Search

Background Despite improvements in treatment and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access, 1.3 million people acquired HIV in 2022. Six-monthly lenacapavir PrEP could benefit tens of millions of people at high risk of infection. However, prices are currently up to $44 819 per person per year (pppy). Objectives We projected minimum lenacapavir pricing based on generic mass production and a Cost-Plus (Cost+) model. Methods Current active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and key starting materials (KSMs) costs were obtained from export databases. The routes of synthesis (ROS) were analysed to project a cost of goods (COGs). Formulation, vials and profit margin costs were included using standardized algorithms and Cost+ pricing. We estimated prices with scale-up to supply 1 million then 10 million treatment-years, comparing this with national list prices. Results The lenacapavir API is currently exported from India for $64 480/kg on 1 kg scale. Based on the ROS and KSMs, API COGs of $25 000/kg and $10 000/kg are achievable for a committed demand of 1 million (2 million tonnes/annum of API) and 10 million treatment-years, respectively. Including formulation steps, injectable lenacapavir could be mass produced for approximately $94 pppy for 1 million and $41 for 10 million treatment-years, if voluntary licences are in place and competition between generic suppliers substantially improves. Greater scale-up with improvements in manufacturers' ROS could reduce prices further. Currently lenacapavir costs $25 395–44 819 pppy. Conclusions Lenacapavir could be mass produced for <$100 pppy at launch. Voluntary licensing and multiple suppliers are required to achieve these low prices. This mechanism is already in place for other antiretrovirals. To date, Gilead has not agreed lenacapavir voluntary licences with the Medicines Patent Pool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Five severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are approved in North America and/or Europe: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Novavax. Other vaccines have been developed, including Sinopharm, SinoVac, QazVac, Covaxin, Soberana, Zifivax, Medicago, Clover, and Cansino, but they are not approved in high-income countries. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved and -unapproved vaccines in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods A systematic review of trial registries identified RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2). In the meta-analysis, relative risks of symptomatic infection and severe disease were compared for each vaccine versus placebo, using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel Tests (random effects method). Results Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 1 was excluded for high-risk of bias. Ten RCTs evaluated 5 approved vaccines and 11 RCTs evaluated 9 unapproved vaccines. In the meta-analysis, prevention of symptomatic infection was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%–92%) for approved vaccines versus 72% (95% CI, 66%–77%) for unapproved vaccines, with no significant difference between vaccine types (P  = .12). Prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94% (95% CI, 75%–98%) for approved vaccines versus 86% (95% CI, 76%–92%) for unapproved vaccines (P  = .33). The risk of serious adverse events was similar between vaccine types (P  = .12). Conclusions This meta-analysis of 21 RCTs in 390 459 participants showed no significant difference in efficacy between the FDA/EMA-approved and -unapproved vaccines for symptomatic or severe infection. Differences in study design, endpoint definitions, variants, and infection prevalence may have influenced results. New patent-free vaccines could lower costs of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated in clinical trials for the prevention of COVID-19. However, there are concerns about the quality of some of these trials.Objectives: To conduct a meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials of ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19, while controlling for the quality of data. The primary outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. The secondary outcome was rate of symptomatic COVID-19 infection.Methods: We conducted a subgroup analysis based on the quality of randomized controlled trials evaluating ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias measures (RoB 2) and additional checks on raw data, where possible.Results: Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. One was rated as being potentially fraudulent, two as having a high risk of bias and one as having some concerns for bias. Ivermectin did not have a significant effect on preventing RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. Ivermectin had a significant effect on preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infection in one trial with some concerns of bias, but this result was based on post hoc analysis of a multi-arm study.Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, the use of ivermectin was not associated with the prevention of RT-PCR-confirmed or symptomatic COVID-19. The currently available randomized trials evaluating ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19 are insufficient and of poor quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated for repurposing against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Ivermectin showed in vitro activity against SARS-COV-2, but only at high concentrations. This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 23 randomized clinical trials (3349 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv, and trial registries. The primary meta-analysis was carried out by excluding studies at a high risk of bias. Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.42; P =.66) or hospitalizations (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.11; P =.11). Ivermectin displayed a borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care (mean difference, –1.14 days; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.00; P =.05). There was no significant effect of ivermectin on time to clinical recovery (mean difference, –0.57 days; 95% CI, –1.31 to 0.17; P =.13) or binary clinical recovery (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.50; P =.15). Currently, the World Health Organization recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials. A network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ivermectin has become a controversial potential medicine for coronavirus disease 2019. Some early studies suggested clinical benefits in treatment of infection. However, the body of evidence includes studies of varying quality. Furthermore, some trials have now been identified as potentially fraudulent. We present a subgroup meta-analysis to assess the effects of stratifying by trial quality on the overall results. The stratification is based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias measures and raw data analysis where possible. The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor-quality studies. According to the potentially fraudulent study (risk ratio [RR], 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02–0.35), ivermectin improved survival ~12 times more in comparison with low-risk studies (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.56–1.66). This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, for authors to share patient-level data, and for efforts to avoid publication bias for registered studies. These steps are vital to facilitate accurate conclusions on clinical treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]