ABSTRACT
Passive immunotherapy has been evaluated as a therapeutic alternative for patients with COVID-19 disease. Equine polyclonal immunotherapy for COVID-19 (EPIC) showed adequate safety and potential efficacy in a clinical trial setting and obtained emergency use authorisation in Argentina. We studied its utility in a real world setting with a larger population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at "Hospital de Campana Escuela-Hogar" in Corrientes, Argentina, to assess safety and effectiveness of EPIC in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Primary endpoints were 28-days all cause mortality and safety. Mortality and improvement in modified WHO clinical scale at 14 and 21 days were secondary endpoints. Potential confounder adjustment was made by logistic regression weighted by the inverse of the probability of receiving the treatment (IPTW) and doubly robust approach. Results: Clinical records of 395 exposed (EPIC) and 446 non-exposed (Controls) patients admitted between November 2020 and April 2021 were analyzed. Median age was 58 years, 56.8% males. Mortality at 28 days was 15.7% ( EPIC) vs 21.5% (Control). After IPTW adjustment the OR was 0.66 (95 % CI: 0.46 - 0.96) p= 0.03. The effect was more evident in the subgroup who received two EPIC doses (complete treatment, n=379), OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.85) p=0.005. Overall and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , PneumoniaABSTRACT
Background The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods and Findings We develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. Conclusions There is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have been focussed on hospitalised-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of current and proposed treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods: First, we used a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care pathways to explore the potential impact of dexamethasone - the main treatment currently for hospitalised COVID-19 patients - under scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) the efficacy of dexamethasone in the absence of supportive care. We then fit the model to the observed epidemic trajectory to-date in 165 countries and analysed the potential future impact of dexamethasone in different countries, regions, and country-income strata. Finally, we constructed hypothetical profiles of novel therapeutics based on current trials, and compared the potential impact of each under different circumstances. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. Findings: We find the potential benefit dexamethasone is severely limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). However, therapeutics for different patient populations (in particular, those not in hospital and early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (in particular, reducing disease severity or infectiousness) could have much greater benefits. Such therapeutics would have particular value in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics, even if the efficacy or achievable coverage of such therapeutics is lower in comparison to other types. Interpretation: People in low-income countries will benefit the least from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have focussed on hospitalised-patients with adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have much greater impact. Such therapeutics may be feasible and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority. Funding: None to declare. Declaration of Interest: None to declare.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Passive immunotherapy is a therapeutic alternative for patients with COVID-19. Equine polyclonal antibodies (EpAbs) could represent a source of easily scaled up neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of EpAbs (INM005) in hospitalized adult patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 pneumonia in 19 hospitals of Argentina. Primary endpoint was improvement in at least two categories in WHO ordinal clinical scale at day 28 (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04494984).Findings: Enrolled patients were assigned to receive two doses of INM005 (n=118) or placebo (n=123). Median age was 54 years old, 65·1% were male and 61% had moderate disease at baseline. The median time from the onset of COVID-19 symptoms to the administration of the first dose of intervention was 6 days (interquartile range 5 to 8 days). At day 28 no significant difference was noted between study groups on primary endpoint (odds ratio, 1·61%, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0·71 to 3·63 p=0·34); however, overall variation in ordinal clinical status during the 28 days follow up period favored INM005. Improvement in at least two categories was significantly higher in INM005 at days 7, 14 and 21 of follow up. A significant difference was noted in time to improvement in at least two ordinal categories or hospital discharge: 14·2 (± 0·7) days in the INM005 group and 16·3 (± 0·7) days in the placebo group. Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed a more pronounced effect of the intervention over severe patients and with no antibody response at baseline. Overall mortality was 6·8% the INM005 group and 11·4% in the placebo group.Interpretation: Albeit not having reached the primary endpoint, we found clinical improvement of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, particularly those with severe disease. Funding: Funded by Inmunova and grants from the Ministries of Science and Production of Argentina.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04494984Declaration of Interests: MC, SS, VZ, LM, LS, FG received grants from Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo “Programa soluciona. reactivación de la economía del conocimiento” and Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la Innovación del Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. MD, JF, GV, AB, FC, MFA, LB, RT, SL, DS, MI, VS, RS, PC, MMC, LA, HLL, AC, DC declare reimbursement for conduction of clinical trial as investigator of the study. PC, OS, YK report other funds from Inmunova. EN, GL, WHB, SPLL report personal fees from Inmunova. AP, B de M, SM, Gabriel L declare no competing interests. SPLL declare personal fees from Movement Disorders Society, Laboratorio Elea and Merck pharmaceuticals.Ethics Approval Statement: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of all participant clinical sites as well as regional or jurisdictional Ethics Committees as applicable. The Argentinean National Administration of Medicines, Food and Medical Technology (ANMAT) also approved the study protocol.