Discrepancies in Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in COVID-19 Patients Receiving Casirivimab and Imdevimab.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported increased rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations and deaths in Black and Hispanic individuals. One contributing factor to this may be a difference in access to treatment. We thus sought to compare the outcomes of Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients with White, non-Hispanic individuals using a group of patients with COVID-19 who received casirivimab/imdevimab. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from a previously published retrospective chart review of patients who received casirivimab/imdevimab for COVID-19 between December 9, 2020 and August 20, 2021, when they were treated at one of three facilities within a single hospital system. We compared the baseline characteristics (including age, sex, body mass index, duration of symptoms, and vaccination status) and outcomes of Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients with those of White, non-Hispanic patients. Our primary outcome was the odds of a return visit to the emergency department (ED) within 28 days of treatment as assessed by multivariate logistic regression. We also assessed the rates of return visits to the ED for symptoms caused by COVID-19, hospitalizations, and hospitalizations from hypoxia. RESULTS: In total, 1318 patients received casirivimab/imdevimab for COVID-19 at the three study facilities. Of these, 410 (31.1%) identified themselves as White and non-Hispanic, 88 (6.7%) as Black and non-Hispanic, and 736 (55.8%) as Hispanic. Vaccination rates at the time of treatment were as follows: Black, non-Hispanic 10.2%, Hispanic 13.6%, and White, non-Hispanic 21.5%. On multivariate analysis, the odds of return visits to the ED within 28 days were higher for Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients as compared with White, non-Hispanic patients, with odds ratios of 2.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-5.5, P = 0.003) and of 2.3 (95% CI 1.5-3.6, P = 0.0002), respectively. For hospitalizations caused by hypoxia within 28 days of treatment, the adjusted odds ratio for Black, non-Hispanic patients was 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-10.5, P = 0.03) as compared with White, non-Hispanic patients. There were no other statistically significant differences among groups in regard to subsequent hospitalizations within 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients are more likely to make a return visit to the ED within 28 days after casirivimab/imdevimab treatment for COVID-19 as compared with White, non-Hispanic patients. This holds true even when adjusting for higher vaccination rates among White, non-Hispanic individuals.

A Comparison of SARS-COV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Therapies in High-Risk Patients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Disease at a Single Academic Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are recombinant neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that decrease viral load in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and can decrease hospitalizations. Few data exist comparing these two therapies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19 who met criteria for monoclonal antibody therapy. METHODS: We performed a single-center, open-label, prospective study in adult ED patients with confirmed COVID-19 and high-risk features for hospitalization. Enrolled patients received bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab, depending on the day of the week that they arrived. We observed patients for post-infusion-related reactions and contacted them on days 5, 10, and 30. The primary outcome was the number of hospitalizations through day 30. In addition, we compared groups with regard to return visits to the ED, symptom improvement, antibody-induced adverse events, and deaths. RESULTS: Between December 17, 2020 and January 17, 2021, 321 patients completed the study. We found no statistically significant difference in the rate of subsequent hospitalization between groups (bamlanivimab: n = 18 of 201 [8.9%] and casirivimab/imdevimab: n = 13 of 120 [10.8%]; p = 0.57). In addition, we found no statistically significant differences between groups regarding return visits to the ED or symptom improvement. One patient had a possible adverse reaction to the treatment, and 1 patient died. Both of these events occurred in the bamlanivimab group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant differences in rates of subsequent hospitalization or other outcomes for ED patients with COVID-19 when they received bamlanivimab as opposed to casirivimab/imdevimab. Adverse events were rare in both groups.

Ending the Pandemic: Are Rapid COVID-19 Tests a Step Forward or Back?

Some experts have promoted the use of rapid testing for COVID-19. However, with the current technologies available, continuing to replace laboratory-based, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests with rapid (point-of-care) tests may lead to an increased number of false negative tests. Moreover, the more rapid dissemination of false negative results that can occur with the use of rapid tests for COVID-19 may lead to increased spread of the novel coronavirus if patients do not understand the concept of false negative tests. One means of combatting this would be to tell patients who have a "negative" rapid COVID-19 test that their test result was "indeterminate."

The Appropriate Use of Testing for COVID-19.

Many public officials are calling for increased testing for the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and some governments have taken extraordinary measures to increase the availability of testing. However, little has been published about the sensitivity and specificity of the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) nasopharyngeal swabs that are commonly used for testing. This narrative review evaluates the literature regarding the accuracy of these tests, and makes recommendations based on this literature. In brief, a negative RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab test is insufficient to rule out COVID-19. Thus, over-reliance on the results of the test may be dangerous, and the push for widespread testing may be overstated.