One Week of Oral Camostat Versus Placebo in Non-Hospitalized Adults with Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Camostat inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. We studied the safety and efficacy of camostat in ACTIV-2/A5401, a phase 2/3 platform trial of therapeutics for COVID-19 in non-hospitalized adults. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 study in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 randomized to oral camostat for 7 days or a pooled placebo arm. Primary outcomes were time to improvement in COVID-19 symptoms through day 28, proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs through day 14, and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. RESULTS: Of 216 participants (109 randomized to camostat, 107 to placebo) who initiated study intervention, 45% reported ≤5 days of symptoms at study entry and 26% met the protocol definition of higher risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Median age was 37 years. Median time to symptom improvement was 9 days in both arms (p=0.99). There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Dying at Home Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a leading cause of US deaths and when severe requires admission to a hospital; however, 9% of US COVID-19 deaths before 2022 occurred at home. Methods: Death certificate data were used to examine the cumulative probability of dying at home from COVID-19 and from any cause in North Carolina, including by race and ethnicity. Results: Between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021, 22 646 COVID-19 deaths were recorded in North Carolina; of these, 1771 (7.8%) occurred at home. Cumulative risk of dying at home with COVID-19 increased from 3.3/100 000 on December 31, 2020 to 13.0/100 000 on December 31, 2021. After standardizing each racial/ethnic group, cumulative at-home COVID-19 mortality among Hispanic people compared to White people was 9.9/100 000 versus 2.3/100 000, respectively, at year-end 2020 (difference, 7.6/100 000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6-9.6) and 19.0/100 000 versus 11.4/100 000 at year-end 2021 (difference, 7.6; 95% CI, 4.9-10.4). At-home mortality among Black people was also elevated compared to White people (difference, 5.6/100 000; 95% CI, 3.7-7.4) at year-end 2021. Rates of dying at home from any cause increased overall but were greatest among Hispanic people. Conclusions: By the end of 2021, the risk of dying at home from COVID-19 increased, especially for persons of color. The risk of dying at-home from any cause also increased for all but more so for Hispanic persons. These findings suggest perennial barriers to care prevent those with progressive COVID-19 from accessing medical attention and the need for initiatives that extend healthcare access for those disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 to prevent avoidable death.

Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). SETTING: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines. PATIENTS: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression. INTERVENTION: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death. RESULTS: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (P < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (P < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events. LIMITATION: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants. CONCLUSION: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Standing-up COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusion centers: Infection prevention and control.

This paper describes the creation of outpatient monoclonal antibody (mAb) infusion centers for COVID-19 patients in a large academic medical center. It shows how the early and consistent partnership between infection prevention and the clinical and operational teams to establish and implement policies and procedures led to efficient and safe workflows.

Safety and Efficacy of Combined Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab Administered Intramuscularly or Intravenously in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19: 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Development of effective, scalable therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 is a priority. Objective: To test the efficacy of combined tixagevimab and cilgavimab monoclonal antibodies for early COVID-19 treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 2 randomized blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-2/A5401 platform were performed at US ambulatory sites. Nonhospitalized adults 18 years or older within 10 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and symptom onset were eligible and were enrolled from February 1 to May 31, 2021. Interventions: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, 300 mg (150 mg of each component) given intravenously (IV) or 600 mg (300 mg of each component) given intramuscularly (IM) in the lateral thigh, or pooled placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events through 28 days. Results: A total of 229 participants were randomized for the IM study and 119 were randomized for the IV study. The primary modified intention-to-treat population included 223 participants who initiated IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 106) or placebo treatment (n = 117) (median age, 39 [IQR, 30-48] years; 113 [50.7%] were men) and 114 who initiated IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 58) or placebo treatment (n = 56) (median age, 44 [IQR, 35-54] years; 67 [58.8%] were women). Enrollment in the IV study was stopped early based on a decision to focus on IM product development. Participants were enrolled at a median of 6 (IQR, 4-7) days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Significant differences in time to symptom improvement were not observed for IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo. A greater proportion in the IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab arm (69 of 86 [80.2%]) than placebo (62 of 96 [64.6%]) had nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below LLOQ at day 7 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.12-1.57]) but not days 3 and 14; the joint test across time points favored treatment (P = .003). Differences in the proportion below LLOQ were not observed for IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo at any of the specified time points. There were no safety signals with either administration route. Conclusions: In these 2 phase 2 randomized clinical trials, IM or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab was safe but did not change time to symptom improvement. Antiviral activity was more evident in the larger IM trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.

Symptom and Viral Rebound in Untreated SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Although symptom and viral rebound have been reported after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment, the trajectories of symptoms and viral load during the natural course of COVID-19 have not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To characterize symptom and viral rebound in untreated outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of participants in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: 563 participants receiving placebo in the ACTIV-2/A5401 (Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients With COVID-19) platform trial. MEASUREMENTS: Participants recorded the severity of 13 symptoms daily between days 0 and 28. Nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing on days 0 to 14, 21, and 28. Symptom rebound was defined as a 4-point increase in total symptom score after improvement any time after study entry. Viral rebound was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from the immediately preceding time point to a viral load of 3.0 log10 copies/mL or higher. High-level viral rebound was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL to a viral load of 5.0 log10 copies/mL or higher. RESULTS: Symptom rebound was identified in 26% of participants at a median of 11 days after initial symptom onset. Viral rebound was detected in 31% and high-level viral rebound in 13% of participants. Most symptom and viral rebound events were transient, because 89% of symptom rebound and 95% of viral rebound events occurred at only a single time point before improving. The combination of symptom and high-level viral rebound was observed in 3% of participants. LIMITATION: A largely unvaccinated population infected with pre-Omicron variants was evaluated. CONCLUSION: Symptom or viral relapse in the absence of antiviral treatment is common, but the combination of symptom and viral rebound is rare. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

A longitudinal study of olfactory dysfunction and parosmia in mild COVID-19 cases.

Background: COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction (OD) can persist long after patients recover from acute infection, yet few studies have investigated the long-term progression of this complication. Moreover, existing studies are focused on hyposmia/anosmia but parosmia is becoming an increasingly recognized long-term symptom. Methods: We completed a longitudinal study about OD in individuals with mild cases of COVID-19. Participants completed a questionnaire and Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT) one week, one month and one year after diagnosis. At one-year, participants completed an additional survey about parosmia. Results: We obtained questionnaires and psychophysical olfactory testing information from participants at one week (n=45), one month (n=38), and one year (n=33) post COVID-19 diagnosis. At one-year, 15.2% of participants had persistent OD and 66.7% of participants reported experiencing parosmia at some point following COVID-19 diagnosis. The mean onset of parosmia was 1.3 weeks (SD: 1.9 weeks) after diagnosis, although two patients reported delayed onset (>4 weeks after diagnosis). Eight patients (24.2%) reported ongoing parosmia one year after diagnosis. Of the patients whose parosmia resolved, the mean duration of symptoms was 7.2 weeks (SD: 7.3 weeks). Conclusion: Decreased sense of smell associated with COVID-19 infection has received significant recognition in both the media and in the medical literature. Symptoms of OD and parosmia were common in our patients with COVID-19. Hyposmia, anosmia, and parosmia, all decrease quality of life, necessitating continued research to understand the pathogenesis, course of symptoms, and possible treatment for these complications.

Nasal and Plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA Levels are Associated with Timing of Symptom Resolution in the ACTIV-2 Trial of Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19.

Acute COVID-19 symptoms limit daily activities, but little is known about its association with SARS-CoV-2 viral burden. In this exploratory analysis of placebo recipients in the ACTIV-2/A5401 platform trial, we showed that high anterior nasal (AN) RNA levels and detectable plasma RNA were associated with delayed symptom improvement.

Phase 2 Safety and Antiviral Activity of SAB-185, a Novel Polyclonal Antibody Therapy for Nonhospitalized Adults With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SAB-185, a novel fully human IgG polyclonal immunoglobulin product, underwent phase 2 evaluation for nonhospitalized adults with mild-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Participants received intravenous SAB-185 3840 units/kg (low-dose) or placebo, or 10 240 units/kg (high-dose) or placebo. Primary outcome measures were nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) at study days 3, 7, and 14, time to symptomatic improvement, and safety through day 28. RESULTS: Two-hundred thirteen participants received low-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 107/106) and 215 high-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 110/105). The proportions with SARS-CoV-2 RNA < LLOQ were higher for SAB-185 versus placebo at days 3 and 7 and similar at day 14, and significantly higher at day 7 for high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo only, relative risk 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.49). At day 3, SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels were lower with low-dose and high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo: differences in medians of -0.78 log10 copies/mL (P = .08) and -0.71 log10 copies/mL (P = .10), respectively. No difference was observed in time to symptom improvement: median 11/10 days (P = .24) for low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 8/10 days (P = .50) for high-dose SAB-185/placebo. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 5%/13% of low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 9%/12% of high-dose SAB-185/placebo. CONCLUSIONS: SAB-185 was safe and generally well tolerated and demonstrated modest antiviral activity in predominantly low-risk nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 RNA From Nasopharyngeal Swabs and Concordance With Other Compartments in Nonhospitalized Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19.

Background: Identifying characteristics associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA shedding may be useful to understand viral compartmentalization, disease pathogenesis, and risks for viral transmission. Methods: Participants were enrolled August 2020 to February 2021 in ACTIV-2/A5401, a placebo-controlled platform trial evaluating investigational therapies for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and underwent quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing on nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs, oral wash/saliva, and plasma at entry (day 0, pretreatment) and days 3, 7, 14, and 28. Concordance of RNA levels (copies/mL) across compartments and predictors of nasopharyngeal RNA levels were assessed at entry (n = 537). Predictors of changes over time were evaluated among placebo recipients (n = 265) with censored linear regression models. Results: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal RNA levels at study entry were highly correlated (r = 0.84); higher levels of both were associated with greater detection of RNA in plasma and oral wash/saliva. Older age, White non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower body mass index (BMI), SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G seronegativity, and shorter prior symptom duration were associated with higher nasopharyngeal RNA at entry. In adjusted models, body mass index and race/ethnicity associations were attenuated, but the association with age remained (for every 10 years older, mean nasopharyngeal RNA was 0.27 log10 copies/mL higher; P < .001). Examining longitudinal viral RNA levels among placebo recipients, women had faster declines in nasopharyngeal RNA than men (mean change, -2.0 vs -1.3 log10 copies/mL, entry to day 3; P < .001). Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was concordant across compartments. Age was strongly associated with viral shedding, and men had slower viral clearance than women, which could explain sex differences in acute COVID-19 outcomes.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program at a U.S. academic medical center.

Amidst the therapeutic void at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a critical mass of scientific and clinical interest coalesced around COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). To date, the CCP literature has focused largely on safety and efficacy outcomes, but little on implementation outcomes or experience. Expert opinion suggests that if CCP has a role in COVID-19 treatment, it is early in the disease course, and it must deliver a sufficiently high titer of neutralizing antibodies (nAb). Missing in the literature are comprehensive evaluations of how local CCP programs were implemented as part of pandemic preparedness and response, including considerations of the core components and personnel required to meet demand with adequately qualified CCP in a timely and sustained manner. To address this gap, we conducted an evaluation of a local CCP program at a large U.S. academic medical center, the University of North Carolina Medical Center (UNCMC), and patterned our evaluation around the dimensions of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to systematically describe key implementation-relevant metrics. We aligned our evaluation with program goals of reaching the target population with severe or critical COVID-19, integrating into the structure of the hospital-wide pandemic response, adapting to shifting landscapes, and sustaining the program over time during a compassionate use expanded access program (EAP) era and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) era. During the EAP era, the UNCMC CCP program was associated with faster CCP infusion after admission compared with contemporaneous affiliate hospitals without a local program: median 29.6 hours (interquartile range, IQR: 21.2-48.1) for the UNCMC CCP program versus 47.6 hours (IQR 32.6-71.6) for affiliate hospitals; (P<0.0001). Sixty-eight of 87 CCP recipients in the EAP (78.2%) received CCP containing the FDA recommended minimum nAb titer of ≥1:160. CCP delivery to hospitalized patients operated with equal efficiency regardless of receiving treatment via a RCT or a compassionate-use mechanism. It was found that in a highly resourced academic medical center, rapid implementation of a local CCP collection, treatment, and clinical trial program could be achieved through re-deployment of highly trained laboratory and clinical personnel. These data provide important pragmatic considerations critical for health systems considering the use of CCP as part of an integrated pandemic response.

Bamlanivimab therapy for acute COVID-19 does not blunt SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cell responses.

Despite the widespread use of SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy for the treatment of acute COVID-19, the impact of this therapy on the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses has been unknown, resulting in uncertainty as to whether anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb administration may result in failure to generate immune memory. Alternatively, it has been suggested that SARS-CoV-2-specific mAb may enhance adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 via a "vaccinal effect." Bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) is a recombinant human IgG1 that was granted FDA emergency use authorization for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in those at high risk for progression to severe disease. Here, we compared SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses of 95 individuals from the ACTIV-2/A5401 clinical trial 28 days after treatment with 700 mg bamlanivimab versus placebo. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were evaluated using activation induced marker (AIM) assays in conjunction with intracellular cytokine staining. We demonstrate that most individuals with acute COVID-19 develop SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses. Overall, our findings suggest that the quantity and quality of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory was robust in individuals who received bamlanivimab for acute COVID-19. Receipt of bamlanivimab during acute COVID-19 neither diminished nor enhanced SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular immunity.

Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 escape mutations during Bamlanivimab therapy in a phase II randomized clinical trial.

SARS-CoV-2 mutations that cause resistance to monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy have been reported. However, it remains unclear whether in vivo emergence of SARS-CoV-2 resistance mutations alters viral replication dynamics or therapeutic efficacy in the immune-competent population. As part of the ACTIV-2/A5401 randomized clinical trial (NCT04518410), non-hospitalized participants with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were given bamlanivimab (700 mg or 7,000 mg) or placebo treatment. Here¸ we report that treatment-emergent resistance mutations [detected through targeted Spike (S) gene next-generation sequencing] were significantly more likely to be detected after bamlanivimab 700 mg treatment compared with the placebo group (7% of 111 vs 0% of 112 participants, P = 0.003). No treatment-emergent resistance mutations among the 48 participants who received 7,000 mg bamlanivimab were recorded. Participants in which emerging mAb resistant virus mutations were identified showed significantly higher pretreatment nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal viral loads. Daily respiratory tract viral sampling through study day 14 showed the dynamic nature of in vivo SARS-CoV-2 infection and indicated a rapid and sustained viral rebound after the emergence of resistance mutations. Participants with emerging bamlanivimab resistance often accumulated additional polymorphisms found in current variants of concern/interest that are associated with immune escape. These results highlight the potential for rapid emergence of resistance during mAb monotherapy treatment that results in prolonged high-level respiratory tract viral loads. Assessment of viral resistance should be prioritized during the development and clinical implementation of antiviral treatments for COVID-19.

COVID-19 therapies for inpatients: a review and quality assessment of clinical guidelines.

Owing to condensed development processes, expanding evidence and differences in healthcare system characteristics, many COVID-19 guidelines differ in their quality and treatment recommendations, which has consequences for clinical practice. This review aimed to identify COVID-19 treatment guidelines, assess their quality and summarise their recommendations. Guidelines were identified for five therapies most commonly used among inpatients with COVID-19 (remdesivir, dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib and casirivimab/imdevimab) from 11 countries. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool. Full details of recommendations and supporting evidence were analysed for high-quality guidelines, defined as those scoring ≥50% in Domain 3 (Rigour of Development) of AGREE-II. Overall, guidelines differed substantially in their quality and, even among high-quality guidelines using the same evidence, recommendations regarding specific therapeutics varied. Potential reasons for this heterogeneity, including the availability and consistency of clinical data, visibility of trial end-points and context-specific factors, are discussed.

Monoclonal antibody treatment drives rapid culture conversion in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are among the treatments recommended for high-risk ambulatory persons with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we study viral culture dynamics post-treatment in a subset of participants receiving the mAb bamlanivimab in the ACTIV-2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410). Viral load by qPCR and viral culture are performed from anterior nasal swabs collected on study days 0 (day of treatment), 1, 2, 3, and 7. Treatment with mAbs results in rapid clearance of culturable virus. One day after treatment, 0 of 28 (0%) participants receiving mAbs and 16 of 39 (41%) receiving placebo still have culturable virus (p < 0.0001). Recrudescence of culturable virus is detected in three participants with emerging mAb resistance and viral RNA rebound. While further studies are necessary to fully define the relationship between shed culturable virus and transmission, these results raise the possibility that mAbs may offer immediate (household) and public-health benefits by reducing onward transmission.

Dying at Home Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a leading cause of US deaths and when severe requires admission to a hospital;however, 9% of US COVID-19 deaths before 2022 occurred at home. Methods Death certificate data were used to examine the cumulative probability of dying at home from COVID-19 and from any cause in North Carolina, including by race and ethnicity. Results Between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021, 22 646 COVID-19 deaths were recorded in North Carolina;of these, 1771 (7.8%) occurred at home. Cumulative risk of dying at home with COVID-19 increased from 3.3/100 000 on December 31, 2020 to 13.0/100 000 on December 31, 2021. After standardizing each racial/ethnic group, cumulative at-home COVID-19 mortality among Hispanic people compared to White people was 9.9/100 000 versus 2.3/100 000, respectively, at year-end 2020 (difference, 7.6/100 000;95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6–9.6) and 19.0/100 000 versus 11.4/100 000 at year-end 2021 (difference, 7.6;95% CI, 4.9–10.4). At-home mortality among Black people was also elevated compared to White people (difference, 5.6/100 000;95% CI, 3.7–7.4) at year-end 2021. Rates of dying at home from any cause increased overall but were greatest among Hispanic people. Conclusions By the end of 2021, the risk of dying at home from COVID-19 increased, especially for persons of color. The risk of dying at-home from any cause also increased for all but more so for Hispanic persons. These findings suggest perennial barriers to care prevent those with progressive COVID-19 from accessing medical attention and the need for initiatives that extend healthcare access for those disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 to prevent avoidable death. Before 2022, 1 in 10 US COVID-19 deaths occurred at home. In NC risk of dying at home with COVID-19 was highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black people. Dying at home from any cause also increased, especially for Hispanic people.

Standing-Up COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Infusion Centers: Infection Prevention and Control

This paper describes the creation of outpatient monoclonal antibody (mAb) infusion centers for COVID-19 patients in a large academic medical center. It shows how the early and consistent partnership between infection prevention and the clinical and operational teams to establish and implement policies and procedures led to efficient and safe workflows.

Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Comparative Analysis of In-hospital All-cause Mortality in a Large Multicenter Observational Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in randomized trials, but data from clinical practice are limited. METHODS: We examined survival outcomes for US patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between August and November 2020 and treated with RDV within 2 days of hospitalization vs those not receiving RDV during their hospitalization using the Premier Healthcare Database. Preferential within-hospital propensity score matching with replacement was used. Additionally, patients were also matched on baseline oxygenation level (no supplemental oxygen charges [NSO], low-flow oxygen [LFO], high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], and invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO]) and 2-month admission window and excluded if discharged within 3 days of admission (to exclude anticipated discharges/transfers within 72 hours, consistent with the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial [ACTT-1] study). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to 14-/28-day mortality overall and for patients on NSO, LFO, HFO/NIV, and IMV/ECMO. RESULTS: A total of 28855 RDV patients were matched to 16687 unique non-RDV patients. Overall, 10.6% and 15.4% RDV patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 19.1% non-RDV patients. Overall, RDV was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 days (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.70-0.83]) and 28 days (0.89 [0.82-0.96]). This mortality benefit was also seen for NSO, LFO, and IMV/ECMO at 14 days (NSO: 0.69 [0.57-0.83], LFO: 0.68 [0.80-0.77], IMV/ECMO: 0.70 [0.58-0.84]) and 28 days (NSO: 0.80 [0.68-0.94], LFO: 0.77 [0.68-0.86], IMV/ECMO: 0.81 [0.69-0.94]). Additionally, HFO/NIV RDV group had a lower risk of mortality at 14 days (0.81 [0.70-0.93]) but no statistical significance at 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: RDV initiated upon hospital admission was associated with improved survival among patients with COVID-19. Our findings complement ACTT-1 and support RDV as a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.