Effects of bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab on subsequent hospitalization and mortality in outpatients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused an enormous loss of life worldwide. The spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the cause of its virulence. Bamlanivimab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody, has been used alone or in combination with etesevimab to provide passive immunity and improve clinical outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the therapeutic effects of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab (BAM/ETE) treatment. Methods: Our study was registered in PROSPERO (registry number CRD42021270206). We searched the following electronic databases, without language restrictions, until January 2023: PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and the Cochrane database. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the search results. Results: Eighteen publications with a total of 28,577 patients were identified. Non-hospitalized patients given bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab had a significantly lower risk of subsequent hospitalization (18 trials, odds ratio (OR): 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.29-0.49], I2: 69%; p < 0.01) and mortality (15 trials, OR: 0.27, 95% CI [0.17-0.43], I2: 0%; p = 0.85). Bamlanivimab monotherapy also reduced the subsequent risk of hospitalization (16 trials, OR: 0.43, 95% CI [0.34-0.54], I2: 57%; p = 0.01) and mortality (14 trials, OR: 0.28, 95% CI [0.17-0.46], I2: 0%; p = 0.9). Adverse events from these medications were uncommon and tolerable. Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, we found the use of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab contributed to a significantly-reduced risk of subsequent hospitalization and mortality in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, resistance to monoclonal antibodies was observed in COVID-19 variants, resulting in the halting of the clinical use of BAM/ETE. Clinicians' experiences with BAM/ETE indicate the importance of genomic surveillance. BAM/ETE may be repurposed as a potential component of a cocktail regimen in treating future COVID variants.

A Phase II, Open-Label Study of an Accelerated Infusion Rate of Daratumumab in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody initially approved as a single agent for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. The infusion-related reactions (IRRs) commonly seen with intravenous daratumumab have been managed by prolonging the first infusion, temporarily stopping/slowing the rate if reactions occur and using adequate pre- and post-infusion medications. Several retrospective studies have evaluated shorter infusions after ≥ 2 prior doses administered at the standard rates. Although the shorter infusions were well-tolerated, patients in these reports were given heterogeneous daratumumab regimens and had often already received multiple doses at the longer standard rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CMRG-009 is a prospective study designed to demonstrate the safety of accelerated daratumumab infusions commencing with the second dose. After an initial dose on Cycle 1 Day consisting of 8 mg/kg over 4 hours, all subsequent doses were given over 90 minutes. RESULTS: No grade 3 IRRs were observed with the 90-minutes infusions. Both the safety profile and anti-myeloma effects were otherwise similar to those observed with other single agent daratumumab studies using longer infusion times. CONCLUSION: This is the first formal prospective trial using infusion times shorter than the standard schedule directly after an initial 4-hours dose. This rapid infusion protocol has resulted in more efficient resource utilization and has become the standard protocol for the use in all intravenous daratumumab regimens in Canada. This approach has been particularly helpful in shortening chair time during the COVID-19 pandemic and providing a useful alternative in jurisdictions without access to subcutaneous daratumumab.

Use of monoclonal antibody therapy in hematologic patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: A retrospective single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: In November 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 38 adult hematology patients who received mAbs from 11/2020 to 2/2021. RESULTS: Thirty (79%) patients received bamlanivimab and 8 (21%) casirivimab-imdevimab. Four (11%) patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19, two (5%) progressed to severe disease and one patient (3%) died within 30 days from COVID-19 disease. Most patients (n = 34, 89%) ultimately tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, with 34% (n = 13) clearing the virus within 14 days after mAb infusion. The median time to clearance of viral shedding was 25.5 days (range: 7-138). After mAb infusion, most patients with hematological malignancies (HM) (n = 10/15; 67%) resumed therapy for underlying disease with a median delay of 21.5 days (range: 12-42). We observed a significant difference in hospitalization among patients who received a HCT versus non-HCT (0% n = 0/26 and 36% n = 4/11, respectively; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 specific mAb was safe and may reduce hospitalization compared to what is reported in malignant hematology patients at high risk for disease progression. Our HCT cohort patients had less hospitalization rate compared with HM cohort patients.

Monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 infection in children.

INTRODUCTION: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 in pediatric populations, however, there is a lack of evidence for their use in these populations. AREAS COVERED: We outline the evidence of mAbs for COVID-19, discuss their use in the treatment of COVID-19 infection for pediatric patients, and consider alternative treatment options and challenges to COVID-19 drug approvals. EXPERT OPINION: Limited evidence exists for the safety and efficacy of mAbs to treat COVID-19 in children as new variants emerge. In rare pediatric outpatient settings, such as profound immunodeficiency or severe pulmonary disease, the benefits of antiviral treatment for COVID-19 likely outweigh the relatively small risks. However, for the great majority of pediatric patients, mAb treatment is likely not indicated. Small molecule antiviral therapies are another potential treatment for COVID-19 in children in an outpatient setting, though neither mAb nor small molecule antiviral treatments have significant supporting evidence in children and developing a strong evidence base for these decisions will be challenging if not impractical. Ultimately, these decisions are likely to be made at the level of individual cases using expert opinion as the primary guiding principle.

Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Pregnancy: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes associated with monoclonal antibody use in pregnant persons with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We present a retrospective case series of pregnant patients who received anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibody infusions at a single center from April 1, 2021, through October 16, 2021. Pregnant patients who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms were eligible for monoclonal antibody infusion. Exclusion criteria for administration included need for supplemental oxygen, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result more than 7 days before screening. All patients received either bamlanivimab plus etesevimab or casirivimab plus imdevimab based on availability and dosing instructions of the product and emerging resistance patterns in the community. RESULTS: During the study period, monoclonal antibody infusions were administered to 450 individuals at our institution, of whom 15 were pregnant. Of the 15 pregnant persons receiving monoclonal antibody, six (40%) had full-vaccination status at the time of infusion. Two individuals (13%, CI 0-31%) experienced systemic reactions during the infusion, both resulting in temporary changes in the fetal heart rate tracing that recovered with maternal and intrauterine resuscitative efforts. One patient delivered after infusion for worsening maternal and fetal status; the remainder of the patients did not require admission for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In this case series, pregnant persons who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody infusions had generally favorable outcomes.

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Common Features in Two Patients Receiving Anti-CD20 Therapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Anti-CD20-depleting monoclonal antibodies predispose patients to the development of severe disease of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These antibodies are given as backbone or maintenance therapy in patients with hematological malignancies and rheumatology diseases, inducing effective B-cell depletion along with antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and disrupting infection-protective antibody responses. CASE REPORT: We describe two cases of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection with common features, in two patients receiving anti-CD20 therapies, the first for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and the second for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). For CLL patient, despite administration of antiviral therapy, signs and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted for 43 days, with resolution and lymphocyte recovery from day 33. For RA patient, despite administration of two courses of antiviral therapy, signs and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted for 47 days, without resolution and lymphocyte recovery, leading to a fatal outcome due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and unspecified sepsis. CONCLUSION: These two cases highlight the risk for persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies and support a role for cellular immunity recovery for disease control.

Single Site Experience of the use of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of COVID-19 in High-risk Pediatric and Young Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective therapeutic agents for the treatment of COVID-19 have been investigated since the onset of the pandemic. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 have been developed for the treatment of mild or moderate COVID disease in high-risk populations. Despite widespread use in the adult population, data are limited on the safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody infusions in the adolescent and young adult population. METHODS: Patients who received bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or sotrovimab for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center from 5/1/2020 to 3/1/2022 were identified retrospectively. Patient data including demographics, adverse events, and outcomes were extracted from patients' charts and summarized by standard descriptive summaries. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients received monoclonal antibody therapy, of which 14 (14.9%) received either bamlanivimab or bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 54 (57.4%) received casirivimab-imdevimab, and 26 (27.6%) received sotrovimab. Ten patients (10.6%) experienced one or more infusion-related adverse event. Of the patients who experienced adverse events, all resolved with cessation of infusion. No life-threatening events or deaths occurred. Within 90 days of receiving a monoclonal antibody, 12 patients (12.7%) required additional medical care for ongoing COVID symptoms. Five of these were either hospitalized or received escalation of care while already in the hospital. All subsequently fully recovered. Neither infusion-related adverse events nor progression to hospitalization for ongoing COVID-19 symptoms following monoclonal antibody administration were associated with any particular underlying condition. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, monoclonal antibodies are reasonably well-tolerated COVID-19 therapies in high-risk adolescent and young adult populations.

Antispike monoclonal antibodies for prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease-2019 in solid organ transplant recipients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately causes severe outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). Antispike monoclonal antibodies have been authorized for therapy and prophylaxis for COVID-19. Here, we review the current state of antispike monoclonal antibodies and their role for SOTRs. RECENT FINDINGS: Bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab have reduced the rates of hospitalization and severe disease in high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Multiple retrospective studies have also demonstrated monoclonal antibodies are effective in SOTR populations. However, the evolution of resistant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concerns has resulted in revocation of the authorization of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab as treatment and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sotrovimab and bebtelovimab are currently authorized for treatment of the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron), but not as pre or PEP. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, a long-acting antibody combination preparation, is authorized for preexposure prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised populations, including SOTRs, who are less likely to mount an effective immune response following vaccination series and booster. SUMMARY: Antispike monoclonal antibodies are useful for the prevention and treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in SOTRs. However, their clinical use should be determined by the evolving epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 variants in the community.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I2 = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I2 = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I2 = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I2 = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log10; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

[Interest of daratumumab in refractory AL amyloidosis in a 96-year-old patient]. / Intérêt du daratumumab dans l'amylose AL réfractaire chez une patiente de 96ans.

Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+plasma cells, resulting in organ dysfunction. Cardiac involvement has a major prognostic value. Antiplasma cell chemotherapy reduces the synthesis of immunoglobulin light chains (precursors of amyloid deposits). We describe a case of AL amyloidosis in a 95-year-old patient. Our patient responded poorly to treatment with rituximab, cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone, and rituximab-bendamustine. Finally, the anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab was associated with the best hematologic responsiveness without significant adverse effects. In conclusion, our case suggests that daratumumab is an effective and well-tolerated alternative to chemotherapy in the treatment af AL amyloidosis in very elderly patients.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

Combination anti-HIV antibodies provide sustained virological suppression.

Antiretroviral therapy is highly effective in suppressing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)1. However, eradication of the virus in individuals with HIV has not been possible to date2. Given that HIV suppression requires life-long antiretroviral therapy, predominantly on a daily basis, there is a need to develop clinically effective alternatives that use long-acting antiviral agents to inhibit viral replication3. Here we report the results of a two-component clinical trial involving the passive transfer of two HIV-specific broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, 3BNC117 and 10-1074. The first component was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled participants who initiated antiretroviral therapy during the acute/early phase of HIV infection. The second component was an open-label single-arm trial that enrolled individuals with viraemic control who were naive to antiretroviral therapy. Up to 8 infusions of 3BNC117 and 10-1074, administered over a period of 24 weeks, were well tolerated without any serious adverse events related to the infusions. Compared with the placebo, the combination broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies maintained complete suppression of plasma viraemia (for up to 43 weeks) after analytical treatment interruption, provided that no antibody-resistant HIV was detected at the baseline in the study participants. Similarly, potent HIV suppression was seen in the antiretroviral-therapy-naive study participants with viraemia carrying sensitive virus at the baseline. Our data demonstrate that combination therapy with broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies can provide long-term virological suppression without antiretroviral therapy in individuals with HIV, and our experience offers guidance for future clinical trials involving next-generation antibodies with long half-lives.

Re-Routing Infliximab Therapy: Subcutaneous Infliximab Opens a Path Towards Greater Convenience and Clinical Benefit.

Subcutaneous infliximab recently received approval for the treatment of various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases in Europe, following pivotal clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Subcutaneous infliximab demonstrated an improved pharmacokinetic profile compared with intravenous infliximab: the more stable exposure and increased systemic drug concentrations mean it has been cited as a biobetter. Alongside the pharmacokinetic advantages, potential benefits for efficacy, immunogenicity, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes have been suggested with subcutaneous infliximab. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the benefits of subcutaneous over intravenous therapies became apparent: switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab reduced the hospital visit-related healthcare resource burden and potential viral transmission. Clinical advantages observed in pivotal trials are also being seen in the real world. Accumulating experience from four European countries (the UK, Spain, France, and Germany) in patients with rheumatic diseases and inflammatory bowel disease supports clinical trial findings that subcutaneous infliximab is well tolerated, increases serum drug concentrations, and offers maintained or improved efficacy outcomes for patients switching from intravenous infliximab. Initial evidence is emerging with subcutaneous infliximab treatment after intravenous infliximab failure. High patient satisfaction and pharmacoeconomic benefits have also been reported with subcutaneous infliximab. Treatments aligned with patient preferences for the flexibility and convenience of at-home subcutaneous administration could boost adherence and treatment outcomes. Altogether, findings suggest that switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab could be advantageous, and healthcare professionals should be prepared to discuss supporting data as part of shared decision making during patient consultations.

The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor infliximab is one treatment option that may be appropriate for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Patients may prefer tumor necrosis factor inhibitors administered via the subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) route, with preferences influencing treatment satisfaction and outcomes. In 2019, CT-P13 SC became the first SC infliximab product to receive regulatory approval in Europe, based on pivotal clinical studies that compared SC infliximab to IV infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Subcutaneous infliximab is now approved in Europe for the treatment of adults with rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis. Patients began to switch from IV to SC infliximab outside clinical trials in March 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Switching from IV to SC infliximab allowed patients to self-administer treatment at home rather than attend hospital for infusions, reducing potential hospital-acquired infections and lessening the strain on healthcare systems during the pandemic. Clinical trial evidence and growing real-world experience demonstrate that SC infliximab offers clinical advantages in terms of an improved pharmacokinetic profile and potential efficacy, immunogenicity, and health-related quality-of-life benefits compared with IV infliximab. Patients have also reported increased satisfaction with SC infliximab after switching from IV infliximab. Together with the long-standing flexibility and convenience benefits of SC administration, the clinical advantages of SC infliximab make it a valid therapeutic option for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. This warrants discussion with appropriate patients as part of shared treatment decision making.

Development of COVID-19 therapies: Nonclinical testing considerations.

Therapies have been developed in the last couple of years to allow vaccination against, or treatment of patients with, COVID-19 using pathways such as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the USA and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) in the EU and UK. However, nonclinical studies were performed to allow such authorization and these were reviewed for 6 vaccines, 7 biological (monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]) and 4 small molecule therapies to examine whether the number and types of studies normally needed for regulatory agency authorization have been reduced. Results showed that the short answer is generally no. Thus, a battery of immunogenicity/efficacy or related pharmacology/biological activity studies showing utility against SARS-CoV-2 were performed as well as general toxicity studies across all 3 compound classes along with pharmacokinetic studies for mAbs and small molecules and, reproduction toxicity testing for vaccines and small molecules; additionally, genotoxicity testing occurred for small molecules. What was different from conventional, lengthy drug development, was that for vaccines and small molecules, leverage to existing platform technology or data available for other development programs, respectively, occurred. Recognition that mAbs can target the spike protein leading to neutralization allowed rapid development into clinical candidates.

Safety and serum distribution of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody MAD0004J08 after intramuscular injection.

The emerging threat represented by SARS-CoV-2 variants, demands the development of therapies for better clinical management of COVID-19. MAD0004J08 is a potent Fc-engineered monoclonal antibody (mAb) able to neutralize in vitro all current SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) including the omicron variant even if with significantly reduced potency. Here we evaluated data obtained from the first 30 days of a phase 1 clinical study (EudraCT N.: 2020-005469-15 and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04932850). The primary endpoint evaluated the percentage of severe adverse events. Secondary endpoints evaluated pharmacokinetic and serum neutralization titers. A single dose administration of MAD0004J08 via intramuscular (i.m.) route is safe and well tolerated, resulting in rapid serum distribution and sera neutralizing titers higher than COVID-19 convalescent and vaccinated subjects. A single dose administration of MAD0004J08 is also sufficient to effectively neutralize major SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (alpha, beta, gamma and delta). MAD0004J08 can be a major advancement in the prophylaxis and clinical management of COVID-19.