Effect of IL-6R blockade on plasma lipids and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection.

Plasma lipid levels are modulated by systemic infection and inflammation, but it is unknown whether these changes reflect inflammatory responses or caused directly by pathogen presence. We explored the hypothesis that anti-inflammatory intervention via interleukin 6 receptor (IL-6R) blockade would influence plasma lipid levels during severe infection, and evaluated the association of plasma lipid changes with clinical outcomes. Sarilumab (monoclonal antibody blocking IL-6R) efficacy was previously assessed in patients with COVID-19 (NCT04315298). This post hoc analysis determined whether strong inflammatory reduction by sarilumab in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia of increasing severity (severe, critical, multisystem organ dysfunction) affected plasma lipid changes between day 1 (baseline) and day 7 of study therapy. Baseline lipid levels reflected the presence of acute systemic infection, characterized by very-low HDL-C, low LDL-C, and moderately elevated triglycerides (TG). Disease severity was associated with progressively more abnormal lipid levels. At day 7, median lipid levels increased more in the sarilumab versus placebo group (HDL-C +10.3%, LDL-C +54.7%, TG +32% vs. HDL-C +1.7%, LDL-C +15.4%, TG +8.8%, respectively). No significant association between lipid changes and clinical outcomes was observed. In conclusion, severe-to-critical COVID-19 pneumonia causes profound HDL-C depression that is only modestly responsive to strong anti-IL-6R inflammatory intervention. In contrast, LDL-C depression is strongly responsive to IL-6R blockade, with LDL-C levels likely returning to the pre-disease set point. These results advance our understanding of the complex relationship between serum lipids and infection/inflammation and suggest that HDL-C depression during acute contagious disease is driven by infection and not IL-6-mediated inflammation.

Association between allergic conditions and COVID-19 susceptibility and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between underlying type 2 inflammation and immune response to COVID-19 is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationships between allergic conditions and COVID-19 susceptibility and outcomes. METHODS: In the Optum database, adult patients with and without major allergic conditions (asthma, atopic dermatitis [AD], allergic rhinitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, or eosinophilic esophagitis) and patients with and without severe asthma/AD were identified. Adjusted incidence rate ratios for COVID-19 were compared among patients with vs without allergic conditions or severe asthma/AD vs non-severe asthma/AD during April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Among patients with COVID-19, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality were estimated for the same comparisons during April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022. RESULTS: Patients with (N = 1,273,231; asthma, 47.2%; AD, 1.5%; allergic rhinitis, 58.6%; food allergy, 5.1%; anaphylaxis, 4.1%; eosinophilic esophagitis, 0.9%) and without allergic conditions (N = 2,278,571) were identified. Allergic conditions (adjusted incidence rate ratios [95% CI], 1.22 [1.21-1.24]) and asthma severity (1.12 [1.09-1.15]) were associated with increased incidence of COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19 (patients with [N = 261,076] and without allergic conditions [N = 1,098,135] were matched on age, sex, region, index month), having an allergic condition had minimal impact on 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality (aHR [95% CI] 0.96 [0.95-0.98]) but was associated with a lower risk of mortality (0.80 [0.78-0.83]). Asthma was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality vs non-asthma allergic conditions (aHR [95% CI], 1.27 [1.25-1.30]), mostly driven by higher hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Allergic conditions were associated with an increased risk of receiving COVID-19 diagnosis but reduced mortality after infection.

Thematic analysis to explore patients' experiences with long COVID-19: a conceptual model of symptoms and impacts on daily lives.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited qualitative research on patients' experiences with long COVID-19, and how specific symptoms impact their daily lives. The study aimed to understand patients' lived experiences of long COVID-19 and to develop a conceptual model representing the symptoms and their impact on overall quality of life. SETTING: Qualitative study consisting of a comprehensive literature review, and in-depth clinician and patient semistructured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one adult patients with long COVID-19, of whom 18 (44%) were recruited through Regeneron Pharmaceuticals's clinical trials and 23 (56%) through recruitment agencies; 85.4% were female and 73.2% were White. Five independent clinicians treating patients with long COVID-19 were interviewed. Concept saturation was also assessed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Interview transcripts were analysed thematically to identify concepts of interest spontaneously mentioned by patients, including symptoms and their impacts on daily life, to guide the development of the conceptual model. RESULTS: Findings from the literature review and clinician and patient interviews resulted in the development of a conceptual model comprising two overarching domains: symptoms (upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, smell and taste, systemic, gastrointestinal, neurocognitive and other) and impacts (activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, physical impacts, emotional, social/leisure activities and professional impacts). Saturation was achieved for the reported impacts. The symptoms reported were heterogenic; neurocognitive symptoms, such as numbness, ringing in ears, haziness, confusion, forgetfulness/memory problems, brain fog, concentration, difficulties finding the right word and challenges with fine motor skills, were particularly pertinent for several months. CONCLUSION: The conceptual model, developed based on patient experience data of long COVID-19, highlighted numerous symptoms that impact patients' physical and mental well-being, and suggests humanistic unmet needs. Prospective real-world studies are warranted to understand the pattern of long COVID-19 experienced in larger samples over longer periods of time.

Casirivimab + imdevimab accelerates symptom resolution linked to improved COVID-19 outcomes across susceptible antibody and risk profiles.

Severe, protracted symptoms are associated with poor outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In a placebo-controlled study of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) in persons at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 3816), evolution of individual symptoms was assessed for resolution patterns across risk factors, and baseline SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses against S1 and N domains. CAS + IMD versus placebo provided statistically significant resolution for 17/23 symptoms, with greater response linked to absence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, or specific neutralizing antibodies at baseline, or high baseline viral load. Resolution of five key symptoms (onset days 3-5)-dyspnea, cough, feeling feverish, fatigue, and loss of appetite-independently correlated with reduced hospitalization and death (hazard ratio range: 0.31-0.56; P < 0.001-0.043), and was more rapid in CAS + IMD-treated patients lacking robust early antibody responses. Those who seroconverted late still benefited from treatment. Thus, highly neutralizing COVID-19-specific antibodies provided by CAS + IMD treatment accelerated key symptom resolution associated with hospitalization and death in those at high risk for severe disease as well as in those lacking early, endogenous neutralizing antibody responses.

Effect of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition on cancer events: A pooled, post hoc, competing risk analysis of alirocumab clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the risk of new and worsening cancer events among participants who received the lipid-lowering therapy alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor. DESIGN: Pooled post hoc analysis. SETTING: Six phase 3 or phase 4 placebo-controlled randomised trials with alirocumab. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 24,070 patients from the safety population with complete dosing data (alirocumab, n = 12,533; placebo, n = 11,537). INTERVENTION: Alirocumab 75 mg, alirocumab 150 mg, alirocumab 75 mg increasing to 150 mg if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <50 mg/dL not achieved, or placebo, all every 2 weeks. All participants received background high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin therapy. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The first new or worsening incident cancer events were assessed during the treatment-emergent adverse event period. Four outcomes were evaluated: any-neoplasm, malignant neoplasms, broad definition of hormone-sensitive cancers, and stricter definition of hormone-sensitive cancers. Sub-distribution hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a competing risk framework, with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: Considering both treatment arms in aggregate, 969 (4.03%), 779 (3.24%), 178 (0.74%) and 167 (0.69%) patients developed any neoplasm, malignant neoplasms, broad definition of hormone-sensitive cancer and strict definition of hormone-sensitive cancer events, respectively. There was no significant difference in the risk of having any neoplasm in the alirocumab versus the placebo group (sub-distribution hazards ratio [95% CI], 0.93 [0.82-1.1]; p = 0.28). A nominally lower risk of having any neoplasms with alirocumab was observed among subjects aged ≥64 years (sub-distribution hazards ratio 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering with a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor combined with statin does not appear to increase the risk of new or worsening cancer events.

Serum cholesterol and the risk of developing hormonally driven cancers: A narrative review.

Although cholesterol has been hypothesized to promote cancer development through several potential pathways, its role in the risk of developing hormonally driven cancer is controversial. This literature review summarizes evidence from the highest quality studies to examine the consistency and strength of the relationship between serum cholesterol parameters and incidence of hormonally driven cancer. Articles were identified using EMBASE. Longitudinal observational studies published between January 2000 and December 2020 were considered for inclusion. The endpoint of interest was incident prostate, ovary, breast, endometrium, and uterine cancers. In total, 2732 reports were identified and screened; 41 studies were included in the review. No associations were found for ovarian cancer. Most endometrial cancer studies were null. The majority (76.9%) of studies reported no association between cholesterol and prostate cancer. Data on breast cancer were conflicting, associations limited, and effect sizes modest. Our results do not provide evidence for a clear association between cholesterol and different types of incident, hormonally driven reproductive cancers. Future studies should investigate the impact of lipid-lowering therapy.

Attenuating the atopic march: Meta-analysis of the dupilumab atopic dermatitis database for incident allergic events.

BACKGROUND: Atopic march refers to the sequential development of allergic diseases from infancy through adolescence, typically beginning with atopic dermatitis (AD), followed by food allergy and then airway diseases, later evolving to broader or worsened spectrum of allergic diatheses. No intervention has shown to alter its course. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the rate of acquisition of new or worsened allergic events for dupilumab versus placebo in patients with AD. METHODS: Allergy-associated events from 12 clinical trials were grouped into 17 allergy categories, and IgE changes from baseline were defined. A new/worsened event was considered one step of atopic march. Treatment effect was assessed by incidence rate ratios (IRRs), dupilumab versus placebo, by meta-analysis. RESULTS: The duration of pooled AD studies was 4 to 52 weeks (1359 patient-years; n = 2296 dupilumab, n = 1229 placebo, median age 35 years). The median age at AD onset was 2 years. Baseline allergic disease burden was comparable between groups. Dupilumab reduced the risk of new/worsening allergies by 34% (IRR 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.84) and new allergies by 37% (IRR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) versus placebo. Including IgE category shift, the IRR for combined new/worsening allergies was reduced by 54% (IRR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.57). These treatment benefits did not reverse on treatment discontinuation in off-treatment follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition/worsening of allergic conditions suggestive of atopic march was observed in a pooled adult/adolescent AD study population with inadequately controlled AD. Treatment with dupilumab reduced new/worsened allergy events versus placebo; inclusion of IgE category change increased the apparent benefit.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab Treatment Reduces Viral Load and Improves Clinical Outcomes in Seropositive Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with Nonneutralizing or Borderline Neutralizing Antibodies.

We conducted a post hoc analysis in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for functional neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at baseline from a phase 1, 2, and 3 trial of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants. Patients were randomized to a single dose of 2.4 g CAS+IMD, 8.0 g CAS+IMD, or placebo. Patients seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were analyzed by their baseline neutralizing antibody status. At baseline, 20.6% (178/864) of seropositive patients were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, indicating negative or very low functionally neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. CAS+IMD reduced viral load in patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies versus placebo, but not in patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies. In patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, we observed a trend in reduction of the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation, as well as in all-cause mortality, by day 29 with CAS+IMD versus placebo. The proportions of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation from days 1 to 29 were 19.1% in the placebo group and 10.9% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group, and the proportions of patients who died (all-cause mortality) from days 1 to 29 were 16.2% in the placebo group and 9.1% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group. In patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies, no measurable harm or benefit was observed in either the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation or the proportion of patients who died (all-cause mortality). In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen, CAS+IMD reduced viral load, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies. IMPORTANCE The clinical benefit of CAS+IMD in hospitalized seronegative patients with COVID-19 has previously been demonstrated, although these studies observed no clinical benefit in seropositive patients. As the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive individuals rises due to both vaccination and previous infection, it is important to understand whether there is a subset of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that there is a subset of hospitalized seropositive patients with inadequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies (i.e., those who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies) who may still benefit from CAS+IMD treatment if infected with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant. Therefore, utilizing serostatus alone to guide treatment decisions for patients with COVID-19 may fail to identify those seropositive patients who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapies known to be effective against circulating strains, dependent upon how effectively their endogenous antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2.

Virologic Efficacy of Casirivimab and Imdevimab COVID-19 Antibody Combination in Outpatients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Phase 2 Dose-Ranging Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load, hospitalization, or death when administered as a 1200-mg or greater intravenous (IV) dose in a phase 3 COVID-19 outpatient study. Subcutaneous (SC) and/or lower IV doses should increase accessibility and/or drug supplies for patients. Objective: To assess the virologic efficacy of casirivimab and imdevimab across different IV and SC doses compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study included outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at 47 sites across the United States. Participants could be symptomatic or asymptomatic; symptomatic patients with risk factors for severe COVID-19 were excluded. Data were collected from December 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a single IV dose (523 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 300, 600, 1200, or 2400 mg or placebo; or a single SC dose (292 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 600 or 1200 mg or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the time-weighted average daily change from baseline (TWACB) in viral load from day 1 (baseline) through day 7 in patients seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Results: Among 815 randomized participants, 507 (282 randomized to IV treatment, 148 randomized to SC treatment, and 77 randomized to placebo) were seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Participants randomized to IV had a mean (SD) age of 34.6 (9.6) years (160 [44.6%] men; 14 [3.9%] Black; 121 [33.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 309 [86.1%] White); those randomized to SC had a mean age of 34.1 (10.0) years (102 [45.3%] men; 75 [34.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 6 [2.7%] Black; 190 [84.4%] White). All casirivimab and imdevimab treatments showed significant virologic reduction through day 7. Least-squares mean differences in TWACB viral load for casirivimab and imdevimab vs placebo ranged from -0.56 (95% CI; -0.89 to -0.24) log10 copies/mL for the 1200-mg IV dose to -0.71 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.38) log10 copies/mL for the 2400-mg IV dose. There were no adverse safety signals or dose-related safety findings, grade 2 or greater infusion-related or hypersensitivity reactions, grade 3 or greater injection-site reactions, or fatalities. Two serious adverse events not related to COVID-19 or the study drug were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial including outpatients with asymptomatic and low-risk symptomatic SARS-CoV-2, all IV and SC doses of casirivimab and imdevimab comparably reduced viral load. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04666441.

Repeat subcutaneous administration of casirivimab and imdevimab in adults is well-tolerated and prevents the occurrence of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: A phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of repeat monthly doses of subcutaneous (SC) casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) in uninfected adult volunteers. METHODS: Participants were randomized (3:1) to SC CAS+IMD 1200 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for up to six doses. Primary and secondary end points evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Exploratory efficacy was evaluated by the incidence of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion. RESULTS: In total, 969 participants received CAS+IMD. Repeat monthly dosing of SC CAS+IMD led to a 92.4% relative risk reduction in clinically defined COVID-19 compared with placebo (3/729 [0.4%] vs 13/240 [5.4%]; odds ratio 0.07 [95% CI 0.01-0.27]), and a 100% reduction in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (0/729 vs 10/240 [4.2%]; odds ratio 0.00). Development of anti-drug antibodies occurred in a small proportion of participants (<5%). No grade ≥3 injection-site reactions (ISRs) or hypersensitivity reactions were reported. Slightly more participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events with CAS+IMD (54.9%) than with placebo (48.3%), a finding that was due to grade 1-2 ISRs. Serious adverse events were rare. No deaths were reported in the 6-month treatment period. CONCLUSION: Repeat monthly administration of 1200 mg SC CAS+IMD was well-tolerated, demonstrated low immunogenicity, and showed a substantial risk reduction in COVID-19 occurrence.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD). METHODS: In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. RESULTS: In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to -.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%-74.0%). No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04426695.

Lay Summary . Monoclonal antibody therapies that block the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) can prevent patients from being hospitalized. We hypothesized that these antibodies may also benefit patients who are already hospitalized with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed a study to determine if the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) can decrease the amount of virus in the nose of hospitalized patients and prevent the disease from becoming more severe. The study, conducted from June 2020 to April 2021, found that CAS + IMD treatment reduced the amount of virus in these patients, and may reduce their chance of dying or needing a ventilator (a machine that helps patients breathe). Patients were examined in 2 groups: those whose immune systems, at the start of the study, had not produced their own antibodies to fight SARS-CoV-2 (seronegative patients); or those that had already produced their own antibodies (seropositive patients) at the start of the study. Seronegative patients benefited the most from CAS + IMD. No safety concerns related to CAS + IMD were observed. These results demonstrate that monoclonal antibody therapy can help hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and may decrease their chances of needing assistance to breathe or dying.

Effect of Subcutaneous Casirivimab and Imdevimab Antibody Combination vs Placebo on Development of Symptomatic COVID-19 in Early Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Easy-to-administer anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments may be used to prevent progression from asymptomatic infection to symptomatic disease and to reduce viral carriage. Objective: To evaluate the effect of combination subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab on progression from early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection to symptomatic COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2-infected index case at 112 sites in the US, Romania, and Moldova enrolled July 13, 2020-January 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021. Asymptomatic individuals (aged ≥12 years) were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection. Results from 314 individuals positive on SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing are reported. Interventions: Individuals were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg (600 mg of each; n = 158), or placebo (n = 156). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of seronegative participants who developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the 28-day efficacy assessment period. The key secondary efficacy end points were the number of weeks of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and the number of weeks of high viral load (>4 log10 copies/mL). Results: Among 314 randomized participants (mean age, 41.0 years; 51.6% women), 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period; 204 were asymptomatic and seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, 1200 mg, significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, -13.3% [95% CI, -26.3% to -0.3%]). Casirivimab and imdevimab reduced the number of symptomatic weeks per 1000 participants (895.7 weeks vs 1637.4 weeks with placebo; P = .03), an approximately 5.6-day reduction in symptom duration per symptomatic participant. Treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab also reduced the number of high viral load weeks per 1000 participants (489.8 weeks vs 811.9 weeks with placebo; P = .001). The proportion of participants receiving casirivimab and imdevimab who had 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse event was 33.5% vs 48.1% for placebo, including events related (25.8% vs 39.7%) or not related (11.0% vs 16.0%) to COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: Among asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-positive individuals living with an infected household contact, treatment with subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab antibody combination vs placebo significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04452318.

REGEN-COV Antibody Combination and Outcomes in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 1-2 portion of an adaptive trial, REGEN-COV, a combination of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab, reduced the viral load and number of medical visits in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). REGEN-COV has activity in vitro against current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern. METHODS: In the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial, we randomly assigned outpatients with Covid-19 and risk factors for severe disease to receive various doses of intravenous REGEN-COV or placebo. Patients were followed through day 29. A prespecified hierarchical analysis was used to assess the end points of hospitalization or death and the time to resolution of symptoms. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1355 patients in the REGEN-COV 2400-mg group (1.3%) and in 62 of 1341 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (4.6%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 71.3%; P<0.001); these outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 patients in the REGEN-COV 1200-mg group (1.0%) and in 24 of 748 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (3.2%) (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = 0.002). The median time to resolution of symptoms was 4 days shorter with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P<0.001 for both comparisons). REGEN-COV was efficacious across various subgroups, including patients who were SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody-positive at baseline. Both REGEN-COV doses reduced viral load faster than placebo; the least-squares mean difference in viral load from baseline through day 7 was -0.71 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.53) in the 1200-mg group and -0.86 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.72) in the 2400-mg group. Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the placebo group (4.0%) than in the 1200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2400-mg group (1.3%); infusion-related reactions of grade 2 or higher occurred in less than 0.3% of the patients in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: REGEN-COV reduced the risk of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, and it resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more rapidly than placebo. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).

Successful Clearance of 300 Day SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Subject with B-Cell Depletion Associated Prolonged (B-DEAP) COVID by REGEN-COV Anti-Spike Monoclonal Antibody Cocktail.

A 59-year-old male with follicular lymphoma treated by anti-CD20-mediated B-cell depletion and ablative chemotherapy was hospitalized with a COVID-19 infection. Although the patient did not develop specific humoral immunity, he had a mild clinical course overall. The failure of all therapeutic options allowed infection to persist nearly 300 days with active accumulation of SARS-CoV-2 virus mutations. As a rescue therapy, an infusion of REGEN-COV (10933 and 10987) anti-spike monoclonal antibodies was performed 270 days from initial diagnosis. Due to partial clearance after the first dose (2.4 g), a consolidation dose (8 g) was infused six weeks later. Complete virus clearance could then be observed over the following month, after he was vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech anti-COVID-19 vaccination. The successful management of this patient required prolonged enhanced quarantine, monitoring of virus mutations, pioneering clinical decisions based upon close consultation, and the coordination of multidisciplinary experts in virology, immunology, pharmacology, input from REGN, the FDA, the IRB, the health care team, the patient, and the patient's family. Current decisions to take revolve around patient's follicular lymphoma management, and monitoring for virus clearance persistence beyond disappearance of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibodies after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Overall, specific guidelines for similar cases should be established.

A Retrospective Study of COVID-19-Related Urgent Medical Visits and Hospitalizations After Outpatient COVID-19 Diagnosis in the US.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 requiring urgent medical visits and hospitalizations (UMVs) among patients initially diagnosed in the outpatient setting may help inform patient management. The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of and risk factors for COVID-19-related UMVs after outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis or positive SARS-CoV-2 test. METHODS: Data for this retrospective cohort study were from the Optum® de-identified COVID-19 Electronic Health Record database from June 1 to December 9, 2020. Adults with first COVID-19 diagnosis or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in outpatient settings were identified. Cumulative incidence function analysis stratified by risk factors was used to estimate the 30-day incidence of COVID-19-related UMVs. Competing risk regression models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for factors associated with UMVs. RESULTS: Among 206,741 patients [58.8% female, 77.5% non-Hispanic Caucasian, mean (SD) age: 46.7 (17.8) years], the 30-day incidence was 9.4% (95% CI 9.3-9.6) for COVID-19-related emergency room (ER)/urgent care (UC)/hospitalizations and 3.8% (95% CI 3.7-3.9) for COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Likelihood of hospitalization increased with age and body mass index, with age the strongest risk factor (aHR 5.61; 95% CI 4.90-6.32 for patients ≥ 85 years). Increased likelihood of hospitalization was observed for first presentation in the ER/UC vs. non-ER/UC outpatient settings (aHR 2.35; 95% CI 2.22-2.47) and prior all-cause hospitalization (aHR 1.90; 95% CI 1.79-2.00). Clinical risk factors of hospitalizations included pregnancy, uncontrolled diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and autoimmune disease. A study limitation is that data on COVID-19 severity and symptoms were not captured. CONCLUSION: Predictors of COVID-19-related UMVs include older age, obesity, and several comorbidities. These findings may inform patient management and resource allocation following outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis.

Suptavumab for the Prevention of Medically Attended Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Preterm Infants.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of childhood medically attended respiratory infection (MARI). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 1154 preterm infants of 1 or 2 doses of suptavumab, a human monoclonal antibody that can bind and block a conserved epitope on RSV A and B subtypes, for the prevention of RSV MARI. The primary endpoint was proportion of subjects with RSV-confirmed hospitalizations or outpatient lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between primary endpoint rates (8.1%, placebo; 7.7%, 1-dose; 9.3%, 2-dose). Suptavumab prevented RSV A infections (relative risks, .38; 95% confidence interval [CI], .14-1.05 in the 1-dose group and .39 [95% CI, .14-1.07] in the 2-dose group; nominal significance of combined suptavumab group vs placebo; P = .0499), while increasing the rate of RSV B infections (relative risk 1.36 [95% CI, .73-2.56] in the 1-dose group and 1.69 [95% CI, .92-3.08] in the 2-dose group; nominal significance of combined suptavumab group vs placebo; P = .12). Sequenced RSV isolates demonstrated no suptavumab epitope changes in RSV A isolates, while all RSV B isolates had 2-amino acid substitution in the suptavumab epitope that led to loss of neutralization activity. Treatment emergent adverse events were balanced across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Suptavumab did not reduce overall RSV hospitalizations or outpatient LRTI because of a newly circulating mutant strain of RSV B. Genetic variation in circulating RSV strains will continue to challenge prevention efforts. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02325791.

Efficacy and safety of fasinumab in patients with chronic low back pain: a phase II/III randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy and safety of fasinumab in moderate-to-severe, chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: In this phase II/III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CLBP aged ≥35 years with inadequate pain relief/intolerance to acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were randomised to fasinumab 6 or 9 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks (Q4W), 9 mg intravenous every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 16 in average daily low back pain intensity (LBPI) numeric rating score. Key secondary efficacy variables included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Patient Global Assessment (PGA). The results are based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis of 563/800 planned patients when enrolment was stopped early given emerging signals of joint risk in other osteoarthritis (OA) studies at doses being tested here. RESULTS: Significant placebo-adjusted LBPI reductions at week 16 were observed for fasinumab 9 mg Q4W and Q8W (least squares mean (standard error) -0.7 (0.3); both nominal p<0.05), but not 6 mg (-0.3 (0.3); p=0.39). RMDQ and PGA improvements to week 16 were greatest for fasinumab 9 mg intravenous. Numerically greater efficacy occurred in patients with, versus those without, peripheral OA (pOA) over 16 weeks. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 274/418 (65.6%) patients in the combined fasinumab groups and 94/140 (67.1%) placebo patients. Joint AEs, mostly rapid progressive OA type 1, were more frequent in the combined fasinumab groups (19 events in 16 patients (3.8%) vs 1 event in 1 patient (0.7%) for placebo); all except one occurred in pOA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Fasinumab highest doses, but not lower dose, improved both CLBP pain and function. Most joint AEs occurred in pOA patients, consistent with earlier findings in symptomatic OA. Further study is needed of patients with CLBP with and without pOA to determine optimal benefit-risk.

The Efficacy, Tolerability, and Joint Safety of Fasinumab in Osteoarthritis Pain: A Phase IIb/III Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the efficacy, general safety, and joint safety of fasinumab, an anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in osteoarthritis (OA) hip and/or knee pain. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe OA pain (knee or hip) and history of inadequate response or intolerance to analgesics were randomized to receive fasinumab (at 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, or 9 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks over 16 weeks and were followed up to week 36. Efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 16 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and patient global assessment (PGA) of OA. Joints were monitored at scheduled assessments (by plain film radiography and magnetic resonance imaging) during treatment and follow-up, and if prompted, at the time of active joint symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 421 patients randomized, 342 completed the 36-week study. All doses of fasinumab yielded statistically significant and clinically important reductions in pain compared to placebo (least squares mean difference in WOMAC pain subscale scores at week 16 ranging -0.78 to -1.40), without any clear dose dependence. Physical function and PGA scores improved in parallel. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 17% with fasinumab and 10% with placebo, and 4% and 1% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment. Arthropathies (25 in total, 7% of fasinumab-treated patients and 1% of placebo-treated patients) occurred in a dose-dependent manner, with 2 occurring in patients receiving the lowest dose of fasinumab and 10 in patients receiving the highest dose. Most of the arthropathies (16 of 25) were discovered with scheduled radiographs and not based on symptoms. Destructive arthropathy (in 1 of 337 treated patients) occurred in 1 patient who was receiving 6 mg fasimumab. CONCLUSION: Fasinumab provided improvements in OA pain and function, even in those benefitting little from previous analgesics. The observed benefit-to-risk relationship favors further clinical development to explore the lowest doses of fasinumab in patients with knee or hip OA.