Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trialSaye Khoo, Richard J. Fitzgerald, Geoffrey Saunders et al.|The Lancet Infectious Diseases|2022 BACKGROUND: The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial. INTERPRETATION: We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive. FUNDING: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.
IL-6 inhibition in the treatment of COVID-19: A meta-analysis and meta-regressionSkeletal muscles and Covid-19: a systematic review of rhabdomyolysis and myositis in SARS-CoV-2 infectionJennifer Hannah, Saadia Sasha Ali, Deepak Nagra et al.|Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology|2022 OBJECTIVES: Myalgia is a widely publicised feature of Covid-19, but severe muscle injury can occur. This systematic review summarises relevant evidence for skeletal muscle involvement in Covid-19. METHODS: A systematic search of OVID and Medline databases was conducted on 16/3/2021 and updated on 28/10/2021 to identify case reports or observational studies relating to skeletal muscle manifestations of Covid-19 (PROSPERO: CRD42020198637). Data from rhabdomyolysis case reports were combined and summary descriptive statistics calculated. Data relating to other manifestations were analysed for narrative review. RESULTS: 1920 articles were identified. From these, 61 case reports/series met inclusion criteria, covering 86 rhabdomyolysis cases. Median age of rhabdomyolysis patients was 50 years, (range 6-89). 49% had either hypertension, diabetes mellitus or obesity. 77% were male. Symptoms included myalgia (74%), fever (69%), cough (59%), dyspnoea (68%). Median peak CK was 15,783U/L. 28% required intravenous haemofiltration and 36% underwent mechanical ventilation. 62% recovered to discharge and 30% died. Dyspnoea, elevated CRP and need for intravenous haemofiltration increased risk of fatal outcome. Additional articles relating to skeletal muscular pathologies include 6 possible concomitant diagnoses or relapses of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and 10 reports of viral-induced muscle injuries without rhabdomyolysis. Localised myositis and rhabdomyolysis with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been reported. CONCLUSIONS: Rhabdomyolysis is an infrequent but important complication of Covid-19. Increased mortality was associated with a high CRP, renal replacement therapy and dyspnoea. The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) may have viral environmental triggers. However, to date the limited number of case reports do not confirm an association with Covid-19.
Inpatient COVID-19 mortality has reduced over time: Results from an observational cohortBACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves; the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes for those admitted with severe Covid were different in the first and second waves. METHODS: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and March 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone. RESULTS: There were 3,949 COVID-19 admissions, 3,195 hospital discharges and 733 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (26.1% versus 13.1%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.49 (0.37, 0.65) p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 0.84 (95%CI 0.65, 1.08), p = 0.17] or dexamethasone [HR 0.97 (95%CI 0.70, 1.35) p = 0.87]. CONCLUSION: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present.
A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Predictors of Mortality in Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy–Associated Interstitial Lung DiseaseJennifer Hannah, Huiyi E. Law, Tanya Gordon et al.|The Journal of Rheumatology|2022 Objective Idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM)–associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) can range from rapidly progressive disease with high mortality to indolent disease with minimal morbidity. This systematic review and metaanalysis describe immunological, clinical, and radiographical predictors of mortality in IIM-ILD. Methods MEDLINE and Embase database searches were completed on October 18, 2021, to identify articles providing survival data according to baseline characteristics in patients with concurrent IIM and ILD. Prognostic factors common to more than 5 papers were included in the metaanalysis using a random-effects model to report odds ratios (ORs) for binary variables and Hedges g for continuous variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score and the Egger test for publication bias. Results From 4433 articles, 62 papers were suitable for inclusion; among these studies, 38 different variables were considered. The OR for risk of death regarding the presence of anti–melanoma differentiation–associated protein 5 (MDA5) antibodies was 6.20 (95% CI 3.58-10.71), and anti–tRNA synthetase antibodies were found to be protective (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41). Neither antinuclear antibodies, anti–52-kDa Ro antigen antibodies, nor SSA significantly altered mortality, nor was MDA5 titer predictive. Examples of prognostic factors that are significantly associated with mortality in this study include the following: age; male sex; acute/subacute onset; clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis; dyspnea; ulceration; fever; raised C-reactive protein, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, alveolar to arterial O 2 (A-aO 2 ) gradient, groundglass opacity on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), and overall HRCT score; and reduced albumin, lymphocytes, ratio of partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood to fraction of inspired oxygen (PF ratio), percentage predicted transfer factor for carbon monoxide, and percentage predicted forced vital capacity. Baseline surfactant protein-D and Krebs von den Lungen-6 levels were not predictors of mortality. Conclusion Many mortality risk factors were identified, though heterogeneity was high, with a low quality of evidence and a risk of publication bias. Studies regarding anti-MDA5 antibody–positive disease and and those from East Asia predominate, which could mask risk factors relevant to other IIM subgroups or populations.