ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND The spread of COVID-19 from Wuhan China, has been alarmingly rapid. Epidemiologic techniques succeeded in containing the disease in China, but efforts have not been as successful in the rest of the World, particularly the United States, where there have been 21,026,758 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 755,786 deaths as of August 15, 2020. Projections are for continued new infections and deaths if no effective therapeutic interventions can be initiated over the next several months. We performed a systematic review to determine the potential time course for development of treatments and vaccines, focusing on availability now and continuing in the last half of 2020.
METHODS Clinical Trials: We reviewed up-to-date information from several sources to identify potential treatments for COVID-19: The Reagan-Udall Expanded Access Navigator COVID-19 Treatment Hub was used to track the efforts of companies to develop agents. We focused on trials completed or recruiting for patients as of April 1, 2020 on identified agents, reasoning that the timeline to provide treatments by the end of 2020 would require completion of enrollment within the next 3 months. We used several different sources: (A) covid-trials.org, then validated results on (B) clinicaltrials.gov and the (C) World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We excluded studies which were clearly observational, with no randomization, control, or comparison group. We further set a cutoff of 100 for numbers of subjects, since smaller trial size could lack statistical power to establish superiority of the intervention over the control.
Publications We searched for published trial results on pubmed.gov and on medRxiv, the preprint server, and used a targeted Google™ search to find announcements of unpublished trial results
RESULTS Published Data: As of August 15, 2020 we found 63 publications reporting findings in human studies on 13 classes of drugs and on 5 vaccines. There were only 24 randomized placebo or active control studies; the rest were retrospective observational. Only seven publications dealt with outpatient care, the rest all in hospitalized patients.
Clinical Trials As of our cutoff date of April 1, 2020, we found 409 trials meeting our minimum requirement of 100 subjects. The WHO Solidarity megatrial for hospitalized patients was launched in over 100 countries, actively comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), lopanovir/ritonavir (LPV/r) alone and in combination with interferon beta-1, and remdesivir. The LPV/r alone and HCQ arms have already been discontinued. In addition, we found 46 trials of HCQ, 11 trials of LPV/r and 8 trials of interferons. There were 18 ongoing trials of antiviral agents, 24 immune modulator studies, 9 vaccine trials, and 62 studies of other agents. We excluded a large number of trials of traditional Chinese medications, reasoning that there was insufficient clinical experience with these agents outside China. Forty four trials were hoping to complete enrollment by the end of the second quarter of 2020. Of these, only 9 were conducted on outpatients. A few vaccine trials are hoping to complete Phase 3 enrollment by the end of the third quarter 2020, but a prolonged follow-up of patients will likely be required.
Available Treatments At this time, only remdesivir has emerged as a treatment, solely for hospitalized patients. There is also support for glucocorticoid treatment of the COVID-19 respiratory distress syndrome in the ICU. No treatments or prophylaxis are offered for outpatients.
CONCLUSION COVID-19 is propagated primarily by infected ambulatory individuals. There have been no options brought forward for prevention and non-hospital treatment with only a few randomized, controlled outpatient studies expected to yield results in time to impact on the continuing pandemic by the end of 2020. It will be necessary for public health authorities to make hard decisions, with limited data, to prevent the continued spread of the disease. The choices will be hardest when dealing with possible early release of safe and effective vaccines which would, of course, be of greatest benefit to the World’s population.
INTRODUCTION
The coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 pandemic spread through the World with extraordinary speed from its origin in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. As of August 15, 2020, there have been 21,026,758 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 755,786 deaths worldwide affecting 220 countries and territories (1). This viral and multisystemic illness produces mild or no symptoms in about 80% of infected individuals, however, in about 20% can manifest as pneumonia, which may progress to acute respiratory failure requiring assisted mechanical ventilation in up to 5% of patients (2). The infection fatality ratio is difficult to determine due to a high percentage of undiagnosed cases (3). A calculation based on the outbreak among the passengers and crew of the cruise ship Diamond Princess, essentially a captive population, suggested a case fatality ratio of 1.3% (4). The mortality is highest in the elderly and in those with chronic disease.
Symptomatic COVID-19 exhibits a characteristic sequence of events related to the primary viral attack, manifesting as an influenza-like illness with cough, fever, myalgias and fatigue, and then, subsequently, an overlapping hyperinflammatory reaction (See Figure 1) (5). In patients with severe disease, within seven to 10 days of onset of symptoms, bilateral multiple lobar and subsegmental areas of consolidation are typically seen on chest computed tomography (CT) (6). Pneumonia may rapidly progress to acute respiratory failure with elevated cytokines suggesting an immune reaction as probable cause (7,8). Additionally, a coagulopathy develops and can affect the lungs and other organs, including triggering cerebrovascular accidents (9,10). Recently, a new syndrome of pediatric multisystem inflammatory disorder has surfaced among children, previously thought minimally susceptible to severe COVID-19 disease. This is apparently a delayed autoimmune condition which can occur a month or more after the initial SARS-Cov-2 infection, and can be fatal (11).
In mainland China, vigorous efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19 by home isolation, closure of business activity, travel bans, and tracking and control of contacts succeeded. As of August 15, China has had 89,695confirmed cases with 4,708 deaths, but the number of new cases has declined to very low levels since April (1). Similar measures contained the epidemic in Korea, Taiwan and in New Zealand (12). In Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, universal masking, immediate hospitalization and early antiviral treatment for all confirmed cases have minimized the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases to 4200 in a 7.5 million population with less than 3% requiring ICU care, and 60 fatalities (13,14). However, the disease has not been similarly controlled in the rest of the World, particularly the United States (USA) where, despite only a fifth of the population of China, there were 5,203,206 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 165,995 deaths as of August 15, 2020 (1). In the USA, as in China, the response to the pandemic was through reduction of person-to-person contact by social distancing. Beginning in early March, schools and businesses were closed along with recreation areas, parks, and beaches. Social gatherings and meetings ended. These efforts blunted the spread of the disease, but not with the results achieved in China. Due to economic pressures, epidemiologic containment was relaxed resulting in a significant surge surpassing the original April peak. Kissler and collaborators created a series of simulations based on known data on the transmissibility of other less-threatening betacoronaviruses, cross-immunity with those viruses, seasonal variations, and the impact of social distancing (15). Their optimal predicted scenario was for indefinite social distancing, which even early on, has triggered massive unemployment and crippled the economy of the USA. These investigators stated that medications or vaccines for COVID-19 would reduce the need for reliance on epidemiologic containment.
Facing the growing crisis in early January, Chinese health authorities began treating patients empirically with agents with demonstrated in vitro antiviral activity against coronaviruses and those used during the SARS 2003, the H1N1 influenza of 2009 and MERS 2015 outbreaks in Asia (16). The medications used included the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitor lopanovir-ritanovir (LPV/r), the Russian antiviral umifenovir, and traditional Chinese medical approaches (17). Subsequently, the antimalarials were widely used to treat COVID-19 throughout the world, despite cautions from numerous regulatory bodies. The scientific basis for their use was in vitro evidence of an effect on blocking viral endosomal penetration, as well as a known suppressive benefit on undesirable autoimmune effects (18). Clinical studies have shown conflicting results.
Multiple vaccines are in clinical trials to assess safety and effectiveness, but these studies are unlikely to complete Phase III testing and proceed to mass vaccination until early 2021. In view of the continuing daily increase in new cases and deaths, our goal was to assess the options we have now for release of pharmacologic agents to treat and to prevent COVID-19 while awaiting widespread immunization.
METHODS
CLINICAL TRIALS
We reviewed up-to-date information from several sources to identify potential treatments for COVID-19: The Reagan-Udall Expanded Access Navigator COVID-19 Treatment Hub was used to track the efforts of companies to develop therapeutic interventions. We searched for investigational trials which had completed or had begun active recruitment as of April 1, 2020, reasoning that the timeline to implement treatments in the second half of 2020 would require completion by July 1. We used (A) covid-trials.org, a registry to collate all trials in real time with data pulled from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and all major national registries (19).We cross validated information on (B) clinicaltrials.gov the registry of clinical trials information maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine. We further cross referenced the trials on (C) the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).
We excluded studies which were clearly observational for treatment purposes, with no randomization, control or comparison group. We further set a cutoff of 100 for numbers of subjects since smaller trial size could lack statistical power to enable regulatory approval. For each trial selected, we documented the setting of patient contact, either hospital or outpatient, the type of control procedure, the date the trial was initially registered, and the proposed date of completion of enrollment.
PUBLISHED TRIAL RESULTS
Our search was carried on the week of August 10, 2020. We identified all publications on pubmed.gov to find peer reviewed articles and medRxiv to find preprint reports. We further carried out daily Google™ searches on each potential treatment to find preliminary reports, typically presented as press releases, reviewed by a journalist.
VIRTUAL DISCUSSIONS AMONG CO-AUTHORS
We used the preprint server medRxiv to post a systematic analysis of the development of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 in order to alllow widespread input and stimulate discussion of the manuscript (20). Successive versions were reposted periodically beginning in late May, 2020 and continuing to date.
RESULTS
REVIEW OF CURRENT TRIALS
As of our cutoff date of April 1, we identified 781 trials worldwide meeting our review criteria. Approximately half the trials were registered in mainland China, and 103 trials were registered in the U.S.A.(See TABLE 1). There were 553 trials in the recruitment process or completed (SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1). We found 409 trials meeting the minimum requirement of 100 subjects which were recruited or completed as of April 1. The WHO organized a megatrial, appropriately named Solidarity, to assess four separate treatment options: Remdesivir, an intravenously administered inhibitor of RNA polymerase; LPV/R; LPV/R plua Interferon beta-1a; and HCQ or Chloroquine (21). Critical study information is collected only at randomization and when the patient is discharged or dies: which study drugs were given(and for how many days); whether ventilation or intensive care was received, date of discharge, or date and cause of death while still in hospital. Data is transmitted centrally to the trial database. Completion of enrollment is estimated in the first quarter of 2021. Recently, the antimalarial and LPV/R drug arms of the Solidarity study were terminated after review suggested no benefit in hospitalized patients.
OTHER TRIALS WITH THE SOLIDARITY AGENTS
In addition to and independent from the Solidarity trial, we found 46 ongoing trials of HCQ, 11 trials of LPV/r and 8 trials of interferons (See TABLE 2). There were 21 HCQ trials focused solely on hospitalized patients. Ten HCQ trials focused on prevention of the disease. There were seven HCQ trials conducted on ambulatory patients with diagnosed mild disease. The HCQ and LPV/R arms of the RECOVERY trial in hospitalized patients in the United Kingdom have ended after preliminary data showed no change in mortality. The NIH has halted its HCQ studies.
Two prevention trials with LPV/r are currently enrolling, with earliest enrollment completion in the second quarter of 2020 for one and the third quarter for the other. There is one outpatient active comparison trial with HCQ with proposed enrollment end in the second quarter of 2020. There is one large interferon prevention trial scheduled to complete enrollment in the second quarter of 2020.
ANTIVIRAL AGENTS
SARS-Cov-2 attacks cells by binding of the spike protein to the host cell ACE2 receptor. A specific serine protease TMPRSS2 then activates membrane fusion allowing viral RNA to enter the cell to be replicated with release of multiple virions. Numerous antiviral agents are now in active trials (See TABLE 3). In addition to remdesivir, and favipiravir (FVP), an oral inhibitor of the polymerase, trials are ongoing with umifenovir, a membrane lipid fusion inhibitor with broad antiviral properties and with camostat which is a potent serine protease inhibitor (22,23). A very large, multicenter, prevention trial for hospital workers exposed to COVID-19 in Spain, involves 4000 subjects who will be randomized to emicitrabine/tenofovir, an HIV agent, or to HCQ or to placebo. The trial has planned to meet its enrollment goal by the beginning of the third quarter of 2020.
TABLE 3: ANTIVIRAL AGENTS
The setting of each study, whether hospital or outpatient, the type of control (AC: Active control, RCT: randomized control; soc: standard of care; PLAC: placebo control, whether treatment (TREAT) or prevention (PREV), the severity of illness, number of subjects, quarter study initiated, quarter study projects completion of enrollment, and duration of symptoms for patient inclusion are listed. Studies projecting completion of enrollment by the end of the second quarter of 2020 are bolded. Outpatient studies with planned completion by the end of the second quarter of 2020 are italicized.
IMMUNE MODULATORS
Many trials are focusing on tocilizumab and anakinra, as well as other agents currently approved for treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions to suppress the cytokine storm of COVID-19 (See TABLE 4). These trials are all directed at severely ill COVID-19 inpatients. There is a large multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of colchicine in non-severely ill outpatients scheduled to enroll 6000 individuals by end of the third quarter of 2020.
OTHER STUDIES (SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 2)
CONVALESCENT PLASMA
Several studies of intravenous globulin as well as intravenous hyperimmune globulin plan completion of enrollment in the third quarter of 2020.
STEM CELLS
Several trials of mesenchymal stem cells are currently recruiting with one study planning completion of enrollment by the end of the second quarter of 2020.
RENIN ANGIOTENSIN SYSTEM
Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is the monocarboxypeptidase highly expressed in alveolar epithelial cells and endothelial cells.. This receptor has been identified as the binding site for the SARSCoV-2 virus on epithelial cell for entry, speculating interest that ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might block viral access. There are a number of trials either adding the agents or withdrawing them. One small trial of losartan has been fully enrolled but no results have been posted as yet.
PULMONARY AND RESPIRATORY INTERVENTIONS
These studies are of great interest in managing respiratory failure in COVID-19. There are many ongoing studies of mechanical and extracorporeal oxygenation. Most of the studies did not meet the criterion of 100 subjects or more (SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1). There was one ongoing study of hyperbaric oxygenation not due to complete enrollment until the second quarter of 2021. Pirfenidone is an agent approved to treat pulmonary fibrosis, and one study is planning completion of enrollment by the end of the second quarter of 2020.
SUPPLEMENTS
The suggestion that zinc may be a beneficial agent together with HCQ in COVID-19 has generated interest, but there is only one study underway, not including HCQ.
GLUCOCORTICOIDS
Given the potential benefit of glucocorticoids during the hyperinfllammatory phase of COVID-19, a number of studies are trying to determine the best timing to begin steroid use without impairing the response to viremia.
ANTICOAGULANTS
Several studies are focusing on prophylaxis for the COVID-19 hypercoagulable state. There are no current studies of the new direct oral anticoagulants.
TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICATIONS
There were 48 such studies. We did not include them in our search for agents which could be made available in the next 6 months for two reasons. First, these medications are not familiar to clinicians in the rest of the World. Second, the success of epidemiologic containment in China has made it unlikely that many projected trials would achieve enrollment.
VACCINES
The WHO has identified 110 programs to develop a SARS-Cov-2 vaccine. Of these, 12 have reached initial human trials (See TABLE 5). Optimistic observers have suggested that a vaccine could be available by the beginning of 2021. A bold suggestion has been made to allow emergency authorization of favorable vaccine candidates by the fall. An additional approach has been suggested to attempt to stimulate non-specific immunity prior to availability of a COVID-19 vaccine using oral polio vaccine or BCG vaccination (24). There are two large prevention trials underway in the Netherlands and Australia using BCG vaccine in health care workers. These trials plan conclusion of enrollment, but not until the fourth quarter of 2020.
PUBLISHED RESULTS ON COVID-19 TRIALS
As of August 10, 2020 we found 63 publications reporting findings in human studies on 13 classes of drugs, and on 5 vaccines (See TABLE 6). There were only 23 randomized placebo or active controlled studies. The rest were retrospective observational analyses. Only seven publications dealt with outpatient care, the rest all in hospitalized patients.
In the group of antiviral agents, the largest published randomized, controlled trials were with remdesivir. The first multicenter trial conducted at ten hospitals in Hubei, China was halted in April due to lack of recruitment after 237 patients enrolled (25). Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1.23 [95% CI 0.87–1.75]) and no mortality benefit. The largest trial of remdesivir, in 1063 moderate to severely ill patients, was a double blind, randomized placebo controlled study (RCTPLAC) carried out by the National Institute of Arthritis and Infectious Disease (NIAID) (27). The patients who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) for those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days after randomization were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04). There was no data documenting the rate of viral clearance. On the basis of this trial, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency authorization for use of remdesivir for severely ill COVID hospitalized patients. Subsequently, a report was published showing that in 397 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe disease, there was no difference in outcome comparing patients who received a 5 day course of remdesivir versus a 10 day course (28). The analysis was complicated by an imbalance in clinical severity; the patients randomized to 10 days of treatment had significantly more severe disease than those in the 5 day group. The 14 day mortality in the 5 day group was 8% versus 11% in the 10 day group. In this study, there was no data on viral clearance.
There were two randomized, active control clinical trials in China of favipiravir (FVP) (29,30). In a study of 35 patients receiving FVP, compared to 45 patients receiving LPV/R plus inhaled interferon alpha, a shorter viral clearance time was found for the FVP arm (median (interquartile range, IQR), 4 (2.5–9) days versus 11 (8–13) days, p< 0.001) (29). The FVP arm also showed significant improvement in chest imaging compared with the control arm, with an improvement rate of 91.4% versus 62.2% (p = 0.004). In a larger Chinese trial comparing 116 patients on FVP to 120 on umifenovir, the 7 day clinical recovery rate was 55.9% for the umifenovir group and 71% in the FVP group (30).The Chinese Health Ministry, after reviewing the studies, concluded that FVP was efficacious against COVID-19. In Japan, a clinical registry containing 1918 hospitalized patients receiving FVP on a compassionate use basis was released on June 2, 2020 (31). There was no control group nor data on viral clearance. Patients were treated on average 3 days post admission to the hospital. The 30 day overall mortality was 11.6%. For patients requiring supplemental oxygen, the 30 day mortality was 12.7%. A recent press conference announced that an 89 patient controlled study in Japan was inconclusive due to failure to reach statistical significance in this small cohort. In Russia, a state sponsored agency confirmed the response to FVP in an as yet unpublished study apparently comprising 700 patients and approved the drug for clinical treatment beginning in multiple hospitals on June 12, 2020. In India, Glenmark™ recently announced unpublished data on 150 patients confirming the favorable results of the Chinese studies, and the drug has been given emergency authorization for use.
Published studies on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been controversial. In a small French study in Marseille, COVID-19 patients were included in a single arm protocol to receive 600mg of HCQ daily, with daily viral load testing (31). Depending on the clinical presentation, azithromycin (AZM) was added to the treatment. Untreated patients from another center and patients who refused the protocol were included as negative controls. The authors state that there was a significant reduction of viral carriage at day 6 post inclusion compared to controls. The same group subsequently reported their experience with 3737 patients screened positive for SARS-Cov-2 immediately treated with HCQ and AZM, after excluding patients at risk of QT prolongation(32,33). Asymptomatic contacts with positive viral tests were included, so most of their subjects were outpatients seen in their day hospital in addition to those who did require hospitalization. Their control population was not randomized, raising the issue of treatment bias. They showed clearance of viral shedding in 89.4% of the patients by ten days. The overall mortality in their population was 0.9%, none in patients under 60 years old, and no sudden cardiac deaths.
There have been many retrospective large observational trials which suggest that hospitalized patients on HCQ have worse outcomes with possible cardiac dysrrythmias (See TABLE 6) (38-42). The difficulty in analyzing retrospective observational data is in the possibility of selection bias choosing patients who were sicker for treatment. Propensity scoring can help adjust for bias, and comparability of groups after adjustment has been claimed. In a randomized, controlled, Brazilian study, neither HCQ nor HCQ +AZM showed any clinical benefit in mild to moderate COVID-19 hospitalized patients (43). In the randomized RECOVERY trial, in 1542 patients in the United Kingdom, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (26.8% hydroxychloroquine vs. 25% usual care; hazard ratio 1.09 [95% confidence interval 0.96-1.23]; p=0.18) (44).
Different results were reported in a large retrospective observational study at the Henry Ford Hospital System in Detroit (45). In this study, patients were selected for treatment based on an unpublished protocol, choosing sicker patients for HCQ treatment, and HCQ+AZM for those with most severe disease, if there were no cardiac risk factors. Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.1% (95% CI:16.6%- 19.7%); by treatment: HCQ+AZM, 157/783 (20.1% [95% CI: 17.3%-23.0%]), HCQ alone, 162/1202 (13.5% [95% CI: 11.6%-15.5%]), AZM alone, 33/147 (22.4% [95% CI: 16.0%-30.1%]), and neither drug, 108/409 (26.4% [95% CI: 22.2%-31.0%]). One major difference was that the HCQ patients were more likely to be hypoxic on admission and much more likely to have received glucocorticoid treatment. However, 190 patients receiving HCQ were matched to 190 patients not receiving HCQ by propensity scoring, and, in this comparison to eliminate differences, HCQ treatment reduced mortality by 51% (p=0.009).
In a retrospective comparison study at NYU Langone Health for all patients admitted between March 2 and April 5, 2020, there was a move to add zinc 100 mg daily to their standard HCQ plus AZM regimen(46). Zinc supplementation has shown benefit in viral diseases both in inhibiting viral replication, improvement of systemic immunity and reduction of duration of common cold symptoms (47,48). There were 411 patients treated with HCQ+AZM+ zinc. There were only minor differences in the clinical characteristics of these patients compared to 521 patients on HCQ + AZM who did not receive zinc. After adjustment for the time period when zinc first came to frequent use, there was a significantly lower mortality (13.1%) among the zinc treated patients compared to those who did not receive zinc (22.8%).
The prevailing current opinion on HCQ treatment of COVID-19 is based almost entirely on in-hospital data, with limited study in outpatients. In one large internet-based prevention study, with HCQ given for 5 days to healthy individuals with a significant exposure to SARS-Cov-2, the incidence of new illness compatible with COVID-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving HCQ (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); absolute difference −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; p=0.35) (49). The same group also treated 423 patients with mild symptoms imputed to COVID-19 (505). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving HCQ had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (p = 0.21).
A study in Spain of 293 patients with PCR-confirmed mild COVID-19, found no difference in viral load following 6 days HCQ treatment nor risk of hospitalization compared to untreated patients (51). The same group treated 1,116 healthy contacts of 672 Covid-19 index cases with HCQ while 1,198 were randomly allocated to usual care (52). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 disease (6.2% usual care vs. 5.7% HCQ; risk ratio 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.54-1.46]), nor evidence of prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (17.8% usual care vs. 18.7% HCQ).
A large population study in Portugal surveyed all patients on chronic HCQ treatment and cross-verified against a mandatory database of patients registered with COVID-19 (53). The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients receiving HCQ was 5.96%, compared to 7.45% in those not so treated. The adjusted odds ratio of a positive PCR test for HCQ chronic treatment was 0.51 (0.37-0.70).
Published results with Lopanovir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in hospitalized patients have been disappointing. In a randomized trial with 99 patients on LPV/r and 100 receiving standard care, there was no difference in time to clinical improvement, mortality or viral clearance (55). A very recent press release, not yet published, from the RECOVERY trial showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28- day mortality (22.1% LPV/r vs. 21.3% usual care; relative risk 1.04 [95% confidence interval 0.91-1.18];(p=0.58) in 1,596 hospitalized patients.
A possibly more favorable result was obtained in Hong Kong in a study of 86 patients assigned to triple combination therapy with LPV/r plus ribavirin plus interferon beta-1 (56). Compared to a control group of 41 patients receiving LPV/r alone, the combination group had a significantly shorter median time from start of study treatment to negative SARS-Cov-2 nasopharyngeal swab (7 days [IQR 5–11]) than the control group (12 days [8–15]; hazard ratio 4.37 [95% CI 1.86-10.24], p=0-0010). The time to complete alleviation of symptoms was 4 days [IQR 3–8] in the combination group vs 8 days [7–9] in the control group; HR 3.92 [95% CI 1.66–9.23. The timing of interferon administration was staggered based on time of symptom onset, so there were 34 patients in the combination group who did not receive interferon at all; those patients did not show clinical or virologic superiority to the LPV/r control group. This study was interpreted not as supporting LPV/r therapy, but rather focusing on interferon beta-1 as the primary treatment modality.
In Cuba, a combination of interferon beta and interferon gamma on background therapy of LPV/r and chloroquine, was successful in achieving viral clearance in 4 days in 78.6% of the patients compared to 40.6% of those receiving interferon beta alone (58). A study of 81 hospitalized patients in Iran showed 28-day overall mortality significantly lower in an interferon treated group than the control group (19% vs. 43.6% respectively, p= 0.015) (60). Early administration significantly reduced mortality (OR=13.5; 95% CI: 1.5-118). Interferon nasal drops were administered to 2944 medical staff people in Huabei province, with not a single case of COVID-19, but there was no randomized control group (61). Recently, a press release announced that a small British study of nebulized interferon beta-1 had succeeded in reducing duration of hospitalization and mortality.
There have been many studies of immunomodulatory therapy to mitigate the hyperinflammatory phase of COVID-19 which suggested reduction of mortality and need for intubation in hospitalized severe and critically ill patients (42, 63-73). Similar levels of improvement have now been reported for the IL-1 inhibitor anakinra (74,75). In a consecutively enrolled cohort of ICU patients in France, the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation and death was significantly reduced in 52 patients who received anakinra, compared with 44 historical controls who received usual care (hazard ratio 0·22 [95% CI 0·11-0·41], p<0-0001) (75). However, a very recent press release by Roche Pharmaceuticals stated that there was no benefit of tocilizumab in the double blind COVACTA trial in clinical status, mortality (19.7% tocilizumab vs placebo = 19.4%), nor in ventilator free days.
Pre-COVID-19, glucocorticoid treatment had been a recognized treatment with mortality benefit for ICU patients in respiratory distress (76). In the RECOVERY trial, the dexamethasone arm studied 2104 patients randomly, allocated to receive this agent for ten days compared to 4321 patients concurrently allocated to usual care (78). Overall, 454 (21.6%) patients allocated dexamethasone and 1065 (24.6%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (age adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 0.92; p<0.001). Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in the subgroup of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.0% vs. 40.7%, RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.82]; p<0.001) and by one-fifth in patients receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (21.5% vs. 25.0%, RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]; p=0.002), but did not reduce mortality in patients not receiving respiratory support at randomization (17.0% vs.13.2%, RR 1.22 [95% CI 0.93 to 1.61]; p=0.14). Methylprednisolone has shown similar results in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (79,80), although a short 5 day course did not alter the very high mortality in a Brazilian study (81). There is no information as yet as to whether tocilizumab or anakinra taken on a background of high dose glucocorticoid could provide any added benefit.
Colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, suggested benefit in the GRECCO, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of 105 patients (82). The primary clinical end point of deterioration to mechanical ventilation or death was 14% in the control group (7 of 50 patients) and 1.8% in the colchicine group (1 of 55 patients) (odds ratio, 0.11; 95%CI, 0.01-0.96; p = 0.02).
There is also favorable data on convalescent plasma with a modest reduction in mortality (83,84). However, antibody levels vary in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 complicating the selection of donors (85). Two retrospective studies have suggested possible benefit with agents not ordinarily considered antiviral. Patients on famotidine in an observational study in New York City had lower mortality,as did ivermectin treated patients reviewed in Florida (86, 87).
Several vaccines have reported successful induction of antibody in early phase trials. Four vaccines have published data suggesting strong neutralizing antibody and cellular immunity response (88-91). An inactivated Chinese vaccine has recently reported strong neutralizing antibody effects (92).
DISCUSSION
SARS-Cov-2 overwhelmed medical preparedness for the pandemic. The United States, Brazil, and Europe have been particularly hit hard. On the day of August 15, as this manuscript is being written, there were 52,799 new cases with 1,169 deaths in the USA (1). Current projections are for a continuation of new cases and deaths at least through October 2020 (93). Clinical trials to date have focused on hospitalized patients to try to prevent death. In the USA, remdesivir is now available on an emergency use basis, but only for hospitalized severely ill patients. The WHO and NIH have discontinued their studies of LPV/R and HCQ.. At this point, it is unclear if the interleukin inhibitors offer benefit beyond standard glucocorticoid treatment.
It is hoped that the availability of remdesivir and improved treatment of COVID-19 respiratory failure will lower the present rate of in-hospital mortality which still approaches 20 percent. However, it is essential to prevent and to treat the initial viral infection so that hospitalization can be avoided. We face a dilemma in having no current prevention nor treatment for outpatients with mild to moderate disease, constituting 80% of the infected population and the primary mode of spread of SARS-Cov-2.
The lessons learned in very sick hospitalized patients may not hold true in the earlier viremic phase of the disease.
The Chinese have shown that strict epidemiologic control is possible, but that approach has not been fully successful in Western countries, where two months of social distancing and quarantine devastated the economies. There is also a contrast in the medical response comparing China to the Western countries. In China, empirical treatments have been offered and officially endorsed by the China National Health Commission without proof of efficacy (17). In China, it is not the practice to run placebo-controlled trials with investigational agents without alternative choices for the patient. Consequently, their “standard of care” often includes many potentially effective agents, possibly confounding results. Unlike China, the United States and Europe emphasize randomized, placebocontrolled clinical trials to decide which agents should be widely used for treatment. Those trials are ongoing, but we found that only 40 of 164 trials are proposed to complete enrollment in the second quarter of 2020. It typically may take two months or more to follow patients to completion, verify and analyze data, and then finally publish, thus impairing the goal to find treatments to be used now and during the next six months for the ongoing pandemic.
Vaccines have been the principal hope held out by public health authorities. Progress on vaccine development has been extremely rapid, but the speed of development does not reduce the challenges of developing a vaccine to be administered to hundreds of millions of people (94). Certainly the 30 years of as yet unsuccessful efforts to produce an AIDS vaccine illustrate the worst case difficulties (95). Although neutralizing antibodies and memory T cells can be produced by the vaccine candidate, the demonstration of true protection requires observation and long-term follow-up of an exposed vaccinated population. No matter how rapidly a vaccine advances to Phase III testing, the duration of follow-up cannot be shortened, and for SARS-Cov-2 possibly prolonged due to several factors. First, there is a risk of immune enhancement of infection which occurs when induced antibodies increase entry and internalization of virus into myeloid cells (96). This major complication struck the newly developed dengue vaccine in 2017 (97). Second, the sinister autoimmune pathogenicity of SARS-Cov-2, evidenced by multisystem inflammatory disorder in children, raises the risk of delayed long-term harm if the virus is not fully and immediately eradicated by the initial immune response to the vaccine. Finally, the duration of protection is an open question. Studies of recurrent coronavirus infections suggest that infection may confer immunity for less than a year (98). For these reasons of needed long term safety observation, the deployment of an effective vaccine could be delayed. An alternative approach now is to increase the non-specific immune reaction to the initial infection. Vaccination with oral polio vaccine to provide heterologous immunity has been suggested by Drs. Chumakov and Gallo, but that vaccine is no longer as freely available as their alternative suggestion of BCG vaccine (23, 99). There are very large prevention trials now being conducted in the Netherlands and Australia using BCG vaccination to increase innate immunity to SARS-Cov-2 in health care workers, but those are not due to complete until the fourth quarter of 2020.
Shortages of testing supplies in the United States have thus far limited the ability to positively diagnose the disease, resulting in the recommendation of home quarantine for the majority of patients with suspicious symptoms. Those shortages are being rapidly remedied. Now, there is a need for therapeutic interventions which can be used to treat outpatients with positive COVID-19 tests at the time of initial symptoms, not waiting for deterioration requiring hospital care. The Marseille group demonstrated that it was possible to treat all outpatients with a positive test early in the viremic phase of COVID-19 (34). They provided clinical and virologic data, but without a well-defined control group to justify their treatment with HCQ plus AZM. The NYU group treated all hospitalized patients with HCQ and AZM, and showed an impressive effect of addition of zinc sulfate, but they had no control group for HCQ plus AZM. Remdesivir is administered intravenously, so not a practical daily outpatient treatment. Gilead© is attempting to develop an inhaled remdesivir formulation, but those efforts are only now beginning. Favipiravir, a tablet, could be used in early stages of infection and has now been released for that purpose in Russia and in India, but not in the United States. It has known embryogenic risks, so its use requires restrictions on women of childbearing potential, as is the case with tretinoin for acne and thalidomide for multiple myeloma. Trials with camostat, the serine protease inhibitor, capable of blocking cell entry of SARS-Cov-2, are not due to end till the third or fourth quarter of the year. Similarly, a prevention trial with colchicine is not scheduled to end until the fourth quarter of 2020. The Solidarity Trial interferon arm is not scheduled to complete enrollment until 2021. So, none of the possible therapeutic interventions have been proven successful in randomized, placebo-controlled studies. There are strong arguments to avoid emergency use of agents until trials are completed and analyzed, but the agents suggested are not new (100). Most of them are drugs like interferon, marketed for other conditions and with well-known safety profiles.
There is a precedent to resolve the conflict between immediate clinical need and the requirements for rigorous controlled trials to prove efficacy. We should remember that the greatest success in fighting a pandemic occurred over the past two decades in the battle against the HIV virus which causes AIDS.
AIDS was first recognized in 1981 in the gay community (101). The disease was considered a death sentence. There was widespread fear because there was no treatment, and projections of infection escalated into the millions. The first AIDS remedy was azidothymidine (AZT), synthesized in 1964 in the hope that it would combat cancer. Twenty years later Dr. Samuel Broder, head of the National Cancer Institute, showed that the drug had activity against the HIV virus in vitro (102). Burroughs Wellcome launched a rapidly conceived trial with just 300 patients. They stopped the trial in 16 weeks claiming that more patients survived on AZT. The FDA came under enormous pressure from AIDS activists to make the drug available, and it was approved on March 19, 1987, with only that one trial. It had taken 20 months for the FDA to give approval to release the drug. To this day, the design and results of the trial remain controversial.
The gay community continued to battle for early release of other medications to combat the AIDS pandemic. On October 11, 1988, a massive protest occurred at the FDA. It was back then Dr. Anthony Fauci who publicly advanced the idea of a parallel track to make drugs widely available even while studies are progressing: “Clearly, the standard approach to the design of clinical trials—that is, rigid eligibility criteria as well as the strict regulatory aspects that attend clinical trial investigations and drug approval—was not well-suited to a novel, largely fatal disease such as this with no effective treatments, and we had many intense discussions about how to make that approach more flexible and ethically sound. One example, which I and others worked closely with the AIDS activists to develop, was called a parallel track for clinical trials. The parallel track concept, which the United States Food and Drug Administration ultimately came to support, meant that there would be the standard type of highly controlled admission criteria and data collection for the clinical trial of a particular drug. In parallel, however, the drug also could be made available to those who did not meet the trial’s strict admission criteria but were still in dire need of any potentially effective intervention, however unproven, for this deadly disease” (103).
The parallel track advocated by Dr. Fauci was adopted. Today, there are 41 drugs or combinations approved by the FDA to treat and to prevent HIV infection. There is still no vaccine. There are now an estimated 1.1 million patients with HIV in the United States, most enjoying near normal life expectancy thanks to the antiviral agents. The CDC has contributed greatly to limit the spread of HIV by advocating safe sex practices, but social distancing is not the norm for HIV. Rather “treatment as prevention” for people with HIV using highly active antiretroviral regimens to prevent transmission and pre-exposure prophylaxis endorsed by the CDC with a daily antiviral combination pill is currently adopted in wide segments of the at risk population (104).
In this pandemic crisis, we appeal to public health authorities to cross institutional, commercial and international boundaries to collate and combine all randomized controlled data submitted for all agents in Europe, China, Russia, Japan and other countries, and by competing companies, whether officially published, posted on line, or unpublished to finalize confirmatory results. The Solidarity Trial is a model of what could and should be done to unify a worldwide effort to pursue studies in outpatients. At the same time, agents with favorable preliminary results and no safety issues should be made available through a parallel track. In Russia and India, the parallel track has been fully implemented, with FVP now offered as treatment throughout both countries, even as further confirmatory controlled trials proceed. Interferon beta is one of the remaining randomized controlled Solidarity Trial options and is widely available in most countries. If vaccines can be brought forward now, it is reasonable to authorize their use at present in very large parallel track studies in at risk populations, such as healthcare workers and the elderly. However, it is likely that combination antiviral medications in addition to vaccination will likely be needed to stop SARS-Cov2. It is necessary for public health authorities to make hard decisions now despite limited current data and offer treatments without further delay.
Data Availability
We have provided a comprehensive list of all clinical trials with their registration as Supplementary Table 1
Footnotes
addition of multiple co-authors Text updated to August 15, 2020 Tables updated to August 15, 2020
REFERENCES
- 1).↵
- 2).↵
- 3).↵
- 4).↵
- 5).↵
- 6).↵
- 7).↵
- 8).↵
- (9).↵
- (10).↵
- 11).↵
- 12).↵
- 13).↵
- 14).↵
- 15).↵
- 16).↵
- 17).↵
- 18).↵
- 19).↵
- 20).↵
- 21).↵
- 22).↵
- 23).↵
- 24).↵
- 25).↵
- 26).
- 27).↵
- 28).↵
- 29).↵
- 30).↵
- 31).↵
- 32).↵
- 33).↵
- 34).↵
- 35).
- 36).
- 37).
- 38).↵
- 39).
- 40).
- 41).
- 42).↵
- 43).↵
- 44).↵
- 45).↵
- 46).↵
- 47).↵
- 48).↵
- 49).↵
- 50).
- 51).↵
- 52).↵
- 53).↵
- 54).
- 55).↵
- 56).↵
- 57).
- 58).↵
- 59).
- 60).↵
- 61).↵
- 62).
- 63).↵
- 64).
- 65).
- 66).
- 67).
- 68).
- 69).
- 70).
- 71).
- 72).
- 73).↵
- 74).↵
- 75).↵
- 76).↵
- 77).
- 78).↵
- 79).↵
- 80).↵
- 81).↵
- 82).↵
- 83).↵
- 84).↵
- 85).↵
- 86).↵
- 87).↵
- 88).↵
- 89).
- 90).
- 91).↵
- 92).↵
- 93).↵
- 94).↵
- 95).↵
- 96).↵
- 97).↵
- 98).↵
- 99).↵
- 100).↵
- 101).↵
- 102).↵
- 103).↵
- 104).↵