Safety and Efficacy of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID 19: A Phase IIa Trial

Background: A profound need remains to develop further therapeutics for treatment of those hospitalized with COVID-19. Based on data implicating the type 2 cytokine interleukin (IL)-13 as a significant factor leading to critical COVID-19, this trial was designed to assess dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-13 and IL-4 signaling, for treatment of inpatients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a phase IIa randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of dupilumab plus standard of care versus placebo plus standard of care in mitigating respiratory failure and death in those hospitalized with COVID-19. Subjects were followed prospectively for 60 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation at 28 days. Findings: Forty eligible subjects were enrolled from June to November of 2021. There was no difference in adverse events nor in ventilator free survival at day 28 between study arms. However, for the secondary endpoint of mortality at day 60, subjects randomized to dupilumab had a higher survival rate compared to the placebo group (89.5% vs 76.2%, adjusted HR 0.05, 95% CI: 0.0–0.72, p=0.03). There were fewer subjects admitted to the ICU in the dupilumab group compared to placebo (33.3% vs 66.7%; adjusted HR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.09–2.09, p=0.30). Lastly, we saw downstream evidence of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling blockade in the dupilumab group through analysis of immune biomarkers over time. Interpretation: Dupilumab was well tolerated and improved 60-day survival in patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04920916. Funding: Virginia Biosciences Health Research Corporation, PBM C19, Henske Family Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute

60, proportion of patients alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation at 60 days, hospital 1 2 3 length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, change in 8-point ordinal score and change in partial pressure of 1 2 4 oxygen (PaO 2 ) or oxygen saturation (SaO 2 ) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) ratio. Plasma 1 2 5 inflammatory markers, including C reactive protein (CRP), ferritin and a 47-plex cytokine panel 1 2 6 were measured at various time points during the study. Additional type 2 inflammatory markers 1 2 7 including TARC (CCL17), YKL40, eotaxin 3 (CCL26), arginase1 (Arg1), hyaluronan, soluble 1 2 8 ST2 and total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) were also measured. Ferritin, CRP and IgE levels 1 2 9 were measured at the University of Virginia Clinical Laboratories while other biomarkers were 1 3 0 measured by multiplex immunoassays or ELISAs depending on the analyte. SARS-CoV-2 1 3 1 baseline nucleocapsid (N)-protein level was measured from day 0, 2, 5, 7 and 14 available 1 3 2 plasma of each subject using a microbead-based immunoassay, a highly sensitive detection  Primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed under the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle.

4 7
Safety outcomes were analyzed in the as treated population, including subjects who were 1 4 8 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 19, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 enrolled and received at least one dose of study drug. Demographics, clinical and safety 1 4 9 outcomes were analyzed initially with the Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for categorical 1 5 0 measures and two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum for continuous measures, after 1 5 1 assessment of normality. Treatment differences in ventilator free survival proportions were 1 5 2 analyzed via logistic regression. Mortality differences were evaluated by the log-rank test and Cox regression for further investigation of its influence on survivability. This allowed us to 1 6 2 account for the significant change in mortality risk between pre-and post-intubation when a 1 6 3 patient was placed on mechanical ventilation. We additionally tested differences in the likelihood 1 6 4 of ICU admission between the two groups by the log-rank test. Lastly, after assessment of  (Table S1).
CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 19, 2022. ; is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 19, 2022. ; Table 2: Adverse events observed throughout the study period by treatment group. Other infections included Clostridioides difficile infection (1), bacteremia (2), urinary tract infections (2) and oral candidiasis (1). Categorical variables expressed as total n (percentage). Eosinophilia was defined as an absolute eosinophil count >0.6 k/uL at ≥ 1 measurement throughout the study period. *Difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant with Fischer's exact p=0.09.

8 5
There were no significant differences in cumulative adverse events observed between the 1 8 6 treatment groups (Table 2). In the dupilumab group, five subjects developed asymptomatic 1 8 7 eosinophilia compared to one subject in the placebo group (Fisher's exact p=0.09). There were 1 8 8 no clinical consequences, including dermatologic, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, cardiac or 1 8 9 neurologic, attributed to the peripheral eosinophilia seen in these subjects. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of proportion of patients alive and 1 9 6 free of mechanical ventilation at day 28 between the two groups (Table 3). However, by 1 9 7 secondary endpoint at 60 days, 89.5% of subjects in the dupilumab group were alive compared 1 9 8 to 76.2% for the placebo group as no patients remained on mechanical ventilation by day 60 in 1 9 9 either group (Table 3). After adjustment for sex and mechanical ventilation as a time varying 2 0 0 predictor, the risk of death over 60-day follow-up period was significantly lower in dupilumab 2 0 1 group compared to placebo (Table 3; Fig 1). . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 19, 2022. ; Figure 1: Kaplan Meier survival curves depicting 60-day mortality between two treatment groups. Dupilumab group is represented by blue line. Placebo group is represented by the orange line. Adjusted p value indicative of adjustment for sex and time varying ventilation in the Cox regression. Patient study visits occurred within an allotted range of exact study days and therefore the number at risk in the table is representative of patient data availability up until those exact days (i.e., if study visit was conducted on day 59 and no event had occurred, then the subject was included in the at-risk pool up until day 59 but not in that for day 60).  Table 3: Primary and key secondary endpoints by treatment group. Primary endpoint was ventilator free survival by day 28. Secondary endpoints were ventilator free survival by day 60, mortality by day 60 and mortality by day 28. Proportions are listed as total n (%). The differences in the ventilator free survival proportions were evaluated using logistic regression, adjusted for sex. The differences in mortality risk were evaluated in the Cox regression, adjusted for sex and time varying mechanical ventilation. d . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 19, 2022. ; Figure 2: Kaplan Meier curve depicting need for escalation to ICU over 60day study period. Patients already admitted to the ICU on day of enrollment (n=7) were excluded from analysis. Dupilumab group is represented by blue line. Placebo group is represented by the orange line. Patient study visits occurred within an allotted range of exact study days and therefore the number at risk in the table is representative of patient data availability up until those exact days (i.e., if study visit was conducted on day 59 and no event had occurred, then the subject was included in the at-risk pool up until day 59 but not in that for day 60).
Numerically fewer subjects in the dupilumab group required ICU care (33.3%) compared to the 2 1 3 placebo group (66.7%) though this difference was not statistically significant (log-rank p=0.23, 2 1 4 HR 0.44, CI: 0.09-2.09, p=0.30 adjusted for sex, Fig 2). There was no difference in additional 2 1 5 secondary endpoints between the two treatment groups (Table 4, Fig S2, Fig S3). In both treatment groups, CRP, ferritin and IgE levels declined in the first two weeks with no 2 2 3 significant difference in the change in measures from day 0 to 14 between groups (Fig S4).

4
When looking at the change in absolute cell counts over time, there was an increase in 2 2 5 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 19, 2022. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 eosinophils by day 14 in the dupilumab group compared to the placebo group (p=0.01 by