Post-exposure Lopinavir-Ritonavir Prophylaxis versus Surveillance for Individuals Exposed to SARS-CoV-2: The COPEP Pragmatic Open-Label, Cluster Randomized Trial.
Journal
EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
01
07
2021
revised:
16
10
2021
accepted:
20
10
2021
entrez:
15
11
2021
pubmed:
16
11
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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. 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).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
RESULTS
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
CONCLUSIONS
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
BACKGROUND
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).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34778734
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101188
pii: S2589-5370(21)00469-7
pmc: PMC8570913
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04364022']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101188Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : U01 AI069476
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : UM1 AI069476
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Niklaus D Labhardt reports support for attending CROI conference 2020 and AIDS conference 2020 by Gilead Sciences, support for attending CROI Conference 2021 by ViiV healthcare, and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for the C1 6201 PROTECT trial by Pharming Group NV. Dr. Mikaela Smit reports scientific grants at Imperial College London by CDRF (prime is PEPFAR) and NIH, and consulting fees for modeling consulting by Gilead Sciences, IAS, Maple Health. Dr. Enos Bernasconi reports grants from Merck & Co. and Swiss National Science Foundation, consulting fees and support for attending meeting by Gilead Sciences, Merck & Co., ViiV healthcare, Pfizer AG, Abbvie, paid to the Lugano Regional Hospital. Dr. Alexandra Calmy reports grant from MSD for qualitative research on women and clinical trials, and unrestricted grant from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, MSD and SIDAIDE foundation related to the funding support to LIPO and metabolims Day Hospital at Geneva University Hospitals. All other authors have nothing to disclose.
Références
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Dec;108(6):1176-1184
pubmed: 32767755
Lancet. 2020 May 30;395(10238):1695-1704
pubmed: 32401715
BMJ. 2021 Apr 26;373:n949
pubmed: 33903131
Nature. 2021 Jan;589(7843):500-501
pubmed: 33479534
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):517-525
pubmed: 32492293
Trials. 2021 Mar 22;22(1):224
pubmed: 33752741
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 22;383(17):1645-1656
pubmed: 33026741
Lancet. 2020 Sep 26;396(10255):898-908
pubmed: 32919524
Lancet. 2020 May 22;:
pubmed: 32450107
BMJ. 2020 Jul 30;370:m2980
pubmed: 32732190
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2031756
pubmed: 33315116
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Feb 23;118(8):
pubmed: 33536313
Lancet Public Health. 2021 Apr;6(4):e210-e221
pubmed: 33556325
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Apr;27(4):532-537
pubmed: 33476807
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 11;384(6):497-511
pubmed: 33264556
Antiviral Res. 2020 Jun;178:104786
pubmed: 32251767
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 7;382(19):1787-1799
pubmed: 32187464
BMJ. 2021 Apr 26;373:n1077
pubmed: 33903129
N Engl J Med. 2021 May 13;384(19):1866-1868
pubmed: 33761203
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 18;:
pubmed: 33338197
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021 Jan;57(1):106248
pubmed: 33259913
Lancet. 2020 Oct 24;396(10259):1345-1352
pubmed: 33031764
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;20(10):1141-1150
pubmed: 32562601