC 21-058, approval number MUTM 2021-057-03) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC, Bangkok, Thailand, CREC Ref: CREC048/64BP-MED34) in Laos by the National Ethics Committee for Health Research (NECHR Lao PDR, Submission ID 2022.48) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA, Lao PDR, 13066/FDD_12Dec2022) and by the Oxford University Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC, Oxford, UK, OxTREC Ref: 24-21). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced are available online at https://github.com/jwatowatson/PLATCOV-Ensitrelvir [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT05041907&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F05%2F21%2F2025.05.18.25327861.atom

Background:The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine and fluvoxamine were repurposed for the treatment of early COVID-19 based on their antiviral activity in vitro, and observational and clinical trial evidence suggesting they prevented progression to severe disease. However, these SSRIs have not been recommended in therapeutic guidelines and their antiviral activity in vivo has not been characterised. Methods:PLATCOV is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial running in Thailand, Brazil, Pakistan, and Laos. We recruited low-risk adult outpatients aged 18-50 with early symptomatic COVID-19 (symptoms <4 days) between 5 April 2022 and 8 May 2023. Patients were assigned using block randomisation to one of eleven treatment arms including oral fluoxetine (40 mg/day for 7 days), or no study drug. Uniform randomisation ratios were applied across the active treatment groups while the no study drug group comprised ≥20% of patients at all times. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed until day 7. Measurements were taken daily between days 0 and 7 and analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population (>2 days follow-up).The viral clearance rate was estimated under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log10 viral densities measured in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over one week (18 measurements per patient). Secondary endpoints were all-cause hospital admission at 28 days, and time to resolution of fever and symptoms. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). Findings:271 patients were concurrently randomised to either fluoxetine (n = 120) or no study drug (n = 151). All patients had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and 67% were female (182/271). In the primary analysis, viral clearance rates following fluoxetine were compatible with a small or no increase relative to the no study drug arm (15% increase; 95% credible interval (CrI): -2 to 34%). There were no deaths or hospitalisations in either arm. There were no significant differences in times to symptom resolution or fever clearance between the fluoxetine and the no study drug arms (although only a quarter of patients were febrile at baseline). Fluoxetine was well tolerated, there were no serious adverse events and only one grade 3 adverse event in the intervention arm. Interpretation:Overall, the evidence from this study is compatible with fluoxetine having a weak in vivo antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, although the primary endpoint is also compatible with no effect. This level of antiviral efficacy is substantially less than with other currently available antiviral drugs. Funding:Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

BACKGROUND:Ensitrelvir is an oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19 with the same molecular target (the main protease) as ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir-the current oral first-line treatment. We aimed to compare the clinical antiviral effects of the two drugs. METHODS:In an open-label, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial, low-risk adult outpatients aged 18-60 years with early symptomatic COVID-19 (<4 days of symptoms) were recruited from hospital acute respiratory infection clinics in Thailand and Laos. Patients were randomly assigned in blocks (block sizes depended on the number of interventions available) to one of eight treatment groups, including oral ensitrelvir and oral ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir at standard doses, both given for 5 days, and no study drug. The primary endpoint was the oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance rate assessed between day 0 and day 5 in the modified intention-to-treat population (defined as patients with at least 2 days of follow-up). Patients had four oropharyngeal swabs taken on day 0 and two swabs taken daily from days 1 to 7, then on days 10 and 14. Viral clearance rates were derived under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to log10 viral densities in standardised paired oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over the 5 days (14 samples). An individual patient data meta-analysis of all small molecule drugs evaluated in this platform trial using published results was also performed, adjusting for temporal trends in viral clearance. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05041907. FINDINGS:Between March 17, 2023, and April 21, 2024, 604 of 903 patients enrolled were concurrently assigned to the three treatment groups (ensitrelvir n=202; ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir n=207; no study drug n=195). Median estimated SARS-CoV-2 clearance half-lives were 5·9 h (IQR 4·0-8·6) with ensitrelvir, 5·2 h (3·8-6·6) with nirmatrelvir, and 11·6 h (8·1-14·5) with no study drug. Viral clearance following ensitrelvir was 82% faster (95% credible interval 61-104) than no study drug and 16% slower (5-25) than ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. In the meta-analysis of all unblinded small molecule drugs evaluated in the platform trial, nirmatrelvir and ensitrelvir had the largest antiviral effects (1157 patients). Viral rebound occurred in 15 (7%) of 207 patients in the nirmatrelvir group and 10 (5%) of 202 in the ensitrelvir group (p=0·45). INTERPRETATION:Both ensitrelvir and nirmatrelvir accelerate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance. Ensitrelvir is an effective alternative to currently available antivirals in treating COVID-19. Although COVID-19 is now generally a mild disease, it still causes substantial morbidity, particularly in vulnerable groups, and new variants or other coronaviruses could still emerge with pandemic potential. Safe effective and affordable antivirals are needed, and these are best assessed initially in pharmacometric platform trials assessing viral clearance. FUNDING:Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Brief summary In early symptomatic COVID-19 treatment, high dose oral favipiravir did not accelerate viral clearance. Background Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries. Methods In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log 10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]), assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907) on 13/09/2021. Results In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients given favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug; a -1% (95% credible interval: -14 to 14%) difference. High dose favipiravir was well-tolerated. Interpretation Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. The viral clearance rate estimated from quantitative measurements of oropharyngeal eluate viral densities assesses the antiviral efficacy of drugs in vivo with comparatively few studied patients.

BACKGROUND:Uncertainty over the therapeutic benefit of parenteral remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in varying treatment guidelines. METHODS:In a multicenter open-label, controlled, adaptive, pharmacometric platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to 1 of 8 treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200 mg followed by 100 mg daily for 5 days) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) clearance (estimated under a linear model fit to the daily log10 viral densities, days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates, in a modified intention-to-treat population. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). RESULTS:The 2 study arms enrolled 131 patients (remdesivir n = 67, no study drug n = 64) and estimated viral clearance rates from a median of 18 swab samples per patient (a total of 2356 quantitative polymerase chain reactions). Under the linear model, compared with the contemporaneous control arm (no study drug), remdesivir accelerated mean estimated viral clearance by 42% (95% credible interval, 18%-73%). CONCLUSIONS:Parenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric assessment of therapeutics using the method described can determine in vivo clinical antiviral efficacy rapidly and efficiently.

Abstract Background: Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries. Methods: In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT) was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907). Results: In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients administered favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug -1% (95% CI: -14 to 14% change). High dose favipiravir was well tolerated. Interpretation: Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19.

Background: There is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infections. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has clinically significant antiviral activity in vivo is uncertain. Methods: In a multicentre open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of six treatment arms including high-dose oral ivermectin (600 µg/kg daily for 7 days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600 mg/600 mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the comparison of viral clearance rates in the modified intention-to-treat population. This was derived from daily log 10 viral densities in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing trial is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT05041907). Results: Randomization to the ivermectin arm was stopped after enrolling 205 patients into all arms, as the prespecified futility threshold was reached. Following ivermectin, the mean estimated rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance was 9.1% slower (95% confidence interval [CI] –27.2% to +11.8%; n=45) than in the no drug arm (n=41), whereas in a preliminary analysis of the casirivimab/imdevimab arm it was 52.3% faster (95% CI +7.0% to +115.1%; n=10 (Delta variant) vs. n=41). Conclusions: High-dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric evaluation of viral clearance rate from frequent serial oropharyngeal qPCR viral density estimates is a highly efficient and well-tolerated method of assessing SARS-CoV-2 antiviral therapeutics in vivo. Funding: ‘Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV)’ is supported by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. Clinical trial number: NCT05041907 .

BACKGROUND:Molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir are the two leading oral COVID-19 antiviral treatments, but their antiviral activities in patients have not been compared directly. The aim of this ongoing platform trial is to compare different antiviral treatments using the rate of viral clearance as the measure of antiviral effect. METHODS:PLATCOV is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled, adaptive pharmacometric platform trial running in Thailand, Brazil, Pakistan, and Laos. The component of the trial reported here was conducted in the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We recruited low-risk adult patients aged 18-50 years with early symptomatic COVID-19 (<4 days of symptoms). Eligible patients were randomly assigned using block randomisation via a centralised web app to one of seven treatment groups: molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, casirivimab-imdevimab, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, favipiravir, fluoxetine, or no study drug. The no study drug group comprised a minimum proportion of 20% of patients at all times, with uniform randomisation ratios applied across the active treatment groups. Results for the concurrently randomised molnupiravir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and no study drug groups are reported here. The primary endpoint was the rate of oropharyngeal viral clearance assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as patients with more than 2 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed in all participants who took at least one dose of the medication. The viral clearance rate was derived under a Bayesian hierarchical linear model fitted to the log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 1 week (18 measurements). Treatment groups with a probability of more than 0·9 that viral clearance was accelerated by more than 20% compared with no drug entered a non-inferiority comparison (with a 10% non-inferiority margin) compared with the platform's current most effective drug. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05041907. FINDINGS:Between June 6, 2022, and Feb 23, 2023, 209 patients in Thailand were enrolled and concurrently randomly assigned to molnupiravir (n=65), ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (n=59), or no study drug (n=85). 129 (62%) of the patients were female and 80 (38%) were male. Relative to the no study drug group, the rates of viral clearance were 37% (95% credible interval 16-65) faster with molnupiravir and 84% (54-119) faster with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. In the non-inferiority comparison, viral clearance was 25% (10-38) slower with molnupiravir than ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Molnupiravir was removed from the study platform when it reached the prespecified inferiority margin of 10% compared with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir. Median estimated viral clearance half-lives were 8·5 h (IQR 6·7-10·1) with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, 11·6 h (8·6-15·4) with molnupiravir, and 15·5 h (11·9-21·2) with no study drug. Viral rebound occurred more frequently following nirmatrelvir (six [10%] of 58) compared with the no study drug (one [1%] of 84; p=0·018) or the molnupiravir (one [2%] of 65; p=0·051) groups. Persistent infections following molnupiravir had more viral mutations (three of nine patients had an increased number of single nucleotide polymorphisms in samples collected at 7 or more days compared with those at baseline) than after nirmatrelvir (zero of three) or no study drug (zero of 19). There were no adverse events of grade 3 or worse, or serious adverse events in any of the reported treatment groups. INTERPRETATION:Both molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir accelerate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in patients with COVID-19, but the antiviral effect of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir was substantially greater. Measurement of oropharyngeal viral clearance rates provides a rapid and well tolerated approach to the assessment and comparison of antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19. It should be evaluated in other acute viral respiratory infections. FUNDING:Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

BACKGROUND:In locations where few people have received coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, health systems remain vulnerable to surges in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Tools to identify patients suitable for community-based management are urgently needed. METHODS:We prospectively recruited adults presenting to 2 hospitals in India with moderate symptoms of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 to develop and validate a clinical prediction model to rule out progression to supplemental oxygen requirement. The primary outcome was defined as any of the following: SpO2 < 94%; respiratory rate > 30 BPM; SpO2/FiO2 < 400; or death. We specified a priori that each model would contain three clinical parameters (age, sex, and SpO2) and 1 of 7 shortlisted biochemical biomarkers measurable using commercially available rapid tests (C-reactive protein [CRP], D-dimer, interleukin 6 [IL-6], neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], procalcitonin [PCT], soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cell-1 [sTREM-1], or soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor [suPAR]), to ensure the models would be suitable for resource-limited settings. We evaluated discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the models in a held-out temporal external validation cohort. RESULTS:In total, 426 participants were recruited, of whom 89 (21.0%) met the primary outcome; 257 participants comprised the development cohort, and 166 comprised the validation cohort. The 3 models containing NLR, suPAR, or IL-6 demonstrated promising discrimination (c-statistics: 0.72-0.74) and calibration (calibration slopes: 1.01-1.05) in the validation cohort and provided greater utility than a model containing the clinical parameters alone. CONCLUSIONS:We present 3 clinical prediction models that could help clinicians identify patients with moderate COVID-19 suitable for community-based management. The models are readily implementable and of particular relevance for locations with limited resources.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThere is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has significant antiviral activity in vivo is uncertain.MethodsIn a multicentre open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of six treatment arms including high dose ivermectin (600µg/kg daily for seven days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. Viral clearance rates were derived from daily duplicate oropharyngeal quantitative PCR measurements. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907).ResultsRandomization to the ivermectin arm was stopped after enrolling 205 patients into all arms, as the prespecified futility threshold was reached. Compared with the no study drug arm, the mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance following ivermectin was 9.1% slower [95%CI -27.2% to +11.8%; n=45 versus n=41], whereas in a preliminary analysis of the casirivimab/imdevimab arm it was 52.3% faster [95%CI +7.0% to +115.1%; n=10 (Delta variant) versus n=41].ConclusionsHigh dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Measured in this way viral clearance rate is a valuable pharmacodynamic measure in assessing antiviral COVID-19 therapeutics in vivo.Funding“Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV)” is funded by the Wellcome Therapeutics Accelerator (223195/Z/21/Z).ImpactRate of viral clearance determined from daily duplicate oropharyngeal swabs over one week is an efficient measure of antiviral efficacy in early COVID-19 infection.High dose ivermectin did not demonstrate measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

BackgroundUncertainty over the therapeutic benefit provided by parenteral remdesivir in COVID-19 has resulted in varying treatment guidelines. Early in the pandemic the monoclonal antibody cocktail, casirivimab/imdevimab, proved highly effective in clinical trials but because of weak or absentin vitroactivity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 subvariant, it is no longer recommended.MethodsIn a multicenter open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of eight treatment arms including intravenous remdesivir (200mg followed by 100mg daily for five days), casirivimab/imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the viral clearance rate in the modified intention-to-treat population derived from daily log10viral densities (days 0-7) in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing adaptive trial is registered atClinicalTrials.gov(NCT05041907).ResultsAcceleration in mean estimated SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance, compared with the contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=64), was 42% (95%CI 18 to 73%) for remdesivir (n=67). Acceleration with casirivimab/imdevimab was 58% (95%CI: 10 to 120) in Delta (n=13), and 20% (95%CI: 3 to 43) in Omicron variant (n=61) infections compared with contemporaneous no study drug arm (n=84). In apost hocsubgroup analysis viral clearance was accelerated by 8% in BA.1 (95%CI: −21 to 59) and 23% (95%CI: 3 to 49) in BA.2 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants.ConclusionsParenteral remdesivir accelerates viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. Despite substantially reducedin vitroactivities, casirivimab/imdevimab retainsin vivoantiviral activity against COVID-19 infections caused by currently prevalent Omicron subvariants.Brief summaryIn early symptomatic COVID-19 remdesivir accelerated viral clearance by 42% while the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab accelerated clearance by approximately 60% in SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infections, and by approximately 25% in infections with Omicron subvariants BA.2 and BA.5.

There is no proven preventative therapy or vaccine against COVID-19. Theinfection has spread rapidly and there has already been a substantial adverse impact on the global economy. Healthcare workers have been affected disproportionately in the continuing pandemic. Significant infection rates in this critical group have resulted in a breakdown of health services in some countries. Chloroquine, and the closely related hydroxychloroquine, are safe and well tolerated medications which can be given for years without adverse effects. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have significant antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, and despite the lack of benefit of hydroxychloroquine treatment in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19, these drugs could still work in prevention. The emerging infection paradigm of an early viral peak, and late inflammation where there is benefit from corticosteroids. If these direct actiing antivirals are to work, they have the best chance given either early in infection and before infection occurs. We describe the study protocol for a multi-centre, multi-country randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial to answer the question- can chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevent COVID-19. 40,000 participants working in healthcare facilities or involved in the management of COVID-19 will be randomised 1:1 to receive chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine or matched placebo as daily prophylaxis for three months. The primary objective is the prevention of symptomatic, virological or serologically proven coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The study could detect a 23% reduction from an incidence of 3% in the placebo group for either drug with 80% power. Secondary objectives are to determine if chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis attenuates severity, prevents asymptomaticCOVID-19 and symptomatic acute respiratory infections of another aetiology (non-SARS-CoV-2).

There is no proven preventative therapy or vaccine against COVID-19. Theinfection has spread rapidly and there has already been a substantial adverse impact on the global economy. Healthcare workers have been affected disproportionately in the continuing pandemic. Significant infection rates in this critical group have resulted in a breakdown of health services in some countries. Chloroquine, and the closely related hydroxychloroquine, are safe and well tolerated medications which can be given for years without adverse effects. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have significant antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, and despite the lack of benefit of hydroxychloroquine treatment in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19, these drugs could still work in prevention. The emerging infection paradigm of an early viral peak, and late inflammation where there is benefit from corticosteroids. If these direct actiing antivirals are to work, they have the best chance given either early in infection and before infection occurs. We describe the study protocol for a multi-centre, multi-country randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial to answer the question- can chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevent COVID-19. 40,000 participants working in healthcare facilities or involved in the management of COVID-19 will be randomised 1:1 to receive chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine or matched placebo as daily prophylaxis for three months. The primary objective is the prevention of symptomatic, virological or serologically proven coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The study could detect a 23% reduction from an incidence of 3% in the placebo group for either drug with 80% power. Secondary objectives are to determine if chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis attenuates severity, prevents asymptomaticCOVID-19 and symptomatic acute respiratory infections of another aetiology (non-SARS-CoV-2).

The essential oil of Zingiber cassumunar (Plai oil) exhibits antimicrobial activity against a wide range of Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria, dermatophytes and yeasts. Dermatophytes were found to be the most susceptible microorganisms followed by yeasts, whereas bacteria were the least susceptible. The mean diameter of the inhibition zone determined by the disc diffusion screening method increased with increasing Plai oil concentration between 6.25 and 50 vol %. The minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) determined by the broth macrodilution method ranged from 0.62 to 2.5 vol % for Plai oil and from 52 to 79 mg/mL for the 5 wt % Plai oil gel, whereas the minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) ranged from 0.31 to 1.25 vol % for Plai oil and from 13.8 to 39.5 mg/mL for the 5% Plai oil gel. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.