Real-world effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting: a retrospective cohort study using a large claims database.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) versus no COVID-19 antibody treatment among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting, including patients diagnosed during the Delta-dominant period prior to Omicron emergence. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Komodo Health closed claims database. PARTICIPANTS: 13 273 128 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (December 2020 through September 2021) were treated with CAS+IMD or untreated but treatment eligible under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Each treated patient was exact and propensity score matched without replacement to up to five untreated EUA-eligible patients. INTERVENTIONS: CAS+IMD. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite endpoint of 30-day all-cause mortality or COVID-19-related hospitalisation. Kaplan-Meier estimators were used to calculate outcome risks overall and across subgroups: age, COVID-19 vaccination status, immunocompromised status, and timing of diagnosis (December 2020 to June 2021, and July to September 2021). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted HRs (aHRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among 75 159 CAS+IMD-treated and 1 670 338 EUA-eligible untreated patients, 73 759 treated patients were matched to 310 688 untreated patients; matched patients were ~50 years, ~60% were women and generally well balanced across risk factors. The 30-day risk of the composite outcome was 2.1% and 5.2% in the CAS+IMD-treated and CAS+IMD-untreated patients, respectively; equivalent to a 60% lower risk (aHR 0.40; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.42). The effect of CAS+IMD was consistent across subgroups, including those who received a COVID-19 vaccine (aHR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.56), and those diagnosed during the Delta-dominant period (aHR 0.40, 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: The real-world effectiveness of CAS+IMD is consistent with the efficacy for reducing all-cause mortality or COVID-19-related hospitalisation reported in clinical trials. Effectiveness is maintained across patient subgroups, including those prone to breakthrough infections, and was effective against susceptible variants including Delta. .

Reliability and Validity of an Instrument of COVID-19 Patient-Reported Symptoms in Outpatients.

Importance: Patient-reported outcome instruments are key in assessing COVID-19-related symptoms and associated burden. However, a valid and reliable instrument to assess symptom severity and progression among outpatients with COVID-19 is not yet available. Objectives: To assess the extent to which the Symptoms Evolution of COVID-19 (SE-C19) instrument is valid, reliable, and able to detect symptom changes in outpatients with COVID-19, as well as to establish a definition of symptom resolution. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic/prognostic study, psychometric properties of SE-C19 were assessed in participants recruited into an ongoing, adaptive, phase 1/2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, during 2020 to 2022. Adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 2.4 g or 8.0 g intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab or placebo, in outpatient centers at 114 sites, from 2 countries (US and Mexico). Main Outcomes and Measures: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the SE-C19 were assessed. SE-C19 and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) were administered daily from predose at day 1 to day 29. Results: Analysis was conducted on 657 adult outpatients (342 female patients [52.1%], 562 White patients [85.5%]), and 337 non-Hispanic patients [51.3%]. At baseline, patients reported a mean (SD) of 6.6 (3.9) symptoms (ie, rated as at least mild) with a mean (SD) of 3.8 (3.3) of these symptoms being rated as moderate or severe. Stable patients according to PGIS showed scores with intraclass correlation values indicating moderate-to-good test-retest reliability (ie, 0.50-0.90). At baseline, 20 item scores (87%) varied significantly across PGIS-defined groups, supporting the validity of the SE-C19. A symptom-resolution end point was defined after excluding the item sneezing due to its low ability to discriminate severity levels, and excluding confusion, rash, and vomiting, due to their low prevalence in this population. Symptom resolution required complete absence of all remaining items, except cough, fatigue, and headache, which could be mild or moderate in severity. A total of 19 of 23 items from the SE-C19 instrument were identified as valid and reliable to measure disease-related symptoms in outpatients with COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified 19 items that are valid and reliable to measure disease-related symptoms in outpatients with COVID-19, and proposed a definition of symptom resolution for potential use in future clinical trials.

Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Casirivimab and Imdevimab in Ambulatory Patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Data on real-world effectiveness of subcutaneous (SC) casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of SC CAS+IMD versus no antibody treatment among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study linked Komodo Health and CDR Maguire Health and Medical data. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in ambulatory settings (August 1-October 30, 2021) treated with SC CAS+IMD were exact- and propensity score-matched to fewer than five untreated treatment-eligible patients and followed for the composite endpoint of 30-day all-cause mortality or COVID-19-related hospitalization. Kaplan-Meier estimators were used to calculate outcome risk overall and across subgroups. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 13,522 patients treated with CAS+IMD, 12,972 were matched to 41,848 untreated patients. The 30-day composite outcome risk was 1.9% (95% CI 1.7-2.2) and 4.4% (95% CI 4.2-4.6) in the treated and untreated cohorts, respectively; treated patients had a 49% lower relative risk of the composite outcome (aHR 0.51; 95% CI 0.46-0.58) and a 67% relative risk of 30-day mortality (aHR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.60). Effectiveness was consistent across vaccination status and various subgroups. DISCUSSION: Patients with COVID-19 benefitted from treatment with SC CAS+IMD versus untreated patients. The results were consistent across subgroups of patients, including older adults, immunocompromised patients, and patients vaccinated against COVID-19. Results were robust across numerous sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: SC CAS+IMD is effective in reducing 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality in real-world outpatient settings during the Delta-dominant period.

Patient experience of symptoms and impacts of COVID-19: a qualitative investigation with symptomatic outpatients.

OBJECTIVES: There is little in-depth qualitative evidence of how symptoms manifest themselves in outpatients with COVID-19 and how these in turn impact outpatients' daily lives. The objective of the study was therefore to explore the experience of outpatients with COVID-19 qualitatively, concerning the symptomatic experience and its subsequent impact on daily life. SETTING: Qualitative research study comprising virtual in-depth, open-ended interviews with outpatients and clinicians. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty US adult patients with COVID-19 were interviewed within 21 days of diagnosis. Patients were 60% female and 87% white, who had to self-report one of the following: fever, cough, shortness of breath/difficulty breathing, change/loss of taste/smell, vomiting/diarrhoea or body/muscle aches. Five independent clinicians were also interviewed about their experience treating outpatients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Transcripts were analysed thematically to organise symptoms and impacts of daily life into higher-order overarching categories, and subsequently propose a conceptual model. The adequacy of the sample size was assessed by conceptual saturation analysis. RESULTS: Patient-reported concepts were organised into six symptom themes (upper respiratory, lower respiratory, systemic, gastrointestinal, smell and taste, and other) and seven impact themes (activities of daily living, broad daily activities, leisure/social activities, and physical, emotional, professional and quarantine-specific impacts). Symptom type, severity, duration and time of onset varied by patient. Clinicians endorsed all patient-reported symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The manifestation of symptoms in outpatients is heterogeneous and affects all aspects of daily life. Outpatients offered new detailed insights into their symptomatic experiences, including heterogeneous experiences of smell and taste, and the impacts that symptoms had on their daily lives. Findings of this research may be used to supplement existing knowledge of the outpatient experience of mild-to-moderate COVID-19, to further inform treatment guidelines and to provide an evidence base for evaluating potential treatment benefits.

Development and content validation of the Symptoms Evolution of COVID-19: a patient-reported electronic daily diary in clinical and real-world studies.

BACKGROUND: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was limited understanding of symptom experience and disease progression. We developed and validated a fit-for-purpose disease-specific instrument to assess symptoms in patients with COVID-19 to inform endpoints in an interventional trial for non-hospitalized patients. METHODS: The initial drafting of the 23-item Symptoms Evolution of COVID-19 (SE-C19) Instrument was developed based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention symptom list and available published literature specific to patients with COVID-19 as of Spring 2020. The measurement principles outlined in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) guidance and the FDA's series of four methodological Patient-Focused Drug Development guidance documents were also considered. Following initial development, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 30 non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interviews involved two stages: (1) concept elicitation, to obtain information about the symptoms experienced as a result of COVID-19 in the patients' own words, and (2) cognitive debriefing, for patients to describe their understanding of the SE-C19 instructions, specific symptoms, response options, and recall period to ensure the content of the SE-C19 is relevant and comprehensive. Five clinicians treating COVID-19 outpatients were also interviewed to obtain their insights on symptoms experienced by patients and provide input on the SE-C19. RESULTS: Patients reported no issues regarding the relevance or appropriateness of the SE-C19 instructions, including the 24-h recall period. The comprehensiveness of the SE-C19 was confirmed against the conceptualization of the patient experience of symptoms developed in the qualitative research. Minor conceptual gaps were revealed to capture nuances in the experience of nasal and gustatory symptoms and systemic manifestations of sickness. Almost all items were endorsed by patients as being appropriate, well understood, and easy to respond to. The clinicians largely approved all items, response options, and recall period. CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative research provided supportive evidence of the content validity of the SE-C19 to assess the symptoms of outpatients with COVID-19, and its use in clinical trials to evaluate the benefit of treatment. Minor changes may be considered to improve conceptual clarity and ease of responding.