Effectiveness of Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Combination in Immunocompromised Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Post Hoc Analysis in a Phase 1/2/3 Double-Blind Trial.

Background: Individuals who are immunocompromised (IC) are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Post hoc analyses of a double-blind trial conducted prior to Omicron (June 2020-April 2021), in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 assessed viral load, clinical outcomes, and safety of casirivimab plus imdevimab (CAS + IMD) versus placebo in IC versus overall study patients. Results: Ninety-nine of 1940 (5.1%) patients were IC. IC versus overall patients were more frequently seronegative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (68.7% vs 41.2%) and had higher median baseline viral loads (7.21 vs 6.32 log10 copies/mL). On placebo, IC versus overall patients had slower viral load declines. CAS + IMD reduced viral load in IC and overall patients; least-squares mean difference versus placebo in time-weighted average change from baseline viral load at day 7 was -0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.25 to -.14) log10 copies/mL for IC patients and -0.31 (95% CI, -.42 to -.20) log10 copies/mL for overall patients. For IC patients, the cumulative incidence of death or mechanical ventilation at day 29 was lower with CAS + IMD (11.0%) versus placebo (17.2%), consistent with overall patients (15.7% CAS + IMD vs 18.3% placebo). IC and overall patients receiving CAS + IMD exhibited similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (30.4% and 26.6%, respectively), grade ≥2 hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions (1.4% and 2.5%), and deaths (8.7% and 12.2%). Conclusions: IC patients were more likely to exhibit high viral loads and be seronegative at baseline. For susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variants, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and resulted in fewer death or mechanical ventilation events in IC and overall study patients. There were no new safety findings among IC patients. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04426695.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD). METHODS: In this phase I/II/III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. RESULTS: 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met: in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% CI, -0.51 to -0.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation (death/MV) from day 6-29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2-74.0). No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab Treatment Reduces Viral Load and Improves Clinical Outcomes in Seropositive Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with Nonneutralizing or Borderline Neutralizing Antibodies.

We conducted a post hoc analysis in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for functional neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at baseline from a phase 1, 2, and 3 trial of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants. Patients were randomized to a single dose of 2.4 g CAS+IMD, 8.0 g CAS+IMD, or placebo. Patients seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were analyzed by their baseline neutralizing antibody status. At baseline, 20.6% (178/864) of seropositive patients were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, indicating negative or very low functionally neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. CAS+IMD reduced viral load in patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies versus placebo, but not in patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies. In patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, we observed a trend in reduction of the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation, as well as in all-cause mortality, by day 29 with CAS+IMD versus placebo. The proportions of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation from days 1 to 29 were 19.1% in the placebo group and 10.9% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group, and the proportions of patients who died (all-cause mortality) from days 1 to 29 were 16.2% in the placebo group and 9.1% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group. In patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies, no measurable harm or benefit was observed in either the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation or the proportion of patients who died (all-cause mortality). In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen, CAS+IMD reduced viral load, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies. IMPORTANCE The clinical benefit of CAS+IMD in hospitalized seronegative patients with COVID-19 has previously been demonstrated, although these studies observed no clinical benefit in seropositive patients. As the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive individuals rises due to both vaccination and previous infection, it is important to understand whether there is a subset of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that there is a subset of hospitalized seropositive patients with inadequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies (i.e., those who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies) who may still benefit from CAS+IMD treatment if infected with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant. Therefore, utilizing serostatus alone to guide treatment decisions for patients with COVID-19 may fail to identify those seropositive patients who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapies known to be effective against circulating strains, dependent upon how effectively their endogenous antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2.

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Open-label platform trials and a prospective meta-analysis suggest efficacy of anti-interleukin (IL)-6R therapies in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving corticosteroids. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an anti-IL-6R monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults hospitalized with COVID-19 received intravenous sarilumab 400 mg or placebo. The phase 3 primary analysis population included patients with critical COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). The primary outcome was proportion of patients with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status from baseline to day 22. RESULTS: There were 457 and 1365 patients randomized and treated in phases 2 and 3, respectively. In phase 3, patients with critical COVID-19 receiving MV (n = 298; 28.2% on corticosteroids), the proportion with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status (alive, not receiving MV) at day 22 was 43.2% for sarilumab and 35.5% for placebo (risk difference, +7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to 21.3; P =.3261), a relative risk improvement of 21.7%. In post hoc analyses pooling phase 2 and 3 critical patients receiving MV, the hazard ratio for death for sarilumab vs placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, .51 to 1.13) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, .25 to .94) in patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not establish the efficacy of sarilumab in hospitalized patients with severe/critical COVID-19. Post hoc analyses were consistent with other studies that found a benefit of sarilumab in patients receiving corticosteroids. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04315298.

Baseline Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Viral Load Is Associated With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Severity and Clinical Outcomes: Post Hoc Analyses of a Phase 2/3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Elucidating the relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load and clinical outcomes is critical for understanding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The SARS-CoV-2 levels were analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab specimens collected at baseline, and clinical outcomes were recorded over 60 days from 1362 COVID-19 hospitalized patients enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial of sarilumab for COVID-19 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04315298). RESULTS: In post hoc analyses, higher baseline viral load, measured by both RT-qPCR cycle threshold and log10 copies/mL, was associated with greater supplemental oxygenation requirements and disease severity at study entry. Higher baseline viral load was associated with higher mortality, lower likelihood of improvement in clinical status and supplemental oxygenation requirements, and lower rates of hospital discharge. Viral load was not impacted by sarilumab treatment over time versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These data support viral load as an important determinant of clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or assisted ventilation.

REGEN-COV Antibody Combination and Outcomes in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 1-2 portion of an adaptive trial, REGEN-COV, a combination of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab, reduced the viral load and number of medical visits in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). REGEN-COV has activity in vitro against current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern. METHODS: In the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial, we randomly assigned outpatients with Covid-19 and risk factors for severe disease to receive various doses of intravenous REGEN-COV or placebo. Patients were followed through day 29. A prespecified hierarchical analysis was used to assess the end points of hospitalization or death and the time to resolution of symptoms. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1355 patients in the REGEN-COV 2400-mg group (1.3%) and in 62 of 1341 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (4.6%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 71.3%; P<0.001); these outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 patients in the REGEN-COV 1200-mg group (1.0%) and in 24 of 748 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (3.2%) (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = 0.002). The median time to resolution of symptoms was 4 days shorter with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P<0.001 for both comparisons). REGEN-COV was efficacious across various subgroups, including patients who were SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody-positive at baseline. Both REGEN-COV doses reduced viral load faster than placebo; the least-squares mean difference in viral load from baseline through day 7 was -0.71 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.53) in the 1200-mg group and -0.86 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.72) in the 2400-mg group. Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the placebo group (4.0%) than in the 1200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2400-mg group (1.3%); infusion-related reactions of grade 2 or higher occurred in less than 0.3% of the patients in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: REGEN-COV reduced the risk of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, and it resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more rapidly than placebo. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).

REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that complications and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may be related to high viral loads. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, phase 1-3 trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19, we investigated two fully human, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein, used in a combined cocktail (REGN-COV2) to reduce the risk of the emergence of treatment-resistant mutant virus. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive placebo, 2.4 g of REGN-COV2, or 8.0 g of REGN-COV2 and were prospectively characterized at baseline for endogenous immune response against SARS-CoV-2 (serum antibody-positive or serum antibody-negative). Key end points included the time-weighted average change in viral load from baseline (day 1) through day 7 and the percentage of patients with at least one Covid-19-related medically attended visit through day 29. Safety was assessed in all patients. RESULTS: Data from 275 patients are reported. The least-squares mean difference (combined REGN-COV2 dose groups vs. placebo group) in the time-weighted average change in viral load from day 1 through day 7 was -0.56 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.02 to -0.11) among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline and -0.41 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.10) in the overall trial population. In the overall trial population, 6% of the patients in the placebo group and 3% of the patients in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups reported at least one medically attended visit; among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline, the corresponding percentages were 15% and 6% (difference, -9 percentage points; 95% CI, -29 to 11). The percentages of patients with hypersensitivity reactions, infusion-related reactions, and other adverse events were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this interim analysis, the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail reduced viral load, with a greater effect in patients whose immune response had not yet been initiated or who had a high viral load at baseline. Safety outcomes were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).