Effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab during Delta variant surge: a prospective cohort study and comparative effectiveness randomized trial (preprint)

IMPORTANCEThe effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab, for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 from the Delta variant is unknown. OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effectiveness of mAbs for the Delta variant compared to no treatment, and the comparative effectiveness between mAbs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSTwo parallel studies among patients who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria for mAbs from July 14, 2021 to September 29, 2021: i.) prospective observational cohort study comparing mAb treatment to no mAb treatment and, ii.) Bayesian adaptive randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab versus sotrovimab. In the observational study, we compared eligible patients who received mAb at an outpatient infusion center at UPMC, to nontreated patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly allocated casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab to patients presenting to infusion centers and emergency departments, per system therapeutic interchange policy. EXPOSUREIntravenous mAb per their EUA criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFor the observational study, risk ratio estimates for hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment to no mAb treatment using propensity matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day) in a Bayesian cumulative logistic model, adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio <1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound. RESULTSAmong 3,558 patients receiving mAb, the mean age was 54 (SD 18 years), 1,511 (43%) were treated in an infusion center, and 450 (13%) were hospitalized or died by day 28. In propensity matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR)=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57). Both casirivimab and imdevimab (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.50), and sotrovimab (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00) reduced hospitalization or death compared to no mAb treatment. Among patients allocated randomly to casirivimab and imdevimab (n=2,454) or sotrovimab (n=1,104), the median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28-28) for both groups, 28-day mortality was 0.5% (n=12) and 0.6% (n=7), and hospitalization by day 28 was 12% (n=291) and 12% (n=140), respectively. Compared to casirivimab and imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11) for sotrovimab. This odds ratio yielded 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were both associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04790786 Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, what is the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) compared to no treatment, and what is the comparative effectiveness between mAb? FindingsAmong 3,069 patients, mAb treatment (casirivimab and imdevimab or sotrovimab) was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 28 days compared to no treatment (risk ratio=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57). In a Bayesian randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab and imdevimab vs. sotrovimab in 3,558 patients, the median hospital-free days were 28 days for both groups. Compared to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11) for sotrovimab, an 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence. MeaningIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met.

Association of subcutaneous or intravenous route of administration of casirivimab and imdevimab monoclonal antibodies with clinical outcomes in COVID-19. (preprint)

Importance: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID 19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but association with patient outcomes is understudied. Objective: To evaluate whether or not, i.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28 days hospitalization/death than non-treatment among mAb-eligible patients, and ii.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of outpatients in a learning health system in the United States with mild to moderate COVID 19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021 who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also selected. Intervention: Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of casirivimab 600mg and imdevimab 600mg. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 28 day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28 day adjusted risk ratios/differences of hospitalization, death, composite endpoint of ED admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Results: Among 1,956 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID 19, patients who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization/death of 3.4% (n=652) compared to 7.8% (n=1,304) in nontreated controls [risk ratio 0.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.68, p < .001)]. Among 2,185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n=969) or intravenous (n=1,216) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28 day rate of hospitalization/death was 2.8% vs. 1.7%, respectively which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval: -0.5% to 3.5%, p=.14). The 28 day adjusted risk differences (subcutaneous and intravenous) for death, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were 0.3% or less, although the 95% confidence intervals were wide. Conclusions and Relevance: Subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab is associated with reduced risk adjusted hospitalization or death amongst outpatients with mild to moderate COVID 19 compared to no treatment and indicates low adjusted risk difference compared to patients treated intravenously.

A Learning Health System Randomized Trial of Monoclonal Antibodies for Covid-19 (preprint)

BackgroundNeutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19. Yet, their clinical use is limited, and comparative effectiveness is unknown. MethodsWe present the first results of an ongoing, learning health system adaptive platform trial to expand mAb treatment to all eligible patients and evaluate the comparative effectiveness of available mAbs. The trial launched March 10, 2021. Results are reported as of June 25, 2021 due to the U.S. federal decision to pause distribution of bamlanivimab-etesevimab; patient follow-up concluded on July 23, 2021. Patients referred for mAb who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria were provided a random mAb allocation of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, or casirivimab-imdevimab with a therapeutic interchange policy. The primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model of all patients treated at an infusion center or emergency department, adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound. ResultsPrior to trial launch, 3.1% (502) of 16,345 patients who were potentially eligible by an automated electronic health record (EHR) screen received mAb. During the trial period, 23.2% (1,201) of 5,173 EHR-screen eligible patients were treated, a 7.5-fold increase. After including additional referred patients from outside the health system, a total of 1,935 study patients received mAb therapy (128 bamlanivimab, 885 bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 922 casirivimab-imdevimab). Mean age ranged from 55 to 57 years, half were female (range, 53% to 54%), and 17% were Black (range, 12% to 19%). Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR, 28 to 28) for each mAb group. Hospitalization varied between groups (bamlanivimab, 12.5%; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 14.7%, casirivimab-imdevimab, 14.3%). Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval (CI), 0.30 to 1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.24) for the bamlanivimab and bamlanivimab-etesevimab groups, respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab respectively, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, at the prespecified odds ratio bound of 0.25. Twenty-one infusion-related adverse events occurred in 0% (0/128), 1.4% (12/885), and 1.0% (9/922) of patients treated with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. ConclusionIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, bamlanivimab, compared to bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, resulted in 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority with regards to odds of improvement in hospital-free days within 28 days. There was an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab at an odds ratio bound of 0.25. However, the trial was unblinded early due to federal distribution decisions, and no mAb met prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19-Preliminary Report (preprint)

Background Thrombosis may contribute to morbidity and mortality in Covid-19. We hypothesized that therapeutic anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. Methods We conducted an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized, clinical trial. Patients with severe Covid-19, defined as the requirement for organ support with high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive ventilation, invasive ventilation, vasopressors, or inotropes, were randomized to receive therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis as per local usual care. The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. Results Therapeutic anticoagulation met the pre-defined criteria for futility in patients with severe Covid-19. The primary outcome was available for 1,074 participants (529 randomized to therapeutic anticoagulation and 545 randomized to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis). Median organ support-free days were 3 days (interquartile range -1, 16) in patients assigned to therapeutic anticoagulation and 5 days (interquartile range -1, 16) in patients assigned to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.70-1.08, posterior probability of futility [odds ratio<1.2] 99.8%). Hospital survival was comparable between groups (64.3% vs. 65.3%, adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% CrI 0.67-1.16). Major bleeding occurred in 3.1% of patients assigned to therapeutic anticoagulation and 2.4% of patients assigned to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. Conclusions In patients with severe Covid-19, therapeutic anticoagulation did not improve hospital survival or days free of organ support compared to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Clinical Trial Designs for COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates (preprint)

We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional randomized clinical trials and adaptive and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 504 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits--averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design--if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.