Evaluation of adverse events of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab used for COVID-19 based on FAERS database.

BACKGROUND: We study the adverse events (AEs) of bamlanivimab (BAM), bamlanivimab/etesevimab (BAM/ETE) to alert risk factors during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment and provide references for drug safety. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Extract AEs from the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Public Dashboard. Disproportionality analysis was performed to discover the potential risks of BAM and BAM/ETE. RESULTS: With COVID-19 drugs as the research background, the number of BAM/ETE signals is about half that of BAM, and 80% of signals overlap with BAM. Signals such as atrial fibrillation, tachycardia, and confusional state are present in BAM but not in BAM/ETE. With BAM and BAM/ETE as the research background, potential safety signals of BAM/ETE such as acute respiratory failure, hypersensitivity, and infusion-related reaction require long-term observation, especially acute respiratory failure which is not in the label. CONCLUSIONS: The AEs report on this study confirm most of the label information of BAM and BAM/ETE. BAM/ETE is relatively safe, while the risk signals such as acute respiratory failure and infusion-related reaction require to be monitored.

Exploratory data on the clinical efficacy of monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern.

Background: Recent in-vitro data have shown that the activity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) varies according to the variant of concern (VOC). No studies have compared the clinical efficacy of different mAbs against Omicron VOC. Methods: The MANTICO trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical efficacy of early treatments with bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and sotrovimab in outpatients aged 50 or older with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. As the patient enrolment was interrupted for possible futility after the onset of the Omicron wave, the analysis was performed according to the SARS-CoV-2 VOC. The primary outcome was coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression (hospitalisation, need of supplemental oxygen therapy, or death through day 14). Secondary outcomes included the time to symptom resolution, assessed using the product-limit method. Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard model were used to assess the association with predictors. Log rank test was used to compare survival functions. Results: Overall, 319 patients were included. Among 141 patients infected with Delta, no COVID-19 progression was recorded, and the time to symptom resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups (Log-rank Chi-square 0.22, p 0.90). Among 170 patients infected with Omicron (80.6% BA.1 and 19.4% BA.1.1), two COVID-19 progressions were recorded, both in the bamlanivimab/etesevimab group, and the median time to symptom resolution was 5 days shorter in the sotrovimab group compared with the bamlanivimab/etesevimab and casirivimab/imdevimab groups (HR 0.53 and HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36-0.77 and 95% CI 0.30-0.67, p<0.01). Conclusions: Our data suggest that, among adult outpatients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection due to Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1, early treatment with sotrovimab reduces the time to recovery compared with casirivimab/imdevimab and bamlanivimab/etesevimab. In the same population, early treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab may maintain a role in preventing COVID-19 progression. The generalisability of trial results is substantially limited by the early discontinuation of the trial and firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Funding: This trial was funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA). The VOC identification was funded by the ORCHESTRA (Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic) project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 101016167. Clinical trial number: NCT05205759.

Dual Monoclonal Antibodies on Sars-Cov-2 Alpha and Delta Variants: Clinical and Virological Efficacy.

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) targeting the Spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 is a key strategy to prevent severe COVID-19. Here, the efficacy of two monoclonal antibody bitherapies against SARS-CoV-2 was assessed on 92 patients at high risk of severe COVID-19 between March and October 2021 (Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France). Nine patients died despite appropriate management. From 14 days following treatment initiation, we observed a slower viral load decay for patients treated with the bitherapy Bamlanivimab/Etsevimab compared to the Casirivimab/Imdevimab association therapy (P = 0.045). The emergence of several mutations on the Spike protein known to diminish antiviral efficacy was observed from 1 to 3 weeks after infusion. The Q493R mutation was frequently selected, located in a region of joint structural overlap by Bamlanivimab/Etsevimab antibodies. Despite that this study was done on former SARS-CoV-2 variants (Alpha and Delta), the results provide new insights into resistance mechanisms in SARS-CoV-2 antibodies neutralization escape and should be considered for current and novel variants. IMPORTANCE Monoclonal antibody bitherapies (MAbs) are commonly prescribed to treat severe SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, and the rapid growth of resistance mutation emergence is alarming globally. To explore this issue, we conducted both clinical and genomic analyses of SARS-CoV-2 in a series of patients treated in 2021. We first noticed that the two dual therapies prescribed during the study had different kinetics of viral load decay. Rapidly after initiation of the treatments, resistance mutations emerged in the interface between the MAbs and the target Spike glycoprotein, demonstrating the importance to continuously screen the viral genome during treatment course. Taken together, the results highlight that viral mutations may emerge under selective pressure, conferring a putative competitive advantage, and could rapidly spread, as observed for the Omicron variant.

Clinical efficacy of different monoclonal antibody regimens among non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression: a prospective cohort study.

This study aimed to compare the clinical progression of COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients treated with the monoclonal antibodies (mAb) bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. This is an observational, multi-centre, prospective study conducted from 18 March to 15 July 2021 in eight Italian tertiary-care hospitals including mild-to-moderate COVID-19 outpatients receiving bamlanivimab (700 mg), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (700-1400 mg) or casirivimab-imdevimab (1200-1200 mg). All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to Italian Medicines Agency definitions. In a patient subgroup, SARS-CoV-2 variant and anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology were analysed at baseline. Factors associated with 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were identified using multivariable multilevel logistic regression (MMLR) and summarised with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 635 outpatients received mAb: 161 (25.4%) bamlanivimab, 396 (62.4%) bamlanivimab-etesevimab and 78 (12.2%) casirivimab-imdevimab. Ninety-five (15%) patients received full or partial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant was detected in 99% of patients. Baseline serology showed no significant differences among the three mAb regimen groups. Twenty-eight-day all-cause hospitalisation was 11.3%, with a significantly higher proportion (p 0.001) in the bamlanivimab group (18.6%), compared to the bamlanivimab-etesevimab (10.1%) and casirivimab-imdevimab (2.6%) groups. On MMLR, aORs for 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were significantly lower in patients receiving bamlanivimab-etesevimab (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.88 p 0.015) and casirivimab-imdevimab (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.61, p 0.009) compared to those receiving bamlanivimab. No patients with a history of vaccination were hospitalised. The study suggests differences in clinical outcomes among the first available mAb regimens for treating high-risk COVID-19 outpatients. Randomised trials are needed to compare efficacy of mAb combination regimens in high-risk populations and according to circulating variants.

Atrial fibrillation with aberrant ventricular conduction after receiving Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab: a case report.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is affecting millions of people globally. Several neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been developed to limit the progression and complications of the disease. These treatments provide immediate and passive immunity. The combination therapy with Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab led to a lower incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death and a faster reduction in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load. No or rare cases of cardiovascular side effects are reported. We present the case of a high-risk 79-years-old woman who developed atrial fibrillation with aberrant ventricular conduction after administration of neutralizing monoclonal-antibodies Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab. The woman with a history of insulin-dependent diabetes and Grade II follicular Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma previously vaccinated with two doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, presented with malaise, headache, and SARS-CoV-2 nasal swab reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction tested positive for the infection. She received a single dose of Bamlanivimab (70 mg) + Etesevimab (1400 mg). After about a week, she developed atrial fibrillation with uncontrolled response to frequent premature ventricular complexes and aberrant ventricular conduction. This case presents a high-risk woman with SARS-CoV-2 infection who developed a serious adverse cardiovascular event some days after receiving neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Risk factors including sex, age, anxiety related to isolation and infection, and COVID-19 itself may have all contributed to atrial fibrillation. Arrhythmia may rarely occur after monoclonal-antibodies treatment, although recommended timing to monitor patients is from 1 to 24 h after the administration of these antibodies. Appreciation of this potential association is important for evaluating monoclonal-antibody treatments' safety and optimizing patient monitoring and follow-up.

Emulation of a Target Trial From Observational Data to Compare Effectiveness of Casirivimab/Imdevimab and Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab for Early Treatment of Non-Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Objectives: Comparative analysis between different monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 are lacking. We present an emulation trial from observational data to compare effectiveness of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab (BAM/ETE) and Casirivimab/Imdevimab (CAS/IMD) in outpatients with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in a real-world scenario of variants of concern (VoCs) from Alpha to Delta. Methods: Allocation to treatment was subject to mAbs availability, and the measured factors were not used to determine which combination to use. Patients were followed through day 30. Viral load was measured by cycle threshold (CT) on D1 (baseline) and D7.Primary outcome was time to COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause over days 0-30. Weighted pooled logistic regression and marginal structural Cox model by inverse probability weights were used to compare BAM/ETE vs. CAS/IMD. ANCOVA was used to compare mean D7 CT values by intervention. Models were adjusted for calendar month, MASS score and VoCs. We evaluated effect measure modification by VoCs, vaccination, D1 CT levels and enrolment period. Results: COVID19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 15 of 237 patients in the BAM/ETE group (6.3%) and in 4 of 196 patients in the CAS/IMD group (2.0%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk] 72%; p=0.024). Subset analysis carried no evidence that the effect of the intervention was different across stratification factors. There was no evidence in viral load reduction from baseline through day 7 across the two groups (+0.17, 95% -1.41;+1.74, p=0.83). Among patients who experienced primary outcome, none showed a negative RT-PCR test in nasopharyngeal swab (p=0.009) and 82.4% showed still high viral load (p<0.001) on D7. Conclusions: In a pre-Omicron epidemiologic scenario, CAS/IMD reduced risk of clinical progression of COVID-19 compared to BAM/ETE. This effect was not associated with a concomitant difference in virological response.

An updated practical guideline on use of molnupiravir and comparison with agents having emergency use authorization for treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Molnupiravir is a newer oral antiviral drug that has recently received emergency use authorization (EUA) in USA, UK and India. We aim to conduct an update on our previous systematic review to provide practical clinical guideline for using molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched the electronic database of PubMed, MedRxiv and Google Scholar until January 5, 2022, using key MeSH keywords. RESULTS: Final result of phase 3 study in 1433 non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients showed a significant reduction in composite risk of hospital admission or death (absolute risk difference, -3.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -5.9 to -0.1%]; 1-sided P = 0.02) although with a non-significant 31% relative risk reduction (RRR). RRR for death alone was 89% (95% CI, 14 to 99; P-value not reported). Number needed to treat to prevent 1 death or 1 hospitalization or death composite appears to be closely competitive to other agents having EUA in people with COVID-19. However, cost-wise molnupiravir is comparatively cheaper compared to all other agents. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir could be a useful agent in non-pregnant unvaccinated adults with COVID-19 who are at increased risk of severity including hospitalization. However, it is effective only when used within 5-days of onset of symptoms. A 5-days course seems to be safe without any obvious short-term side effects.

Efficacy of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and Casirivimab/Imdevimab in Preventing Progression to Severe COVID-19 and Role of Variants of Concern.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization or death in patients infected by SARS-CoV2 variants of concern (VOCs) receiving combinations of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. METHODS: Observational prospective study conducted in two Italian hospitals (University Hospital of Pisa and San Donato Hospital, Arezzo) including consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab from March 20th to May 10th 2021. All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to FDA/AIFA recommendations. Patients were divided into two study groups according to the infecting viral strain (VOCs): Alpha and Gamma group. The primary endpoint was a composite of hospitalization or death within 30 days from mAbs infusion. A Cox regression multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcome in the overall population. RESULTS: The study included 165 patients: 105 were infected by the VOC Alpha and 43 by the VOC Gamma. In the Alpha group, no differences in the primary endpoint were observed between patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Conversely, in the Gamma group, a higher proportion of patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab met the primary endpoint compared to those receiving casirivimab/imdevimab (55% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.013). On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, the Gamma variant and days from symptoms onset to mAbs infusion were factors independently associated with higher risk of hospitalization or death, while casirivimab/imdevimab was protective (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.83, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant, bamlanivimab/etesevimab should be used with caution because of the high risk of disease progression.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein-Directed Monoclonal Antibodies May Ameliorate COVID-19 Complications in APECED Patients.

Patients with the monogenic immune dysregulatory syndrome autoimmune polyendocrinopathy-candidiasis-ectodermal dystrophy (APECED), which is caused by loss-of-function mutations in the autoimmune regulator (AIRE) gene, uniformly carry neutralizing autoantibodies directed against type-I interferons (IFNs) and many develop autoimmune pneumonitis, both of which place them at high risk for life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab are monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and block entry of SARS-CoV-2 in host cells. The use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab early during infection was associated with reduced COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death in patients at high risk for progressing to severe disease, which led the US Food and Drug Administration to issue an emergency use authorization for their administration in non-hypoxemic, non-hospitalized high-risk patients. However, the safety and efficacy of these mAbs has not been evaluated in APECED patients. We enrolled two siblings with APECED on an IRB-approved protocol (NCT01386437) and admitted them prophylactically at the NIH Clinical Center for evaluation of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. We assessed the safety and clinical effects of early treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab. The administration of bamlanivimab and etesevimab was well tolerated and was associated with amelioration of COVID-19 symptoms and prevention of invasive ventilatory support, admission to the intensive care, and death in both patients without affecting the production of antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2. If given early in the course of COVID-19 infection, bamlanivimab and etesevimab may be beneficial in APECED and other high-risk patients with neutralizing autoantibodies directed against type-I IFNs.

Implementation and outcomes of monoclonal antibody infusion for COVID-19 in an inner-city safety net hospital: A South-Bronx experience.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody therapy (MAT) is recommended in mild to moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who are at risk of progressing to severe disease. Due to limited data on its outcomes and the logistic challenges in administering the drug, MAT has not been widely used in the United States (US) despite of emergency use authorization (EUA) approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). AIM: We aim to study the outcomes of MAT in patients predominantly from ethnic minority groups and the challenges we experienced in implementing the infusion therapy protocol in an inner-city safety-net-hospital in the South Bronx. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 49 patients who were offered MAT as per EUA protocol of FDA. Patient who met the criteria for MAT and received therapy were included in treatment group (n = 38) and the remaining (n = 11) who declined treatment were included in the control group. A majority of patients (76%) in the study group reported symptomatic improvement, the day after infusion. There was statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 related hospitalizations (7.8 vs 54.5%, P = < 0.001) mortality (0 vs 18.1%, P value = 0.008) in the treatment group. CONCLUSION: MAT reduced both hospitalization and mortality in this predominantly Hispanic patient population with mild to moderate COVID-19 with high risk factors for disease progression.

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in a Vaccine Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Hospitalized Delta (B.1.617.2) Variant Case.

We present two Delta (B.1.617.2) vaccine breakthrough individuals, a father and son living in separate households. The older, 63-year-old patient's symptoms were severe enough to require hospitalization. Despite having a high titer of anti-spike IgG in his serum, his symptoms resolved within 24 hours following monoclonal antibody (bamlanivimab/etesevimab) therapy.