Dataset Information

Post-exposure Lopinavir-Ritonavir Prophylaxis versus Surveillance for Individuals Exposed to SARS-CoV-2: The COPEP Pragmatic Open-Label, Cluster Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, no direct antiviral treatment is effective as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) was repurposed as a potential PEP agent against COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic open-label, parallel, cluster-randomised superiority trial in four sites in Switzerland and Brazil between March 2020 to March 2021. Clusters were randomised to receive LPV/r PEP (400/100 mg) twice daily for 5 days or no PEP (surveillance). Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as a close contact of >15 minutes in <2 metres distance or having shared a closed space for ≥2 hours with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome is the occurrence of COVID-19 defined by a SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and/or a seroconversion) and ≥1 compatible symptom within 21 days post-enrolment. ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04364022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal: SNCTP 000003732.

Findings

Of 318 participants, 157 (49.4%) were women; median age was 39 (interquartile range, 28-50) years. A total of 209 (179 clusters) participants were randomised to LPV/r PEP and 109 (95 clusters) to surveillance. Baseline characteristics were similar, with the exception of baseline SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity, which was 3-fold more frequent in the LPV/r arm (34/209 [16.3%] vs 6/109 [5.5%], respectively). During 21-day follow-up, 48/318 (15.1%) participants developed COVID-19: 35/209 (16.7%) in the LPV/r group and 13/109 (11.9%) in the surveillance group (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.44; 95% CI, 0.76-2.73). In the primary endpoint analysis, which was adjuted for baseline imbalance, the hazard ratio for developing COVID-19 in the LPV/r group vs surveillance was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.29-1.26; p =0.18).

Interpretation

The role of LPV/r as PEP for COVID-19 remains unanswered. Although LPV/r over 5 days did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 in exposed individuals, we observed a change in the directionality of the effect in favour of LPV/r after adjusting for baseline imbalance. LPV/r for this indication merits further testing against SARS-CoV-2 in clinical trials.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation (project no.: 33IC30_166819) and the Private Foundation of Geneva University Hospitals (Edmond Rothschild (Suisse) SA, Union Bancaire Privée and the Fondation pour la recherche et le traitement médical).

SUBMITTER: Labhardt ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8570913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) has been proposed as repurposed drugs for pre-exposure and postexposure prophylaxis as well as therapy of COVID-19. Coronavirus postexposure prophylaxis (COPEP) trial aims at assessing their efficacy as postexposure ring-prophylaxis among adults exposed to SARS-CoV-2.Methods and analysisCOPEP is a two-arm open-label cluster-randomised trial conducted in three cantons of Switzerland. Asymptomatic contacts (≥16 years) of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 will be randomised (2:1) to either LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg two times per day) for 5 days, or a standard of care arm (no treatment). Asymptomatic individuals may be either SARS-CoV-2 positive or negative. Contacts living in the single household will form a cluster and will be randomised into the same arm. All participants will be followed-up for 21 days and undergo daily monitoring for COVID-19 symptoms. The primary endpoint is 21-day incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with ≥1 compatible symptom, analysed in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The secondary endpoints include the 21-day incidence of COVID-19 as well as SARS-CoV-2 infection in a modified ITT analysis, excluding participants who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from oropharyngeal swab and/or a positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology at baseline. Assuming a 21-day incidence for COVID-19 of 20% among contacts without postexposure chemoprophylaxis, to detect a relative risk reduction of 60% (ie, translating in an absolute reduction from 20% to 8%), with a power of 80%, an alpha of 5%. Accounting for design effect of cluster design of circa 1.1, we plan to enrol 200 participants to the LPV/r arm and 100 to the standard of care arm, 300 participants in total.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the Commission Cantonale d'Ethique de la Recherche, Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz and Comitato Etico Cantonale (ref 2020-00864) and Swissmedic (2020DR3056). Results from this trial will be disseminated via journal articles and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov Registry (NCT04364022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal Registry (SNCTP 000003732).Registered report identifierCCER 2020-0864.

Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support.MethodsWe conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely.ResultsThe intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms.ConclusionIn adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Project description:BackgroundLopinavir-ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity, preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir-ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir-ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir-ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91-1·17; p=0·60). Results were consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91-1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99-1·20; p=0·092).InterpretationIn patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir-ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.FundingMedical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundThe outbreak of COVID-19 (caused by SARS-Cov-2) is very serious, and no effective antiviral treatment has yet been confirmed. The adage "old drug, new trick" in this context may suggest the important therapeutic potential of existing drugs. We found that the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment recommended in the fifth edition of the Treatment Plan of China can only help to improve a minority of throat-swab nucleic-acid results (3/15) in hospitals. Our previous use of chloroquine to treat patients with COVID-19 infection showed an improvement in more throat-swab nucleic-acid results (5/10) than the use of lopinavir/ritonavir.Methods/designThis is a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled, multicenter clinical study. The study consists of three phases: a screening period, a treatment period of no more than 10 days, and a follow-up period for each participant. Participants with COVID-19 infection who are eligible for selection for the study will be randomly allocated to the trial group or the control group. The control group will be given lopinavir/ritonavir treatment for no more than 10 days. The trial group will be given chloroquine phosphate treatment for no more than 10 days. The primary outcome is the clinical recovery time at no more than 28 days after the completion of therapy and follow-up. The secondary outcomes include the rate of treatment success after the completion of therapy and follow-up, the time of treatment success after no more than 28 days, the rate of serious adverse events during the completion of therapy and follow-up, and the time to return to normal temperature (calculated from the onset of illness) during the completion of therapy and follow-up. Comparisons will be performed using two-sided tests with a statistical significance level of 5%.DiscussionThis experiment should reveal the efficacy and safety of using chloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir for patients with mild/general COVID-19 infection. If the new treatment including chloroquine shows a higher rate of throat-swab SARS-CoV-2 real-time fluorescent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and is safe, it could be tested as a future COVID-19 treatment.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ChiCTR2000029741 . Registered on 11 February 2020.

Project description:UnlabelledWe sought to evaluate the effects of antiretroviral therapy on skeletal metabolism in Chinese individuals with human immunodeficiency virus. Patients switched to tenofovir/lamivudine + lopinavir/ritonavir after treatment failure had an increase in bone resorption marker levels by nearly 60%, which is greater than the magnitude previously described in non-Chinese populations.IntroductionFew studies have evaluated the effects of antiretroviral therapy on skeletal metabolism in Asian populations infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of bone turnover markers (BTM) at baseline and 2 years in stored plasma samples collected from 2/2009 to 1/2013 as part of a multi-center trial. Two groups were compared: (1) treatment-naïve patients initiated on zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) plus nevirapine (NVP) and (2) patients who failed first-line therapy and were switched to tenofovir (TDF)/3TC plus lopinavir/ritonavir (LPVr). Tests included the bone resorption marker, C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-1 collagen (CTX), and the bone formation marker procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP).ResultsIn the TDF/3TC + LPVr group, samples were available from 59 patients at baseline and 56 patients at 2 years. Of these, 36 patients had samples available from both time points. In the AZT/3TC + NVP group, plasma samples were analyzed from 82 participants at baseline and of those, 61 had samples at 2 years. Median change over 2 years was greater in the TDF/3TC + LPVr group for both CTX (+0.24 ng/mL, interquartile ranges (IQR) 0.10-0.43 vs. +0.09 ng/mL, IQR -0.03 to 0.18, p = 0.001) and P1NP (+25.5 ng/mL, IQR 2.4-51.3 vs. +7.11 ng/mL, IQR -4.3 to 21.6, p = 0.012). Differences remained after adjusting for potential confounders in the multivariable analysis.ConclusionsSwitching to TDF/3TC + LPVr after treatment failure resulted in greater increases in BTMs than initiation with AZT/3TC + NVP in Chinese patients with HIV. Following this change, bone resorption marker levels increased by nearly 60 %, which is greater than the 25-35% increase from baseline described previously in non-Chinese populations. Further studies are warranted to elucidate these findings.

Project description:BackgroundAlbuvirtide (ABT), a fusion inhibitor against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, has good efficacy and tolerability for HIV treatment. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ABT-based regimen as second-line therapy. This current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to ABT + ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) treatment in a cohort of HIV-infected individuals who failed initial treatment.MethodsThis retrospective comparative cohort study included patients who failed initial treatment and switched to either ABT + LPV/r (the ABT group) or two nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) + LPV/r (the NRTI group) between November 2019 and December 2020 in the People's Hospital of Zhaojue County in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, China. All individuals were followed up from baseline to 12 weeks after conversion, or until the patient developed unacceptable toxic effects or was loss of follow-up. The proportion of patients who achieved virological suppression (viral load <50 copies/mL) at week 12 was considered a primary efficacy endpoint. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities. All participants underwent resistance testing before regimen conversion. The linear regression model was applied to evaluate the association of CD4+ T cell count with the patient's clinical characteristics.ResultsA total of 71 patients were included in this study, the two groups were comparable at baseline in terms of age, sex, CD4+ T cell count, and viral load. The suppression of HIV-1 RNA to levels <50 copies/mL was achieved in 82.4% (28/31) and 29.7% (11/34) of patients in the ABT group and the NRTI group, respectively (P<0.001). Older age (P=0.016) and higher alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels (P=0.038), but not rescue regimen, were associated with attenuated CD4+ T cell recovery. Most adverse events mild in severity, with abdominal pain as the most reported event in two groups (26.8%, 19/71), and no severe adverse events were detected.ConclusionsConversion to ABT + LPV/r therapy appears to be an effective and safe strategy. This treatment regimen has great potential to be generalized in the HIV-infected population, although further testing in a larger patient population is required to verify these results.