Viral clearance, pharmacokinetics and tolerability of ensovibep in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: A phase 2a, open-label, single-dose escalation study.

AIM: To assess viral clearance, pharmacokinetics, tolerability and symptom evolution following ensovibep administration in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: In this open-label, first-in-patient study a single dose of either 225 mg (n = 6) or 600 mg (n = 6) of ensovibep was administered intravenously in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Pharmacokinetic profiles were determined (90-day period). Pharmacodynamic assessments consisted of viral load (qPCR and cultures) and symptom questionnaires. Immunogenicity against ensovibep and SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing activity were determined. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout a 13-week follow-up. RESULTS: Both doses showed similar pharmacokinetics (first-order) with mean half-lives of 14 (SD 5.0) and 13 days (SD 5.7) for the 225- and 600-mg groups, respectively. Pharmacologically relevant serum concentrations were maintained in all subjects for at least 2 weeks postdose, regardless of possible immunogenicity against ensovibep. Viral load changes from baseline at day 15 were 5.1 (SD 0.86) and 5.3 (SD 2.2) log10 copies/mL for the 225- and 600-mg doses, respectively. COVID-19 symptom scores decreased from 10.0 (SD 4.1) and 11.3 (SD 4.0) to 1.6 (SD 3.1) and 3.3 (SD 2.4) in the first week for the 225- and 600-mg groups, respectively. No anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity was present predose and all patients had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at day 91. Adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity, transient and self-limiting. CONCLUSION: Single-dose intravenous administration of 225 or 600 mg of ensovibep appeared safe and well tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Ensovibep showed favourable pharmacokinetics in patients and the pharmacodynamic results warrant further research in a larger phase 2/3 randomized-controlled trail.

A comparison of the effectiveness of different doses of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the treatment of severe COVID-19: a natural experiment due to drug shortages

Objectives IL-6 inhibitors are administered to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. Methods Hospitalized COVID-19 patients, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural-experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and ICU length of stay and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed dose tocilizumab, low dose tocilizumab and fixed dose sarilumab treatment groups. Results 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04-1.39), low dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31) and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds for progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. Conclusions We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted.

A comparison of the effectiveness of different doses of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the treatment of severe COVID-19: a natural experiment due to drug shortages.

OBJECTIVES: Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real-world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed-dose tocilizumab, low-dose tocilizumab, and fixed-dose sarilumab treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.39), low-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31), and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds of progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low-dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. CONCLUSION: We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time-associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted.

COVID-box Experiences of Patients and Health Care Professionals (COVID-box Project): Single-Center, Retrospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of patients and health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine patients' and health care professionals' experiences and satisfaction with employing the COVID-box. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, patients and health care professionals were asked to anonymously fill out multiple-choice questionnaires with questions on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. The themes addressed by patients were the sense of reassurance and safety, experiences with teleconsultations, their appreciation for staying at home, and the instructions for using the COVID-box. The themes addressed by health care professionals who treated patients with the COVID-box were the characteristics of the COVID-box, the technical support service and general satisfaction, and their expectations and support for this telemonitoring concept. Scores were interpreted as insufficient (≤2 or ≤5, respectively), sufficient (3 or 6-7, respectively), or good (≥4 or ≥8, respectively) on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients and 25 health care professionals filled out the questionnaires. The median score was 4 (IQR 4-5) for the sense of safety, the appreciation for staying at home, and experiences with teleconsultations, with good scores from 76.5% (88/115), 86% (56/65), and 83.6% (92/110) of the patients, respectively. Further, 74.4% (87/117) of the patients scored the home monitoring program with a score of ≥8. Health care professionals scored the COVID-box with a minimum median score of 7 (IQR 7-10) on a 10-point scale for all domains (ie, the characteristics of the COVID-box and the technical support service and general satisfaction). For the sense of safety, user-friendliness, and additional value of the COVID-box, the median scores were 8 (IQR 8-10), 8 (IQR 7-9), and 10 (IQR 8-10), respectively, with good scores from 86% (19/22), 75% (15/20), and 96% (24/25) of the health care professionals, respectively. All health care professionals (25/25, 100%) gave a score of ≥8 for supporting this home monitoring concept, with a median score of 10 (IQR 10-10). CONCLUSIONS: The positive experiences and satisfaction of involved users are key factors for the successful implementation of a novel eHealth solution. In our study, patients, as well as health care professionals, were highly satisfied with the use of the home monitoring program-the COVID-box project. Remote home monitoring may be an effective approach in cases of increased demand for hospital care and high pressure on health care systems.