Association of Neutralizing Antispike Monoclonal Antibody Treatment With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization and Assessment of the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score performs consistently better in identifying the need for monoclonal antibody infusion throughout each "wave" of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant predominance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and that the infusion of contemporary monoclonal antibody treatments is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment compared with that of no monoclonal antibody treatment in symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status during different periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The study was conducted on patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from November 19, 2020, through May 12, 2022. Results: Of the included 118,936 eligible patients, hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis occurred in 2.52% (456/18,090) of patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment and 6.98% (7,037/100,846) of patients who did not. Treatment with monoclonal antibody therapies was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization when using stratified data analytics, propensity scoring, and regression and machine learning models with and without adjustments for putative confounding variables, such as advanced age and coexisting medical conditions (eg, relative risk, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.14-0.17). Conclusion: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, including those who have been vaccinated, monoclonal antibody treatment was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission during each wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lenzilumab in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (LIVE-AIR): a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments. METHODS: In LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04351152, and is completed. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41-137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79-89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72-83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02-2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Lenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The added value of lenzilumab beyond other immunomodulators used to treat COVID-19 alongside steroids remains unknown. FUNDING: Humanigen.

Impact of a High-Risk, Ambulatory COVID-19 Remote Patient Monitoring Program on Utilization, Cost, and Mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate care utilization, cost, and mortality among high-risk patients enrolled in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remote patient monitoring (RPM) program. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at risk for severe disease who enrolled in the RPM program between March 2020 and October 2021. The program included in-home technology for symptom and physiologic data monitoring with centralized care management. Propensity score matching established matched cohorts of RPM-engaged (defined as ≥1 RPM technology interactions) and non-engaged patients using a logistic regression model of 59 baseline characteristics. Billing codes and the electronic death certificate system were used for data abstraction from the electronic health record and reporting of care utilization and mortality endpoints. RESULTS: Among 5796 RPM-enrolled patients, 80.0% engaged with the technology. Following matching, 1128 pairs of RPM-engaged and non-engaged patients comprised the analysis cohorts. Mean patient age was 63.3 years, 50.9% of patients were female, and 81.9% were non-Hispanic White. Patients who were RPM-engaged experienced significantly lower rates of 30-day, all-cause hospitalization (13.7% vs 18.0%, P=.01), prolonged hospitalization (3.5% vs 6.7%, P=.001), intensive care unit admission (2.3% vs 4.2%, P=.01), and mortality (0.5% vs 1.7%; odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.78; P=.01), as well as cost of care ($2306.33 USD vs $3565.97 USD, P=0.04), than those enrolled in RPM but non-engaged. CONCLUSION: High-risk COVID-19 patients enrolled and engaged in an RPM program experienced lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mortality, and cost than those enrolled and non-engaged. These findings translate to improved hospital bed access and patient outcomes.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection.

Objective: To examine the clinical characteristics, risk of hospitalization, and mortality of patients diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection at all Mayo Clinic sites between May 23, 2020, and June 30, 2021 (the period before the emergence of the Delta variant in the United States). The reinfection was defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than or equal to 90 days after initial infection or 45-89 days after with symptomatic second episode. Vaccination status was classified as fully vaccinated, first dose, and unvaccinated. Comparative analysis of baseline characteristics and comorbidities was performed by hospitalization and vaccination status. The survival analysis of the hospitalized patients was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: Among the 554 patients reinfected with SARS-CoV-2, 59 (10.6%) were pediatric, and 495 (89.4%) were adults. The median age was 13.9 years (interquartile range, 8.5-16.5 years) for the pediatric and 50.2 years (interquartile range, 28.4-65.6 years) for the adult population. Among the adult patients, the majority were unvaccinated (83.4%, n=413), and the duration to reinfection from initial infection was the longest in the fully vaccinated group (P<.001). Forty-two (75%) out of 56 patients were seropositive within 7 days of reinfection. In hospitalized adult patients, Charlson Comorbidity Index was an independent risk factor for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19-0.51). Conclusion: In this study, most adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection were unvaccinated. Furthermore, the duration to reinfection was longest in fully vaccinated individuals. Seropositivity was common among adult patients.

Solid Organ Transplantation From SARS-CoV-2-infected Donors to Uninfected Recipients: A Single-center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The risk of donor-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in solid organ (heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine) transplant recipients is poorly understood. Since hematogenous transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented to date, nonlung solid organs might be suitable for transplantation since they likely portend a low risk of viral transmission. METHODS: Abdominal solid organs from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors were transplanted into uninfected recipients. RESULTS: Between April 18, 2021, and October 30, 2021, we performed transplants of 2 livers, 1 simultaneous liver and kidney, 1 kidney, and 1 simultaneous kidney and pancreas from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors into 5 uninfected recipients. None of the recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019, and when tested, allograft biopsies showed no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting nonlung organs from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors into uninfected recipients demonstrated no evidence of virus transmission.

Intravenous bamlanivimab use associates with reduced hospitalization in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.

Implementation of a multisite, interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring program for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19.

Established technology, operational infrastructure, and nursing resources were leveraged to develop a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19. The program included two care-delivery models with different monitoring capabilities supporting variable levels of patient risk for severe illness. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of a multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness. We report an evaluation of 7074 patients served by the program across 41 US states. Among all patients, the RPM technology engagement rate was 78.9%. Rates of emergency department visit and hospitalization within 30 days of enrollment were 11.4% and 9.4%, respectively, and the 30-day mortality rate was 0.4%. A multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness is feasible, safe, and associated with a low mortality rate. Further research and expansion of RPM programs for ambulatory management of other acute illnesses are warranted.

Mild to moderate COVID-19 illness in adult outpatients: Characteristics, symptoms, and outcomes in the first 4 weeks of illness.

ABSTRACT: Most patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have mild to moderate illness not requiring hospitalization. However, no study has detailed the evolution of symptoms in the first month of illness.At our institution, we conducted remote (telephone and video) visits for all adult outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 within 24 h of a positive nasopharyngeal polymerase chain test for SARS-CoV-2. We repeated regular video visits at 7, 14, and 28 days after the positive test, retrospectively reviewed the prospective data collected in the remote visits, and constructed a week by week profile of clinical illness, through week 4 of illness.We reviewed the courses of 458 symptomatic patients diagnosed between March 12, 2020, and June 22, 2020, and characterized their weekly courses. Common initial symptoms included fever, headache, cough, and chest pain, which frequently persisted through week 3 or longer. Upper respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms were much shorter lived, present primarily in week 1. Anosmia/ageusia peaked in weeks 2 to 3. Emergency department visits were frequent, with 128 visits in the 423 patients who were not hospitalized and 48 visits among the 35 outpatients (7.6%) who were eventually hospitalized (2 subsequently died). By the fourth week, 28.9% said their illness had completely resolved. After the 4-week follow up, 20 (4.7%) of the 423 nonhospitalized patients had further medical evaluation and management for subacute or chronic COVID-19 symptoms.Mild to moderate outpatient COVID-19 is a prolonged illness, with evolving symptoms commonly lasting into the fourth week of illness.

Association of a Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) Program With Reduced Hospitalizations in Cancer Patients With COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

A Framework for Outpatient Infusion of Antispike Monoclonal Antibodies to High-Risk Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease-19: The Mayo Clinic Model.

The administration of spike monoclonal antibody treatment to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is very challenging. This article summarizes essential components and processes in establishing an effective spike monoclonal antibody infusion program. Rapid identification of a dedicated physical infrastructure was essential to circumvent the logistical challenges of caring for infectious patients while maintaining compliance with regulations and ensuring the safety of our personnel and other patients. Our partnerships and collaborations among multiple different specialties and disciplines enabled contributions from personnel with specific expertise in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, infection prevention and control, electronic health record (EHR) informatics, compliance, legal, medical ethics, engineering, administration, and other critical areas. Clear communication and a culture in which all roles are welcomed at the planning and operational tables are critical to the rapid development and refinement needed to adapt and thrive in providing this time-sensitive beneficial therapy. Our partnerships with leaders and providers outside our institutions, including those who care for underserved populations, have promoted equity in the access of monoclonal antibodies in our regions. Strong support from institutional leadership facilitated expedited action when needed, from a physical, personnel, and system infrastructure standpoint. Our ongoing real-time assessment and monitoring of our clinical program allowed us to improve and optimize our processes to ensure that the needs of our patients with COVID-19 in the outpatient setting are met.

Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research.

OBJECTIVE: To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care. CONCLUSION: Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

GM-CSF Neutralization With Lenzilumab in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Case-Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and risk factors for poor outcomes were treated with lenzilumab 600 mg intravenously for three doses through an emergency single-use investigational new drug application. Patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory outcomes, and adverse events were recorded. We also identified a cohort of patients matched to the lenzilumab patients for age, sex, and disease severity. Study dates were March 13, 2020, to June 18, 2020. All patients were followed through hospital discharge or death. RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated with lenzilumab; 27 patients comprised the matched control cohort (untreated). Clinical improvement, defined as improvement of at least 2 points on the 8-point ordinal clinical endpoints scale, was observed in 11 of 12 (91.7%) patients treated with lenzilumab and 22 of 27 (81.5%) untreated patients. The time to clinical improvement was significantly shorter for the lenzilumab-treated group compared with the untreated cohort with a median of 5 days versus 11 days (P=.006). Similarly, the proportion of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen<315 mm Hg) was significantly reduced over time when treated with lenzilumab compared with untreated (P<.001). Significant improvement in inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin 6) and markers of disease severity (absolute lymphocyte count) were observed in patients who received lenzilumab, but not in untreated patients. Cytokine analysis showed a reduction in inflammatory myeloid cells 2 days after lenzilumab treatment. There were no treatment-emergent adverse events attributable to lenzilumab. CONCLUSION: In high-risk COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor neutralization with lenzilumab was safe and associated with faster improvement in clinical outcomes, including oxygenation, and greater reductions in inflammatory markers compared with a matched control cohort of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to validate these findings is ongoing (NCT04351152).