Matthew Harvey

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.

BACKGROUND: Blood eosinophil measurement is essential for the phenotypic characterization of patients with difficult asthma and in determining eligibility for anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biological therapies. However, assessing such measures over limited time spans may not reveal the true underlying eosinophilic phenotype, as treatment, including daily oral corticosteroid therapy, suppresses eosinophilic inflammation and asthma is intrinsically variable. METHODS: We interrogated the electronic healthcare records of patients in the Wessex AsThma CoHort of difficult asthma (WATCH) study (UK). In 501 patients being evaluated in this tertiary care centre for difficult to control asthma, all requested full blood count test results in a 10-year retrospective period from the index WATCH assessment were investigated (n = 11,176). RESULTS: In 235 biological therapy-naïve participants who had 10 or more measures in this time period, 40.3% were eosinophilic (blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µl) at WATCH enrolment whilst an additional 43.1%, though not eosinophilic at enrolment, demonstrated eosinophilia at least once in the preceding decade. Persistent eosinophilia was associated with worse post-bronchodilator airway obstruction and higher Fractional exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO). In contrast, the 16.6% of patients who never demonstrated eosinophilia at this blood eosinophil threshold showed preserved lung function and lower markers of Type 2 inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: This highlights the central role that type 2 inflammation, as indicated by blood eosinophilia, has in difficult asthma and suggests that longitudinal electronic healthcare record analysis can be an important tool in clinical asthma phenotyping, providing insight that may help understand disease progression and better guide more specific treatment approaches.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab and Mepolizumab are biologic drugs with proven efficacy in clinical trials. However, a better understanding of their real-world effectiveness in severe asthma management is needed. OBJECTIVES: To better understand the real-world effectiveness of Omalizumab and Mepolizumab, elucidate the clinical phenotypes of patients treated with these drugs, identify baseline characteristics associated with biologic response and assess the spectrum of responses to these medications. METHODS: Using real-world clinical data, we retrospectively phenotyped biologic naïve patients from the Wessex AsThma CoHort of difficult asthma (N = 478) commenced on Omalizumab (N = 105) or Mepolizumab (N = 62) compared to severe asthma patients not receiving biologics (SNB, N = 178). We also assessed multiple clinical endpoints and identified features associated with response. RESULTS: Compared to SNB, Omalizumab patients were younger, diagnosed with asthma earlier, and more likely to have rhinitis. Conversely, compared to SNB, Mepolizumab patients were predominantly older males, diagnosed with asthma later, and more likely to have nasal polyposis but less dysfunctional breathing. Both treatments reduced exacerbations, Acute Healthcare Encounters [AHE] (emergency department or hospital admissions), maintenance oral corticosteroid dose, and improved Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (ACQ6) scores. Omalizumab response was independently associated with more baseline exacerbations (p = .024) but fewer AHE (p = .050) and absence of anxiety (p = .008). Lower baseline ACQ6 was independently associated with Mepolizumab response (p = .007). A composite group of non-responders demonstrated significantly more psychopathologies and worse baseline subjective disease compared to responder groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In a difficult asthma cohort, Omalizumab and Mepolizumab were used in distinct clinical phenotypes but were both multidimensionally efficacious. Certain baseline clinical characteristics were associated with poorer biologic responses, such as psychological co-morbidity, which may assist clinicians in biologic selection. These characteristics also emphasize the need for comprehensive approaches to support these patients.