Showing papers on "Placebo published in 2022"

Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients

Abstract: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29.A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group.Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients

Abstract: Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain.We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19-related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28.A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P = 0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19-related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group.Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12.).

Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity in people with type 2 diabetes (SURMOUNT-2): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Abstract: BACKGROUND Obesity is a chronic disease that results in substantial global morbidity and mortality. The efficacy and safety of tirzepatide, a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in people with obesity are not known. METHODS In this phase 3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned 2539 adults with a body-mass index (BMI; the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or more, or 27 or more and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks, including a 20-week dose-escalation period. Coprimary end points were the percentage change in weight from baseline and a weight reduction of 5% or more. The treatment-regimen estimand assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS At baseline, the mean body weight was 104.8 kg, the mean BMI was 38.0, and 94.5% of participants had a BMI of 30 or higher. The mean percentage change in weight at week 72 was -15.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], -15.9 to -14.2) with 5-mg weekly doses of tirzepatide, -19.5% (95% CI, -20.4 to -18.5) with 10-mg doses, and -20.9% (95% CI, -21.8 to -19.9) with 15-mg doses and -3.1% (95% CI, -4.3 to -1.9) with placebo (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). The percentage of participants who had weight reduction of 5% or more was 85% (95% CI, 82 to 89), 89% (95% CI, 86 to 92), and 91% (95% CI, 88 to 94) with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg of tirzepatide, respectively, and 35% (95% CI, 30 to 39) with placebo; 50% (95% CI, 46 to 54) and 57% (95% CI, 53 to 61) of participants in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups had a reduction in body weight of 20% or more, as compared with 3% (95% CI, 1 to 5) in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). Improvements in all prespecified cardiometabolic measures were observed with tirzepatide. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and most were mild to moderate in severity, occurring primarily during dose escalation. Adverse events caused treatment discontinuation in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide doses and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this 72-week trial in participants with obesity, 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly provided substantial and sustained reductions in body weight. (Supported by Eli Lilly; SURMOUNT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04184622.).

Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction

Abstract: Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death among patients with chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in patients with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction remains less certain. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. We randomly assigned 6263 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (which was defined as either an unplanned hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit for heart failure) or cardiovascular death, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. Over a median of 2.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 512 of 3131 patients (16.4%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 610 of 3132 patients (19.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.92; P<0.001). Worsening heart failure occurred in 368 patients (11.8%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 455 patients (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.91); cardiovascular death occurred in 231 patients (7.4%) and 261 patients (8.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05). Total events and symptom burden were lower in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group. Results were similar among patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or more and those with a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 60%, and results were similar in prespecified subgroups, including patients with or without diabetes. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DELIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03619213.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYDapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Ejection Fraction of More Than 40% 01:53

Evaluation of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years of Age

Abstract: Safe, effective vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are urgently needed in children younger than 12 years of age.A phase 1, dose-finding study and an ongoing phase 2-3 randomized trial are being conducted to investigate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered 21 days apart in children 6 months to 11 years of age. We present results for 5-to-11-year-old children. In the phase 2-3 trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive two doses of either the BNT162b2 vaccine at the dose level identified during the open-label phase 1 study or placebo. Immune responses 1 month after the second dose of BNT162b2 were immunologically bridged to those in 16-to-25-year-olds from the pivotal trial of two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 at 7 days or more after the second dose was assessed.During the phase 1 study, a total of 48 children 5 to 11 years of age received 10 μg, 20 μg, or 30 μg of the BNT162b2 vaccine (16 children at each dose level). On the basis of reactogenicity and immunogenicity, a dose level of 10 μg was selected for further study. In the phase 2-3 trial, a total of 2268 children were randomly assigned to receive the BNT162b2 vaccine (1517 children) or placebo (751 children). At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 2.3 months. In the 5-to-11-year-olds, as in other age groups, the BNT162b2 vaccine had a favorable safety profile. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were noted. One month after the second dose, the geometric mean ratio of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing titers in 5-to-11-year-olds to those in 16-to-25-year-olds was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.18), a ratio meeting the prespecified immunogenicity success criterion (lower bound of two-sided 95% CI, >0.67; geometric mean ratio point estimate, ≥0.8). Covid-19 with onset 7 days or more after the second dose was reported in three recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine and in 16 placebo recipients (vaccine efficacy, 90.7%; 95% CI, 67.7 to 98.3).A Covid-19 vaccination regimen consisting of two 10-μg doses of BNT162b2 administered 21 days apart was found to be safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in children 5 to 11 years of age. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04816643.).

Event-free Survival with Pembrolizumab in Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Abstract: The addition of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy led to a significantly higher percentage of patients with early triple-negative breast cancer having a pathological complete response (defined as no invasive cancer in the breast and negative nodes) at definitive surgery in an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy. The primary results regarding event-free survival in this trial have not been reported.We randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After definitive surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo (placebo-chemotherapy group) every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles. The primary end points were pathological complete response (the results for which have been reported previously) and event-free survival, defined as the time from randomization to the date of disease progression that precluded definitive surgery, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, or death from any cause. Safety was also assessed.Of the 1174 patients who underwent randomization, 784 were assigned to the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 390 to the placebo-chemotherapy group. The median follow-up at this fourth planned interim analysis (data cutoff, March 23, 2021) was 39.1 months. The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.7 to 86.9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, as compared with 76.8% (95% CI, 72.2 to 80.7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82; P<0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.In patients with early triple-negative breast cancer, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab after surgery, resulted in significantly longer event-free survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-522 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036488.).

Five-Year Survival Outcomes From the PACIFIC Trial: Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract: The phase III PACIFIC trial compared durvalumab with placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Consolidation durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87; P = .00251) and progression-free survival (PFS [blinded independent central review; RECIST v1.1]; stratified HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .0001), with manageable safety. We report updated, exploratory analyses of survival, approximately 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned.Patients with WHO performance status 0 or 1 (any tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status) were randomly assigned (2:1) to durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; administered once every 2 weeks for 12 months) or placebo, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Time-to-event end point analyses were performed using stratified log-rank tests. Medians and landmark survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.Seven hundred and nine of 713 randomly assigned patients received durvalumab (473 of 476) or placebo (236 of 237). As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up, 34.2 months [all patients]; 61.6 months [censored patients]), updated OS (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; median, 47.5 v 29.1 months) and PFS (stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; median, 16.9 v 5.6 months) remained consistent with the primary analyses. Estimated 5-year rates (95% CI) for durvalumab and placebo were 42.9% (38.2 to 47.4) versus 33.4% (27.3 to 39.6) for OS and 33.1% (28.0 to 38.2) versus 19.0% (13.6 to 25.2) for PFS.These updated analyses demonstrate robust and sustained OS and durable PFS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive at 5 years and 33.1% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive and free of disease progression, establishing a new benchmark for standard of care in this setting.

Efficacy and safety of three new oral antiviral treatment (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) for COVID-19：a meta-analysis

Abstract: Abstract Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic has not been completely controlled. Although great achievements have been made in COVID-19 research and many antiviral drugs have shown good therapeutic effects against COVID-19, a simple oral antiviral drug for COVID-19 has not yet been developed. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the improvement in mortality or hospitalization rates and adverse events among COVID-19 patients with three new oral antivirals (including molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid). Methods We searched scientific and medical databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library for relevant articles and screened the references of retrieved studies on COVID-19. Results A total of eight studies were included in this study. The drug group included 2440 COVID-19 patients, including 54 patients who died or were hospitalized. The control group included a total of 2348 COVID-19 patients, including 118 patients who died or were hospitalized. The overall odds ratio (OR) of mortality or hospitalization was 0.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.49) for COVID-19 patients in the drug group and placebo group, indicating that oral antiviral drugs were effective for COVID-19 patients and reduced the mortality or hospitalization by approximately 67%. Conclusions This study showed that three novel oral antivirals (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) are effective in reducing the mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with COVID-19. In addition, the three oral drugs did not increase the occurrence of adverse events, thus exhibiting good overall safety. These three oral antiviral drugs are still being studied, and the available data suggest that they will bring new hope for COVID-19 recovery and have the potential to be a breakthrough and very promising treatment for COVID-19. KEY MESSAGES Many antiviral drugs have shown good therapeutic effects, and there is no simple oral antiviral drug for COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis was conducted for three new oral antivirals to evaluate the improvement in mortality or hospitalization rates and adverse events among COVID-19 patients. We focussed on three new oral Coronavirus agents (molnupiravir, fluvoxamine and Paxlovid) and hope to provide guidance for the roll-out of oral antivirals.

Darolutamide and Survival in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Abstract: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown.In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival.The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively).In this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.).

The SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: a multinational randomized trial

Abstract: The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure, but whether empagliflozin also improves clinical outcomes when initiated in patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure is unknown. In this double-blind trial (EMPULSE; NCT04157751 ), 530 patients with a primary diagnosis of acute de novo or decompensated chronic heart failure regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo. Patients were randomized in-hospital when clinically stable (median time from hospital admission to randomization, 3 days) and were treated for up to 90 days. The primary outcome of the trial was clinical benefit, defined as a hierarchical composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events and time to first heart failure event, or a 5 point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days, as assessed using a win ratio. More patients treated with empagliflozin had clinical benefit compared with placebo (stratified win ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68; P = 0.0054), meeting the primary endpoint. Clinical benefit was observed for both acute de novo and decompensated chronic heart failure and was observed regardless of ejection fraction or the presence or absence of diabetes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated; serious adverse events were reported in 32.3% and 43.6% of the empagliflozin- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. These findings indicate that initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure is well tolerated and results in significant clinical benefit in the 90 days after starting treatment.

Two Randomized Phase 3 Studies of Aducanumab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease

Abstract: Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive, irreversible, and fatal disease for which accumulation of amyloid beta is thought to play a key role in pathogenesis. Aducanumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against aggregated soluble and insoluble forms of amyloid beta. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of aducanumab in early Alzheimer’s disease. EMERGE and ENGAGE were two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, global, phase 3 studies of aducanumab in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. These studies involved 348 sites in 20 countries. Participants included 1638 (EMERGE) and 1647 (ENGAGE) patients (aged 50–85 years, confirmed amyloid pathology) who met clinical criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease or mild Alzheimer's disease dementia, of which 1812 (55.2%) completed the study. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive aducanumab low dose (3 or 6 mg/kg target dose), high dose (10 mg/kg target dose), or placebo via IV infusion once every 4 weeks over 76 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to week 78 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), an integrated scale that assesses both function and cognition. Other measures included safety assessments; secondary and tertiary clinical outcomes that assessed cognition, function, and behavior; and biomarker endpoints. EMERGE and ENGAGE were halted based on futility analysis of data pooled from the first approximately 50% of enrolled patients; subsequent efficacy analyses included data from a larger data set collected up to futility declaration and followed prespecified statistical analyses. The primary endpoint was met in EMERGE (difference of -0.39 for high-dose aducanumab vs placebo [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.09; P=.012; 22% decrease]) but not in ENGAGE (difference of 0.03, [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.33; P=.833; 2% increase]). Results of biomarker substudies confirmed target engagement and dose-dependent reduction in markers of Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology. The most common adverse event was amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema. Data from EMERGE demonstrated a statistically significant change across all four primary and secondary clinical endpoints. ENGAGE did not meet its primary or secondary endpoints. A dose-and time-dependent reduction in pathophysiological markers of Alzheimer’s disease was observed in both trials.

Immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, and immune persistence of a two-dose schedule, in healthy adults: interim results from two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials

Abstract: BackgroundLarge-scale vaccination against COVID-19 is being implemented in many countries with CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine. We aimed to assess the immune persistence of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, in healthy adults aged 18 years and older.MethodsIn the first of two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials, adults aged 18–59 years in Jiangsu, China, were initially allocated (1:1) into two vaccination schedule cohorts: a day 0 and day 14 vaccination cohort (cohort 1) and a day 0 and day 28 vaccination cohort (cohort 2); each cohort was randomly assigned (2:2:1) to either a 3 μg dose or 6 μg dose of CoronaVac or a placebo group. Following a protocol amendment on Dec 25, 2020, half of the participants in each cohort were allocated to receive an additional dose 28 days (window period 30 days) after the second dose, and the other half were allocated to receive a third dose 6 months (window period 60 days) after the second dose. In the other phase 2 trial, in Hebei, China, participants aged 60 years and older were assigned sequentially to receive three injections of either 1·5 μg, 3 μg, or 6 μg of vaccine or placebo, administered 28 days apart for the first two doses and 6 months (window period 90 days) apart for doses two and three. The main outcomes of the study were geometric mean titres (GMTs), geometric mean increases (GMIs), and seropositivity of neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 (virus strain SARS-CoV-2/human/CHN/CN1/2020, GenBank accession number MT407649.1), as analysed in the per-protocol population (all participants who completed their assigned third dose). Our reporting is focused on the 3 μg groups, since 3 μg is the licensed formulation. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04352608 and NCT04383574.Findings540 (90%) of 600 participants aged 18–59 years were eligible to receive a third dose, of whom 269 (50%) received the primary third dose 2 months after the second dose (cohorts 1a-14d-2m and 2a-28d-2m) and 271 (50%) received a booster dose 8 months after the second dose (cohorts 1b-14d-8m and 2b-28d-8m). In the 3 μg group, neutralising antibody titres induced by the first two doses declined after 6 months to near or below the seropositive cutoff (GMT of 8) for cohort 1b-14d-8m (n=53; GMT 3·9 [95% CI 3·1–5·0]) and for cohort 2b-28d-8m (n=49; 6·8 [5·2–8·8]). When a booster dose was given 8 months after a second dose, GMTs assessed 14 days later increased to 137·9 (95% CI 99·9–190·4) for cohort 1b-14d-8m and 143·1 (110·8–184·7) 28 days later for cohort 2b-28d-8m. GMTs moderately increased following a primary third dose, from 21·8 (95% CI 17·3–27·6) on day 28 after the second dose to 45·8 (35·7–58·9) on day 28 after the third dose in cohort 1a-14d-2m (n=54), and from 38·1 (28·4–51·1) to 49·7 (39·9–61·9) in cohort 2a-28d-2m (n=53). GMTs had decayed to near the positive threshold by 6 months after the third dose: GMT 9·2 (95% CI 7·1–12·0) in cohort 1a-14d-2m and 10·0 (7·3–13·7) in cohort 2a-28d-2m. Similarly, in adults aged 60 years and older who received booster doses (303 [87%] of 350 participants were eligible to receive a third dose), neutralising antibody titres had declined to near or below the seropositive threshold by 6 months after the primary two-dose series. A third dose given 8 months after the second dose significantly increased neutralising antibody concentrations: GMTs increased from 42·9 (95% CI 31·0–59·4) on day 28 after the second dose to 158·5 (96·6–259·2) on day 28 following the third dose (n=29). All adverse reactions reported within 28 days after a third dose were of grade 1 or 2 severity in all vaccination cohorts. There were three serious adverse events (2%) reported by the 150 participants in cohort 1a-14d-2m, four (3%) by 150 participants from cohort 1b-14d-8m, one (1%) by 150 participants in each of cohorts 2a-28d-2m and 2b-28d-8m, and 24 (7%) by 349 participants from cohort 3-28d-8m.InterpretationA third dose of CoronaVac in adults administered 8 months after a second dose effectively recalled specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, which had declined substantially 6 months after two doses of CoronaVac, resulting in a remarkable increase in the concentration of antibodies and indicating that a two-dose schedule generates good immune memory, and a primary third dose given 2 months after the second dose induced slightly higher antibody titres than the primary two doses.FundingNational Key Research and Development Program, Beijing Science and Technology Program, and Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China.TranslationFor the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. Large-scale vaccination against COVID-19 is being implemented in many countries with CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine. We aimed to assess the immune persistence of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, in healthy adults aged 18 years and older. In the first of two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials, adults aged 18–59 years in Jiangsu, China, were initially allocated (1:1) into two vaccination schedule cohorts: a day 0 and day 14 vaccination cohort (cohort 1) and a day 0 and day 28 vaccination cohort (cohort 2); each cohort was randomly assigned (2:2:1) to either a 3 μg dose or 6 μg dose of CoronaVac or a placebo group. Following a protocol amendment on Dec 25, 2020, half of the participants in each cohort were allocated to receive an additional dose 28 days (window period 30 days) after the second dose, and the other half were allocated to receive a third dose 6 months (window period 60 days) after the second dose. In the other phase 2 trial, in Hebei, China, participants aged 60 years and older were assigned sequentially to receive three injections of either 1·5 μg, 3 μg, or 6 μg of vaccine or placebo, administered 28 days apart for the first two doses and 6 months (window period 90 days) apart for doses two and three. The main outcomes of the study were geometric mean titres (GMTs), geometric mean increases (GMIs), and seropositivity of neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 (virus strain SARS-CoV-2/human/CHN/CN1/2020, GenBank accession number MT407649.1), as analysed in the per-protocol population (all participants who completed their assigned third dose). Our reporting is focused on the 3 μg groups, since 3 μg is the licensed formulation. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04352608 and NCT04383574. 540 (90%) of 600 participants aged 18–59 years were eligible to receive a third dose, of whom 269 (50%) received the primary third dose 2 months after the second dose (cohorts 1a-14d-2m and 2a-28d-2m) and 271 (50%) received a booster dose 8 months after the second dose (cohorts 1b-14d-8m and 2b-28d-8m). In the 3 μg group, neutralising antibody titres induced by the first two doses declined after 6 months to near or below the seropositive cutoff (GMT of 8) for cohort 1b-14d-8m (n=53; GMT 3·9 [95% CI 3·1–5·0]) and for cohort 2b-28d-8m (n=49; 6·8 [5·2–8·8]). When a booster dose was given 8 months after a second dose, GMTs assessed 14 days later increased to 137·9 (95% CI 99·9–190·4) for cohort 1b-14d-8m and 143·1 (110·8–184·7) 28 days later for cohort 2b-28d-8m. GMTs moderately increased following a primary third dose, from 21·8 (95% CI 17·3–27·6) on day 28 after the second dose to 45·8 (35·7–58·9) on day 28 after the third dose in cohort 1a-14d-2m (n=54), and from 38·1 (28·4–51·1) to 49·7 (39·9–61·9) in cohort 2a-28d-2m (n=53). GMTs had decayed to near the positive threshold by 6 months after the third dose: GMT 9·2 (95% CI 7·1–12·0) in cohort 1a-14d-2m and 10·0 (7·3–13·7) in cohort 2a-28d-2m. Similarly, in adults aged 60 years and older who received booster doses (303 [87%] of 350 participants were eligible to receive a third dose), neutralising antibody titres had declined to near or below the seropositive threshold by 6 months after the primary two-dose series. A third dose given 8 months after the second dose significantly increased neutralising antibody concentrations: GMTs increased from 42·9 (95% CI 31·0–59·4) on day 28 after the second dose to 158·5 (96·6–259·2) on day 28 following the third dose (n=29). All adverse reactions reported within 28 days after a third dose were of grade 1 or 2 severity in all vaccination cohorts. There were three serious adverse events (2%) reported by the 150 participants in cohort 1a-14d-2m, four (3%) by 150 participants from cohort 1b-14d-8m, one (1%) by 150 participants in each of cohorts 2a-28d-2m and 2b-28d-8m, and 24 (7%) by 349 participants from cohort 3-28d-8m. A third dose of CoronaVac in adults administered 8 months after a second dose effectively recalled specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, which had declined substantially 6 months after two doses of CoronaVac, resulting in a remarkable increase in the concentration of antibodies and indicating that a two-dose schedule generates good immune memory, and a primary third dose given 2 months after the second dose induced slightly higher antibody titres than the primary two doses.

Effect of Sotrovimab on Hospitalization or Death Among High-risk Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Older patients and those with comorbidities who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be at increased risk of hospitalization and death. Sotrovimab is a neutralizing antibody for the treatment of high-risk patients to prevent COVID-19 progression. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of sotrovimab in preventing progression of mild to moderate COVID-19 to severe disease. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial including 1057 nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild to moderate COVID-19 and at least 1 risk factor for progression conducted at 57 sites in Brazil, Canada, Peru, Spain, and the US from August 27, 2020, through March 11, 2021; follow-up data were collected through April 8, 2021. Interventions Patients were randomized (1:1) to an intravenous infusion with 500 mg of sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with COVID-19 progression through day 29 (all-cause hospitalization lasting >24 hours for acute illness management or death); 5 secondary outcomes were tested in hierarchal order, including a composite of all-cause emergency department (ED) visit, hospitalization of any duration for acute illness management, or death through day 29 and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation. Results Enrollment was stopped early for efficacy at the prespecified interim analysis. Among 1057 patients randomized (median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-62], 20% were ≥65 years of age, and 65% Latinx), the median duration of follow-up was 103 days for sotrovimab and 102 days for placebo. All-cause hospitalization lasting longer than 24 hours or death was significantly reduced with sotrovimab (6/528 [1%]) vs placebo (30/529 [6%]) (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.50]; absolute difference, -4.53% [95% CI, -6.70% to -2.37%]; P < .001). Four of the 5 secondary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of sotrovimab, including reduced ED visit, hospitalization, or death (13/528 [2%] for sotrovimab vs 39/529 [7%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.63]; absolute difference, -4.91% [95% CI, -7.50% to -2.32%]; P < .001) and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 (7/528 [1%] for sotrovimab vs 28/529 [5%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.59]; absolute difference, -3.97% [95% CI, -6.11% to -1.82%]; P = .002). Adverse events were infrequent and similar between treatment groups (22% for sotrovimab vs 23% for placebo); the most common events were diarrhea with sotrovimab (n = 8; 2%) and COVID-19 pneumonia with placebo (n = 22; 4%). Conclusions and Relevance Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of disease progression, a single intravenous dose of sotrovimab, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of a composite end point of all-cause hospitalization or death through day 29. The findings support sotrovimab as a treatment option for nonhospitalized, high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, although efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged since the study was completed is unknown. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04545060.

A phase 2a clinical trial of molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19 shows accelerated SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance and elimination of infectious virus

Abstract: There is an urgent need for an effective, oral, direct-acting therapeutic to block transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In a phase 2a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter clinical trial, we evaluated the safety, tolerability, and antiviral efficacy of the nucleoside analog molnupiravir in 202 unvaccinated participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptom duration <7 days. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive molnupiravir (200 mg) or placebo and then 3:1 to receive molnupiravir (400 or 800 mg) or placebo, orally twice daily for 5 days. Antiviral activity was assessed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs. Infectious virus was assessed by inoculation of cultured Vero cells with samples from nasopharyngeal swabs and was detected by RT-PCR. Time to viral RNA clearance (primary endpoint) was decreased in the 800-mg molnupiravir group (median 14 days) compared to the placebo group (median 15 days) (log rank P value = 0.013). Of participants receiving 800 mg of molnupiravir, 92.5% achieved viral RNA clearance compared with 80.3% of placebo recipients by study end (4 weeks). Infectious virus (secondary endpoint) was detected in swabs from 1.9% of the 800-mg molnupiravir group compared with 16.7% of the placebo group at day 3 of treatment (P = 0.016). At day 5 of treatment, infectious virus was not isolated from any participants receiving 400 or 800 mg of molnupiravir compared with 11.1% of placebo recipients (P = 0.034 and 0.027, respectively). Molnupiravir was well tolerated across all doses.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with HER2-negative, untreated, unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ATTRACTION-4): a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Abstract: Background The additive or synergistic sustained antitumour effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has previously been reported. We investigated the efficacy of nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with HER2-negative, unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. Methods We did a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2–3 trial (ATTRACTION-4) at 130 centres (hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres) across Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. We enrolled patients aged 20 years and older with previously untreated (except for neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy completed ≥180 days before recurrence), HER2-negative, unresectable, advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (regardless of PD-L1 expression), at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (version 1.1), and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to chemotherapy every 3 weeks (intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 plus either oral S-1 40 mg/m2 [SOX] or oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 [CAPOX], twice daily on days 1–14), in addition to either 360 mg nivolumab intravenously every 3 weeks (nivolumab plus chemotherapy group) or placebo (placebo plus chemotherapy group). Randomisation was done using an interactive web response system with block sizes of four and stratified by intensity of PD-L1 expression, ECOG performance status score, disease status, and geographical region. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were centrally assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02746796. Trial recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. Findings Between March 23, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 724 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 362 patients to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 362 to the placebo plus chemotherapy group. At the time of data cutoff on Oct 31, 2018, with a median follow-up of 11·6 months (IQR 8·7–14·1), median progression-free survival at a prespecified interim analysis was 10·45 months (95% CI 8·44–14·75) in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 8·34 months (6·97–9·40) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68; 98·51% CI 0·51–0·90; p=0·0007). At the time of data cutoff on Jan 31, 2020, with a median follow-up of 26·6 months (IQR 24·1–29·0), median overall survival at the final analysis was 17·45 months (95% CI 15·67–20·83) in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 17·15 months (15·18–19·65) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (HR 0·90; 95% CI 0·75–1·08; p=0·26). The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutrophil count decreased (71 [20%] of 359 patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group vs 57 [16%] of 358 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group) and platelet count decreased (34 [9%] vs 33 [9%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events of any grade were observed in 88 (25%) patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and in 51 (14%) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group, of which the most common was decreased appetite (18 [5%] vs ten [3%]). Six treatment-related deaths occurred: three in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group (one each of febrile neutropenia, hepatic failure, and sudden death) and three in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (one each of sepsis, haemolytic anaemia, and interstitial lung disease). Interpretation Nivolumab combined with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival, but not overall survival, in Asian patients with untreated, HER2-negative, unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer, and could potentially be a new first-line treatment option for these patients. Funding Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The additive or synergistic sustained antitumour effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has previously been reported. We investigated the efficacy of nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with HER2-negative, unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. We did a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2–3 trial (ATTRACTION-4) at 130 centres (hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres) across Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. We enrolled patients aged 20 years and older with previously untreated (except for neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy completed ≥180 days before recurrence), HER2-negative, unresectable, advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (regardless of PD-L1 expression), at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (version 1.1), and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to chemotherapy every 3 weeks (intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 plus either oral S-1 40 mg/m2 [SOX] or oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 [CAPOX], twice daily on days 1–14), in addition to either 360 mg nivolumab intravenously every 3 weeks (nivolumab plus chemotherapy group) or placebo (placebo plus chemotherapy group). Randomisation was done using an interactive web response system with block sizes of four and stratified by intensity of PD-L1 expression, ECOG performance status score, disease status, and geographical region. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were centrally assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02746796. Trial recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. Between March 23, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 724 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 362 patients to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 362 to the placebo plus chemotherapy group. At the time of data cutoff on Oct 31, 2018, with a median follow-up of 11·6 months (IQR 8·7–14·1), median progression-free survival at a prespecified interim analysis was 10·45 months (95% CI 8·44–14·75) in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 8·34 months (6·97–9·40) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68; 98·51% CI 0·51–0·90; p=0·0007). At the time of data cutoff on Jan 31, 2020, with a median follow-up of 26·6 months (IQR 24·1–29·0), median overall survival at the final analysis was 17·45 months (95% CI 15·67–20·83) in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 17·15 months (15·18–19·65) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (HR 0·90; 95% CI 0·75–1·08; p=0·26). The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutrophil count decreased (71 [20%] of 359 patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group vs 57 [16%] of 358 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group) and platelet count decreased (34 [9%] vs 33 [9%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events of any grade were observed in 88 (25%) patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and in 51 (14%) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group, of which the most common was decreased appetite (18 [5%] vs ten [3%]). Six treatment-related deaths occurred: three in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group (one each of febrile neutropenia, hepatic failure, and sudden death) and three in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (one each of sepsis, haemolytic anaemia, and interstitial lung disease). Nivolumab combined with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival, but not overall survival, in Asian patients with untreated, HER2-negative, unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer, and could potentially be a new first-line treatment option for these patients.

Nirsevimab for Prevention of RSV in Healthy Late-Preterm and Term Infants

Abstract: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of lower respiratory tract infection and hospitalization in infants. Nirsevimab is a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein that has an extended half-life. The efficacy and safety of nirsevimab in healthy late-preterm and term infants are uncertain. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. We randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, infants who had been born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo before the start of an RSV season. The primary efficacy end point was medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection through 150 days after the injection. The secondary efficacy end point was hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection through 150 days after the injection. A total of 1490 infants underwent randomization: 994 were assigned to the nirsevimab group and 496 to the placebo group. Medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 12 infants (1.2%) in the nirsevimab group and in 25 infants (5.0%) in the placebo group; these findings correspond to an efficacy of 74.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.6 to 87.1; P<0.001) for nirsevimab. Hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 6 infants (0.6%) in the nirsevimab group and in 8 infants (1.6%) in the placebo group (efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, −8.6 to 86.8; P=0.07). Among infants with data available to day 361, antidrug antibodies after baseline were detected in 58 of 951 (6.1%) in the nirsevimab group and in 5 of 473 (1.1%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 67 of 987 infants (6.8%) who received nirsevimab and in 36 of 491 infants (7.3%) who received placebo. A single injection of nirsevimab administered before the RSV season protected healthy late-preterm and term infants from medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi; MELODY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03979313.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYNirsevimab for RSV Prevention in Late-Preterm and Term Infants 01:37

Effect of Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide vs Daily Liraglutide on Body Weight in Adults With Overweight or Obesity Without Diabetes

Abstract: Phase 3 trials have not compared semaglutide and liraglutide, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues available for weight management.To compare the efficacy and adverse event profiles of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, vs once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (both with diet and physical activity), in people with overweight or obesity.Randomized, open-label, 68-week, phase 3b trial conducted at 19 US sites from September 2019 (enrollment: September 11-November 26) to May 2021 (end of follow-up: May 11) in adults with body mass index of 30 or greater or 27 or greater with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities, without diabetes (N = 338).Participants were randomized (3:1:3:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg (16-week escalation; n = 126), or matching placebo, or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (4-week escalation; n = 127), or matching placebo, plus diet and physical activity. Participants unable to tolerate 2.4 mg of semaglutide could receive 1.7 mg; participants unable to tolerate 3.0 mg of liraglutide discontinued treatment and could restart the 4-week titration. Placebo groups were pooled (n = 85).The primary end point was percentage change in body weight, and confirmatory secondary end points were achievement of 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss, assessed for semaglutide vs liraglutide at week 68. Semaglutide vs liraglutide comparisons were open-label, with active treatment groups double-blinded against matched placebo groups. Comparisons of active treatments vs pooled placebo were supportive secondary end points.Of 338 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 49 [13] years; 265 women [78.4%]; mean [SD] body weight, 104.5 [23.8] kg; mean [SD] body mass index, 37.5 [6.8]), 319 (94.4%) completed the trial, and 271 (80.2%) completed treatment. The mean weight change from baseline was -15.8% with semaglutide vs -6.4% with liraglutide (difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.8]; P < .001); weight change with pooled placebo was -1.9%. Participants had significantly greater odds of achieving 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss with semaglutide vs liraglutide (70.9% of participants vs 25.6% [odds ratio, 6.3 {95% CI, 3.5 to 11.2}], 55.6% vs 12.0% [odds ratio, 7.9 {95% CI, 4.1 to 15.4}], and 38.5% vs 6.0% [odds ratio, 8.2 {95% CI, 3.5 to 19.1}], respectively; all P < .001). Proportions of participants discontinuing treatment for any reason were 13.5% with semaglutide and 27.6% with liraglutide. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide.Among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, added to counseling for diet and physical activity, resulted in significantly greater weight loss at 68 weeks.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04074161.

Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer

Abstract: BackgroundPatients with advanced biliary tract cancer have a poor prognosis, and first-line standard of care (gemcitabine plus cisplatin) has remained unchanged for more than 10 years. The TOPAZ-1 trial evaluated durvalumab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.MethodsIn this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer or with recurrent disease 1:1 to receive durvalumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety.ResultsOverall, 685 patients were randomly assigned to durvalumab (n=341) or placebo (n=344) with chemotherapy. As of data cutoff, 198 patients (58.1%) in the durvalumab group and 226 patients (65.7%) in the placebo group had died. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.021). The estimated 24-month overall survival rate was 24.9% (95% CI, 17.9 to 32.5) for durvalumab and 10.4% (95% CI, 4.7 to 18.8) for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; P=0.001). Objective response rates were 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo. The incidences of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 75.7% and 77.8% with durvalumab and placebo, respectively.ConclusionsDurvalumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus chemotherapy and showed improvements versus placebo plus chemotherapy in prespecified secondary end points including progression-free survival and objective response rate. The safety profiles of the two treatment groups were similar. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03875235.)

Vitamin D and marine omega 3 fatty acid supplementation and incident autoimmune disease: VITAL randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Abstract Objective To investigate whether vitamin D and marine derived long chain omega 3 fatty acids reduce autoimmune disease risk. Design Vitamin D and omega 3 trial (VITAL), a nationwide, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design. Setting Nationwide in the United States. Participants 25 871 participants, consisting of 12 786 men ≥50 years and 13 085 women ≥55 years at enrollment. Interventions Vitamin D (2000 IU/day) or matched placebo, and omega 3 fatty acids (1000 mg/day) or matched placebo. Participants self-reported all incident autoimmune diseases from baseline to a median of 5.3 years of follow-up; these diseases were confirmed by extensive medical record review. Cox proportional hazard models were used to test the effects of vitamin D and omega 3 fatty acids on autoimmune disease incidence. Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was all incident autoimmune diseases confirmed by medical record review: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, autoimmune thyroid disease, psoriasis, and all others. Results 25 871 participants were enrolled and followed for a median of 5.3 years. 18 046 self-identified as non-Hispanic white, 5106 as black, and 2152 as other racial and ethnic groups. The mean age was 67.1 years. For the vitamin D arm, 123 participants in the treatment group and 155 in the placebo group had a confirmed autoimmune disease (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.99, P=0.05). In the omega 3 fatty acids arm, 130 participants in the treatment group and 148 in the placebo group had a confirmed autoimmune disease (0.85, 0.67 to 1.08, P=0.19). Compared with the reference arm (vitamin D placebo and omega 3 fatty acid placebo; 88 with confirmed autoimmune disease), 63 participants who received vitamin D and omega 3 fatty acids (0.69, 0.49 to 0.96), 60 who received only vitamin D (0.68, 0.48 to 0.94), and 67 who received only omega 3 fatty acids (0.74, 0.54 to 1.03) had confirmed autoimmune disease. Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation for five years, with or without omega 3 fatty acids, reduced autoimmune disease by 22%, while omega 3 fatty acid supplementation with or without vitamin D reduced the autoimmune disease rate by 15% (not statistically significant). Both treatment arms showed larger effects than the reference arm (vitamin D placebo and omega 3 fatty acid placebo). Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01351805 and NCT01169259

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in 2 Phase 3 Studies Evaluating Aducanumab in Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease

Abstract: The EMERGE and ENGAGE phase 3 randomized clinical trials of aducanumab provide a robust data set to characterize amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) that occur with treatment with aducanumab, an amyloid-β (Aβ)-targeting monoclonal antibody, in patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease or mild Alzheimer disease dementia.To describe the radiographic and clinical characteristics of ARIA that occurred in EMERGE and ENGAGE.Secondary analysis of data from the EMERGE and ENGAGE trials, which were 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 randomized clinical trials that compared low-dose and high-dose aducanumab treatment with placebo among participants at 348 sites across 20 countries. Enrollment occurred from August 2015 to July 2018, and the trials were terminated early (March 21, 2019) based on a futility analysis. The combined studies consisted of a total of 3285 participants with Alzheimer disease who received 1 or more doses of placebo (n = 1087) or aducanumab (n = 2198; 2752 total person-years of exposure) during the placebo-controlled period. Primary data analyses were performed from November 2019 to July 2020, with additional analyses performed through July 2021.Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to high-dose or low-dose intravenous aducanumab or placebo once every 4 weeks. Dose titration was used as a risk-minimization strategy.Brain magnetic resonance imaging was used to monitor patients for ARIA; associated symptoms were reported as adverse events.Of 3285 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.45) years; 1706 participants (52%) were female, 2661 (81%) had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, and 1777 (54%) used symptomatic medications for Alzheimer disease. A total of 764 participants from EMERGE and 709 participants from ENGAGE were categorized as withdrawn before study completion, most often owing to early termination of the study by the sponsor. Unless otherwise specified, all results represent analyses from the 10-mg/kg group. During the placebo-controlled period, 425 of 1029 patients (41.3%) experienced ARIA, with serious cases occurring in 14 patients (1.4%). ARIA-edema (ARIA-E) was the most common adverse event (362 of 1029 [35.2%]), and 263 initial events (72.7%) occurred within the first 8 doses of aducanumab; 94 participants (26.0%) with an event exhibited symptoms. Common associated symptoms among 103 patients with symptomatic ARIA-E or ARIA-H were headache (48 [46.6%]), confusion (15 [14.6%]), dizziness (11 [10.7%]), and nausea (8 [7.8%]). Incidence of ARIA-E was highest in aducanumab-treated participants who were apolipoprotein E ε4 allele carriers. Most events (479 of 488 [98.2%]) among those with ARIA-E resolved radiographically; 404 of 488 (82.8%) resolved within 16 weeks. In the placebo group, 29 of 1076 participants (2.7%) had ARIA-E (apolipoprotein E ε4 carriers: 16 of 742 [2.2%]; noncarriers, 13 of 334 [3.9%]). ARIA-microhemorrhage and ARIA-superficial siderosis occurred in 197 participants (19.1%) and 151 participants (14.7%), respectively.In this integrated safety data set from EMERGE and ENGAGE, the most common adverse event in the 10-mg/kg group was ARIA-E, which occurred in 362 of the 1029 patients (35.2%) in the 10-mg/kg group with at least 1 postbaseline MRI scan, with 94 patients (26.0%) experiencing associated symptoms. The most common associated symptom was headache.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02484547, NCT02477800.

Safety and Efficacy of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine

Abstract: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older.In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose.A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3).A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

Effect of Subcutaneous Tirzepatide vs Placebo Added to Titrated Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-5 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance The effects of tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, as an addition to insulin glargine for treatment of type 2 diabetes have not been described. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide added to insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted at 45 medical research centers and hospitals in 8 countries (enrollment from August 30, 2019, to March 20, 2020; follow-up completed January 13, 2021) in 475 adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control while treated with once-daily insulin glargine with or without metformin. Interventions Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of 5-mg (n = 116), 10-mg (n = 119), or 15-mg (n = 120) tirzepatide or volume-matched placebo (n = 120) over 40 weeks. Tirzepatide was initiated at 2.5 mg/week and escalated by 2.5 mg every 4 weeks until the assigned dose was achieved. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at week 40. The 5 key secondary end points included mean change in body weight and percentage of patients achieving prespecified HbA1c levels. Results Among 475 randomized participants (211 [44%] women; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [9.9] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.31% [0.85%]), 451 (94.9%) completed the trial. Treatment was prematurely discontinued by 10% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 12% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, 18% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group, and 3% in the placebo group. At week 40, mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.40% with 10-mg tirzepatide and -2.34% with 15-mg tirzepatide vs -0.86% with placebo (10 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.53% [97.5% CI, -1.80% to -1.27%]; 15 mg: difference vs placebo, -1.47% [97.5% CI, -1.75% to -1.20%]; P < .001 for both). Mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.11% with 5-mg tirzepatide (difference vs placebo, -1.24% [95% CI, -1.48% to -1.01%]; P < .001]). Mean body weight change from baseline was -5.4 kg with 5-mg tirzepatide, -7.5 kg with 10-mg tirzepatide, -8.8 kg with 15-mg tirzepatide and 1.6 kg with placebo (5 mg: difference, -7.1 kg [95% CI, -8.7 to -5.4]; 10 mg: difference, -9.1 kg [95% CI, -10.7 to -7.5]; 15 mg: difference, -10.5 kg [95% CI, -12.1 to -8.8]; P < .001 for all). Higher percentages of patients treated with tirzepatide vs those treated with placebo had HbA1c less than 7% (85%-90% vs 34%; P < .001 for all). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups vs placebo group were diarrhea (12%-21% vs 10%) and nausea (13%-18% vs 3%). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control despite treatment with insulin glargine, the addition of subcutaneous tirzepatide, compared with placebo, to titrated insulin glargine resulted in statistically significant improvements in glycemic control after 40 weeks. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04039503.

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Abstract: In an interim analysis of this phase 3 trial, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone among patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a combined positive score (CPS; the number of PD-L1-staining tumor cells, lymphocytes, and macrophages, divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100) of 10 or more. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not been reported.We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine-carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary end points were progression-free survival (reported previously) and overall survival among patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 10 or more (the CPS-10 subgroup), among patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 1 or more (the CPS-1 subgroup), and in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed.A total of 847 patients underwent randomization: 566 were assigned to the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, and 281 to the placebo-chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 44.1 months. In the CPS-10 subgroup, the median overall survival was 23.0 months in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 16.1 months in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.95; two-sided P = 0.0185 [criterion for significance met]); in the CPS-1 subgroup, the median overall survival was 17.6 and 16.0 months in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; two-sided P = 0.1125 [not significant]); and in the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was 17.2 and 15.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.05 [significance not tested]). Adverse events of grade 3, 4, or 5 that were related to the trial regimen occurred in 68.1% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and in 66.9% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in 0.4% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and in no patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group.Among patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 10 or more, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-355 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02819518.).

Stanford Neuromodulation Therapy (SNT): A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract: Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and half of patients with depression have treatment-resistant depression. Intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression but is limited by suboptimal efficacy and a 6-week duration. The authors addressed these limitations by developing a neuroscience-informed accelerated iTBS protocol, Stanford neuromodulation therapy (SNT; previously referred to as Stanford accelerated intelligent neuromodulation therapy, or SAINT). This protocol was associated with a remission rate of ∼90% after 5 days of open-label treatment. Here, the authors report the results of a sham-controlled double-blind trial of SNT for treatment-resistant depression.Participants with treatment-resistant depression currently experiencing moderate to severe depressive episodes were randomly assigned to receive active or sham SNT. Resting-state functional MRI was used to individually target the region of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex most functionally anticorrelated with the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. The primary outcome was score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) 4 weeks after treatment.At the planned interim analysis, 32 participants with treatment-resistant depression had been enrolled, and 29 participants who continued to meet inclusion criteria received either active (N=14) or sham (N=15) SNT. The mean percent reduction from baseline in MADRS score 4 weeks after treatment was 52.5% in the active treatment group and 11.1% in the sham treatment group.SNT, a high-dose iTBS protocol with functional-connectivity-guided targeting, was more effective than sham stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Further trials are needed to determine SNT's durability and to compare it with other treatments.

Ivosidenib and Azacitidine in<i>IDH1</i>-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Abstract: The combination of ivosidenib - an inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) - and azacitidine showed encouraging clinical activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia.In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia who were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy to receive oral ivosidenib (500 mg once daily) and subcutaneous or intravenous azacitidine (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area for 7 days in 28-day cycles) or to receive matched placebo and azacitidine. The primary end point was event-free survival, defined as the time from randomization until treatment failure (i.e., the patient did not have complete remission by week 24), relapse from remission, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first.The intention-to-treat population included 146 patients: 72 in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group and 74 in the placebo-and-azacitidine group. At a median follow-up of 12.4 months, event-free survival was significantly longer in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group than in the placebo-and-azacitidine group (hazard ratio for treatment failure, relapse from remission, or death, 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.69; P = 0.002). The estimated probability that a patient would remain event-free at 12 months was 37% in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group and 12% in the placebo-and-azacitidine group. The median overall survival was 24.0 months with ivosidenib and azacitidine and 7.9 months with placebo and azacitidine (hazard ratio for death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.73; P = 0.001). Common adverse events of grade 3 or higher included febrile neutropenia (28% with ivosidenib and azacitidine and 34% with placebo and azacitidine) and neutropenia (27% and 16%, respectively); the incidence of bleeding events of any grade was 41% and 29%, respectively. The incidence of infection of any grade was 28% with ivosidenib and azacitidine and 49% with placebo and azacitidine. Differentiation syndrome of any grade occurred in 14% of the patients receiving ivosidenib and azacitidine and 8% of those receiving placebo and azacitidine.Ivosidenib and azacitidine showed significant clinical benefit as compared with placebo and azacitidine in this difficult-to-treat population. Febrile neutropenia and infections were less frequent in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group than in the placebo-and-azacitidine group, whereas neutropenia and bleeding were more frequent in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group. (Funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals and Servier Pharmaceuticals; AGILE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03173248.).

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: 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.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.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.Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.

SER-109, an Oral Microbiome Therapy for Recurrent <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Infection

Abstract: Current therapies for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection do not address the disrupted microbiome, which supports C. difficile spore germination into toxin-producing bacteria. SER-109 is an investigational microbiome therapeutic composed of purified Firmicutes spores for the treatment of recurrent C. difficile infection.We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which patients who had had three or more episodes of C. difficile infection (inclusive of the qualifying acute episode) received SER-109 or placebo (four capsules daily for 3 days) after standard-of-care antibiotic treatment. The primary efficacy objective was to show superiority of SER-109 as compared with placebo in reducing the risk of C. difficile infection recurrence up to 8 weeks after treatment. Diagnosis by toxin testing was performed at trial entry, and randomization was stratified according to age and antibiotic agent received. Analyses of safety, microbiome engraftment, and metabolites were also performed.Among the 281 patients screened, 182 were enrolled. The percentage of patients with recurrence of C. difficile infection was 12% in the SER-109 group and 40% in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.58; P<0.001 for a relative risk of <1.0; P<0.001 for a relative risk of <0.833). SER-109 led to less frequent recurrence than placebo in analyses stratified according to age stratum (relative risk, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.78] for patients <65 years of age and 0.36 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.72] for those ≥65 years) and antibiotic received (relative risk, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.79] with vancomycin and 0.09 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.63] with fidaxomicin). Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were gastrointestinal in nature, with similar numbers in the two groups. SER-109 dose species were detected as early as week 1 and were associated with bile-acid profiles that are known to inhibit C. difficile spore germination.In patients with symptom resolution of C. difficile infection after treatment with standard-of-care antibiotics, oral administration of SER-109 was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of recurrent infection. The observed safety profile of SER-109 was similar to that of placebo. (Funded by Seres Therapeutics; ECOSPOR III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03183128.).