ABSTRACT
Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aftercare , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Humans , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.